This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

THEGAZETTE

5376 भारत का राज

The Gazette of Ind

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 38]

नई दिल्ली, सितम्बर 13 सितम्बर 19 , 2009 , शनिवार/भाद 22- भाद्र 28; 1931 NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 13-SEPTEMBER 19, 2009, SATURDAY/BHADRA 22-BHADRA28, 1931 No. 38 ]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके SeparatePaging 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 StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय (कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग). नईदिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2009

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi, the 29th August, 2009

का.आ. 2523. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखण्ड राज्य सरकार, गृह विभाग की दिनांक 25-8-2009 के ज्ञापन सं. 3297 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से भारतीय दण्ड संहिता की धारा 120-बी , 420 , 467, 468 , 471 तथा 13 ( 1 ) ( सी ) के साथ पठित धारा 13 (2 ) तथा प्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम , 1988 की धारा 13 ( 1 ) (डी ) के अंतर्गत डॉ. प्रदीप कुमार, भा.प्र.से. तत्कालीन सचिव , स्वास्थ्य, झारखंड सरकार, डॉ. विजय शंकर नारायण सिंह तत्कालीन राज्य आर. सी. एच. , आफिसर, झारखंड तथा सरकारी अधिकारियों सहित अन्यों तथा प्राइवेट व्यक्तियों द्वारा कथित रूप से किए गए अपराधों के संबंध में तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्ही तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण झारखण्ड राज्य के संबंध में करती है ।

S.O. 2523-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) ofSection 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special PoliceEstablishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Jharkhand, Home Department conveyed videMemo No. 3297 dated 25-8-2009, hereby extends the powersandjurisdiction ofthe members ofthe Delhi Special PoliceEstablishment to the whole ofthe State ofJharkhand for the investigation of offences punishable U/s 120-B, 420,467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r /w 13 ( 1 ) Cand 13 (1 )(d) of Corruption Act, 1988 , allegedly committed by Dr. Pradeep Kumar, IAS, the then Secretary, Health, State Government ofJharkhand, Dr. Vijay Shankar Narain Singh, the then State RCH Officer , Jharkhand and others including Government officials and Private persons and any other offence committed in the course of and consequent to the same transaction or arising out of the same fact in the aforesaid transactions .

[सं. 228/43/2009 -एवीडी-11 ]

[No.228/43/2009-AVD-II] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

चन्द्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

3252 G1/2009

(5375) INDIA . SEFILMIDER 17, 2012

ल्ली, 1 सितम्बर, 2009

hereby appoints following Advocates , as Special Public Prosecutor, for conducting the prosecution, of cases institutedby the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI) in the State of Bihar at Patna as entrusted to them by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and appeals /revision or other matter arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law :

S/Shri

1. Manoranjan Prasad Singh

2. Krishneshwar Dayal

2524. केंद्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1974का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, जोधपुर में राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषण किए जा रहे मामलों में अभियोजन , अपील, पुनरीक्षण या मामलों से उद्भुत अन्य प्रक्रियाओं का संचालन करने के लिए श्री पन्नी सिंह , एडवोकेट, जोधपुर में राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय में केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के प्रतिधारक कांउसिल को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रुप में नियुक्त करती है ।

3. Chandra Mohan Prasad Singh

4. Subhash Chandra Bhardwaj

[सं. 225/10/2009- एवीडी- II ] चन्द्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

5. Binay Kumar Sinha.

New Delhi, the Ist September, 2009

[No. 225/49/2008-AVD- II ]

CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 सितम्बर , 2009

S.O. 2524. In exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of sub- section (8) of Section 24 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Panney Singh , Advocate , a Retainer Counsel of Central Bureau of Investigation, in the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur as Special Public Prosecutor , for conducting prosecution, appeals , revision or other matter arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.

[No. 225/10/2009-AVD- II]

CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2526. केंद्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए महाराष्ट्र राज्य के मुम्बई में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सी.बी.आई. ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के सम्बन्ध में जैसा कि उन्हें केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा सौंपे गए कार्य के सम्बन्ध में विधि द्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में अपील/पुनरीक्षण सम्बन्धी कार्य का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नोक्त एडवोकेट्स को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्तकरती है:-

सर्वश्री

1. किरण एन. मकासरे

श्रीमती ऊषा किरण मकासरे 2

दीपक मधुकर लाडे 3.

4. सुश्रीविद्याकासले

5. श्रीकान्त भीकाजी दुखाण्डे

का.आ. 2525.-केंद्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973( 1974का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को बिहार राज्य में पटना में विचारण न्यायालयों में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( के.अ.ब्यूरो ) द्वारा संस्थित और केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा उन्हें सौंपे गए मामलों के अभियोजन और विधि द्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपील न्यायालयों में इन मामलों से उद्भूत अपीलों/पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है:-

6. विनोद कुमार एस. काटकर

सर्वश्री

7. कादरी अब्दुल राउफ जफरमिया

मनोरंजन प्रसाद सिंह

[सं. 225/13/2009- एवीडी- II ] 2 कृष्णेश्वर दयाल

चन्द्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव 3. चंद्र मोहन प्रसाद सिंह

New Delhi , the 7th September, 2009 4. सुभाष चंद्र भारद्वाज

5. बिनय कुमार सिन्हा

[सं. 225/49/2008-एवीडी- II ]

चन्द्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 2nd September, 2009

S.O. 2526. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following Advocates, as Special Public Prosecutors , for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the State of Maharashtra at Mumbai as entrusted to them by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial S.O. 2525.- In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section ( 8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government 5377 [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

2010-11 से 2012-13 तक के लिए निम्नलिखित शाओं के अधीन सहते हुং করে রাখার के प्रयोजनार्थ अधिसूति कारखे हैं , अर्थात, courts and appeals/revisions or other matter arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law nil

S/Shri

1. Kiran N. Makasare

2. Smt. Usha Kiran Makasare

(1) कर निर्धारिती अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उनका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;

3. Deepak Madhukar Lade

4. Miss Vidya Kasle

5. ShrikantB. Dukhande

6. Vinod Kumar S. Katkar

7. Kadri Abdul Rauf Jafarmia

[No. 225/13/2009 -AVD- CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy

(1) कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संमत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधास (v) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा भिन्न तरीकों से अपनी निधि ( जेवर, जवाहरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्तः तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जम्मा नहींकारेगा:

वित्त मंत्रालय (विक्रीच सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 8 सितम्बर , 2009

(iii) यह अधिसूचनाः किसी ऐसी आष के सम्बन्ध में लागू नहीं होगी, जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथाः अभिलाम हो जब तक कि ऐसा कम्सेकर उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उददेश्यों की प्राप्ति को प्रासगिक नहीं हो अथवा ऐसे कारोबार के सम्बन्ध में अलम से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हो ;

(iv) कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राविवनरी के समक्ष दाखिल करेमाः;

1 का.आर. 2527.-भास्तीय रिजर्व बैंक अभिनियम, 1934 बी धास 8 की उपधारा ( 4 ) के साथ पठित उप- थास ( 1 ) के खांड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, एतद्‌द्वास श्रीमती श्यामला गोपीनाथ ( जन्म तिथि: 20:6-1949 ) बने 20जून, 2011 तक, जबजब केवे 6262 वर्ष की हो जाएंगी, की अवधि को लिए, या अगले आदेशों तक जो भी पहले हो, भास्तीय रिजार्थ बैंक के उप- गवर्नर के रूप में पुनः नियुक्त करती है।

[पप.सं. 20/14/2004- बी -1

(४) विवाटत की स्थिति में इसमने अतिरिक्त सशियां और परिसम्पतियां समाम उददेशषों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जायेंगी ;

MABERTO FINANCE (Department ofFianncialServices) NewDelhi, the 8th September, 2009

यह अअवियुकना केवल संस्था की ओरसे आप के प्राप्तकर्ता पर ही लागूहोगी। न कि इस तरह के प्राप्तमार्ता द्वास किसी अन्य प्राप्तिः अभवाः आम पर ॥ संक्रमके आम की सवेगताः अम्भवा अन्यथाः पर, आयकर अधिनियम 1961 को उपमन्थों के अनुसार पृथक रूप से कित्यार किया जायेमाः ।

[संमुआ.आ./अदप/आ.अ. ( तक.)/2009-10/1305 ] मुकेश भान्ती, मुख्म आयकर आयुक्त !

OFFICE OF THE CHEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

S.O. 2527. In exercise ofthe powers confirmed by clause (a) ofsub-section ( 1 ) read with sub-section (40) of Section 8 oftheReserve Bank of IndiaAct, 1934, the Central Government hereby re-appoint Sent. Shyamala Gopinath (DOB: 20-6-1949), as Deputy Governor, Bearve Bumis of Indiafor aperiod up to 20th June, 2011 ie till she attains the age of 62 years or until further anders , whichever is earlier.

Udaipur, the4th September,2009 NO. 12/2009-10:

(INCOMETAX)

[F.No. 20/14/2004-BO-I] G.B.SINGH, Dy. Sary.

उदयपुर , 4 सितम्बर, 2009 सां 12/2009-10

(आकार)

SQ 2528-In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( iv) of Clause (23C ) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2C ofthe Income-tax Rules, 1962, 1 , Chief Commissioner of theome tas, Udaipurbarely notify the " West Zone Cultural Centre, Udaipur (Rajasthan)" for the purpose of the said sub- clause for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 subject to the following conditions, namely,

(i) The assessee will apply its income, accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established ;

का... 2528 आममार अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 कही 43 वां) की भासा 10 को साम ( 23 ) की उपाय ( i ) को साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली, 1962 को नियम 2म के द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों काःप्रयोग करते हुए मुख आयकर आयुक्त, उदयपुर एत‌ासः वेस्ट जोम कल्चरल सेन्टर, उदयपुर ( सावस्थान ) को कर निर्धारण वर्ष 5378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii)]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health and Family Welfare) NewDelhi, the 21st August, 2009

(ii) The assessee will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions recieved and maintained in the form ofjewellery , furniture etc.) for any period during the previous year relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more ofthe forms or modes specified in sub -section (5) of Section 11 ;

S.O. 2529- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of 1948) , the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

(iii) This notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains ofbusiness , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business;

(iv) The assessee will regularly file its return of income before the Income -tax authority in accordance with theprovisions of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 ;

2. In the existing entries of column 2 and 3 against XVI of Serial No. 49, in respect of Krishnadevaraya College ofDental Sciences and Hospital, Bangalore in Part- I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:-

(v) That in the event of dissolution , its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organization with similar objectives;

"Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 6-5-2008)

MDS ( Con. Dentistry), Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences ( RGUOHS) , Bangalore"

[F.No. V. 12017/23 /2004-DE ] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy . नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त , 2009

This notification is applicable only to the recipients ofincome onbehalf of the assessee and not to any other receipt or income of such recipients . Taxability or, otherwise of the income of the assessee would be separately considered as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

[No.CCIT/UDR/ITO (Tech .)/2009-10/ 1305 ] MUKESH BHANTI , ChiefCommissioner ofIncome-tax

का.आ. 2530.-दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् केंद्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग ) ' नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2009

2. भारती विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय , ( सम विश्वविद्यालय ) , पुणे द्वारा प्रदान की जाने वाली डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में कम सं. 54 के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

" 11. भारती विद्यापीठ डेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल , नवी मुम्बई का.आ. 2529.-दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का. 16) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् केंन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

( 1 ) दंत शल्य-चिकित्सा स्नातक (यदि यह 26.5.2009 को अथवा उसके उपरांत प्रदान की गई हो। )

बीडीएस , भारती विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय ( सम विश्व- विद्यालय ) , पुणे "

[फा. सं. वी . 12017/32/2003 -डीई ] आर. शंकरन, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st August, 2009

2. राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बेंगलूर द्वारा प्रदान की जाने वाली डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में कृष्णदेवराय कालेज आफ डेंटल सांइसेज एण्ड हास्पिटल , बेंगलूर के संबंध में कम सं. 49 के XVI के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी , अर्थात्: -

कंजर्वेटिवडेंटिस्ट्री (यदि यह 6-5-2008 को अथवा उसके उपरांत प्रदान कीगई हो। )

एम.डी.एस. ( कंजर्वेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री) राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय ( आरजीयूओएचएस ) बेंगलूर "

S.O. 2530- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of1948 ) , the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part- I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 &3 against 54, in Part -I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 of [फा.सं.वी. 12017/23/2004-डीई ] आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव 5379

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 281931RAD

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त , 2009

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Bharati Vidyapeeth University (Deemed University) , Pune, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:-

"II. Bharati Vidyapeeth Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai .

का.आ. 2532 यंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एत‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

(1) Bachelor ofDental Surgery(if granted on orafter 26-5-2009).

BDS, Bharati Vidyapeeth University(Deemed University) Pune"

[F. No. V. 12017/32/2003 -DE]

R. SANKARAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 24 अगस्त, 2009

2. अन्नामलाई विश्वविद्यालय , अन्नामलाई नगर द्वारा प्रदान दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 की 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 24 के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में राजा मुथिया डेंटल कालेज और अस्पताल , अन्नामलाई नगर , तमिलनाडु के संबंध मेंनिम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अन्तः स्थापित की जाएंगी :-

कंजर्वेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री

एमडीएस ( कन्जरवेटिव डेंटिस्टरी)

अन्नामलाई विश्वविद्यालय

(यदि यह 12-5-2009 को अथवा उसके उपरांत प्रदान कीगई हो। )

का.आ. 2531. केन्द्रीय सरकार दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियोंका प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एत‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

ओरल मेडिसिन

एमडीएस ( ओरल मेडिसिन) अन्नामलाई विश्वविद्यालय

(यदि यह 19-5-2009 को अथवा उसके उपरांत प्रदान

की गई हो। )

"मुख विकृति विज्ञान

2. महात्मा गांधी विश्वविद्यालय , कोट्टायम के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम सं. 68 के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में अन्नूर डेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल, एर्नाकुलम, केरल के संबंध में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

एमडीएस ( मुख विकृति विज्ञान) अन्नामलाई विश्वविद्यालय III . अन्नूर डेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल , एर्नाकुलम , केरल

(1) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा स्नातक बीडीएस , महात्मा गांधी

(यदि यह 19-5-2009 को अथवा उसके उपरांत प्रदान कीगई हो। )

(यदि यह 19-11-2008 को अथवा विश्वविद्यालय , कोट्टायम

इसके उपरांत प्रदान की गई हो। )

[फा. सं. वी. 12017/6/2005 -डीई ] आर. शंकरन, अवर सचिव [फा. सं. वी. 12017/38/2001 -डीई ]

New Delhi , the 24th August, 2009

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 24thAugust, 2009

S.O. 2532-In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub-section (2) ofSection 10 ofthe Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of1948), the Central Government , after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Pat- I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

S.O. 2531-In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 ofthe Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part- I ofthe Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 and 3 against Serial No.24, in Part- I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by Annamalai University Annamalai Nagar , the following entries in respect of Rajah Muthiaht of Rajah Muthiah Dental College and Hospital , Annamalai Nagar , Tamil Nadu , shall be inserted thereunder:-

MDS(Cons.Dentistry) , 2.In the existing entries ofcolumn 2 and 3 against Serial No. 68, in Part - I ofthe Schedule to the DentistsAct, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to Mahatama Gandhi University Kottayam, the following entries in respect of Annoor Derital College and Hospital, Ernakulam Kerala shall be inserted thereunder:-

"ConservativeDentistry (ifgranted on or after 12-5-2009)

-OralMedicine

Annamalai University MDS(Oral Medicine), Annamalai University "III. Annoor Dental College and Hospital , Ernakulam , Kerala

(1) Bachelor ofDental

MDS( Oral Pathology) , Annamalai University" BDS, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam

Surgery

(ifgranted on or after 19-5-2009) -OralPathology (ifgranted on or after

19-5-2009)

(ifgrantedon or after 19-11-2008)

[F. No. V. 12017/6/2005-DE] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

[F. No. V. 12017/38/2001 -DE] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

5380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 24 अगस्त, 2009

" 81. रानी दुर्गावती विश्वविद्यालय , जबलपुर

1. हितकारनी डेंटल कॉलेज एण्ड हॉस्पिटल, जबलपुर

(i ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा स्नातक बीडीएस ,

रानी दुर्गावती विश्वविद्यालय । " का.आ. 2533. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

(यदि यह 15-5-2009 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। )

[फा. सं. वी . 12017/14/2000-डीई ] आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव 2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम सं. 81 के बाद निम्नलिखित कम सं. और प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी , अर्थात्ः-

1. दंत चिकित्सा विज्ञान संकाय बी डी एस

" 82. धर्मसिंह देसाई

धर्मसिंह देसाई विश्वविद्यालय धर्मसिंह देशाई

New Delhi , the 24th August, 2009

विश्वविद्यालय,

नादियाड़

विश्वविद्यालय ,

नादियाड़

(i ) दंत शल्य क्रिया स्नातक

(यदि यह 21-4-2009 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की

गई हो। )

S.O. 2534 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948) , the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India , hereby , makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

[फा. सं. वी. 12017/42/2003-डीई ] आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

2. In Part- I of the Schdule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) after Serial No. 80 , the following Serial number and entries shall be inserted , namely :-

New Delhi , the 24th August , 2009

1.Hitkarini Dental College and Hospital, Jabalpur

"81. Rani Durgawati

Vishwavidyalaya ,

Jabalpur

S.O. 2533 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India , hereby, makes the followingamendments in Part -I ofthe Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

( i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery

B.D.S. , Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya."

(ifgranted on or after

15-5-2009)

2. In Part- I of the schdule to the DentistsAct, 1948 (16 of 1948) after Serial No. 81 , the following Serial number and entries shall be inserted namely :

"82. Dharmsinh Desai

1 Faculty ofDental Sciences Dharmsinh Desai

UniversityNadiad

[F.No. V. 12017/ 14/2000-DE] R. SANKARAN , Under Secy .

University Nadiad

B.D.S. , Dharmsinh

(i ) Bachelor of Dental Surgery

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2009

Dasai University,

(ifgranted on or after 21-4-2009)

Nadiad

[F. No. V. 12017/42/2003 -DE] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2009.

का.आ. 2535.-दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

का.आ. 2534. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्ः-

2. बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , फरीदकोट , पंजाब द्वारा प्रदत्त दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में कम सं. 53 के V के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में गुरु नानक देव डेंटल कालेज एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , सुनाम , पंजाब के संबंध में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियाँ अन्तःस्थापित की जाएंगी :-

2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम सं. 80 के बाद निम्नलिखित क्रमांक और प्रविष्टियां रखी जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

4-4 5381

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/মাদ 28 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

"Master ofDental Surgery

"दन्त शल्य चिकित्सा विष्णात

MDS(Pedo .), Baba Farid University ofHealth Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab

(i) Pedodontics (ifgranted on or ator 17-6-2009)

एमडीएस (पेडो. ) बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , फरीदकोट , पंजाब

(i)पेडोडोंटिक्स (यदि यह 17-6-2009 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गईहो।)

(ii) Oral Medicine (ifgranted on or after20-6-2009)

MDS(Oral Med .), Baba Farid University ofHealth Sciences , Faridkot, Punjab

(iii) Orthodontics (ifgrantedonor after20-6-2009)

MDS(Ortho. ), Baba Farid University of Health Sciences , Faridkot, Punjab

एमडीएस (मुख आयुर्विज्ञान ) बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , फरीदकोट, पंजाब

(ii) मुख आयुर्विज्ञान (यदि यह 20-6-2009को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गईहो।)

MDS( Con. Dentistry) , Baba Farid University ofHealth Sciences , Faridkot, Punjab

(iv) Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on or after23-6-2009)

एमडीएस ( आर्थो.) बाबाफरीद स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , फरीदकोट , पंजाब

(iii) आर्थोडोंटिक्स (यदि यह 20-6-2009को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो।)

MDS(Perio. ), Baba Farid University of Health Sciences , Faridkot, Punjab

(v) Periodontics (ifgranted on or after27-6-2009)

एमडीएस ( कंजर डेंटिस्टरी ) बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , फरीदकोट,

(vi) Prosthodontics (ifgranted on or after 27-6-2009)

MDS(Prostho . ), Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab"

(iv) कंजरवेटिव डेंटिस्टरी (यदियह 23-6-2009 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। )

[F. No. V. 12017/18/2005-DE]

R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 27 अगस्त, 2009

एमडीएस (पेस्यिो.) बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , फरीदकोट , पंजाब

(v) पेरिबोडॉटिक्स (यदि यह 27-6-2009को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। )

का.आ. 2536 , दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची के भाग में एतद्‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

एमडीएस (ओस्थो. ) बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , फरीदकोट, पंजाब"

(vi)प्रोस्थोडोंटिक्स (यदि यह 27-6-2009को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदानकी गईहो।)

[फां. सं. वी. 12017/18 /2005 -डी.ई] आर. शंकरन , अबर सक्रिय

2. राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बेंगलूर द्वारा प्रदान की काने वाली डेंटल थिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के आम -1 में ईबीस माकांत दंत चिनिनसा कॉलेज एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र, बैंगलर के संबंध में कम सं. 49 के XIV के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी, NewDolhi, the 25th August ,2009

" ओरल सर्जरी एम.डी.एस. (ओरल सर्जरी ) ,

राजीव गांधीस्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, बेंगलूर

(यदियह 23-5-2009को मथवा उसके उपरांत प्रदान कीगई हो। )

8.0. 2535 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2)ofSection 10-ofthe Destists Act , 1948 (16 of1948), the Contral Govarament , after consultationwith the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part- 1 of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:- 1

एम.डी. एस. (प्रोस्थो.) ,

राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बेंगलूर "

(यदि यह 23-5-2009को अथवा उसके उपरांत प्रदान कीगई हो। )

[फा. सं. वी. 12017/8/2004-डी ई ]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव 2. In the existing entries ofcolumn 2 & 3 againstV of SerialNo. 53 , in respect of Guru NanakDev Dental College &Research Institute, Sunam , Punjab in Part- I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1946 (16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awardedby Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:-

5382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

S.O. 2536. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) , the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India , hereby , makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against XIV ofSerial No. 49, in respect of A.E.C.S. Maaruti College ofDental Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore in Part- I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:-

"-Oral Surgery (ifgranted on or after 23-5-2009)

MDS (Oral Surgery) , Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences Bangalore -Prosthodontics (ifgranted on or after 23-5-2009)

MDS ( Prostho . ) , Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences Bangalore "

[ F. No. V. 12017/ 8/2004 - DE ] R. SANKARAN , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2537. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में एतद् द्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में आई.टी.एस. सेन्टर फार डेंटल स्टडीज एंड रिसर्च , मुराद नगर , गाजियाबाद द्वारा प्रदत्त डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता दिए जाने के संबंध में चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ के बारे में क्रमांक 56 के 11 केसामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी: -

( ii ) दंत शल्य- चिकित्सा निष्णात प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 12-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । ) कन्जरवेटिव डेनटिस्ट्री (यदि 12-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । ) (vi ) आर्थोडोन्टिक्स (यदि 17-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । ) (vii ) ओरल सर्जरी

(यदि 17-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । ) पेरियोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 20-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । ) एमडीएस (प्रोस्थो. ) चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ, उत्तर प्रदेश

एमडीएस ( कन. डेनटिस्ट्री ) चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ , उत्तर प्रदेश

एमडीएस ( आर्थो. ) चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ , उत्तर प्रदेश

एमडीएस ( ओरल सर्जरी ) चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ, उत्तर प्रदेश

एमडीएस ( पेरियोडोन्टिक्स ) चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय, मेरठ , उत्तर प्रदेश

[फा.सं. वी. 12017/71 /2005 -डीई ]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

S.O. 2537.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 2) of section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) , the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India , hereby, makes the following amendments in Part - 1 of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against II of Serial No.56 , in respect of I.T.S. Centre for Dental Studies & Research , Murad Nagar , Ghaziabad , in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition 5383 [ भाग -खण्ड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

of dental degree awarded by Chaudhary Charan Singh University Meerut, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:

MDS, ( Prostho. ) Ch . Charan Singh University Meerut, Uttar Pradesh

(II)Master ofDental Surgery Prosthodontics (ifgranted on or after 12-6-2009)

MDS , (Cons. Dentistry) Ch . Charan Singh University Meerut , Uttar Pradesh

Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 12-6-2009)

MDS, (Orthodontics ) Ch . Charan Singh University Meerut, Uttar Pradesh

Orthodontics (ifgranted on or after 17-6-2009 )

MDS, (Oral Surgery) Ch . Charan Singh University Meerut, Uttar Pradesh

Oral Surgery (ifgranted on or after 17-6-2009)

( Perio .) Ch . Charan Singh University MDS , Meerut , Uttar Pradesh

Periodontics (ifgranted on orafter20-6-2009)

[F. No. V. 12017/71 /2005-DE]

R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली , 27 अगस्त , 2009

का.आ. 2538. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम प्रथम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में एतद् द्वारा निम्मलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

2. डा. आर एम एल अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा प्रदान की जाने वाली डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में सरस्वती डेंटल कॉलेज , लखनऊ के संबंध में क्रम सं. 55 के 11 के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी अर्थात्:-

"( II ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णात

कन्सर्वेटिव डेनटिस्ट्री

विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेशः एम.डी.एस.. ( कन्सर्वेटिव डेनटिस्ट्री ) डा. आर एम एल अवध (यदि यह 14-10-2008 को अथवा इसके उपरान्त प्रदान की गई हो। )

ओरल सर्जरी

एम.डी.एस. ( ओरल सर्जरी ) डा. आर एम एल अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश

(यदि यह 21-10-2008 को अथवा इसके उपरान्त प्रदान की गई हो। )

आर्थोडोन्टिक्स

एम.डी.एस. ( आर्थोडोन्टिक्स ) डा. आर एम एल अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश

(यदि यह 16-10-2008 को अथवा इसके उपरान्त प्रदान की गई हो। )

पेडोन्टिक्स

एम.डी. एस. ( पेडोडोन्टिक्स ) डा. आर एम एल अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश "

(यदि वह 23-10-2008 को अथवा इसके उपरान्त प्रदान की गई हो । )

[फर.सं.वी. 12017/56/2003 -डीई ]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

S.O. 2538. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part-1 of the Schedule to the said Act, namely;-

3252G1/09-2 5384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against II of Serial No.55, in respect of Saraswati Dental College , Lucknow , in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degree awarded by Dr. RML Avadh University , Faizabad , U.P. , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

MDS , ( Cons . Dentistry) Dr. RML Avadh University Faizabad , Uttar Pradesh

"(II) Master of Dental Surgery Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 14-10-2008 )

MDS , ( Oral Surgery) Dr. RML Avadh University Faizabad , Uttar Pradesh

OralSurgery (ifgranted on or after 21-10-2008 )

MDS , ( Orthodontics ) Dr. RML Avadh University Faizabad , Uttar Pradesh

Orthodontics ( ifgranted on or after 16-10-2008 )

MDS , ( Pedo .) Dr. RML Avadh University Faizabad , Uttar Pradesh "

Peddontics (ifgranted on or after 23-10-2008 )

[F. No. V. 12017/56/2003 -DE] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त , 2009

का.आ. 2539.-केन्द्र सरकार दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है ; अर्थात्:-

2. दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय, दिल्ली द्वारा प्रदत्त दन्त चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 27 , के सामने स्तंभ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में डेंटल सेंटर , आर्मी अस्पताल ( आर एंड आर ) , नई दिल्ली के संबंध में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अन्तः स्थापित की जाएंगी :-

"दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णात

(i ) एमडीएस ( प्रोस्थोडोंटिक्स )

एमडीएस (प्रोस्थोडोंटिक्स ) दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय "

(यदियह 26-6-2009 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

[फा. सं. वी . 12017/35/2005 -डीई ]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

S.O. 2539.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government , after consultation with the Dental Council of India , hereby , makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:----

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 27, in Part - 1 ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of1948)pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by University of Delhi , Delhi , the following entries in respect ofDental Centre, Army Hospital (R. & R. ) , New Delhi , shall be inserted thereunder:-

"Master of Dental Surgery

MDS ( Prosthodontics) University of Delhi " (i) MDS (Prosthodontics) (ifgranted on or after 26-6-2009)

[F. No. V. 12017/35 /2005 -DE ] R. SANKARAN , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 27 अगस्त , 2009

का.आ. 2540.- दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में एतद्द्वारा [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

5385 निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है; अर्थात्:-

2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में एन.टी. आर. स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा प्रदत्त डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता दिए जाने के संबंध में श्री साइ दंतशल्यचिकित्सा महाविद्यालय , आंध्र प्रदेश के बारे में क्रमांक 50, के IV के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी:-

"दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णात

(i ) परियोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 21-4-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

एमडीएस ( पेरियो. ) एन.टी. आर. स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश

( ii ) कन्जरवेटिव डेनटिस्ट्री (यदि 21-4-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

एमडीएस ( कन्जरवेटिव डेनटिस्ट्री ) एन.टी. आर. स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश

( iii ) प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स (यदि 21-4-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

एमडीएस (प्रोस्थो. ) एन.टी. आर. स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश

( iv) आर्थोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि21-4-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

एमडीएस (आर्थोडोन्टिक्स) एन.टी.आर. स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश

(v) ओरल सर्जरी

(यदि 21-4-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

एमडीएस ( ओरल सर्जरी ) एन.टी. आर. स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश "

[फा. सं. बी. 12017/21/2006-डीई ]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

S.O. 2540.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) , the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby , makes the following amendments in Part- I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against IV of Serial No.50 , in respect ofSri Sai College of Dental Surgery, Vikarabad, Andhra Pradesh in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by N.T.R. University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada , Andhra Pradesh, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

"Master of Dental Surgery

(i) Periodontics (ifgranted on or after 21-4-2009)

MDS , (Perio . ), N.T.R. University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

(ii) Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 21-4-2009 )

MDS, ( Con . Dentistry) , N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada , Andhra Pradesh

(iii) Prosthodontics (ifgranted on or after 21-4-2009)

MDS, (Prostho . ), N.T.R. University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

MDS , ( Ortho. ) , N.T.R. University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

(iv ) Orthodontics (ifgranted on or after 21-4-2009)

(v) Oral Surgery 1 (ifgranted on or after 21-4-2009)

MDS, (Oral Surgery) , N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh"

[F. No. V. 12017/21 /2006-DE]

R. SANKARAN , UnderSecy.

5386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

संचार एवं सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय

(डाक विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2541. राजभाषा नियम ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्र सरकार , डाक विभाग के निम्न अधीनस्थ कार्यालयों को जिसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ( ग्रुप ' घ ' कर्मचारियों को छोड़कर ) ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है ।

पिन कोड क्र.सं. कार्यालय का नाम ( डाकघर )

(2)

(3) (1)

834002 1. परिमंडलीय कार्यालय राँची

2. राँची मंडलीय कार्यालय

834001

834001 3. राँची जी.पी.ओ.

835202 4. बेड़ों

835205 5. ब्राम्बे

834001 6. चर्चरोड

834001 7. चुटिया

834002 8. हरमू हाउसिंग कॉलोनी

9. हेहल

834005

834001 10. हिन्दपीढी

834001 11. इन्द्रपुरी कॉलोनी

835301 12. ईटकी

834006 13. कांके

834001 14. कांके रोड

834001 15. कांटा टोली

834001 16. कोकर

834001 17. लालपुर

834001 18. लोअर बाजार

835214 19. मांडर

835215 20. मेसरा

21. मोराबादी

183-4008

$34001 22. एन.सी.डी.सी.

835217 23. नेवरी बिकास विद्यालय

835219 24. ओरमांझी

834002 25. ओ.सी.सी.

835303 26. पिस्कानगडी

834006 27. राँची एग्रीकल्चर कॉलेज

834001 28. राँची कोर्ट

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

(3) (1)

29. राँची मेडिकल कॉलेज

834009

834009 30. आर. एम. सी. सी.

834009 राँची यूनिवर्सिटी

31.

835222 32. रातू

834002 33. डोरण्डा एच ओ

834002 34. ए. जी. विहार

834002 35. अशोक नगर

835204 36. बुण्डू

835101 छोटामुरी

37.

834004 38. धुर्वा

834004 39. गोविन्दपुर

834003 40. हटिया

834004 41. एच.ई.सी.ए.डी.एम. बिल्डिंग

834004 42. एच. ई. सी. ए. पी. पी. होस्टल

834004 43. एच. ई. सी. कॉलोनी

834004 44. एच. ई.सी. एक्सपर्ट होस्टल

834002 45. एच . एस. एल. कॉलोनी

834002 हिनू

46.

834004 47. जगन्नाथ नगर कॉलोनी

834002 48. झारखण्ड विधान सभा

834002 49. हाईकोर्ट उप डाकघर

50. कर्रा

835209

835210 51. खूँटी

835216 52. मुरहू

834010 53. नामकुम

834003 54. रेलवे कॉलोनी हटिया

834003 55. रामकृष्ण सेनेटोरियम

834002 56. राँची एअर पोर्ट

57. सेटेलाईट कॉलोनी

834004

835102 58. सिल्ली

835225 59. तमार

60. टाटीसिल्वे

835103

835227 61. तोरपा

835207 62. गुमला एच. ओ.

835203 63. भरनों

835229 64. बसिया

835231 65. बिसनपुर

835206 66. चैनपुर

835207 67. गुमला बाजार [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5387

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3) 68. घाघारा

835208

835207 69. कार्तिक उरॉव कॉलेज

835232 70. नवागढ़

71. नोआडीह

835230 72. पालकोट

835220 73. सिसई

835324 74. टोटो

835233 75. लोहरदगा

835302

835213 76. कुरू

77. नेतरहाट

835218 78. लोहरदगा बाजार

835302 79. लोहरदगा कोर्ट

835302 80. सिमडेगा

835223 81. बानों

835201 82. बिरू

835228 83..गोतरा

835235

835211 84. कोलेबिरा

835212 85. कुरूड़ेगा

835226 86. ठेठई टांगर

आर. एम. एस. , आर एन मंडल राँची

87. अधीक्षक कार्यालय रेलं डाक सेवा राँची 834001 88. प्रधान अभिलेख पदाधिकारी राँची

89. उप अभिलेख पदाधिकारी कार्यालय रेल डाक सेवा टाटानगर

90. उप अभिलेख पदाधिकारी कार्यालय रेल डाक सेवा, बी. एस. सी. टी.

822101 91. उप अभिलेख पदाधिकारी कार्यालय , रेल डाक सेवा, डालटेनगंज

सिंहभूम मंडल जमशेदपुर

831001 92. जमशेदपुर मंडलीय कार्यालय

831001 93. जमशेदपुर एच. ओ.

831013 94. आदित्यपुर उप डाकघर

832109 95. आदित्यपुर इन्डस्ट्रियल एरिया

96. एग्रिको उप डाकघर

831009

832110 97. आजाद नगर उप डाकघर

832101 98. बइसगोडा उप डाकघर

831017 99. बारीडीह कॉलोनी उप डाकघर

831001 100. विष्टुपुर बाजार उप डाकघर

831001 101. विष्टुपुर गेट उप डाकघर

102. बर्मा माईन्स उप डाकघर

831007 (1)

(2)

(3) 103. केवल टाउनशिप

831003

832301 104. चाकुलिया

105. चनदिल

832401 106. चौका

832404 107. दालभूमगढ़

832301 108. गम्हरिया

832108 घाटशीला

109.

832303

831003 110. गोलमुरी

831015 111. गोविन्दपुर हाउसिंग कॉलोनी

112. इन्द्रनगर

831008

832102 113. जादूगोडा माईन्स

831006 114. जुगसलाई

115. कदमा

831005 116. कालीमाटी मार्केट

831004 -117. कान्डा उप डाकघर

832402

832304 118. महुलिया उप डाकघर

831012 119. मानगो उप डाकघर

120. मउभंडार उप डाकघर

831012

832108 121. मुसाबनी माईन्स उप डाकघर

122. एम. जी. एम. मेडिकल कॉलेज उप डाकघर 831010 123. एन. एस. एल. उप डाकघर

831007

832105 124. पटमदा उप डाकघर

831004 125. प्लाजा मार्केट उप डाकघर

126. राहरगोरा उप डाकघर

831016

832106 127. राखा कॉपर प्रोजेक्ट उप डाकघर

831014 128. आर. आई . टी . उप डाकघर

129. साकची उप डाकघर

831001 130. साकची कोर्ट उप डाकघर

831001 131. सोनारी उप डाकघर

831011

832107 132. सुन्दर नगर उप डाकघर

831002 133. टाटानगर उप डाकघर

831010 134. टेल्को जी एम एस उप डाकघर

831004 135. टेल्को वर्कस उप डाकघर

136. तिरूल डीह उप डाकघर

832403

833201 137. चाईबासा एच . ओ. उप डाकघर

138. आमजा उप डाकघर

833101 139. बारी बाजार उप डाकघर

833201 140. बारा जामदा उप डाकघर

833102

833102 141. चक्रधरपुर उप डाकघर

833102 142. चक्रधरपुर बाजार उप डाकघर 5388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 / BHADRA 28 , 1931

(1 ) (2)

(3)

833102 143. चक्रधरपुर कॉलोनी उप डाकघर

833106 144. चिरिया उप डाकघर

145. डानगोआ पोसी उप डाकघर

833212

833201 146. डी. एस. ई . चाईबासा उप डाकघर

147. सोयलकेरा उप डाकघर

833101 148. गोआ उप डाकघर

833103

833214 149. हाटगमरिया उप डाकघर

833203 150. जगन्नाथपुर उप डाकघर

833215 151. झीकपानी उप डाकघर

152. खरसावाँ गढ उप डाकघर

833216

833222 153. किंरीबुरू बेस कैम्प उप डाकघर

833104 154. मनोहरपुर उप डाकघर

833217 155. नोमुण्डी उप डाकघर

833217 156. नोआमुण्डी बाजार उप डाकघर

157. सराईकेला उप डाकघर

833219

833220 158. सिनी उप डाकघर

833105 159.. सोनुआ उप डाकघर

833201 160. टाटा कॉलेज चाईबासा उप डाकघर

834002 अधीक्षक , कार्यालय डाकवस्तु भंडार रांची

161.

अधीक्षक रेल डाक सेवा डी. एच. मंडल धनबाद 162. रेल डाक सेवा हजारीबाग रोड

825320 163. रेल डाक सेवा कोडरमा

825409

826001 164. रेल डाक सेवा धनबाद

814142 165. रेल डाक सेवा जसीडीह

816109 166. रेल डाक सेवा साहेबगंज

167. प्रमण्डलीय कार्यालय गिरिडीह

815301

815301 168. मकतपुर उप डाकघर

815301 169. बरगण्डा उप डाकघर

815301 170. गिरिडीह बाजार उप डाकघर

825414 171. राजधनवार उप डाकघर

[सं. 11017-1/2009- रा.भा. ] मीरा हांडा, उप महानिदेशक ( पी. ओ. एवं आई/रा.भा. )

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii )) MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT (Department of Posts)

New Delhi , the 28th August, 2009

S.O. 2541. In pursuance ofRule 10(4) ofthe Official Language ( use for official purposes of the Union ) Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following Subordinate Offices of the Department of Posts where 80 per cent staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

PinCode Sl . No. Name ofOffice (Post offices)

1. Circle Office Ranchi

834002 2. Divisional Office Ranchi

834001 3. Ranchi G.P.O.

834001

835202 4. Bero

835205 5. Brambay

6. Church Road

834001 7. Chutia

834001

834002 8. Harmu Housing Colony

834005 9. Hehal

834001 10. Hindpiri

834001 11. Indrapuri Colony

835301 12. Itaki

13. Kanke

834006 14. Kanke Road

834001 15. Kanta Toli

834001

834001 16. Kokar

834001 17. Lalpur

834001 18. Lower Bazar

19. Mandar

835214

835215 20. Mesra

21. Morabadi

834008

834001 22. N.C.D.C.

835217 23. Nevri Vikas Vidyalaya

835219 24. Ormanjhi

25. O.C.C.

834002

835303 26. Piska Nagri

834006 27. Ranchi Agriculture College

28. Ranchi Court

834001

834009 29. Ranchi Medical College 5389

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

(3) (1) (2)

834009 30. R.M.C.C.

834009 31. Ranchi University

835222 32. Ratu

834002 33. Doranda HO

34. A. G. Bihar

834002

834002 35. Ashok Nagar

835204 36. Bundu

37. Chhotamuri

835101

834004 38. Dhurwa

835234 39. Gobindpur

834003 40. Hatia

834004 41. HEC Admn Bldg .

834004 42. HEC APP Hostel

834004 43. H.E.C. Colony

834004 44. H.E.C. Expert Hostel

834002 45. H.S.L. Colony

834002 46. Hinoo

834002 47. Jagarnath Nagar Colony

834004 48. Jharkhand Bidhan Sabha

835209 49. Highcourt S.O.

835209 50. Karra

835210 51. Khunti

835216 52. Murhu

834010 53. Namkum

834203 54. Railway Colony Hatia

835221 55. Ram Krishna Sanotrorium

834002 56. Ranchi Air Port

834004 57. Satellite Colony

835102 58. Silli

835225 59. Tamar

835103 60. Tatisilway

835227 61. Tropa

835207 62. Gumla H.O.

835203 63. Bharno

835229 64. Basia

835231 65. Bisunpur

(3) (1) (2)

835206 66. Chainpur

835207 67. Gumla Bazar

835208 68. Ghaghra

835207 69. Kartic Oraon College

835232 70. Nawagarh

835230 71. Nowadih

72. Palkot

835220 73. Sisae

835224 74. Toto

835233

835302 75. Lohardaga

76. Kuru

835213

835218 77. Netarhat

835302 78. Lohardaga Bazar

835302 79. Lohardaga Court

835223 80. Simdega

835201. 81. Bano

82. Biru

835228

835235 83. Gotra

835211 84. Kolebira

835212 85. Kurdeg

835226 86. Thethaitangar

R.M.S. RN Dlvn . Ranchi

834001 87. Divisional Office R.M.S. Ranchi

88. H.R.O.

834001 89. S.R.O.

834001

827001 90. S.R.O. RMSDn.B. S. City

822101 91. S.R.O. RMS Dn . Daltonganj

Singhbhum Dn . Jamshedpur

831001 92. Divisional Office Jamshedpur

831001 93. Jamshedpur H.O.

831013 94. Adityapur S.O.

832110 95. Adityapur Industrial Area

831009 96. Agrico S.O.

832110 97. Azad Nagar S.O.

98. Bahra Gora S.O.

832101

831017 99. Baridih Colony S.O.

831001 100. Bistupur Bazar S.O.

5390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

831001 BistupurGate S.O.

101.

102. Barma Mines S.O.

831007

831003 103. Kable Township

104. Chakulia

832301 105. Chandil

832401 106. Chowka

832404

832301 107. Dalbhumgarh

108. Gamhari ..

832108 109. Ghatshila

831003 110. Golmuri

831003

831008 111. Gobindpur Housing Colony

831008 112. Indra Nagar

832102 113. Jadugra Mines

831006 114. Jugsalai

115. Kadma

831005 116. Kalmati market

831004

832402 117. Kandra S.O.

832304 118. Mahulia S.O.

831012 119. Mango S.O.

832108 120. Maubhandar S.O.

121. Musabani Mines S.O.

832104

832104 122. M. G. M. Medical College S.O.

123. N.M.L. S.O.

831007 124. Patmada S.O.

832105 125. Plaza Market S.O.

832105

832105 126. Rahargora S.O.

832105 127. Rakha Copper Project S.O.

128. R.I.T.S.O.

831001 129. Sakchi S.O.

831001 130. Sakchi Court S.O.

831001 131. Sonari S.O.

831011

832107 132. Sundar Nagar S.O.

831002 133. Tata Nagar S.O.

831010 134. TelcoG.M.S. S.O.

831004 135. Telco Works S.O.

136. Tiruldih S.O.

832403

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii ) ] (1) (2)

(3)

833201 137. Chaibasa S.O.

Amza S.O.

138 .

833101 139. Bari Bazar S.O.

833201

833221 140. Bara Jamda S.O.

833102 141. Chakradharpur S.O.

833102 142. Chakradharpur Bazar S.C

833102 143. Chakradharpur Colony S.O.

833106 144. Chiriya S.O.

833212 145. Dongoaposi S.O.

146. D.S.E. Chaibasa S.O.

833201

833103 147 . Soyalkera S.O.

148. Gowa S.O.

833213

833214 149. Hatgamaria S.O.

833203 150. Jaganathpur S.O.

833203 151. Jhinkpani S.O.

833216 152. Kharsawangarh S.O.

833222 153. Kiriuru Base Camp S.O.

833104 154. Manoharpur S.O.

833217 155. Nowamundi S.O.

156. Nowamundi Bazaar S.O.

833217

833219 157. Sarakela S.O.

158. Sine S.O.

833220

833105 159. Sonuwa S.O.

833201 160. Tata College Chaibasa S.O.

834002 161. 1..P.S.D . Ranchi S.O.

Supdt. Railway Mail Service D.H. Division Dhanbad

825320 162. R.M.S. Hazaribagh Road

825409 163 . R.M.S. Koderma

R.M.S. Dhanbad

164 .

826001 165 . R.M.S. Jasidih

814142

816109 166. R.M.S. Sahabganj

815301 167. Divisional Office Giridih

815301 168. Makatpur S.O.

815301 169. Barganda S.O.

170. Giridih Bazar S.O.

815301

825414 171. Rajdhanwar S.O.

[No. 11017-1 /2009 -OL] MEERA HANDA , Dy. Director General ( PO & I /OL) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5391

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाम )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2542.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-

अनुसूची

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संख्या

(1)

-(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

तत्काल प्रभाव से

संशोधन संख्या 2 , 2009

आई एस 2798 : 1998 प्लास्टिक धारकों के लिए परीक्षण विधियों ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

तत्काल प्रभाव से

संशोधन संख्या 3 , 2009

आई एस 15410: 2003 पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल और पेकेजबंद पेय जल के लिए प्लास्टिक की बोतलें कंटेनर-विशिष्टि

तत्काल प्रभाव से

संशोधन संख्या 2 , 2009

आई एस 11489: 1989 हैवी पेट्रोलियम स्टॉक (एच पी एस ) विशिष्टि

तत्काल प्रभाव से

संशोधन संख्या 1 , 2009

आई एस 15607 : 2005 डीजल ईंधन के लिए बायोडीजल (बी 100 ) ब्लैंक स्टॉक-विशिष्टि

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

[संदर्भ: पीसीडी/जी-7 ]

डा. ( श्रीमती ) विजय मलिक , निदेशक एवं प्रमुख (पीसीडी) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009

S.O. 2542. 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

Date of Established Sl . No. No. & years title of the Indian Standards Established

No. & year of Indian Standards , ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1 .

None

June, 2009 Amendment No. 2 to IS 2798 : 1998 Methods of Test for Plastics Containers (firstrevision)

3252GI/09-3 5392

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

None

June,2009 2. Amendment No. 3 to IS 15410 : 2003 Containers for Packaging of Natural Mineral Water and Packaged Drinking water specification

None

August, 2009 3. Amendment No. 2 to IS 11489 : 1985 Specifiaction for Heavy Petroleum Stock (HPS)

None

July, 2009 4. Amendment No. 1 to IS 15607: 2005 Bio-Diesel (B100 ) Blend Stock for Diesel Fuel Specification

Copiesofthis 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 , Tairuvananthapuram .

[Ref: PCD/G - 7 Gazette]

Dr. (Smt.) VIJAY MALIK, Director and Head ( PCD)

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2543.- भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 444 तारीख 27-2-2008 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में जगोठी से पीथम्पुर तक तरल पेट्रोलियम गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 7-7-2008 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

और पाइपलाईन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अनुज्ञात कर दिया गया है;

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

और भारत सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

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

और , भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , पाइपलाइनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि , भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

गाँव

तहसील

सर्वे नं.

जिला

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

(4)

(5)

(2)

(1)

(3)

0.10

251/2

सावेर

इन्दोर

0.09

पवार्दाजुर्नादा उगमखेडी

0.02

17/1/1 17/3 5393 [भाग H- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(5)

सावेर

इन्दोर

0.03

818/1 व 818/2

कुडाना

1048/1

0.35

रावेर

188/430/2

0.06

393/2/1

0.10

इन्दोर

393/2

0.06

बुदानिया

0.04

138

जम्बूडीहवसी

139

0.03

कलारिया

115/1

0.19

115/2

0.17

14/1

ओसरोद:

0.09

देपालपुर

0.08

14/2

14/3

0.07

देवास

बरोठपिपल्या

297

0.01

298

0.01

0.12

333

337

0.04

उज्जैन

जगोटी

1523/1

0.04

महिपुर

[फा. सं. एल-14014/1/08-जी.पी. ]

के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 25th August, 2009

S.O. 2543. Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.444 dated 27th February, 2008 issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight of Users in (Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right ofUser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transporation ofLiquefied Patroleum Gas through Jagoti - Indore pipeline project in the State ofMadhya Pradesh by GAIL ( India) Limited;

Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 7-7-2008;

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

Andwhereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1) of Section 6 ofthe said Act, submitted its report to Government of India;

Andwhereas Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for saying the pipelines, has decided to acquire the Right of User therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 6 ofthe said Act, Govemment of Indiahereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;

And, further , in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (4) of Scetion 6 ofthe said Act, Government of Indiaherebydirects that the Right ofUser in the land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in Government of India, vest, on this date of the publilcation of the declaration , in the GAIL (India) Limited, free from all encumbrances .

5394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil

District

Village

SurveyNo.

Area to be Acquired for R.O.U. (InHectare)

251/2

0.10

Pawarda Junarda

Indore

Sanwer

0.09

Ugam Khedi

0.02

17/1/1 17/3

0.03

818/1 & 818/2

Kudana

1048/1

0.35

188/430/2

0.06

Rawer

0.10

393/2/1

0.06

393/2

Indore

Budhaniya

0.04

138

Jambudi Havsi

0.03

0.19

139 115/1

Kalariya

0.17

115/2

Osrod

14/1

0.09

Depalpur

0.08

0.07

14/2 14/3

0.01

Dewas

Barothpipliya

0.01

297 298

0.12

0.04

333 337

0.04

1523/1

Jagoti

Ujjain

Mahidpur

[F. No. L- 14014/1/08-G.P . ] K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy .

New Delhi , the 7th September , 2009 नई दिल्ली , 7 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2544.-भारत सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन राजस्थान राज्य में मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये संलग्न सूची के कालम ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित व्यक्ति को कालम ( 2 ) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त करती है

S.O. 2544. Whereas in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , Government of India hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying pipelines by the said M/ s GAIL (India) Limited in the area mentioned in column (2 ) of the said Schedule :-

अनुसूची

SCHEDULE

अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र

व्यक्ति का नाम और पता

Area of Jurisdiction

Name and Address of the person

(2)

(1)

(2)

(1)

सम्पूर्ण राजस्थान राज्य

श्री श्याम सिंह शेखावत ,

Whole State of

Shri Shyam Singh Shekhawat ,

Rajasthan.

Land Acquisition Officer , on deputation basis to

M/s . GAIL ( India ) Limited,

GAIL Vihar , Sector-6 ,

भूमि अधिग्रहण अधिकारी , मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, गेल विहार , सेक्टर -6 , विद्याधर नगर , जयपुर राजस्थान-302016

Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan-302016.

[फा. सं.: एल-14014/34/09-जी.पी. ] स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

[F. No. L- 14014/34/09-G.P. ] SNEH P. MADAN, Under Secy. 64- [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5395

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

5 नई दिल्ली , 7 सितम्बर , 2009

143/2पी

143/1पी

0 16

116/पी(जीपी)

0 04

115/4पी

0 03 का. आ. 2545. यतः केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीप्त होता है किलोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य में आर.ओ.यु. पाइप लाइन " यु.पी.ऐ.ऐ. से जी.एम.ऐ.ऐ. ई.पी.टी. " तक पेट्रोलियम के लिये पाइप लाइन तेल तथा प्राकृतिक गैस आयोग द्वारा बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

105/पी(जीपी)

0 03

106/3सी

0 11 और अतः यह प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी लाइनों के बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये एतद्द्याबन्द अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करना आवश्यक है ।

106/2पी

104/1पी

103/2बी

103/2ए

0 11 अतः अब, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइप लाइन ( 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 केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उसमें उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का अपना आशय एतद्वारा घोषित किया है :

103/1पी

0 14

102/4पी

0 14

102/1पी

90/4बी

16 बशर्ते कि उक्त भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति , उस भूमि के नीचे पाइप लाइन बिछाने के लिए आक्षेप सक्षम प्राधिकारी तेल तथा प्राकृतिक गैस आयोग , निर्माण और देखभाल प्रभाग राजामंन्द्रि एसट/के. जी. बेसिन , ओ.एन.जी.सी. , गोदावरी भवन , राजामंन्द्रि, आंध्र प्रदेश अधिसूचना की तारीख से 21 दिनों के भीतर कर सकेगा ।

90/4ए

90/1पी

0 21

89/पी (जीपी)

04 और ऐसा आक्षेप करने वाला हर व्यक्ति यह भी कथन करेगा कि क्या यह वह चाहता है कि उसकी सुनवाई व्यक्तिगत रूप से या किसी विधि व्यवसायी की मार्फत ।

19/8पी

03 अनुसूची

19/7पी(जीपी)

आर.ओ.यु, पाइप लाइन यु.पी.ऐ.ऐ. से जी.एम.ऐ.ऐ., ई.पी.टी.

19/6पी

0 15 राज्य : आंध्र प्रदेश

काट्रेनीकोना

मंडल :

19/ 1 ए

जिले

: पुर्व गोदावरी

गांव : उप्पुडी

19/1बी

19 हेक्टेएर्स

आर.एस.नं.

एर्स सेन्टेएर्स एकड़ सेन्ट्स

16/पी

0 44

14/1पी

0 29 0

0 12

160/2पी

13/2पी

0 0

160/ 1ए

13/1 पी

0 16 0

149/3पी

14/1बी

0 06

149/2बी

5 42

जोड़

149/2ए

149/1पी

मंडल

राज्य : आंध्र प्रदेश

: उप्पालागुप्तम 0

0 03

148/पी(जीपी )

गांव

जिले : पुर्व गोदावरी

: पेदागाडावाल्ली

147/पी

हेक्टेएर्स

आर.एस.नं.

एकड़ सेन्ट्स

एर्स सेन्टेएर्स

0 16

145/1पी

5 6 0

145/2बी

0 10

0 09 04

74/1 एपी

145/2ए 5396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

6 72/2पी

0 08 72/ 1बीपी

0 08 72/1सीपी

0 08 72/1डीपी

0 08 72/1 एपी

0 09 72/1 बीपी

0 09

71/2एपी

0 10

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

6 77/3पी

22 77/2पी

15 77/1पी

15 76/पी

0 04 67/11 पी

0 05 67/10पी

0 14

68/पी ( जी पी)

71/2बीपी

0 06 71/1पी

03-

09 69/2एपी

0. 04 69/3पी

0 06 69/2बीपी

0 05 69/4पी

0 06 69/1पी

0 24

67/पी(जीपी)

0 03 66/पी

0 10 65/पी(जीपी)

0 04 55/2पी

0 03 55/1 पी

0 02 54/1 पी

0 01

54/3ए

0 36 53/3पी

0 09

जोड़

1 97 राज्य : आंध्र प्रदेश

मंडल : उप्पालागुप्तम

0 02 70/3पी

0 34

71/2ए

13 71/2बी

जोड़

06 राज्य : आंध्र प्रदेश

मंडल

: उप्पालागुप्तम जिले : पुर्वगोदावरी

गांव : चीनागाडावाल्ली आर.एस.नं. हेक्टेएर्स एर्स

एकड़ सेन्ट्स

सेन्टेएर्स

119/2सी

0 20 118/4सी

24 115/1 ई

38 113/4बी

11 110/4पी

17 110/5बी 1

10 119/3बी

07 119/3सी

119/3ए

113/2ए

114/पी ( जीपी)

जिले

गांव

: पुर्वगोदावरी

: मुनीपल्ली आर.एस.नं. हेक्टेएर्स एर्स सेन्टेएर्स एकड़ सेन्ट्स 1

5 105/पी (जी पी)

07 83/2पी

0 04 83/1पी

0 15

84/1पी

0 40

04 113/2बी

0 10 113/4सी

02 110/5बी2

0 01

113/4ए

13 110/ 5 एपी

0 03 110/5सी ।

0 03

110/5सी2

0 01

109/पी( जीपी)

86/पी

जोड़

91 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

राज्य : आंध्र प्रदेश

मंडल

: उप्पालागुप्तम्

गांव

जिले : पुर्व गोदावरी

: उप्पालागुप्तम आर.एस.नं. हेक्टेएर्स एर्स

एकड़ सेन्ट्स

सेन्टेएर्स

6 67/2ए

0 03 67/1पी ( जीपी)

05 65/3पी

0 32

64/1एपी

0 14 64/1 बीपी

0 14 64/2पी

0 14 62/2पी

20 62/3पी

0 62/6पी

0 08

60/पी (जीपी)

0 02 59/1पी

19 58/1पी

57/पी(जीपी)

0 03 260/पी

0 07

275/पी (जीपी)

0 03 274/5पी

274/6पी

09 274/7पी

274/7बी

271/1

10 271/2

22 270/1पी

11 270/2पी

269/1पी

16 269/2पी

11 268/ 1 पी

268/2ए

0 06

268/2बी

0 06 268/3पी

268/4पी

0 06 267/1पी

0 267/2पी

Ὁ 07-

भारत का राजपत्र : सिंतम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

5397 1

5 266/पी

19 432/1पी

12 432/2बीपी

0 08

432/8पी(जीपी)

431/ 1पी

0 431/2पी

0 12

431/3एपी

12 430/1/पी

408/5पी

0 01

429/ 1 पी (जीपी )

0 01

409/पी (जीपी)

0 04 411/2पी

411/4पी

0 28

412/1पी

0 23 412/2पी

0 04 397/पी

0 43 396/1पी

03 396/2पी

396/3पी(ए)

0 05

0 396/3पी( बी)

396/3पी( सी)

02 396/6पी

09 390/4पी

0 33

389/2पी

389/5पी

0 09 389/4पी

0 12 388/8पी

10 388/ 7पी

08 388/4पी

0 08

388/13.पी

0 03

703/1पी

0 44

706/2पी

0 21 707/1 बीपी

09 707/2पी

10 5398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

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

6 707/3पी

0 09

213/2पी

16 0

730/पी (जीपी)

213/1पी

0 33 0

0 02

712/पी (4)

0 04

212/पी( जीपी)

712/पी (3 )

0 12

204/6पी

0 0

712/पी (2)

0 11

204/5पी

0 06 0

712/पी( 1)

204/1पी

0 01 0

713/1पी

0 05

713/2पी

204/2पी

0 11

0 713/3पी

205/1पी

0 713/4पी

200/ 1पी

31 714/3पी

0 15

201/2पी

715/पी ( 1 )

201/3पी

721/पी (जीपी)

0 05

201/4एपी

12 881/पी

880/2पी

201/5पी

0 09 879/1पी

201/6पी

878/पी ( जीपी)

201/1पी

0 11 866/1पी

195/पी

0 31 864/1पी

0 45

196/2ईपी

0 0

864/5पी

196/2सीपी

0 05 0

859/पी ( जीपी )

196/2बीपी

855/3पी

0 04 855 /2पी

196/2एपी

854/3पी

0 09

197/1पी

852/पी ( जीपी )

0 11

30 914/1पी

3 07

जोड़

845/5पी

845/6पी

राज्य

0 06

: आंध्र प्रदेश

मंडल : उप्पालागुप्तम 845/ 7पी

0 28

गांव

जिले

: चल्लापाल्ली

: पूर्वगोदावरी

844/पी

0 03

हेक्टेएर्स

आर. एस. नं.

एर्स सेन्टेएर्स एकड़ सेन्टस 843/2पी

0 16

843/1पी

652/पी

0 72

654/पी

17 5

13 19

जोड़

654/3पी

राज्य : आंध्र प्रदेश

मंडल : उप्पालागुप्तम

0 99

जोड़

जिले : पूर्वगोदावरी

गांव : कुनावाराम

आर.एस.नं. हेक्टेएर्स एर्स सेन्टेएर्स एकड़ सेन्ट्स

[सं. 12016/5/2009/ओ एन जीडी- III ] आर. एस. सिकदर , अवर सचिव 217/ईपी

0 10

New Delhi , the 7th September , 2009

216/पी(जीपी )

0 10

225/1पी

0 15

225/2पी

215/2पी

S. O. 2545. Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for the transportation of petroleum from " UPAA to GMАА ЕРТ " in the state of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid bythe Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Andwhereas, it appears to the Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed here to :-

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 Government of Indla hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of user therein:

Any person interested in the said land may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for, laying the pipe line under the land to the Competent Authority, Oil & natural Gas Corporation Ltd , Rajahmundry Asset/K.G. , Basin , Godavari Bhavan , Base complex, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh .

SCHEDULE

ROU PIPE LINE FROM UPAA TO GMАА ЕРТ

Katrenikona State Andhra Pradesh Mandal

East Godavari

District

Village Uppudi R. S. No. Hectares Ares Centi Ares Acres Cents

6 2

160/2p

160/1A 0

149/3p '0

06 0

149/2B

-0

149 /2A 0

149/1p 0

03 148/p (GP) 0

147/p 0

145/ 1p 0

0 145/2B 0

10 145 /2A 0

143/2p 0

1.6 0

143/1p

04 0

116/p(GP)

03 115/4p 0

0 105/p (GP) 0

106/3C

106/2p 0

104/1p 0

103/2B

3252G1/09-4

5399

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

5 0

11 103/2A

0 0

14 103/1p

14 0

102/4p

0 0

14 102/1p

16 0

0 0/4B

90/4A 0

21 0

90/ Ip

04 89/p(GP)

03 0

19/8p

02 0

19/7p (GP)

15 19/6p

14 0

19/1A

19/1B

0 0

16/p

29 0

14/1p

20 0

13/2p

13/1p

29 0

14/ IB

5 TOTAL:

State Andhra Pradesh

Uppalaguptam

Mandal

East Godavari

District

Village Pedagadavalli Hectares Ares Centi Ares Acres Cents R. S. No.

5 2

74/1Ap

72/2p

08 0

72/ 1Bp

72/1Cp

72/ 1Dp

72/1Ap

09 0

72/ 1Bp

10.

0 71/2Ap

71 /2Bp 0

71/lp 0

69/2Ap .

69/3p

69/2Bp 5400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

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

1 2

6 0

9/4p

110/5B1

119/3B

07 0

69/1p

119/3C

07 0

67/p(GP)

119/3A

10 0

66/p

113 /2A

0 0

65/p(GP)

114/p(GP)

55/2p

113/2B

10 0

55/1p

113/4C

02 0

54/ 1p

110/5B2

01 14

54/3A

113/4A

13 03

53/3p 0

110/5Ap

110/5C1

03 0

TOTAL:

110/5C2

109/ p(GP)

State

Mandal

Andhra Pradesh

Uppalaguptam

Total

91 District East Godavari Village Munipalli

R. S. No.

Ares Centi Ares Acres Cents

Hectares

State Andhra Pradesh Mandal Uppalaguptam

105/p fGP) 0

District East Godavari Village Uppalaguptam 0

83/2p

R. S. No. Hectares Ares Centi Ares Acres Cents 06

83/1p 0

67/2A

0 84/1p

86/p 0

67/ 1p(GP)

77/3p

65/3p

77/2p

64/1Ap

0 77/1p

64/1Bp

76/ p

64/2p

0 67/ 11p

62/2p

67/10p

62/3p

68/p (GP) 0

62/6p

70/3p

60/p (GP)

71 /2A

59/1p

71/2B

13-

58/1p

57/p (9P)

Total:

260/ p

State

03 Andhra Pradesh Mandal

275 /p (GP)

Uppalaguptam

274/5p

District EastGodavari Village Chinagadavalli

274/6p

R. S. No. Hectares Ares Centi Ares Acres Cents

274/7p

119/2C

274/7B .

271/1

10 0

118/4C

271/2

115/ 1E

11 113/4B

270/ 1p

0 110/4P

270/2p 5401 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

16 730/p(GP)

269/1p

712/p(4)

269/2p

712/p(3)

268/lp

712/p(2)

268/2A

712/p( 1)

268/2B

713/1p

268/3p

713/2p

268/4p 0

713/3p

267/1p

713/4p

267 /2p

714/3p

266/p

715/p(1)

432/ 12/ 1p

721/p(GP)

432/2Bp

881/p

432/8p(GP)

880/21

43 131/1p

879/1 9/ ip

431/2p

878/p(GP)

431/ 3A BAP

866/ 1p

430/ 0/1 /p

864/1p

408/5p

864/5p

429/1p(GP)

0 5

409/p(GP)

859/p (GP)

411/2p

855/3p

855/2p

411 11/4p

09 0

0 09

854/3p

412 12/ 1p

0 5

852/2(GP)

412/2p

914/1p

397/p

0 0

845/5p

396/1p

845/6p

396/2p

28 02

0 0

845/7p

396/3p( a)

844/p

396/3p(b)

16 01

843/2p

396/3p( c)

0 5

843/1p

396 /6p

390/4p

TOTAL :

389/2p

389/5p

Mandal

Andhra Pradesh

Unpalaguptam

State

389/4p

Kumavaram..

Village

East Godavari

388/8p

District

388/ 7p

Acres Cents

Centi Ares

Hectares Ares

R. S. No.

388/4p

217/Ep

388/13p

216/p(GP)

703/1p

225/1p

706/2p

225/ 2p

707/ 1Bp

215/2p

707/2p

0 :

213/2p

707/3p 5402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

6 1

33 213/ 1p(GP)

04 0

212/p(GP)

204/6p

06 204/5p 0

01 204/ 1p 0

0 0

204/2p

0 0

02 205/ 1p

200/1p 0

09 201 /2p 0

12 201/3p

201/4Ap 0

09 201/5p 0

02 201/6p 0

11 201/1p 0

0 195/p 0

0 0

196 /2Ep

196/2Cp 0

196/2Bp 0

196/2Ap 0

197/1p 0

3 TOTAL

30 State Andhra Pradesh Mandal Uppalaguptam District East Godavari

Challapalli

Village

Hectares Ares Centi Ares Acres Cents R. S. No.

0 652/p 0

17 654/p

0 0

10 654/3p

99 TOTAL

[No. 12016/5 / 2009/ONGD- III ]

R. S. SIKDAR , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 7 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2546.- यतः केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य में आर.ओ. यू. पाईप लाईन " जी. एम. ऐ. ऐ से यस. यानाम " तक पेट्रोलियम के लिये पाइप लाईन तेल तथा प्राकृतिक गैस आयोग द्वारा बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

और अतः यह प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी लाइनों के बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये एतद्‌द्याबन्द अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करना आवश्यक है ।

अतः अब , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइप लाइन ( 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 केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उसमें उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का अपना आशय एतद्वारा घोषित किया है :

बशर्ते कि उक्त भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति , उस भूमि के नीचे पाइप लाइन बिछाने के लिए आक्षेप सक्षम प्राधिकारी तेल तथा प्राकृतिक गैस आयोग , निर्माण और देखभाल प्रभाग राजामुन्द्रि एसट/के.

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ] जी. बेसिन, ओ.एन.जी.सी. , गोदावरी भवन , राजामुन्द्रि , आंध्र प्रदेश अधिसूचना की तारीख से 21 दिनों के भीतर कर सकेगा । और ऐसा आक्षेप करने वाला हर व्यक्ति : यह भी कथन करेगा कि क्या यह वह चाहता है कि उसकी सुनवाई व्यक्तिगत रूप से या किसी विधि व्यवसायी की मार्फत ।

अनुसूची

आर.ओ.यु. पाइप लाईन " जी.एम.ऐ.ऐ. से यस यानाम " राज्य : आंध्र प्रदेश

मंडल : उप्पालागुप्तम

गांव

जिले :

: यस. यानाम पुर्वगोदावरी

हेक्टेएर्स

आर.एस.नं.

एर्स सेन्टेएर्स एकड़ सेन्टस

158/2पी

0 19

0 08 158/1बी

164/2पी

0 164/1पी

10 165/2बी

0 05 165/2ए

0 165/1पी

04 119/पी ( जीपी)

120/3पी

0 08

0 120/2पी

0 06

121/पी (जीपी)

03 124/3पी, 4पी

123/19 बीपी

02 123/19एपी

0 17पी

14पी

123/11पी

04 123/ 10 बीपी

08 123/10एपी

0 09

9पी

0 123/1पी

0 109/3बीपी

109/3एपी

0 08 112/2पी

112/1 पी

0 07 111/6पी

0 111/2सी

04 2ए

111/2बी

0 103/9 बी2

103/9बी।

103/8सीपी

103/1 बीपी(जीपी)

()

0 01 103/6एपी

103/5ए2

04 103/5ए।

103/4पी

3पी

06 104/1पी

18 5403

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

164/2p

99/4पी

164/ 1p

0 0

10 99/3पी

165/2B

0 16

165/2A

98/1पी

165/1p

96/7पी

119/p (GP)

96/6पी

120/3p

08 87/2पी

120/2p

87/4पी

121/p (GP)

124/3p ,4p

87/2पी

123/19Bp

87/1पी

123/19AP

86/2पी

17p

।पी

14p

123/1 1p

28/3पी

123/ 10BP

2पी

123/ 10AP

0 01

0 85/2पी

123/ 1P

85/1 एपी

0 13

109/3Bp

85/1 सीपी

109/3Ap

0 14

85/1बीपी

112/2P

7.7

112/ 1P

जोड़

111/6p

[सं. 12016/5 /2009/ओ एन जीडी- III ]

111/20

0 आर. एसः सिकदर , अवर सचिव

111/2B

New Delhi , the 7th September, 2009

103/9B2

103/9B1

103/8cp

103 / 1Bp (GP)

103/6AP

S. O. 2546-. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum from " GMAA to S. YANAM" in the state of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

103/5A2

103/5A1

103/4P

18 And whereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right ofuser in the land described in the schedule annexed here to :-

104/1p

99/4p

99/3p

98/ 1p

96/7p

96/6p

87/2p

87/4p

87/2p

87/1p

86/2p

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 Usesr in the land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of user therein: Anyperson interested in the said land may, object within twenty one days from the date of this notification to laying the pipe line under the land to the Competent Authority, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, Rajahmundry Asset/K.G. , Basin , Godavari Bhavan , Base Complex , Rajahmundry , Andhra Pradesh .

28/3p

SCHEDULE

01 ROU PIPE LINE FROM GMAA TO S. YANAM

85/2p

Andhra Pradesh

85/ lap

State

Uppalaguptam

Mandal

85/1cp

Yanam

East Godavari Village S.

District

85/ 1Bp

Acres Cents

Centi Ares

Hectares Ares

77 R. S. No.

TOTAL:

[No. 12016/5/2009/ONGD - 111 ] 158/2p

R. S. SIKDAR, Under Secy .

158/ 1b 5404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 2547.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में रमन मंडी से हरियाणा राज्य में बहादुरगढ़ तक, पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा 'जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( 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, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई भी व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री प्रहलाद सिंह, (हरियाणा) , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, गुरू गोविन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निष्कमण परियोजना , एस सी एफ नं. 29, सैक्टर - 6, वहादुरगढ 124507, हरियाणा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : रोहतक

जिला : रोहतक

राज्य : हरियाणा

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

वर्गमीटर

खसरा/ किला सख्या

हेक्टेयर एयर

(1)

(2)

(4)

(6) (7)

(5)

(3) 39

1. जिन्दरान

2. ब्राहमणवास

11/2/1

11/2/2

12/1/2

3/2

3. बसन्तपुर

24/1

24/3

00 00

00 11

89 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5405

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7).

4. मकरौली कलां

8/1

8/2

11.

25/1

21/1

21/2

19 20 20

00 12 65

210

239

144

5. KILOI KHAS

23/1

[फा. सं. आर-31015/9/2009 ओ.आर. II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव 5406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 14th September, 2009

S. O. 2547.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " , should be laid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And , whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid , and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein or laying of the pipeline under the land , to shri Prahlad Singh , Competent Authority ( Haryana) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Guru Gobind Singh Refinery Product Evacuation Project , SCF No. 29 , Sector - 6 Market , Bahadurgarh - 124507 , Haryana .

5407

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : ROНТАК

District : ROHTAK

State : HARYANA

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatli No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Are

Hectare

Square Metre (1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(7)

(6)

(5)

1. JINDRAN

2. BRAHMANWAS

11/2/1

11/2/2

12/1/2

3/2

3. BASANTPUR

24/1

24/3

4. MAKRAULI KALAN

8/1

8/2

: 14

25/1

21/1

21/2

89 3252GI/09-5 5408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

(7)

(5)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(6)

210

239

144

5. किलौई खास

23/1

[ F. No. R-31015/9/2009-0.R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 2548.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1233 दिनांक 08.05.09, द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) ( जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, रमन मंडी (पंजाब राज्य में) से बहादुरगढ़ (हरियाणा राज्य में) तक, पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना रमन मंडी से बहादुरगढ़ पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन" के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील रोहतक जिला रोहतक राज्य हरियाणा की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी,

और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 13.07.2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी, और, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

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

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

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा । 5409 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

राज्य: हरियाणा

जिला : रोहतक

तहसील : रोहतक

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

खसरा /किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

(7)

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

135

1. घडौठी

155

156

.00

25/1

25/2

157

.00

162

7/1

7/2

15 5410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

163

18/1

18/2

164

175

18/1

18/2/1

18/2/2

20/1

23/1

24/1

24/2/1

24/2/2

25/1

25/2

176

177

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] (5) (6) (7) 00

66 00

30 00

03 00

54 00

79 00

25 00

62 00

15 00

02 00

07 00

78 00

79 00

25 00

66 00

30 00

25 00

81 00

28 00

25 00

34 00

28 00

25 00

90 00

26 00

25 00

63 00

75 00

02 00

40 00

25 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931 [भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

(5)

(3)

(4)

(2)

4/2

187

188

189

21/2

22/1

23/1

23/2

24/1

24/2

192

12/1

12/2

193

409

409/1

5411

(7) (6)

25 00

12 10

39 12

01 01

25 00

61 09

90 12

26 01

04 04

83 06

08 07

79 13

25 00

12 10

38 11

01 01

25 00

50 00

27 02

18 15

34 08

15 13

77 01

03 79

50 00

90 12

85 08

31 05

30 04

26 01 5412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

419

437

483

486

498

504

505

1014

1026

1034

2. घुसकानी

11/2

15/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii)] (5) (6) (7)

03 00

26 00

51 00

75 00

26 00

50 00

02 00

01 00

28 00

91 00

06.

57 00

50 00

65 00

86 00

01 00

.00

91 00

07 00

40 00

85 00

25 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5413

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

(3)

(2)

(4) (1)

7/1

7/2

7/3

8/1

8/2

8/3

9/1

3. टिटौली

24/1

24/2

13.

(7) (5) (6)

08 00

91 00

28 00

25 00

28 00

59 00

25 00

77 00

25 00

66 00

28 00

32 00

81 00

8888 00

78 00

40 00

00 .

28 00

78 00

12 00

25 00

12 00

10 5414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19. 2009 / BHADRA 28. 1931

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

20/1

195/1/2

197

217

4. जिन्दरान

17/1

17/2

18/2

18/3

20/1

[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

(6) (7) (5)

75 00

85 00

02 00

01 00

79 00

63 00

40 00

61 00

25 00

15 00

38 00

75 00

63 00

65 00

77 00

26 00

89 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5415

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

21.

17/2

23/2

6/2/2-

7/2

8/1

8/2

15/1

15/2

1/1

1/2

2/1

2/2

4 3252G1/09-6

(6) (7) (5)

01 00

00.

25 00

65 00

38 00

50 00

13 00

39 00

65 00

02 00

50 00

89 00

01 00

75 00

01 00

26 00

32 00

92 00 5416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

60/1

00 5. खिडवाली

201

21/2

21/3

202

23/2

24/1

24/2

25/2

203

23/2

00.

24/1

24/2

25/1

25/2

204

21/2

23/2

24/2

206

207

208

1/1

209

2/1

00 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)] (6) (7) 01

01 00

50 09

86 01

01 03

28 04

55 00

25 02

27 02

03 03

04 04

01 01

01 00

75 02

02 00

25 00

50 00

25 00

25 09

39 12

39 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : डपतम्बर 19, 2009 / भद्र 28 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

5/1

5/2

210

2/1

2/2

5/1

5/2

211

5/1

212

1/2

2/1/1

3/1

4/1/1

4/2

213

4/1

4/2

214

2/1

2/2

3/1

3/2

5417 (5) (6) (7) 00

39 00

06 00

03 00

39 00

86 00

39 00

39 :

39 00

89 00

87 00

56 00

06 00

12 00

61 00

60 00

50 00

34 00

32 00

27 00

04 00

78 00

25 00

63 5418

SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 / BHADRA 28. 1931

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

16/1

215

23/1

23/2

218

3/1

3/2

440

455

456

471

6. ब्राहमणवास

18/1

18/2

24/1

24/2

25/2

[Part II-Scc . 3 ( ii) ] (5)

(7)

(6)

40 00

75 00

53 00

16 00

15 00

79 00

62 0

01 00

51 00

40 00

31 00

25 00

09 00

25 00

56 00

60 00

28 00

63 JO

03 00

75 00 भारत का राजपत्र डपतम्बर 19, 2009/भद्र 28 , 1931 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

10/1

10/2

12/1

22/1

19/2

22/1

23/1

23/2

3/2

5419 (6) (7) 10

12 00

25 09

36 01

01 13

40 03

02 02

67 14

81 10

87 09

10 04

04 00

25 13

91 02

02 00

04 04

67 00

25 06

07 05

50 00

09 00

25 10

87 05

31 10

86 09

06 13

15 01

01 07

08 11

63 5420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(3)

(2)

(4) (1)

11/2/1

11/2/2

12/1/1

12/1/2

13/2

4/1

4/2

5/1

5/2

7/1

106

107

108

114

115

117

311

322

327

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (5) (6) (7) 00

84 00

50 00

13 00

12 00

63 00

25 00

51 00

50 00

14 00

65 00

51 00

50 00

78 00

50 00

75 00

50 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

22/3

7. बसन्तपुर

23/1/2

23/1/3

3/1

3/2

4/2

3/1

22 8. मकरौली कलां

5421

(7) (5) (6)

53 00

80 00

65 00

04 00

16 00

50 00

62 00

26 00

75 00

54 00

26 00

25 00

38 00

89 00

28 00

02 00

08 5422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA' : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009 /BHADRA 28. 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

10/2

19/1

19/2

25/1

15/1

12/1

12/2

12/3

13/1

13/2/1

13/2/2

13/2/3

14/1/1

14/1/2

16/1

16/2

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] (5) (6) (7)

77 00

40 00

81 00

86 00

08 00

53 00

79 00

01 00

84 00

25 00

67 00

25 00

30 00

80 00

25 00

50 00

54 00

02 00

50 00

25 00

30 00

91 00

75 00

09 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

(2)

(4)

(3)

1/1

1/2

201

228

229

241

9. लांडीत

12/1

12/2

12/1

12/2

17/2

18/1

18/2

25 3252G1/09-7

5423

(6)

(5)

(7) 00

25 00

81 00

51 00

50 00

25 00

26 00

84 00

50 00

09 00

84 00

36 00

33 00

59 00

33 00

06 '57 00

59 00

87 00

56 5424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

(3)

(4)

(5)

13/1

18/1

18/2

5/1

5/2

1/2

9/2

1/2

12/1

12/2

州

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] (6) (7) 03

04 04

63 12

90 03

51 01

32 06

08 00

25 00

25 13

91 02

02 02

53 08

09 00

25 14

92 00

01 01

50 14

42 01

51 13

91 00

25 13

15 02

53 04

30 10

62 00

83 06

87 02

53 02

27 12

14 00

25 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भार 28, 1931

4/1

4/2

5/1/2

5/2/2

6/1

6/2

01 898

103

113

119

126

127

135

10. किलोईखास

5/2

1/2

4/2

5/2/2

6/1

6/2

7/1

7/2

08 5426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)] (1)

(2)

(3)

(5) (6)

(4)

(7)

19/1

19/2

188

116

1/2

117

9/1

9/2

12/1

12/2

118

4/2

125

0 00 00

126

12/2/1

12/2/2

13/1

13/2

17/1

54 [भाग H- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5427

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

127

145

158

7/1

7/2

159

170

11/2

20.

171

3/1

3/2 (5)

(6)

25 00

51 00

67 00

51 00

66 00

50 00

83 00

60 .00

02 00

66 00

51 00

65 00

77 00

02 00

75 00

25 00

53 00

04 00

14 00

07 00

38 00

56 00

50 00

36 5428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

4/2

171

185

223

224

225

231

244

249

252

11. भालोठ

10/1

10/2

16/1

16/2

5/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (5) (6) (7) 00

08 00

60 00

33 00

06 00

07 00

26 00

75 00

25 00

61 00

04 00

66 00.

33 00

87 00

03 00

57 00

62 00

25 00

38 00

39 00

10 00

25 00

16 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(li) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

(5)

5429

(4)

78 01

25 00

91 02

18/1/3

18/2

19/1

19/2

रास्ता

20/1

00 00

50 02

27 00

50 14

67 01

28 00

23/2/1

00 00

23/2/2

00 00

23/2/3

24/2

24/4

20/2

4/1

4/2/4

85 08

33 02

78 11

13 00

25 13

66 03-

54 02

02 14

16 01

01 00

25 05

6/1/2

00 08

6/2/2

00 00

6/2/3

00 00

6/2/4

7/1/1

7/1/2

00 00

25 04

55 02

7/1/3

7/1/4

00 00

25 06

83 5430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28, 1931

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

3/1

3/2

21/2

17/1

17/2

5/1

5/2

100

2/1

2/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (5)

(7)

(6)

67 00

54 00

81 00

38 00

08 00

79 00

50 00

25 00

77 00

66 00

38 00

33 00

60 00

81 00

14 00

77 00

16 00

25 00

75 00

25 00

25 [ भाग IH- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

2/3

100

9/1

9/2

12/2

17/1

17/2

101

105

106

7/1

7/2

140

15 3252G1/09-8

5431

(7) (5) (6)

50 00

66 00

50 00

15 00

85 00

50 00

07 00

14 00

13 00

54 00

66 00

25 00

78 00

92 00

01 00

28 00

75 00

13 00

75 00

53 00

57 00

39 00

10 5432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28, 1931

(2)

(4)

(5)

(3)

(1)

141

146

00.

175

18/1

18/2

24/1

24/2

25/1

25/2

181

11.

18/1/1

18/1/2

18/2

19/1

19/2

00 [Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ;

(6) (7) 08

09 11

38 07

13 11

38 11

63 00

25 07

08 02

78 11

63 11

89 00

25 02

78 11

38 12

65 00

13 11

51 00

50 00

25 10

25 00

01 01

02 02

65 12

55 04

53 02

50 00

25 00

34 08 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

181

23/2

182

206

6/2

207

210

243

244

251

252

302

5433 (5) (6) (7) 00

09.

10 00

04 00

75 00

65 00

86 00

25 00

40 00 0860 00

85 00

90 00

26 0000

75 00

89 00

86 00

53 00

$00

25' 00

90 00

34 00

31 00

90 00

25 $00

37 $00

78 00

53 00

27 00

03 00

50 5434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

[Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (1)

(2)

(6)

(3)

(5)

(7)

(4)

303

306

340

356

361

[फा. सं. आर-31015/9/2009- ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 14th September, 2009

S.O. 2548.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 1233 dated the 08th May 2009, issued under sub-section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Productsfrom Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for implementing the "GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " in Tehsil Rohtak, District Rohtak , in Haryana State;

Andwhereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 13.07.2009.

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

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

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

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

H 5435 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : ROHTAK

State : HARYANA

District : ROHTAK

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5) (6) (7) (1)

135

25 1. GHRAOTHI

155

156

25/1

25/2

157

33.

162

7/1

7/2

08 5436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:

SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

(2)

(1)

(4)

(3)

163

18/1

18/2

164

175

18/1

18/2/1

18/2/2

20/1

23/1

24/1

24/2/1

24/2/2

25/1

25/2

176

$177

[Part II-Sec. 3( ii)] (5) (6) (7) 00

66 00

30 00

03 00

54 00

79 00

60 00

25 00

62 00

15 00

02 00

07 00

78 00

79 00

25 00

66 00

30 00

25 00

81 00

28 00

25 00

34 00

28 00

25 00

38 00

25 00

14 00

75 00

02 00

40 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

12-54377

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28; 1933

(5) (1)

(2)

(3)

4/2

187

188

180

21/2

00.

22/1

23/1

23/2

24/1

24/2

192

12/1

12/2

000

1933

409

409/1 (6)

25 00

39 12

25 00

61 09

90 01

28 04

04 13

9:1 06

83 07

08 03

79 13

15 00

12 10

01 01

25 00

50 02

27 15

18 00

34 08

15 13

79 03

50 01

51 12

85 08

31 05

30 04

26 01 5438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(4)

(2)

(3)

419

424

437

483

486

498

504

505

1014

1026

1034

2. GHUSKANI

11/2

15/1

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] (5) (6) (7) 00

03 00

51 00

50 00

51 00

75 00

50 00

02 00

34 00

28 00

25 00

84 00

78 00

65 00

86 00

90 00

54 00

91 00

07 00

40 00

85 00

25 5439

भारत.का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

7/1

7/2

7/3

8/1

8/2

8/3

9/1

3.TITOULI

24/1

24/2

15 3252G1/09-9

(5)

(7)

(6)

08 00

91 00

28 00

25 00

28 00

59 00

25 00

86 00

25 00

66 00

28 00

86 00

30 00

25 00

78 00 8888

66 00

28 00

40 00

12 00

62 00 5440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

20/1

195/1/2

197

217 4. JINDRAN

17/1

17/2

18/2

18/3

20/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)] (5) (6) (7) 00

62 00

75 00

85 00

02 00

77 00

50 00

28 00

79 00

14 00

02 00

40 00

25 00

38 00

15 00

79 00

50 00

63 00

65 00

89 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजवत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

17/2

23/2

6/2/2

7/2

8/1

8/2

$00

15/1

15/2

1/1

1/2

2/1

2/2

5441 (6) (7)

01 01

08 02

01 01

25 12

65 02

53.

28 03

38 11

50 00

25 00

13 11

65 12

26 01-

02 11

50 00

01 01

87 10

26 01

25 01

32 06

80 04

31 11

89 14

92 5442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

60/1

70 5. KHIDWALI

201

21/2

21/3

202

23/2

24/1

24/2

25/2

203

23/2

24/1

24/2

25/1

25/2

21/2

204

23/2

24/2

206

207

208

1/1

209

2/1

[Part II Sec. 3 (ii) ]

(7) (5) (6)

01 00

50 00

01 00

28 00

27 00

78 00

03 00

25 00

04 00

01 00

75 00

02 00

25 00

50 00

25 00

39 00

39 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

5443 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

5/1

5/2

210

8.8 00

2/1

2/2

00 888 00

5/1

5/2

211

5/1

212

1/2

2/1/1

3/1

4/1/1

4/2

213

4/1

4/2

214

2/1

2/2

3/1

3/2

63 5444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

16/1

215

23/1

23/2

218

3/1

3/2

440

455

456

471

10 6. BRAHMANWAS

18/1

18/2

24/1

24/2

25/2

[Part II-Sec . 3( ii) ]

(6) (7) (5)

40 00

75 00

53 00

16 00

15 00

75 00

25 00

08 00

51 00

50 00

25 00

31 00

25 00

09 00

28 00

86 00

56 00

26 00

03 00

75 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

54455

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

10/1

10/2

12/1

22/1

19/2

22/1

23/1

23/2

3/2

(7) (5)

12 00

014 00

40 00

02 00

67 00

10 00

04 00

25 00

91 00

02 00..

75 001 . 00

04 00

67 00.

25 00

07 00

50 00

00%

25 000

000 10

31 00

12 00

86 002

15 00

01 00

63 5446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28, 1931

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

11/2/1

11/2/2

12/1/1

12/1/2

13/2

4/1

4/2

5/1

5/2

7/1

106

107

108

114

115

117

311

322

327

00 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (6) (7) 00

25 14

16 03

79 00

25 07

84 00

50 03

54 07

08 00

13 00

12 00

75 11

63 12

63 11

06 05

25 01

51 04

55 00

50 11

13 06

07 12

14 12

65 12

25 00

51 00

50 00

50 01

51 02

78 00

50 02

78 00

50 00

75 00

50 [ (ii)]

5447

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

22/3

7. BASANTPUR

23/1/2

23/1/3

3/1

3/2

4/2

3/1

8. MAKRAULI KALAN

23. 3252G1/09-10

(7)

(6)

(5)

25 00

53 00

80 00

65 00

90 00

78 00

04 00

16 00

62 00

06 00

62 00

26 00

75 00

26 00

15 00

25 00

38 00

89 00

00.

28 00

02 00

08 5448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28, 1931

(4)

(2)

(1)

(5)

(3)

10/2

19/1

19/2

25/1

15/1

12/1

12/2

12/3

13/1

13/2/1

13/2/2

13/2/3

14/1/1

14/1/2

16/1

16/2

21 [Part II-Sec. 3 (ii )] (6) (7) 01

77 13

40 05

86 09

08 02

53 03

79 13

91 01

01 07

84 11

63 00

67 14

03 00

25 04

30 08

80 04

36 09

37 00

06 05

50 00

06 05

02 02

04 00

50 00

25 00

30 04

75 00

36 09

36 09 [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931-

(2)

(3)

(4)

1/1

1/2

201

228

229

241

9. LADHAUT

12/1

12/2

12/1

12/2

17/2

18/1

18/2

5449 (5) (6) (7)

25 00

81 00

5.1

50 00

26 00

09 00

84 00

50 00

09 00

84 00

10 00

84 00

85 00

59. 00

51 00

33 00

57 00

59 00

87 00

05 5450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009/BHADRA 28, 1931

(3)

(2)

(4)

(5) (1)

13/1

18/1

18/2

5/1

5/2

1/2

9/2

1/2

12/1

12/2

00 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

(7) (6)

54 04

63 11

28 03

51 06

32 07

08 00

25 00

25 13

02 02

09 08

25 14

92 00

01 01

50 14

42 01

91 13

25 00

15 02

53 04

30 10

25 00

83 10

87 02

53 02

27 12

14 00

25 5451

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(1)

4/1

4/2

5/1/2

5/2/2

6/1

6/2

103

113

119

126

127

135

10. KILOI KHAS

5/2

1/1/2

1/2

4/2

5/2/2

6/1

6/2

7/1

7/2

(6)

(5)

(7)

50 00

53 00

32 00

25 00

03 00

77 00

75 00

39 00

34 00

75 00

13 00

02 00

01 00

87 00

25 00

62 00

34 5452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

19/1

19/2

116

1/2

117

9/1

9/2

12/1

12/2

4/2

118

125

126

12/2/1

12/2/2

13/1

13/2

17/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (5) (6) (7) 00

38 00

50 00

80 00

42 00

77 00

79 00

50 00

25 00

09 00

54 00

67 00

91 00

50 00

04 00

84 00

50 00

53 00

25 00

61 00

89 00

54 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5453

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

(3)

(2)

(1)

(4)

127

145

158

7/1

7/2

159

170

11/2

171

3/1

3/2 (5) (6) (7) 00.

16 00

25 00

51 00

04 00

66 00

50 00

38 00

02 00

66 00

25 00

65 00

77 00

02 00

42 00

25 00

00 00 00

37 00 00

38 00

56 00

80 00

50 00

09 5454

[Part II- Sec . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

4/2

171

185

223

224

225

231

244

249

252

11. BHALOUT

10/1

10/2

16/1

16/2

5/1

(7)

(6)

(5)

08 00

30 00

07 00

26 00

50 00

75 00

77 00

25 00

61 00

66 00

87 00

03 00

26 00

36 00

62 00

25 00

51 00

10 00

16 00

14 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

(4)

(2)

(1)

(3)

18/1/3

18/2

19/1

19/2

CartTrack

20/1

23/2/1

23/2/2

23/2/3

24/2

24/4

20/2

4/1

4/2/4

6/1/2

6/2/2

6/2/3

6/2/4

7/1/1

7/1/2

7/1/3

7/1/4

15 3252Gl/09-11

5455 (5) (6) (7) 00

78 00

25 00

91 00

27 00

50 00

27 00

50 00

67 00

26 00

25 00

75 00

50 00

33 00

13 00

25 00

66 00

54 00

02 00

01 00

09 00

25 00

78 00

51 00

25 00

83 5456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

3/1

3/2

21/2

17/1

17/2

5/1

5/2

100

2/1

2/2

[Part II-Scc . 3 ( ii ) ] (5) (6) (7) 00

25 00

67 00

14 00

61 00

38 00

08 00

79 00

25 00

77 00

55 00

02 00

33 00

81 00

77 00

03 00

75 00

25 00

25 1411 5457 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

(7)

(5) (6)

(1)

100

2/3

9/1

9/2

12/2

17/1

17/2

101

105

196

123

개 7M

加 712

100

00 00 00 88888888

15 5458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28, 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

(5)

(4)

141

146

175

18/1

18/2

24/1

24/2

25/1

25/2

181

18/1/1

18/1/2

18/2

19/1

19/2

00 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

(7) (6)

09 11

38 07

84 11

13 11

38 11

63 00

25 07

08 02

78 11

63 11

89 00

78 02

38 12

65 00

50 11

51 01

50 00

25 10

87 00

25 01

01 02

02 12

65 04

55 02

53 00

50. 00

25 12

34 08.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

23/2

181

182

206

6/2

207

210

243

244

251

252

302

5459 (6) (7) 09

10 04

04 00

75 12

65 09

86 00

40 13

60 08

85 12

90 01

75 00

89 09

86 02

53 00

25 12

34 08

31 12

90 00

25 10

37 02

78 07

33 02

78 02

53 02

27 03

03 00

50 5460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19. 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )]

(5)

(2)

(6) (7)

(3)

(4)

(1)

303

306

340

356

361

[ F. No. R-31015/9 /2009- O.R. - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 2549.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1304 दिनांक 12.05.09, द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, रमन मंडी (पंजाब राज्य में) से बहादुरगढ़ (हरियाणा राज्य में ) तक, पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा "जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना रमन मंडी से बहादुरगढ़ पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन" के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील जुलाना जिला जीन्द राज्य हरियाणा की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी,

और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 15.07.2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी,

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

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

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा । 5461 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

अनुसूची

जिला :जीन्द

राज्य : हरियाणा तहसील: जुलाना

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

खसरा/ किला संख्या

(3)

(7)

(4)

(5) (6)

(1)

(2)

1. मालवी

32.

26.

रास्ता

12.

107

10 5462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931 (1)

(3)

(2)

(5)

(4)

107

रास्ता

108

11/2

122

18/2

23/1

रास्ता

23/2

123

144

145

00 [Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) | (6) (7) 05

06 01

26 10

12 02

53 03

79 08

85 07

59 07

59 06

85 06

79 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

5463 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

145

146

4/1

रास्ता

147

2/1

7/2

153

154

12. 65 3252 G1/09-12 5464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009/BHADRA 28, 1931

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

156

79.

[फा. सं. आर-31015/12/2009- ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 14th September, 2009

S. O. 2549. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 1304 dated the 12th May 2009, issued under sub- section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for implementing the "GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " in Tehsil Julana , District Jind , in Haryana State;

Andwhereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 15.07.2009 .

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

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

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

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

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5465 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : JULANA

District: JIND

State: HARYANA

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Are

Hectare

Square Metre

(2)

(1)

(4)

(7)

(6)

(3)

(5)

1. MALVI

00 .

Carttrack 00

107

12 5466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28. 1931

(3)

(5) (1)

(2)

(4)

107

Carttrack 00

108

11/2

122

18/2

23/1

Carttrack

23/2

123

144

145

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (6) (7)

26 10

59 07

59 06

32 08

85 06

32 06

32 10

12 03

79 01

26 05

06 06

85 08

59 08

85 10

12 05

06 11

38 03

79 12

65 03

79 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

145

146

4/1

Carttrack 00

147

2/1

7/2

153

154

5467 (6) (7)

65 5468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 / BHADRA 28 , 1931

[ Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(7)

(5) (6)

156

[F. No. R-31015 /12 / 2009- O.R. - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 2550.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1302 दिनांक 12.05.09, द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962(1962 का 50) ( जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, रमन मंडी (पंजाब राज्य में) से बहादुरगढ़ (हरियाणा राज्य में) तक, पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना रमन मंडी से बहादुरगढ़ पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन " के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील हांसी जिला हिसार राज्य हरियाणा की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी,

और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 14.07.2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी,

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

脚 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19; 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

5469

अनुसूची

तहसील : हांसी

जिला : हिसार

राज्य : हरियाणा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/किला

गाँव का नाम

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7) 1. भकलाना

12.

00.

30 5470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28. 1931

(4)

(5)

(2)

(3)

(1)

9/1

11/2

3/1

3/2

101

23 [ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) |

(7) (6)

08 04

04 01

51 14

42 01

26 00

16 14

03 03

90 00

81 05

12 10

09 00

84 07

50 00

25 00

31 05

03 13

26 01

51 01

54 03

38 11

39 12

34 08

25 00 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

5471 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

110

111

112

00%

$39

113

$00

200

114

$$00 004555

$00

60:

0k:

$00 10025

117

100

00:1

$50

148

000

200

109

900

3252G1/09-13 5472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

(5)

(2)

(4) (1)

(3)

118

119

127

12/1

12/2

18/1

18/2

128

134

5/1

15/1

15/2

सड़क

11/2

135

21.

22 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (6) (7) 08

63 11

79 00

75 15

25 00

01 01

42 00

87 10

08 07

84 03

85 08

27 00

50 12

25 00

84 06

83 03

54 13

91 00

62 10

53 02

25 00

89 00

78 02

25 00

37 10

89 02

02 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

5473 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

139

148

7/1

173/2

191

216

231

240

248

251

01 2.मोहला

16/1

16/2

10 12

26 5474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19. 2009 /BHADRA 28, 1931

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

14/1

14/2

17/1

17/2

11/2

581

12/1/2

12/2 [ Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ] (6) (7)

899

60 05

02 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

5475 (1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5) (6) (7)

15.

15-

31.

107

110

113/1

135

138

154

158

-00

75 3. बडछप्पर

01:

09 5476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28, 1931

(4)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(1)

23/1

23/2

21/1

रास्ता

21/2

16 [Part IISec . 3( ii ) ] (6) (7) 00

25 00

38 12

90 00

25 08

09 13

36 09

25 00

65 12

90 03

28 00

50 11

13 13

28 03

80 04

40 13

12 10

25 00

10 09

77 02

27 10

04 04

40 04

80 05

31 07

84 13

40 05

32 06 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

5477 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

17/1

17/2

3/1

3/2

001340

7/1000303

7/2 0005-31

00 0632

3001340

1340

000607

12/100

02 : 76

01 01

12/2 00

12/3

00 0784

001239

000328

नहर

07 5478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii )] (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

142

01. 01

143

157

[फा. सं. आर-31015/10/2009-ओ.आर.-11.]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th September, 2009

S. O. 2550.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 1302 dated the 12th May 2009, issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Productsfrom Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for implementing the "GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " in Tehsil Hansi , District Hisar , in Haryana State;

And whereas, copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 14.07.2009 .

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

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

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

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

5479

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : HANSI

District : HISAR

State : HARYANA

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Kilia No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

(3)

(6)

(2)

(5)

(1)

(4)

(7)

1. BHAKLANA

30..

3252Gl/09-14 5480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

(4) (1)

(3)

(2)

9/1

11/2

3/1

3/2

101

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

(6)

(5)

(7)

51 00

26 00

50 00

16 00

03 00

90.

25 00

81 00

25 00

84 00

09 00

50 00

10 00

00.

90 00

03 00

66 00

26 00

51 00

12:

38 00

90 00:

34 00

4 [ भागः II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009 /भाद 28, 1931

(5)

(3)

11:10

111

1:12

100

117

118

5481 (6)

(7) 00

50 01

34 12

112

103

65-

57 5482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

(5)

118

119

127

12/1

12/2

18/1

18/2

128

134

5/1

15/1

15/2

Road

11/2

135

22 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] .

(6) (7)

84 06

83 03

54 13

25 00

62 10

53 02

25 11

25 00

78 00

50 00

25 10

89 11

02 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 281931

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

139

148.

7/1

173/2

191

216

231

240

248

.251 2.MAHOLA

16/1

16/2

5483 (5) (6) (7) 00

25 00

14 00

51 00

38. 00

75 00

13 00

51 00

89 00

01 00

62 00

65 00

50 00

26 00

50 00

28 00

50 00

27 00

77 00

01 00

28 00

01 00

14 00

50 00

86 00

25 00

03 00

90 00

03 00

87 00

12 00

85 00

02 00

31 00

39 00

25 5484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

(2)

(5) (1)

(3)

(4)

14/1

14/2

17/1

17/2

11/2

12/1/2

12/2

00 [Part II- Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

(7) (6)

36 10

12 01

01 00

25 14

78 02

25 00

25 04

42 14

27 08

85 12

39 00

25 05

56 11

51 01

08 07

40 00

75 07

59 12

25 00

51 11

89 01

63 11

15 04

03 03

60 08

06 05

02 [भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii)

भारत का राजपुत्रः सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्रः 28, 1931

5485 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(9) (6) (7)

00:

00 00

00. 02

53.

107

110

1:101 00

135

OBT

1388

OST

154

500

158

000

75 3..ЕВАОСИ

09 5486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(5) (1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

23/1

23/2

21/1

Carttrack 00

21/2

00 [Part II- Sec . 3( ii ) ]

(7) (6)

38 11

25 08

25 12

28 00

28 04

25 00

25 09

10 01

27 10

04 13

40 04

84 13

40 05

81 06

32 [भाग II-खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

5487

भारत का राजपत्रःः सितम्बर 19 , 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

17/1

17/2

3/1

3/2

7/1

7/2

14/1

12/1

12/2

12/3

Canal 3252 81005

(6)

(7) 03

79 10

87 07

25 09

36 12

31 00

10:

06 5488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) }

(7)

(2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

(1)

142

143

157

[F. No. R-31015/10/2009- O.R. - II }

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 2551.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1303 दिनांक 12.05.09, द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962(1962 का 50) ( जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर , रमन मंडी (पंजाब राज्य में) से बहादुरगढ़ (हरियाणा राज्य में) तक, पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना रमन मंडी से बहादुरगढ़ पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन" के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील सरदूलगढ जिला मानसा राज्य पंजाब की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी,

और , उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 25.06.2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी,

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

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा । 5489

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

अनुसूची

जिला : मानसा

राज्य: पंजाब

तहसील : सरदूलगढ

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

खसरा/ किला संख्या

(2)

(1)

(3)

(5) (6) (7)

(4)

100

1. कुशला

17/1

17/2/1

17/2/2

18/1

18/2/1

1/1

1/2

10/1

13/1

17/2

18/1/1

18/1/2

18/1/3

18/2

25/1

25/2

1/1

1/2

1/3

03 5490

[Part II Sec. 3 ( 11 ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(2)

(3)

(4) (1 )

13/1

13/2

5/2

4/1

5/1

5/2

1/2

9/1

10/1

10/2

12/1

12/2

17/1

19/1

9/2

(6) (7) (5)

38 00

53 00

77 00

16 00

78 00

25 00

83 00

78 00

77 00

75 00

40 00

25 00

77 00

39 00

77 00

00:

50 00

01 00

25 00

66 00

13 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

5491

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(1)

(3)

(2)

(5)

(4)

118

12/2

18/1/1

18/2

19/1/2

19/2

24/1

119

6/1

127

128

10/1

10/2

19/1

19/2/2

23/1

24/1

24/2

24/3

146

4/1

209

211

221

00 (6) (7) 02

27 14

25 00

26 12

39 03

03 00

25 03

54 10

01 01

77 01

28 11

38 04

55 01

77 10

12 05

13 11

12 05

56 00

25 06

83 05

81 01

77 00

75 00

25 00

50 00

75 03

28 5492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

653

654

655

656

147

2. जटाना कलां

11/2

20/1

23/1

23/2

15/1

15/2

ول

[Part IISec. 3 ( ii )]

(7) (5) (6)

27 00

75 00

26 00

09 00

38 00

27 00

86 00

55 00

50 00

15 00

01 00

57 00

03 00

33 00

60 00

31 00

40 00

25 00

01 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

6/1

10/1

10/2

19/1

19/2

21/1

17/1

1/1

1/2

2/1

10/1

5493 (5) (6) (7) 00

60 00

90 00

87 00

27 00

01 00

39 00

01 00

33 00

07 00

01 00

89 00

55 00

36 00

06 00

65 00

75 00

38 00

01 00

61 00

03.

90 00

25 00

33 00

81 00

33 00

25 00

37 00

78 00

39 00

26 5494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

11/2

3/1

3/2

4/1

4/2

6/1

6/2

7/1

15/2

15/3

111

13/1

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

(7) (5) (6)

90 00

61 00

06 00

30 00

55 00

28 00

38 00

25 00

40 00

25 00

39 00

30 00

55 00

34 00

80 00

09 00

75 00

81 00

25 00

61 00

87 00

55 00

62 00

04 00

12 00

00 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भार 28, 1931

[भान II- कम्प 3(ii)]

(c)

(4)

111

112

134

18/1

18/2

148

140

2/1

2/2

9/1

150

9/2

10 3252G1/09-16

5495 (6) (6)

66 00

25 00

10 87 00

78 00

55 00

91 00 0050 00

11 89 00

84 00 06

57 00

75 00

86 00

04 00

26 00

55 00

39 00

07 00

25 00 12

39 00

07 00

25 00

62 5496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

150

16/1

151

25/1

25/2

152

162

20/1

20/2

20/3

21/1

21/2

22/1

23/1

24/1

24/2

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

(7) (5) (6)

85 00

90 00

33 00

25 00

65 00

90 00

85 00

61 00

33 00

25 00

54 00

03 00

31 00

12 00

51 00

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

163

12/1

12/2

13/1.

16/1

16/2

18/1

18/2

19/1

19/2

164

165

186

187

1/2

4/2

5497 (6) (7) 12

65 10

12 01

26 03

28 11

13 01

01 12

65 03

79 06

07 00

50 00

50 04

04 00

75 09

36 12.

65 12

90 08

60 03

03 12

65 00

25 07

84 12

90 12

65 00

25 02

02 11

13 07

08 04

04 12

65 05

56 00

25 5498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19. 2009/BHADRA 28. 1931

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

187

6/2

8/1

9/1

188

10/2/1

10/2/2

11/2/1

11/2/2

12/1

12/2

13/1

13/2

14/2/1

14/2/2

16/1

189

190

191

301

320

[Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (5) (6) (7)

90 00

25 00

06 00

04 00

26 00

14 00

25 00

07 00

63 00

50 00

25 00

79 00

83 00

90 00

65 00

25 00

56 00

83 00

39 00

28 00

77 00

86 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5499

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

323

902

904

916

923

941

954

956

958

166

207

21/1/2 3. फत्तामालुका

21/2/1

208

12/1

12/2

14/2

16/2

209

6/1

6/2

8/1

8/2

15 (5) (6) (7) 00

39 00

02 00

26 00

27 00 02

50 00

51 00

01 00

79 00

26 00

40 00

27 00

16 00

51 00

01 00

57 00

50 00

75 00

25 00

85 00

36 00

79 00

90 00

14.

03 00

63 5500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

210

2/1

3/1

3/2

1/1

216

4/1

6/2

7/1

7/2

217

11/2

12/1

12/2

00-

25/1

25/2

218

21/1

21/2

00 [Part II -Sec . 3 (ii ) ]

(7) (6)

81 11

89 00

75 12

84 07

25 00

12 12

90 09

86 00

50 12

07 06

81 05

53 02

25 04

55 04

54 00

50 10

87 12

27 02

39 11

89 00

50 00

25 00

75 00

75 04

60 08

63 00

50 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

230

231

232

249

3/1

6/2

14/1

15/1

15/2

250

5501 (5) (6) (7) 00

60 00

25 00

86 00

54 00

16 00

80 00

75 00

15 00

61 00

03 00

57 00

51 00

40 00

62 00

25 00

90 00

57 00

91 00

78 00

25 00

85 00

13 00

25 00

53 00

83 00

08 00

57 00

02 00

91 00

09 5502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19. 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

250

25/2/1

4/1

256

5/1/1

5/1/2

5/2

296

297

310

315

375

469

495

496

498

1451

167

4. अलीके

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii )) (5) (6) (7) 00

25 00

62 00

28 00

65 00

50 00

01 00

26 00

50 00

01 00

50 00

84 00

39 00

75 00

25 00

28 00

38 00

78 00

H [ भाग -खष्ठ 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(4)

(3)

13/1

13/2

107

108

170

5. झन्डोके

118

119

8/3

10/1

13/1

13/2

14/1

5503

(6)

(5)

(7)

57 00

50 00

39 00

77 00

08 00

02 00

02.

78 00

66 00

25 00

78 00

26 00

39 00

62. 00

01 00

10.

28 00

14/2/2

15/2

120

21/1

21/2

23/1

23/2 3252 G109

50 00

27 00

34 00

25 00

26 00

01 [Part 11- Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

5504

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

21/1

146

147

25/1

148

4/1

4/2

1/2

151

152

11/2

17/2

(7) (5) (6)

54 00

57 00

08 00

63 00

39 00

75 00

25 00

.79

16 00

25 00

86 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5505

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009 / भाद्र 28, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

153

169

22/1

170

1/1

8/1

8/2

5/1

171

174

8/1

8/2

21/1/1

175

21/1/2

00 (6)

(7)

75 00

08 10

12 05

06 00

50 13

36 09

07 10

12 03

30 04

62 10

09 01

13 11

79 02

39 12

01 00

25 14

92 01

01 14

42 01

01 01

77 10

75 00 5506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19. 2009/BHADRA 28. 1931

(3)

(5)

(4) (1)

(2)

182

183

14/1

14/2

5/1

188

1/1/2

189

1/2

8/1

8/2

13/1

13/2

18/1

24/2

1192

1/1

1193

00 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) |

(7) (6)

28 03

63 11

36 06

09 08

32 06

56 05

62 10

63 11

50 00

15 13

27 02

25 00

92 14

25 00

50 00

85 05

25 00

60 08

02 07

63 11

86 09

28 03

07 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

230

233

235

237

239

243

1056

1064 6. बस्न

177

12/1

12/2 7. हिरके

176

16/1

16/2

5507 (5) (6) (7) 00

51 00

28 00

26 00

50 00

51 00

01 00

75 00

26 00

85 00

30 00

34 00

85 00

09 00

34 00

59 00

08 00

:05

06 00

84 00

25 00

90 00

50 00

80 00

25 00

08 00

75 00

26 00

79 00

91 5508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1 )

6/2

7/1

7/2

19/1

19/2

20/1

20/2

105

12/1

12/2

13/1

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) ] (5) (6) (7)

26 00

09 00

26 00

91 00

32 00

50 00

53 00

60 00

26 00

25 00

84 00

03 00

92 00

51 00

81 00

25 00

67 00

01 00

4 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

105

106

3/1

110

111

8/2

10/1

13/2

18/1

112

119

7/2

126

127

5509 (5) (6)

(7) 00

25 00

15 00

07 00

25 00

14 00

81 00

36 00

25 00

15 00

30 00

02 00

40 00

53 00

57 00

25 00

86 00

85 00

31 00

65 00

53 00

67 00

51 00

25 00

13 00

51 00

01 [ Part II-Scc. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19. 2009 /BHADRA 28. 1931

5510

(6) (7)

(5)

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

132

150

151

403

404

408

136/1

[फा. सं. आर 31015/11/2009 ओ. आर. 11 ।

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th September, 2009

S. O. 2551. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 1303 dated the 12th May 2009 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Productsfrom Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for implementing the "GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " in Tehsil Surdulgarh , District Mansa , in Punjab State;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 25.06.2009 .

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

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

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

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

5511

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

[भाप II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : SARDULGARH

District : MANSA

State : PUNJAB

Area

Nameof Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra/ Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(7 )

(6)

100

02 1. KUSHLA

17/1

17/2/1

17/2/2

18/1

18/2/1

1/1

1/2

10/1

13/1

17/2

18/1/1

18/1/2

18/1/3

18/2

25/1

25/2

1/1

1/2

1/3

3252 G1/09-18 5512

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19. 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

13/1

13/2

5/2

4/1

5/1

5/2

1/2

9/1

10/1

10/2

12/1

12/2

17/1

19/1

118

9/2

(6) (7) (5)

38 00

90 00

01 00

77 00

16 00

25 00

38 00

83 00

78 00

77 00

40 00

25 00

39 00

12.

77 00

91 00

75 00

25 00

66 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

118

12/2

18/1/1

18/2

19/1/2

19/2

24/1

119

6/1

127

128

10/1

10/2

19/1

19/2/2

23/1

24/1

24/2

24/3

146

4/1

209

211

221

5513 (5) (6) (7) 00

27 00

25 00

26 00

39 00

03 00

54 00

01 00

16 00

77 00

28 00

38 00

77 00

12 00

13 00

12 00

56 00

83 00

77 00

75 00

25 00

50 00

28 5514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

(4) (1)

(3)

(2)

653

654

655

656

147

2. JATANA KALAN

11/2

20/1

23/1

23/2

15/1

15/2

[Part II-Sec. 3( ii)]

(6)

(5)

(7)

27 00

75 00

26 00

25 00

09 00

84 00

38 00

25 00

27 00

86 00

55 00

01 00

57 00

03 00

59 00

33 00

60 00

51 00

40 00

16 00

25 00

51 [ भामः II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

6/1

10/1

10/2

19/1

19/2

21/1

17/1

1/1

1/2

2/1

10/1

5515 (5) (6) (7) 00

60 00

90 00

87 00

27 00

01 00

39 00

01 00

33 00

07 00

01 00

89 00

55 00

06 00

65 00

75 00

38. 00

01 00

61 00

90 00

25 00

33 00

81 00

25 00

37 00

78 00

39 00

26 5516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28. 1931

(2)

(1 )

(3)

(4)

11/2

19.

3/1

3/2

4/1

4/2

6/1

6/2

7/1

15/2

15/3

111

13/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ]

(6) (7) (5)

90 00

75 00

61 00

06 00

25 00

30 00

28 00

38 00

25 00

40 00

25 00

39 00

33 00

30 00

55 00

77 00

80 00

09 00

75 00

81 00

25 00

87 00

55 00

62 00

04 00

12 00

25 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र डपतम्बर 19, 2009/ भद्र 28, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

111

112

134

18/1

18/2

148

149

2/1

2/2

9/1

150

9/2

5517 (5) (6) (7) 00

66 00

25 00

87 00

78 00

36 00

55 00

91 00

50 00

89 00

77 00

84 00

57 00

75 00

86 00

04 00

26 00

36 00

55 00

02 00

39 00

56 00

08 00

07 00

25 00

39 00

07 00

25 00

77 00

62 5518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28. 1931

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

150

16/1

151

25/1

25/2

152

162

20/1

20/2

20/3

21/1

21/2

22/1

23/1

24/1

24/2

[Part II-- Sec . 3 ( ii) |

(7) (5) (6)

02 00

90 00

25 00

54 00

65 00

90 00

75 00

85 00

28 00

90 00

33 00

25 00

50 00

54 00

02 00

03 00

08 00

31 00

65 00

12.

75 00

51 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र डपतम्बर 19, 2009/ भद्र 28 , 1931

(1)

(3)

(4)

(2)

163

12/1

12/2

13/1

16/1

16/2

18/1

18/2

19/1

19/2

164

165

215

186

187

1/2

4/2 3252Gl/09-19

5519 (5) (6) (7)

65 00

13 00

01 00

79 00

07 00

50 00

04 00

75 00

36 00

60 00

03 00

65 00

84 00

65 00

25 00

02 00

13 00

08 00

56 00

25 5520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28. 1931

(4) (1)

(2)

(3)

6/2

187

8/1

9/1

188

10/2/1

10/2/2

11/2/1

11/2/2

12/1

12/2

13/1

13/2

14/2/1

14/2/2

16/1

189

190

191

301

320

[Part II--Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (5) (6)

(7)

90 00

06 00

26 00

14 00

25 00

83 00

65 00

25 00

56 00

25 00

39 00

37 00

28 00

77 00

09 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

323

902

904

916

923

941

954

956

958

166

207

21/1/2 3. FATTA MALUKA

21/2/1

208

12/1

12/2

14/2

16/2

209

6/1

6/2

8/1

8/2

5521

(6)

(5)

(7) 00

39 00

02 00

26 00

53 00

50 00

51 00

01 00

79 00

26 00

27 00

13 00

87 00

01 00

27 00

16 00

01 00

57 00

75 00

25 00

85 00

79 00

90 00

14 00

03 00

63 5522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19. 2009 /BHADRA 28. 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2/1

210

3/1

3/2

216

1/1

4/1

6/2

7/1

7/2

217

11/2

12/1

12/2

25/1

25/2

218

21/1

21/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

(6) (7) (5)

81 00

75 00

65 00

84 00

30 00

25 00

90 00

50 00

90 00

07 00

81 00

53 00

25 00

56 00

54 00

50 00

65 00

39 00

50 00

25 00

75 00

80 00

50 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

230

231

232

249

3/1

6/2

14/1

15/1

15/2

250

5523 (6) (7) 08

60 00

25 09

86 03

54 14

16 04

80 00

75 13

15 09

61 03

03 06

57 01

51 13

40 10

62 00

25 12

90 02

78 06

57 13

91 02

78 00

25 08

85 11

13 00

25 02

53 06

83 07

09 5524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 19, 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

250

25/2/1

256

4/1

5/1/1

5/1/2

5/2

296

297

310

315

375

469

495

496

498

1451

167

4. ALIKE

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

(6)

(5)

(7)

25 00

39 00

62 00

25 00

50 00

65 00

50 00

02 00

26 00

50 00

01 00

50 00

04 00

31 00

61 00

84 00

31 00

25 00

90 00

67 00

78 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5525

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19 , 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1.3/1

13/2

107

108

170

5. JHANDOKE

118

119

8/3

10/1

13/1

13/2

14/1

14/2/2

15/2

120

21/1

21/2

23/1

23/2

(6)

(7) (5)

39 00

77 00

08 00

02 00

53 00

56 00

25 00

39 00

01 00.

28 00

61 00

50 00

25 00

40 00

27 00

34. 00

25 00

54 00

04 00

26 5526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

21/1

146

147

25/1

148

4/1

4/2

1/2

151

152

11/2

17/2

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ] (5) (6) (7) 00

78 00

90 00

60 00

57 00

25 00

62 00

63 00

39 00

75 00

53 00

25 00

67 00

79 00

16 00

32 00

25 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

(2)

(3)

(4)

153

169

22/1

1/1

170

8/1

8/2

171

5/1

174

8/1

8/2

175

21/1/1

5527

(7) (5) (6).

75 00

08 00

12 00

06 00

15 00

07 00

12 00

79 00

57 00

00.

09 00

51 00

79 00

02 00

39 00

25 00

01 00

42 00

77 00

12 00

21/1/2

3252G1/09-20

00 5528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 19. 2009 / BHADRA 28 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

182

183

14/1

14/2

188

5/1

189

1/1/2

1/2

8/1

8/2

13/1

13/2

18/1

24/2

192

1/1

193

5 [Part II--Scc . 3( ii) | (6) (7) 03

28 03

63 11

36 06

09 08

32 06

56 10

62 11

63 00

25 00

50 13

15 02

27 00

25 00

92 14

50 00

85 08

81 00

60 08

02 07

59 11

63 09

86 03

07 06 5529

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

230

233

235

237

239

243

1056

1064

177

9 6.BARAN

12/1

12/2

176

7. HIRKE

16/1

16/2

17 (5) (6) (7)

28 00

50 00

01 00

26 00

34 00

85 00

34 00

59 00

08 00

84 00

90 00

50 00

80 00

25 00

08 00

38 00

00 5530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009. BHADRA 28 , 1931

(1 )

(2)

(3)

(4)

6/2

7/1

7/2

19/1

19/2

20/1

20/2

105

12/1

12/2

13/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] (5) (6)

(7) 00

26 00

09 00

32 00

50 00

53 00

26 00

32 00

25 00

84 00

03 00

31 00

92 00

51 00

12 00

81 00

85 00

79 00

25 00

67 00

01 5531

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

105

3/1

106

110

111

8/2

10/1

13/2

18/1

112

119

7/2

00.

126

127

(7) (6)

15 13

07 06

14 12

81 05

61 09

36 09

25 00

15 13

30 02

40 13

53 06

15 13

86 09

85 08

31 12

65 02

67 14

51 01

25 00

51 01

01 01 5532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

132

150

151

403

404

408

136/1

[F. No. R- 31015/11/2009-O.R. - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy

नईदिल्ली, 17 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 2552. केंद्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगांम से कांडला तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक ब्रांच पाईपलाईन बिछाई जानी चाहिये;

और, केंद्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाईपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए ऐसी भूमि जिसके भीतर पाईपलाईन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , के उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है;

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

कोई व्यक्ति जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि से हितबद्ध है , उक्त अधिनियम, की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गयी अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दिये जाने की तारीख से इक्कीस दिनों के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाईपलाईन बिछाने के संबंध में लिखित रूप में आक्षेप , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , 3/122 , गुजरात रिफाइनरी टाउनशिप, पो . ऑ. जवाहरनगर , जिला वडोदरा -391320 , गुजरात, को कर सकेगा । भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5533

अनुसूची

जिला : सुरेद्रनगर

तहसिल का नाम गांव का नाम

राज्य : गुजरात क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे संख्या

3 ध्रांगधा

कंकावटी

82/1

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

6 0

29 0

21 0

71 0

67 0

10 0

38 0

45 0

54 0

02 0

55 0

खुली जगह

257

256

280

277

279

278

43 0

84 0

06 0

05 0

10 0

खुली जगह

526/1

526/2

525 0

खुली जगह

473

474

523

506

507

14 0

71 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28. 1931

5534

509

510

खुली जगह

493

586

587

रोड

594

589

590

रोड

मालनीयाद

हलवद

751

745

750

748

743

रोड

702

698

672

671

634

635

636

630

609

612

611 [भाग 11-3 (ii) ]

5535

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19 , 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

547

548

549

550

551

552

534

रोड

535

537

वेगडवाव

265

मयुरनगर खुली जगह

464

रोड

461

462

450

449

फा. सं. आर-25011/7/2009 ओ.आर. ।।

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 17th September, 2009

S. O. 2552.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Viramgam to Kandla in the State of Gujarat , apipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

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

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to The Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited , 3/122, Gujarat Refinery Township , P.O. Jawaharnagar, Dist . Vadodara-391320 (Gujarat) .

325261709-21 5536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28, 1931

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

State : Gujarat District : Surendranagar

Area

Name of Tahsil Name of Village Survey No.

Are

Hectare

Sq. Mtr.

6 2

29 KANKAVATI

DHRANGADHRA

82/1

OPEN LAND

257

256

280

277

279

278

OPEN LAND

526/1

526/2

525

OPEN LAND

473

474

02 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत काराजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

523

506

507

509

510

5537 5

10 27

15 38

26 23

41 24

OPEN LAND

493

586

0 .

587

ROAD

594

589

590

ROAD.

MALNIYAD

HALVAD

751

745

750

748

743

ROAD

702

698

672

10 00

97 04

03 05

24 00

10 22

25 01

20 01

53 04

76 25

43 30

10 00

37 01

54. 13

69 05

27 78

68 08

94 5538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 1

671

634

635

636

630

609

612

611

547

548

549

550

551

552

534

ROAD

535

537

VEGADVAV

265

MAYURNAGAR OPEN LAND

464

ROAD

461

462

450

449

[F. No. R-25011/7/2009-0.R. - 1 ] B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

5539

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 17 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 2553.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में , तारीख 05 मई , 2005 को भारत के राजपत्र (असाधारण ) में प्रकाशित , भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ० 639(अ) तारीख 25 अप्रैल , 2005 में निम्नलिखित रूप से संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्: -

उक्त अधिसूचना की अनुसूची के स्तम्भ 1 में, " ग्राम- बेलतल (पट्टामुंडई सब- पोस्ट आफिस के पास ) , पोस्ट आफिस- पट्टामुंडई , जिला-केन्द्रापाड़ा (उड़ीसा)" , शब्दों के स्थान पर " 1295 , फारेस्ट पार्क , भुवनेश्वर-751009 (उड़ीसा) , शब्द रखे जाएंगे ।

फा. सं. आर-25011/2/20095-ओ.आर. -1 ] बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th September, 2009

S. O. 2553.In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Govemment of India in the Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 639(E) dated the 25th April , 2005 , published in the Gazette of India ( Extraordinary) on the 05th May , 2005, namely : -

In the said notification , in the Schedule , in column 1 , for the words, " Village- Beltal ( near Sub-Post Office -Pattamundai) , Post Office-Pattamundai , District- Kendrapara (Orissa) " , the words, 1295, Forest Park , Bhubaneswar - 751009 (Orissa) " , shallbe substituted.

[F. No. R-25011/2/2005- O.R. - I ] B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

5540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 19 अगस्त, 2009

2. Case taken up in Lok Adalat . Learned counsel for the workman Shri P. P. Rana today made a statement that the benefits under reference has already been granted to the workman by the order dated 8-8-2009 and as the relief claimed have been given to the workman on the basis of the discussion in the lok adalat , withdraws the present reference in lok adalat . Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record .

Chandigarh

10-8-2009

का.आ. 2554.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नारदर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण I , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 203 से 204/2004 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 19 अगस्त, 2009

[सं. एल-41012/323 से 324/2003- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 19th August , 2009

का.आ. 2555.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नारदर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण । , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 206 से 208/2004) कोप्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/319 से 321/2003 - आई.आर. ( बी -1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी S.O. 2554. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 203 to 204/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 19-8-2009 .

New Delhi , the 19th August , 2009

[No. L-41012/323 to 324/2003 - IR (B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT - I , CHANDIGARH

S.O. 2555.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 206 to 208/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 19-8-2009 .

Case No. I.D. 204/2004

[No. L -41012/319 to 321 /2003 - IR ( B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer Shri Bachhai Ram Worker of Canteen Workshop , Northern Railway, Jagadhari Workshop , Jagadhari .

.....Applicant

ANNEXURE

Versus

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , The Chief Works Manager , Jagadhari Workshop , Northem Railway, Jagadhari .

..... Respondent

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

APPEARANCES

Case No. I.D. 206/2004

Forthe workman : Shri R. P. Rana For the management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

Shri Shyam Lal Worker of Canteen Workshop , Northern Railway , Jagadhari Workshop , Jagadhari .

AWARD

.....Applicant Passed on : 10-8-2009

Versus

The ChiefWorks Manager , Jagadhari Workshop, Northern Railway, Jagadhari .

Central Government vide notification No. L -41012/ 323/2003 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 13-5-2004 has.referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

..... Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman : Shri R. P. Rana For the inanagement: Shri N. K. Zakhmi

"Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway of denial of post of Khalasi to the claimant workman Shri Bachhai Ram is justified ? If not, to whatreliefthe workman is entitled to ? " 5541

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Versus

AWARD

Passed on : 10-8-2009

The Chairman ,

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank ,

Head Office , Dayalband,

Bilaspur (MP)

...Management Central Government vide notification No. L -41012/ 321 /2003 - IR( B - I ) dated 13-5-2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of August , 2009 "Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway ofdenial of post ofKhalasi to the claimant workman Shri Shyam Lal is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to? "

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 12012/166/ 98 - IR ( B - I ) dated 29-1-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :---

2. Case taken up in Lok Adalat . Learned counsel for the workman Shri R. P. Rana today made a statement that the benefits under reference has already been granted to the workman by the order dated 8-8-2009 and as the relief claimed have been given to the workman on the basis of the discussion in the lok adalat , withdraws the present reference in lok adalat . Central Government be informed.

" Whether the action of the management of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri D. Yadav w.e.f. 21-6-97 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman isentitled for?"

Filebe consigned to record .

Chandigarh 10-8-2009

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली , 20 अगस्त, 2009

2. According to the workman/ applicant , he worked as messenger at Basna Branch of Bilaspur - Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank now Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank from 28-11-94 to 21-6-97 and worked continuously without any break for more than 240 days in a calendar year . It is alleged that the payment vouchers were prepared in different names and his signatures were obtained in order to show his break in service . The alleged act of the management was nothing but was unfair labour practice. Hisservice was discontinued w.e.f. 21-6-97 without any notice and without applying the provision of Sec . 25 - F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is submitted that the workman is entitled to reinstatement .

का.आ. 2556.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बिलासपुर रायपुर कसेतरिया ग्रामीण बैंक 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 78/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/166/98- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th August, 2009

3.The non-applicant/ management appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the workman was part time daily rated employee at the Basna Branch of the Bank. It is stated that the said workman worked for 190 days from 28-11-94 to 1-3-97 and had never worked 240 days in a calendar year. He was engaged on contract basis and the provision of Sec . - 2 (oo) (bb) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 was applicable in his case . The provision of Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act 1947 was not applicable in his case . His appointment was not according to recruitment rules. On these grounds , the reference be answered in favour of the management .

S.O. 2556.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/99 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 20-8-2009 .

4. The workman/ applicant absented and therefore the reference proceeded exparte against him from 28-6-2007.

[No. L- 12012/ 166/98-1R (B-I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

5. The management filed petition and also submitted that the non -applicant does not want to adduce any evidence and no dispute award be passed .

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/78/99

6. On perusal of the record, it is clear that none of the parties want to proceed with the case and therefore it is futile to keep the proceeding pending .

PresidingOfficer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan

7. Inthe result, no dispute award is passed without costs .

Shri Mukesh Kumar Yadav,

S/o Shri Diwakar Yadav, Vill . Khursipar, PO Sirka ,

Thana Basna,

8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment as per rules .

Tehsil Mahasamund ,

...Workman/Union

Mohd . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer Distt . Raipur (CG) 5542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2009

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat the workman withdraw the present reference on the settlement that as and when the vacancy arise in the mess or any vacancy is created, the case of the workman Shri Baldev Singh for his appointment will be taken on priority . In view of the above settlement , the present reference is disposed off as settled . Central Government be informed . File be consigned.

Chandigarh

का.आ. 2557.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1278/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/ 136/2005- आईआर ( सीएम-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st August , 2009

S.O. 2557. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.1278 / 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009 .

[No. L-42012/ 136/2005 - IR ( CM - II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 1278/2006

Shri Baldev Singh , S/o Sh . Bhura Singh , C/ o Trade Union Council , Patiala, Punjab

.....Applicant

Versus

The Principal , Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Longowal , Distt . Sangrur .

.....Respondent APPEARANCES

For the Workman : Workman in person

For the Management : Shri D. R. Sharma alongwith

Smt. Harjit Kaur

AWARD

Passed on : 23-7-09

The Central Government vide notification No. L-42012/ 136/2005- IR ( CM - II ) dated 27-7-2006 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in terminating the services of Sh . Baldev Singh , Ex - helper w.e.f 6-9-2003 without complying with the provisions of Section 25 F, G & H of the 1. D. Act is legal and justified ? If not, to whatrelief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"

23-7-2009

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2558.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/73/2003- आईआर ( सीएम-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st August , 2009

S.O. 2558. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.8 /2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No. L-22012/73 /2003 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT , 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I. D. 8/2004

Shri Tara Maish , S/ o Sh . Balal Maish , R/ o Quarter No. 81 , Shanti Nagar , Ferozepur City , Ferozepur

..... Applicant

Versus

1. The District Manager , Food Corporation of India , Bus Stand Road , Ferozepur Cantt . Ferozepur .

2. The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India , SCO 356-59 , Sector - 34/A , Chandigarh .

..... Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Shri B. N. Shegal

For the management: Shri Parminder Singh Advocate 5543 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

APPEARANCES

AWARD Passed on : 10-8-09

For the workman : Workman in person

For the management : Shri Rajesh Garg with Shri Subhash Bhatia

The Central Government vide notification No. L- 22012/73 /2003 - IR (CM - II ) dated 30-1-2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

AWARD

Passed on : 31-7-09

" Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Ferozepur Cant. , in terminating the services of Sh . Tara Maish , ancillary labour w.e.f. 30-6-99 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? "

The Central Government vide notification No. L - 42012/222/2003 (IR) ( CM - II ) dated 4-10-2004 has referred thefollowingdispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of PGI , Chandigarh in removing Shri Maya Ram, FielfAsstt . From services w.e.f 8-6-89 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 2. Shri B. N. Shegal appeared for the workman and made a statement that workman does not want to pursue with the present reference and same may be returned as withdrawn . In view of the statement of the representative of the workman the present reference is return to the Central Government as withdrawn . Central Government be informed. File be consigned .

Chandigarh 10-8-2009

G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2009

2. Case taken up in Lok Adalat. It is settled in Lok Adalat that the workman is withdrawing the present reference on the assurance of the management that they willhonour thejudgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 4-4-91 . In view of the above settiement the reference is disposed off as settled . Central Government be informed. File be consigned.

Chandigarh

31-7-2009

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer का.आ. 2559.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं पी.जी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , । चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 300/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

[सं. एल -42012/222/2003- आईआर( सीएम -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st August , 2009

का.आ. 2560.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सपाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं.। , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

S.O. 2559.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industriai Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 300/2004) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunai - cum -Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industriai Dispute between the management of PGI and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[सं. एल -11012/50/2006- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लंता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009.

[No. L-42012/222/2003-1R (CM- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. 1. D. 300/2004

Shri Maya Ram , S/o Sh . Ram Sarup, VPO Muzefat Kalan , Teshil- Chhachhrauli ,

S.O. 2560. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.45/2006 ). of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunai - cum- Labour Court, No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employersin reiation tothemanagement ofM/s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on21-8-2009.

..... Applicant

Distt. Yamuna Nagar, (Haryana) .

Versus

[No. L- 11012/50/2006- IR (C -4 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

..... Respondent

TheDirector , PGI , Sector - 12 , Chandigarh.

3252G1/09-22 5544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT No. I, NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DELHI I.D. No. 45/2006

Shri Dharambir S/ o Sh . Sadhuram , Through Shri P. L. Srivastava, C. B. -280 , Ring Road , Naraina , New Delhi - 110028 .

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager ,

M/s. Spice Jet Ltd. , Pt. No. 319 , Phase - IV , Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon , Haryana , Gurgaon .

...Management

AWARD

Shri Dharambir was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know - how being provided by M/s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General ofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Dharambir came to an end .

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Ram Pal before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed . Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L - 11012 /50 /2006 ( IR) ( CM - I ) dated 28-8-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms ofreference :

"Whether the action of the Management of Modiluft/ Royal Airways /Spicejet Ltd. , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Dharambir , S/o Sh . Sadhuram w.e.f. 1-1-02 is just, fair and legal ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date? "

3. Shri Dharambir was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement, with relevant documents , before this Tribunal with 15 days from the receipt of reference order . The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06. The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Govemment.

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 27-5-09 . Notice sent to the workman was received back with the report that the house in question was lying locked for last so many days . Consequently a fresh notice was issued to be served on the workman , to file his claim statement by 23-6-09 .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5. Notice was sent to the workman by registered post. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P. L. Srivastava, r/ o CB 280 Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Ram Pal was residing atthe given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good . He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman .

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96, workman ceased to be in the employment ofModiluft, Ltd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the company was in operative between 96 to May, 2005, there was no question of employing/terminating the services of theworkman in the year 2001-2002 . Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permitby the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005, consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Dharambir, were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Dharambir came to an end on 19-11-96 , whenpermit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand, the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94 , its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services ( Passenger) dated 9-5-06, copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name, Documents referred above , lands support to the facts pleaded by the management .

7.As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind . Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Shri Dharambir , on 19-11-96 , on account of non - renewal of permitto operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to theappropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 10-7-2009

DR . R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer 5545 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भांद्र 28 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

2.An industrial dispute was raised by Pawan Kumar Gupta before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed . Approprlate Government vide its Order No.L - 11012/51 /2006( IR) (CM - I) dated 28-8-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with followingterms of reference:

का.आ. 2561.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं .1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

" Whether the action of the Management of Modiluft/ Royal Airways/ Spice Jet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta S/o Shri PremGupta w.e.f. 1-1-02 isjust, fair and legal? Ifnot, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date ?"

[सं. एल -11012/51/2006- आईआर( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

3. Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents , before this Tribunal with 15 days from the receipt ofreference order. The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government.

S.O. 2561.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/2006) of the Central . Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009 .

[No. L- 11012/51/2006- IR (C- I) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman, in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 21-11-06. Shri Ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement . Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07 . Thercafter several opportunities were given , but claim statement was not filed . From 28th January, 2008 till April , 2009 there was no presiding Officer in the Tribunal .

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT No. I, NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DELHI

I.D. No. 63/2006

Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta S /o Sh . PremGupta, C/ o Piyare Lal Srivastava, Bhartiya Mazdoor Union (Regd .) , C. B. -280 , Ring Road, Naraina ,

...Workman

New Delhi - 110028 .

Versus

M/s. Spice JetLtd. , CargoComplex, IGI Airport Terminal - I , NewDelhi -37

...Management

5. A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim statement. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava, r/o CB 280 Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Pawan KumarGupta s/ o Shri Prem Gupta was residing at the given address. Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good . He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal, from the workman.

AWARD

Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta was working inModiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know-how being provided by M/s. Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations, services of Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta came to an end.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand , the management filed copy ofpermit dated 20-11-94 , its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolutiondated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06 , copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name , Documents referred above , lands support to the facts pleadedby the management .

7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation, it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application ofanymind. Justifiability lies in the action ofthe management in dispensing with the services of Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta on 19-11-96 , on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly . It be sentto the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 30-6-09

DR. R. K. YADAV , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2562.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सपाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं.1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 62/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/43/2006- आई. आर. (सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2562.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.62/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1 , NewDelhi now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii )] of M/s. Spicejet Ltd. and their workman , which was received bythe CentralGovernment on 21-8-2009.

No. L- 11012/43 /2006- IR ( C - I ) ]

[ SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . I, NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DELHI 1.D. No. 62/2006

Shri Dhan Singh S/o Shri Gyan Singh ,

C/o Piyare Lal Srivastava ,

Bhartiya Mazdoor Union (Regd. ) ,

C. B. -280 , Ring Road , Naraina ,

New Delhi - 110028 .

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager ,

SpicejetLtd.,

Pl . No. 319 , Phase - IV , Udyog Vihar ,

Gurgaon , Haryana .

...Management

AWARD

Shri Dhan Singh was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know -how being provided by M/ s . Lufthansa . In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Dhan Singh came to an end.

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Dhan Singh S/ o . Shri Gyan Singh before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed. Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L - 11012/43 / 2006 ( IR) ( CM - 1) dated 28-8-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

Whether the action of the Management of Modiluft/ Royal Airways /Spicejet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Dhan Singh S /o Shri Gyan Singh w.e.f. 1-1-02 is just , fair and legal ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date ? "

3. Shri Dhan Singh was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents, before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt of reference order. The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government .

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government, notice was sent to him for filing claim statement.On 21-11-06 Shri Ravinder Singh appeared onbehalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement . Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07. Thereafter several opportunities were given, but claim statementwas not filed. From 28th January, 2008 till April , 2009 there was no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal .

5. A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim statement . It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava , r/ o CB 280 , Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Govemment in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Dhan Singh S/o Shri Gyan Singh was residing at the given address . Consequently, it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good. He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman.

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96 , workman ceased to be in the employment of Modiluft , Ltd. Airline business was not doneby the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again. It has been claimed that since the company was in operative between 96 toMay, 2005, there was no question of employing/ terminating the services ofthe workman in the year 2001-2002 . Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name ofthe Spicejet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue ofnew permit bythe Director General, Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spicejet Limited came into existence w.e. f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Dhan Singh S / o Gyan Singh were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Dhan Singh came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002. To substantiate their stand, the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06, copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name, Documents referred above, lands support to the facts pleaded by the management .

5547 7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind . Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services. of Shri Dhan Singh S/o Shri Gyan Singh on 19-11-96, on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled AirTransport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly . It be sent to the appropriate Govemment for publication . Dated: 30-6-09

DR. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2563.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं.1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/25/2006- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2563.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.51/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, No.1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Govemment on 21-8-2009 .

[No. L - 11012/25/2006- IR (C- 1 )] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT NO . 1 , NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX , DELHI

I.D. No. 51/2006

..Workman Shri Phool Kumar S /o Shri Pooran Lal , C/o Piyare Lal Srivastava, Bhartiya Mazdoor Union (Regd. ) , C: B. -280, Ring Road , Naraina , New Delhi - 110028 .

5548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

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

Spicejet Ltd. ,

Cargo Complex,

IGI Airport Terminal- I ,

New Delhi -37 .

...Management

AWARD

the report that no such person with the name of Shri Phool Kumar S/ o Shri Pooran Lal was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good . He opted not to informs this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal, from the workman .

Shri Phool Kumar S/ o Pooran Lal was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know-how being provided by M/s . Lufthansa . In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Phool Kumar came to an end.

2.An industrial dispute was raised by Phool Kumar S/ o . Shri Pooran Lal before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed .Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L - 11012/ 25 / 2006 - IR ( CM - I ) dated 28-8-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference :

"Whether the action of the Management of Modiluft/Royal Airways /Spicejet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Phool Kumar S/ o Shri Pooran Lal w.e.f. 1-11-02 is just , fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date? "

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96 , workman ceased to be in the employment ofModiluft, Ltd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the company was in operative between 96 to May , 2005 , there was no question of empolying/ terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001-2002. Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spicejet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permitby the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spicejet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Phool Kumar were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Phool Kumar S/o Pooran Lal came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand , the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services ( Passenger ) dated 9-5-06 , copy of news letter of Spicejet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name, Documents referred above , lands support to the facts pleaded by the management .

3. Shri Phool Kumar S/ o Pooran Lal was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents , before this Tribunal with 15 days from the receipt of reference order. The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06. The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal, in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government.

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman, in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 21-11-06 . Shri Ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement . Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07. Thereafter several opportunities were given , but claim statement was not filed . From 28th January, 2008 till April , 2009 there was no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal .

7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permitto operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical, without application of any mind . Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Shri Phool Kumar S/ o . Shri Pooran Lal on 19-11-96 , on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 30-6-09

DR . R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer 5. A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim statement. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.LL. Srivastava , R/ o CB 280 Ring Road , Naraina , New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with 5549

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नईदिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Devender Singh S/ o. Shri Chattar Singh before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceedings failed. Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L - 11012/ 52 /2006 - IR (CM- I) dated 28-8-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

का.आ. 2564.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा -17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . सपाइस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 64/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/52/2006- आई.आर. ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the Management of Modiluft/RoyalAirways/Spicejet Ltd., in terminating the services of Shri Devender Singh S /o Shri Chattar Singh w.e.f. 1-1-02 is just , fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

3. Shri Devender Singh was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents , before this Tribunal within 15 days fromthe receipt of reference order. The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriateGovernment.

S.O: 2564.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.64/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , No.1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No. L- 11012/52/2006- IR (C- I) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in pursuance of directions issuedby the appropriate Government, notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 21-11-06 . Shri Ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement . Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07 . Thereafter several opportunities were given , but claim statement was not filed . From 28th January , 2008 till April , 2009 there was no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal .

ANNEXURE BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT NO . I, NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI I.D. No. 64/2006

Shri Devender Singh S /o Shri Chattar Singh , C/ o Piyare Lal Srivastava, Bhartiya Mazdoor Union ( Regd . ) , C. B. -280, Ring Road, Naraina,

New Delhi - 110028 .

...Workman

Versus

Spice Jet Ltd. , Cargo Complex, İGI Airport Terminal - I , New Delhi -37.

...Management

AWARD

5.A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim statement . It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava , r/o CB 280 Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Devender Singh S/ o Shri Chattar Singh was residing atthe given address . Consequently it became evident that theworkmanhas left the given address for good . He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman.

Shri Devender Singh S/ o Shri Chattar Singh was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was , issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation. It was functioning with the support of technical know-how being provided by M/s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement,between Modiluft Ltd. and M/s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Devender Singh came to an end .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28, 1931

Limited on 23-5-05, after issue of new permit by the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05. Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Devender Singh were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002. Since services of Shri Devender Singh came to an end on 19-11-96 , when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand , the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy ofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services ( Passenger) dated 9-5-06, copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change ofname , Documents referred above , lands support to the facts pleaded by the management .

7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General, Civil Aviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind . Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Shri Devender Singh S / o . Shri Chattar Singh on 19-11-96, on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 30-6-09

DR. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2565.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सपाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-08-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/49/2006- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009

S.O. 2565. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44 / 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 ,New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] the management of M/ s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-09 . [No. L- 11012/49/2006- IR(C- I ) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . I , NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI 1.D. NO . 44/2006

Shri Mahender , Through Shri P.L. Srivastava , C.B. - 280 , Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi- 110028 .

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager ,

M/ sSpice Jet Ltd. , Pt . No. 319 , Phase-IV , Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon , Haryana, Gurgaon .

... Management .

AWARD

Shri Mahender was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94 , when air transport service permit was issue to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know-how being provided by M/s Lufthansa . In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M / s Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 ariline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence. On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Ram Pal came to an end .

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Ram Pal before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceeding failed . Appropriate Government vide its OrderNo.L- 11012 /49 / 2006 - IR ( CM - I ) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the management of Modiluft/ RoyalAirways /Spicejet Ltd. New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Mahender , w.e.f. 15-10-02 is just fair and legal? If not , to what relif is the concerned workman entitled and from what date?

3. Shri Mahener was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents , before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt of reference order . The aforsaid reference was made by the appropriate Governement on 28-8-06 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government .

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing clain statement on 27-5-09 . Notice sent to the workman was received back with the report that the house in question was lying locked for last so many days . Consequently a fresh notice was issued to be served on theworkman , to file his claim statement by 23-6-09 .

5551 [भात -खण्ड 3( ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.अ. 2566.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सपाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण /श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-08-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था। 1

[सं. एल-11012/38/2007-आई आर (सी-1 ) ] 5. Notice was sent to the workman by registered post. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava, R/ o CB 280 Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order ofreference. On this very address noticewas sent. It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Mahender was residing at the given address.Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good.He opted not to inform thisTribunal about change ofhis residential address. Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal, from the workman.

स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2566.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 37/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman , whichwas received by the Contral Government on 21-8-09 .

[No. L- 11012/38/2007-IR(C-1)]

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. NO. 37/2006

Shri Ashok Kumar,

Through Shri P.L. Srivastava, C.B. -280, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi- 110028 . ...Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

M/sSpice Jet Ltd., Pt .No. 319, Phase-IV Udyog Vihar ,Gurgaon, Haryana,

6. The management filed its reply to the term of referencepleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96 , workman ceased to be in the employment of Modiluft . Ltd. Airline business was not doneby the management till 23-5-05, the date when airline operations commenced again. It has been claimed that sincethe company was inoperative between 96 to May, 2005,therewas no question of employing/terminatingthe services oftheworkman in the year 2001-2002. Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name ofthe Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05, after issue of new permit by the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05. Spicejet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005, consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under these circumstances, there is no substance in the proposition thatservices ofShri Mahender , were dispensed with w.e.f. 15-10-02. Since services of Shri Mahender came to an end on19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation, in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 15-10-02 . To substantiate their stand, the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06, copy of news letter ofSpiceJet and copyoffresh certificate of incorporation, consequent upon change of name , Documents referred above, lends support to the facts pleaded by the management.

Management .

AWARD

7.As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that this services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General, Civil Aviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind. Justifiability lies in the action ofthe management in dispensing with the services ofShri Mahender, on 19-11-96 , on account ofnon renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services. Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. Itbe sentto the appropriate Government for publication.

DR. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Shri Ashok Kumar was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was issuedto itbyDirectorGeneral ofCivil Aviation . It was functioning withthe support of technical know-how being provided by M/s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/s . Lufthansa was terminated and DirectorGeneral ofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence. On account of ceasure of airline operations , servicesof Shri Ashok Kumar came to an end.

Dated: 10-7-09

3252G1/09-23 5552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 2.An industrial dispute was raised by Ashok Kumar before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceeding failed. Appropriate Government vide its OrderNo.L- 11012/ 38/2007 - IR ( CM - I ) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the management ofModiluft/ RoyalAirways / Spicejet Ltd. New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar w.e.f. 01-01-2002 is just, fair and legal? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?

proposition that services of Shri Ashok Kumar , were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002. Since services of Shri Ashok Kumar came to an end on 19-11-96 , when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand, the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94 , its renewal dated 17-11-95, copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Econmic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copyofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06 , copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name, Documents referred above , lends support to the facts pleaded by the management .

3. Shri Ashok Kumar was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents , before this Tribunal within 15 days fromthe receipt of reference order . The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Governement on 18-2-08. The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government .

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in pursuance ofdirections issued by the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 27-5-09 . Notice sent to the workman was received back with the report that the house in question was lying locked for last so many days . Consequently a fresh notice was issued to be served on the workman , to file his claim statement by 23-6-09 .

7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind . Justifiablity lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Shri Ashok Kumar on 19-11-96 on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

DR. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 10-7-09

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

5.Notice was sent to the workman by registered post . It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava , r /o CB 280 , Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government inthe order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Ashok Kumar was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workkman has left the given address for good .He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change ofhis residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal from the workman .

का.आ. 2567.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं-1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-08-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/35/2006- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2567. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2006 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman , whichwas received by the Central Government on 21-8-09 .

[No. L- 11012/35/2006- IR(C - 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer 6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96 , workman ceased to be in the employment ofModiluft Ltd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05, the date when airline operations commmenced again. It has been claimed that since the companywas inoperative between 96 to May, 2005 , there wasno question of employing/terminating the services of theworkman in the year 2001-2002 . Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permit by the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jét Limited came into existence w.e.f.23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the 5553 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र ; सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28; 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT NO. I, NEW

DELHI, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. NO . 36/2006

Shri Gajender Singh ,

...Workman

Through Shri P.L. Srivastava, C.B. -280 , Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi- 110028 .

Versus

5.Noticewas sent to the workman by registered post. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava, R/ o CB 280 , Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi , which addresswas provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference. On this very address notice was sent. It was received back with the report that no such personwiththe name of Shri Gajender Singh was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workmanhas left the given address for good. He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address. Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman .

The General Manager ,

M/sSpice Jet Ltd. , Pt.No. 319, Phase-IV Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon, Haryana .

...Management .

AWARD

Shri Gajender Singh was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became Scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service was issued to it by DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know-how being provided by M/ s Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/ s Lufthansa was terminated and DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Gajender Singh came to an end .

2.An industrial dispute was raisedby Gajender Singh before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceeding failed. Appropriate Government vide its OrderNo.L- 11012/ 35/2006 - IR( CM - 1 ) dated 28-08-2006 has referred thedispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the management of Modiluft/ RoyalAirways/Spicejet Ltd. New Delhi in terminating the services ofShri Gajender Singh w.e.f. 01-01-2002 is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date ?

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96 , workman ceased tobe in the employment ofModiluft. Ltd .. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05, the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the company was inoperative between 96 to May, 2005,there was no question of emplying/ terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001-2002 . Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05, after issue ofnew permit by the Director General ,Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existencew.e.f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Gajender Singh were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of ShriGajender Singh came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1- 2002.To substantiate their stand, the management filed copy ofpermit dated20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photocopy of news item appearing in Econmic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copyofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06; copy of news letter of Spicejet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name, Documents referred above, lends support to the facts pleaded by the management .

3. Shri Gajender Singh was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement, with relevant documents , before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt ofreference order . The aforesaid reference wasmade by the appropriate Government on 18-2-08 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government .

7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation, it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application ofanymind. Justifiablity lies in the action ofthe management indispensing with the services of Shri Gajender Singh on 19-11-96 on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriateGovernment for publication .

DR. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer 4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman, in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 27-5-09 . Notice sent to the workman was received back with the report that the house in question was lying locked for last so manay days . Consequently a fresh notice was issued to be served on the workman , to file his claim statement by 23-6-09 .

Dated: 10-7-09

5554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART I-Sec. 3(ii) ] नईदिल्ली , 26 अगस्त , 2009

45/2006 - IR(CM -I ) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the Management ofModiluft/ RoyalAirways/Spicejet Ltd. New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Satvir Chand , S/ o Sh.Jai Singh w.e.f. 01-01-2002 isjust fair and legal? Ifnot , to what relif is the concerned workman entitled and from what date?"

का.आ. 2568. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सपाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं-1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-08-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -11012/45/2006- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the26th August, 2009

3. Shri Satvir Chand was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement, with relevant documents , before this Tribunal within 15days from the receipt of reference order . The aforsaid reference was made by the appropriate Governement on 18-2-08 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before thisTribunal, in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government .

S.O. 2568.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 40/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto themanagement of M/s Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 21-8-09.

[No. L- 11012/45/2006- IR(C- I) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 27-5-09 . Notice sent to the workman was received back with the report that the house in question was lying locked for last so manay days . Consequently a fresh notice was issued to be served on the workman , to file his claim statementby 23-6-09 .

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL--CUM- LABOUR COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. NO. 40/2006

Shri Satvir Chand S/ o Sh . Jai Singh Through Shri P.L. Srivastava, C.B. -280 , Ring Road,

...Workman

Naraina, New Delhi- 110028.

Versus

The General Manager ,

5.Notice was sent to the workman by registered post. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava , R/ o CB 280, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Satvir Chand was residing at the given address , Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good. He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change ofhisresidential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman.

M/sSpice Jet . , Ltd. , Pt. No. 319, Phase-IV Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon , Haryana, Gurgaon .

Management.

AWARD

Shri Satvir Chand was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94 , when air transport service permit was issued to itbyDrector General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know -how being provided by M/s Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/s Lufthansa was terminated and Director General ofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Satvir Chand came to an end .

2.An industrial dispute was raised by Satvir Chand before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceeding failed. Appropriate Government vide its OrderNo.L- 11012/

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. L, NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. NO . 41/2006

Shri Ram Pal S/o Shri Girdhari Lal ,

Through Shri P.L. Srivastava, C.B. -280, Ring Road,

... Workman

Naraina, New Delhi- 110028 .

Versus

The General Manager,

scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand, the management filed copyofpermitdated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95, copy ofresolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy ofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services(Passenger) dated 9-5-06, copy ofnews letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation, consequent upon change of name , Documents referred above , lends support to the facts pleaded by the management .

M/sSpice Jet. , Ltd. , Pt.No. 319, Phase-IV Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon , Haryana , Gurgaon.

Management.

AWARD

7.As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , CivilAviation, it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical, without application of any mind. Justifiablity lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Shri Satvir Chand on 19-11-96 on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Shri Ram Pal S/o Shri Girhari Lal was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was issued to it by Drector General of Civil Aviation . It was functioningwith the support of technical know-how being providedby M/s Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement betweenModiluft Ltd. and M/ s Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations, services of Shri Ram Pal came to an end.

DR. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 10-7-09

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

2.An industrial dispute was raised by Ram Pal before theConciliation Officer. Conciliation proceedings failed. AppropriateGovernment vide its Order No.L- 11012/46/ 2006 -IR(CM- 1 ) dated 28-08-2006 has referred thedispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

का.आ. 2569. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सपाईस बेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं-1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 41/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-08-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of Modiluft/ Royal Airways / Spicejet Ltd. , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Ram Pal , S/ e Sh.Girdhari Lal w.e.f. 01-01-2002 isjust, fair and legal? Ifnot, towhat relif is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

[सं. एल -11012/46/2006- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August ,2009

3. Shri Ram Pal was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents, before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt ofreference order. The aforsaid reference wasmade bythe appropriate Governement on 18-2-08. The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government.

S.O. 2569. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41 / 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No.1 ,New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement ofM/s Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman, whichwas receivedby the Central Government on 21-8-09.

[No. L- 11012/46/2006- IR(C-1) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriateGovernment , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 27-5-09 . Notice sent to the workman was received back with the report that the house in question was lying locked for last so manay days . Consequently a fresh notice was issued to be served on theworkman , to file his claim statementby 23-6-09.

5556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 19, 2009 / BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART 11-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2570.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-08-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/56/2006- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] 5.Notice was sent to the workmanby registered post . It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava , r/o CB 280, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that nosuch person with the name of Shri Ram Pal was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good. He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman .

स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2570.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 46/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spicejet Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-09 .

No. L- 11012/56/2006- IR(C- 1 ) ]

[ SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV , PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR, COURT, NO . I , NEW DELHI , KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX , DELHI

I.D. NO . 46/2006

Shri Bhagwan Swarup , Through Shri P.L. Srivastava , C.B. - 280, Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi -110028 .

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager ,

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96, workman ceased to be in the employment of Modiluft Ltd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the companywas inoperative between 96 to May, 2005, there was no question of emplying/terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001-2002. Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05, after issue of new permit by the Director General,Civil Aviation on 17-5-05. Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f.23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management. It has been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Ram Pal were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Ram Pal came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation, in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . Το substantiate their stand, the management filed copy of permit dated20-11-94 , its renewal dated 17-11-95, copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Econmic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copyofpermitto operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06 , copy of news letter of Spicejet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name , Documents referred above, lends support to the facts pleaded by the management .

M/s. Spice JetLtd. , Pt . No. 319 , Phase- IV Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon , Haryana, Gurgaon .

...Management .

AWARD

7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 wben permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind. Justifiablity lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Shri Ram Pal on 19-11-96 on account ofnon renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

DR. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 10-7-09

Shri Bhagwan Swarup was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was issued to itby Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know - how being provided by M/s . Lufthansa . In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/ s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Bhagwan Swarup came to an end .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5557

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Bhagwan Swarup before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceeding failed. Appropriate Government vide its Order No. L- 11012/ 56/2006 - IR( CM - I) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with followingterms of reference:

"Whether the action of the management ofModiluft/ Royal Airways/Spice Jet Ltd. , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Bhagwan Swarup , w.e.f. 01-01-2002 is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relif is the concerned workman entitled and from what date?"

under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Bhagwan Swarup were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Bhagwan Swarup came to an end on 19-11-96 , when permit tooperate scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation, in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002. To substantiate their stand, the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copyofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06, copy of news letter ofSpicejet and copyof fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name, Documents referred above, lends support to the facts pleaded by the management.

3. Shri Bhagwan Swarup was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement, with relevant documents, before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt ofreference order . The aforesaid reference wasmade by the appropriate Governement on 28-8-2006. The workman opted not to file a claim statement before thisTribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government .

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman, in pursuance ofdirections issuedby the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 27-5-09 . Notice sent to the workman was received back with the report that the house in question was lying locked for last so many days . Consequently a fresh notice was issued to be served on the workman, to file his claim statement by 23-6-09.

7. Asthe workmari opted not to file claim statement and inanagement projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , CivilAviation, it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind. Justifiablity lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Shri Bhagwan Swarup on19-11-96 on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

DR . R.K. YADAV , Presiding Officer

Dated: 10-7-09

नईदिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2571, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं-1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था। 5.Noticewas sent to the workman by registered post. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava, R/o CB 280 , Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference. On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Bhagwan Swarup was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good .He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman.

[सं. एल -11012/57/2006- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O..2571 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 47/ 2006) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Spice Jet Ltd. and their workınan, whichwas received by the Central Governinent on 21-8-09.

[No. L - 11012 /57/2006- IR(C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer 5558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

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

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURTNO . I, NEW DELHI ,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

appropriate Government, notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 27-5-2009 . Notice sent to the workman was received back with the report that the house in question was lying locked for last so many days . Consequently a fresh notice was issued to be served on the workman, to file his claim statement by 23-6-09 .

I. D. No. 47/2006

Shri Dharam Singh S/ o Sh . Daya Nand, Through Shri P.L. Srivastava, C.B. -280, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi - 110028 . ...Workman

Versus

The General Manager ,

M/sSpicejet Ltd. , Pt . No. 319 , Phase - IV Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon , Haryana .

Management

AWARD

5. Notice was sent to the workman by registered post. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava, R/ o CB -280 Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Dharam Singh was residing at the given address. Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good .He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change ofhis residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman .

Shri Dharam Singh was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when Air Transport Service permit was issue to itby Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know- how being provided by M/ s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 ariline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Dharam Singh came to an end.

2.An industrial dispute was raised by Shri Dharam Singh before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceeding failed. Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L- 11012/ 57 /2006 -IR(CM-I ) dated 28-8-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference :

"Whether the action of the management of Modiluft/ Royal Airways / Spice Jet Ltd. New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Dharam Singh ,w.e.f. 1-1-2002 is justified and legal? Ifnot, to what relif is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reterence, pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-996 , workman ceased to be in the employment of Modiluft . Ltd .. Airline business was not doneby the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again. It has been claimed that since the company was inoperative between 96 to May , 2005, there was no question of employing/ terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001-2002 . Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permitby the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005, consequent to the change in the name of the management . Ithas been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Dharam Singh , were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Dharam Singh , came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand , the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photocopy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 photocopy of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services ( Passenger) dated 9-5-06 , copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name . Documents referred above, lends support to the facts pleaded by the management .

3. Shri Dharam Singh was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement, with relevant documents before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt of reference order . The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government.

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman, in pursuance of directions issued by the

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

application of any mind. Justifiablity lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Shri Dharam Singh on19-11-96 on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

with the support of technical know-how being provided by M/ s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/ s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General ofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence. On account of ceasure of airline operations, services of Shri Anand Kumar came to an end .

DR. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 10-7-09

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

2.An industrial dispute was raised by Anand Kumar before theConciliation Officer . Conciliation proceeding failed.Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L- 11012/ 34/2006 - IR( CM - I) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

का.आ. 2572.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-08-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management ofModiluft/ Royal Airways /Spice Jet Ltd. , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Anand Kumar w.e.f. 01-01-2002 is just fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

[सं. एल -11012/34/2006- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

3. Shri Anand Kumar was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement,with relevant documents before this Tribunal within 15 days fromthe receipt of reference order. The aforesaid reference wasmade by the appropriate Government on 18-2-08. The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government .

S.O. 2572. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1 ,New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-09 .

[No. L- 11012/34/2006- IR(C-I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman, in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government, notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 27-5-09 . Notice sent to the workman was received back with the report that the house in question was lying locked for last so many days . Consequently , a fresh notice was issued to be served on theworkman , to file his claim statement by 23-6-09.

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NO . I, NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I. D. No. 35/2006

Shri Anand Kumar ,

Through Shri P.L. Srivastava , C.B. - 280 , Ring Road,

...Workman

Naraina, New Delhi - 110028 .

Versus

The General Manager ,

M/s . Spice Jet Ltd. , Pt . No. 319, Phase-IV

Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon, Haryana ,

...Management

Gurgaon

5. Notice was sent to the workman by registered post. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava, R/o CB 280 , Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government inthe order of reference. On this very address notice was sent. It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Anand Kumar was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good. He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change ofhis residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman .

AWARD

3252G1/0924 5560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931,

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2573. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.38/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spicejet Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-09 .

[No. L - 11012/39/2006- IR(C- I ) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . 1 , NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX , DELIII

I. D. NO . 38/2006

Shri Vijay Singh , Through Shri P.L. Srivastava , C.B. -280 , Ring Road ,

...Workman

Naraina , NewDelhi - 110028 .

Versus

operations commenced again. It has been claimed that since the company was inoperative between 1996 toMay, 2005, there was no question of employing/ terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001-02 . Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permitby the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005, consequent to the change in the name of the management . Ithasbeen projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Anand Kumar , were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002. Since services of Shri Anand Kumar came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation, in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand, the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 photo copy ofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services ( Passenger) dated 9-5-06, copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name . Documents referred above , lands support to the facts pleaded by the management.

The General Manager ,

M/s . Spicejet , Ltd. , Pt .No. 319 , Phase -IV

Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon , Haryana ,

... Managciment

Gurgaon.

AWARD

7.As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permitto operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , CivilAviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind . Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Shri Anand Kumar on 19-11-96 on account ofnon renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

DR . R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 10-7-09

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

Shri Vijay Singh was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94 , when air transport service permit was issue to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know- how being provided by M/s . Lufthansa . In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 ariline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Vijay Singh came to an end .

2.An industrial dispute was raisedby Vijay Singh before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceeding failed.AppropriateGovernment vide its Order No. L- 11012/ 39/2006 - IR( CM - I ) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

का.आ. 2573.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . सपाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण / श्रम न्यायालय सं-1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 38/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/39/2006- आई आर (सी- I ) ]

"Whether the action of the management of Modilust/ Royal Airways/ Spice Jet Ltd. New Delhi in dismissing the services of Shri Vijay Singh w.c.f. 1-1-2002 is justified and legal ? If not , to what relif is the concerned workman entitled and from what date ? " स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी 5561 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

3. Shri Vijay Singh was instructed bythe appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt of reference order . The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06. The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriateGovernment .

7.As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation, it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind . Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Shri Vijay Singh on19-11-96 on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriateGovernment for publication.

Dated: 10-7-09 DR . R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer 4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman, in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriateGovernment, notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 27-5-09 . Notice sent to the workman was received back with the report that the house in question was lying locked for last se many days . Consequently a fresh notice was issued to be served on the workman, to file his claim statement by 23-6-09 .

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2574.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण / श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1324/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

5.Notice was sent to the workman by registered post. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava, r/ o CB 280 Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent. It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Vijay Singh was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good.He optedopted not to inform this Tribunal about change ofhisresidential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal, from the workman.

[सं. एल-12012/123/2006- आई-आर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009

S.O. 2574. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.1324/ 2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab National, Bank and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 25-8-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 123/2006- IR(B -II )] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT- 1 CHANDIGARH

Case I.D. No. 1324/2007

Smt . Pinki , w/o Late Shri Roshan Lal , R/ o H.No. 2420 , Balmiki Basti (Majri ) , Ambala City ..Applicant V/s.

TheRegional Manager , Punjab National Bank , Durga Nagar, Hissar Road, Ambala City. ........ Respondent APPEARANCES

For the Workman : None. For the management : Shri Negi

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference , pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-1996 , workman ceased to be in the employment of Modiluft. Ltd .. Airline business was not doneby the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the company was inoperative between 96 to May, 2005, therewas no question ofemploying/terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001-2002. Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permit by the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . Ithas been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Vijay Singh were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002. Since services of Shri Vijay Singh came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation, in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002. To substantiate their stand , the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95, copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in EconomicTimes issue dated 3-1-2001 photo copy ofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06, copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificateof incorporation , consequent upon change of name. Documents referred above, lends support to the facts pleaded by the management.

5562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

AWARD

Passed on : 11-08-09

Central Government vide notification No. L - 12012/ 123/2006 - IR ( B - II ) Dated 6-7-07 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank , Ambala City in terminating the services of Smt . Pinki Devi W/ o Late Shri Ramesh Lal , Ex -Part time Sweeper on compassionate ground w.e.f. 1-1-2006 without complying with the provisions of Sections 25 - F ,G & H of the I.D. Act, 1947 , is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"

2.None is present on behalf of the workman . Learned representative of the management is present . Workman is not ensuring her presence despite notice . No claim statement has been filed . The reference was referred by the Central Government in the year 2007. Several opportunities have been given to the workman but she is not availing the opportunity of being heard . At this stage , I have no option otherwise then to return the reference for non-prosecution to the Central Government as such . Accordingly, the reference is returned as such . Let the Central Government be informed . File be consigned .

Chandigarh . 11-08-09

G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2575.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण /श्रम न्यायालय नं -1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

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

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- I , CHANDIGARH

Casel.D . No. 16/2004

Smt. Swaran Singh S / o Shri Sohan Lal , R/ o HouseNo. 98, B /6 , New Suraj Gang ( West ) , Jalandhar City - Punjab . --Applicant

Versus

The BranchManager , Bank of Baroda , Nehru Garden Road, Jalandhar (Punjab) -Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : None. Forthe management : Shri B.B. Bagga AWARD

Passed on 12-08-09

Central Government vide notification No. L- 12012/ 208/2003 IR- ( B - II) Dated 30-01-04 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether Shri Swaran Singh S/ o Shri Sohan Lal is workman of Bank of Baroda ? If so whether termination of his services from 05-02-03 without any retrenchment compensation is legal and justified? If not , what relief is he entitled to and from which date ? "

2.None is present for the workman . Learned counsel for the management is present . The case is already five years old . Despite notice the workman has not put up his appearance for his evidence . It appears that workman is not interested to peruse with the present claim in reference . Hence, the present claim in the reference is returned to the Central Government as such for want of non- prosecution . Central Government be informed. File be consigned.

Chandigarh .

12-08-09

Officer

[सं. एल -12012/208/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2575.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which wasreceived by the Central Government on 25-8-2009.

[No. L- 12012/208 /2003 -IR (B - II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer G. K. SHARMA , Presiding नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2576.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण, श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1338/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/52/ 2007- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

1 " 5563

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009

S.O. 2576.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1338/ 2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab and Sind Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-8-2009.

[ No. L- 12012/52/2007- IR( B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT- I , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 1338/2007

Shri Tek Chand S /o Shri Kali Dass , C/ o Punjab Technical University Ladowali Road, Jalandhar (Punjab).

-Applicant

V/s.

The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office , ModelTown , Jalandhar (Punjab ) . -Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : None.

None

For the management:

AWARD

Passed on : 11-08-09

Central Government vide notification No. L - 12012 / 52/2007 - IR ( B - II ) dated 26-10-07 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank , Jalandhar in terminating the services ofShri Tek Chand w.e.f. 16-06-2005 without following the provisions of Sections 25 F, 25 G of the 1.D. Act 1947, is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent ?" 2.None is present for both of the parties . Workman is not ensuring his presence despite notice .It appears that workman is not interested to peruse with the present claim in reference . Hence , the present claim in the reference isreturned to the Central Government as such for want of non-prosecution . Central Government be informed. File be consigned.

Chandigarh. 11-08-09

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2577.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण / श्रम् न्यायालय नं. - 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1345/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011 / 102/2007- आई आर ( बी -11 ) ]

राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the26th August , 2009

S.O. 2577. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1345/ 2008) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh no as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab and Sind Bank and their workman , whichwas received by the Central Govemment on 25-8-2009 .

[No. L- 12011 / 102/2007 - JR( B- II ) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 1345/2008

The President, All India Punjab and Sind Bank Staff Federation , CP - 1572, Gali Mastgarh , Minak Mandi , Amritsar (Punjab ) .

-Applicant

V/ s.

The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank , Zonal Office - 1 , Sector- 17-B, Chandigarh . -Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : None.

Forthe management : Shri I.P. Singh

AWARD

Passed on : 4-08-09

Central Government vide notification No. L- 12011 / 102/2007 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 20-12-07 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank in issuing ' dismissal without notice' order to Shri Jagir Singh Special Assistant is legal and justified . If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent "

2. Learned representative ofthe management today appeared and filed a order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana 5564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] High Court dated 4-12-08 passed in CWP No. 11539/08 . Vide this order , Hon'ble High Court ofPunjab & Haryana has been kind enough to quash the reference . In these circumstances , there is no occasion for this Tribunal to proceed further . Accordingly, the reference is returned as such to the Central Government . Central Governmentbe informed. File be consigned .

was functioning with the support of technical know- how being provided by M/s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agree- ment between Modiluft Ltd. And M/s . Lufthansa was ter- minated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence .On account of ceasure ofairline operations , services of Shri Ram Avtar came to an end.

Chandigarh 4-08-09

G. K. SHARMA, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

2. An industrial dispute was raised by workman be- fore the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed.Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L - 11012/ 33/2006 - IR( CM - I) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dis- pute to this Tribunal for adjudication with the following terms of reference:

Whether the action of the managemenl ofModiluft/ Royal Airways /Spicejet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh . Ram Avtar S/o Shri Shyam Lal w.e.f. 1-11-02 is just , fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date ? " का.आ. 2578. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/33/2006- आईआर ( सी- I) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

3. Shri Ram Avtar filed a claim statement pleading therein that he worked as Loader with the management till 1-11-2002. According to him he joined services of Modiluft in 1993. He was transferred to M/ s . Royal Airways and lastly to M/ s . Spice Jet Limited . On 1-11-02 , he was sent out of thejob without any notice or payment of retrench- ment compensation . Notice demand was sent to the man- agement, which was not responded to . He claims his rein- statement in services with continuity and full back wages .

S.O. 2578.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.69/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Spicejet Ltd. , and their workman, receivedby the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No. L- 11012/33/2006 - IR ( C -I )

SNEH LATA JA WAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K.YADAV , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . I , NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 69/2006

Shri Ram Avtar S/ o Shri Shyam Lal ,

Through Shri P.L.Srivastava ,

CB -280 , Ring Road , Naraina ,

New Delhi - 110028 .

...Workman

4. The management demurred the claim ofthe work- . man pleading therein that when air line operations of Modiluft Limited came to an end on 19-11-96 , Ram Avtar abandoned the services . His services came to an end on that very day . Airline business was not done by the man- agement till 23-5-05, the date when airlines operations, com- menced again . It has been claimed that since the company was inoperative between 1996 to May, 05 there was no question of employing/ terminating services of the work- man on 1-1-02 . Airline operations commenced again with the, name of Spice Jet on 23-5-05 , after issue ofnew permit by the DG, Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-05, consequent to the change in the name of the management . Under these circumstances , there is no substance in the claim filed by Shri Ram Avtar . Hisservices came to an end on 19-11-96 , when permit to operate scheduled air transport services was not renewed by the DG, Civil Aviation .

Versus

TheGeneral Manager ,

M/s. Spice Jet Ltd. , Pt . No. 319 , Phase- IV,

..Management

Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon , Haryana ,

AWARD

Shri Ram Avtar S/ o Shri Shyam Lal was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Ser- vice on 20-11-94 , when air transport service permit was issued to it by the Director General of Civil Aviation . It

5. Workman abandoned the proceedings . Notice was sent to the workman by registered post , calling upon him to prosecute his claim . Postal article was received back with the report that the addressee has left the given ad- dress for good . Notice was sent to him through P.L. Srivastav, CB 280 Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , the ad- dressprovided by the appropriate Government in terms of reference . Since the workman was not available at the said address nor Sh.Srivastava responded to the notice issued 5565 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

by the Tribunal , under these circumstances the Tribunal could not lay its hand over the workman to call him to prosecute his claim.

2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Anexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Spice Jet Ltd. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No. L- 11012/58/2006- IR (C- I)

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT No. I, NEW DELHI, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No.48/2006

Shri Dharam Pal S/ o . Shri Daya Ram , Through Shri P.L.Srivastava, CB-280, Ring Road, Naraina,

New Delhi- 110028 .

...Workman

Versus

TheGeneral Manager ,

M/s. Spice jet Ltd. , Pt. No. 319, Phase- IV, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon,

.Management

Haryana

AWARD

6. To substantiate its stand, managementhad relied on copy of permit dated 20-11-99 , its renewal dated 17-11-95, copy ofresolution dated 28-2-2001 , copy ofpermit to operate scheduled transport service (Passenger) dated 9-5-06and copyoffresh certificate of incorporation issues, consequent upon change of name . Out of the facts pleaded by the management and the documents referred above, it came to light that airline operations of Modiluft Limited came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the DG, CivilAviation . Airline operations were recommenced by the company with the name of Spice jet Limited on 25-5-05, after issue ofnew permit on 17-5-05 . Spicejet came into existence on 23-5-05 consequent to the change in the name ofthe management. All these facts make it clear that in January, 2002 airline operations were not in vogue . Under these circumstances it is apparent that there was no opportunity for Ram Avtar to work as Loader with the management. Consequently it is evident that Ram Avtar has not been able to show that he was in service of the management till 1-1-02 . Airline operations commenced again only in May, 2005. All these facts are suggestive that the appropriate government made the reference in the mechanical manner . Ram Avtar was not in service of the management in January , 2002. Under these circumstances, there is no question ofadjudication ofthe fact that services ofRam Avtar were terminated on 1-1-02 and there was no justifiability, fairness and legality in that action . The issue isaccordingly answered against the workman to the effect that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 . He is not entitled to any relief from the management . The reference isanswered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated 14-7-09.

Shri Dharam Pal was working in Modiluft Ltd., which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94 when air transport service permit was issued to it by the DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know-how being provided by M/ s. Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. And M/s . Lufthansa was terminated and DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96 . Till23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Dharam Pal came to an end.

Dr. R.K.YADAV , Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

2. An industrial dispute was raised by workman before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceedings failed.Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L- 11012/ 58/2006- IR(CM - 1 ) dated28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with the following terms ofreference:

का.आ. 2579, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की बारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management ofModiluft/ Royal Airways/ Spicejet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh.Dharam Pal , S/o Shri Daya Ram w.e.f. 1-1-02 is just, fair and legai? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date ? "

[सं. एल-11012/58/2006- आईआर( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2579.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/

3. Shri Dharam Pal filed a claim statement pleading therein that he worked as Loader with the management till 1-1-2002. According to him he joined services of Modiluft in 1993. He was transferred to M/ s Royal Airways and lastly toM/ s Spice Jet Limited . On 1-1-02 , he was sent out 5566

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 / BHADRA 28 , 1931

ofthejob without any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation Notice of demand was sent to the management, which was not responded to. He claims his reinstatement in services with continuity and full back wages .

management till 1-1-02 . Airline operations commenced again only in May, 2005. All these facts are suggestive that the appropriate government made the reference in the mechanical manner . Dharam Pal was not in service ofthe management in January. 2002. Under these circumstances . there is no question of adjudication of the fact that services ofDharam Pal were terminated on 1-1-02 and there was no justitiability , fairness and legality in that action . The issue isaccordingly answered against the workman to the effect that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 . He is not entitled to any relief from the management . The reference is answered accordingly .It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated 14-7-09. Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त , 2009

4. The management demurred the claim of the workman pleading therein that when air line operations of Modiluft Limited came to an end on 19-11-96 , Dharam Pal abandoned the services . His services came to an end on that very day . Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airlines operations, commenced again. It has been claimed that since the company was inoperative between 1996 to May, 05 there was no question of employing /terminating services of the workman on 1-11-02 . Airline operations commenced again with the name of Spice Jet on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permit by the DG ,Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-05, consequent to the change in the name of the management . Under these circumstances , there is no substance in the claim filed by Shri Dharam Pal . His services came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport services was not renewed by the DG, Civil Aviation .

का.आ. 2580.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/29/2006- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009

5. Workman abandoned the proceedings . Notice was sent to the workman by registered post, calling upon himtoprosecute his claim . Postal article was received back with the report that the addressee has left the given address for good . Notice was sent to him through P.L. Srivastava, CB280 RingRoad, Naraina, New Delhi , the address provided by the appropriate Government in terms of reference . Since the workman was not available at the said address nor Sh.Srivastava responded to the notice issued by the Tribunal , under these circumstances the Tribunal could not lay its hand over the workman to call him to prosecute hisclaim .

S.O. 2580.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No54/ 2006 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No. I , NewDelhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managemenı of M/ s . Spicejet Ltd. , and their workman , which was received bythe Central Govemment on 21-8-2009.

[No. L- 11012/29/2006 - IR ( C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K.YADAV , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . I, NEW DELHI , KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 54/2006

Workman

Shri Anil Kumar S/ o Shri Mahender Singh , Through Shri P.L.Srivastava, CB-280 , Ring Road, Naraina, NewDelhi- 110028 .

Versus

TheGeneral Manager,

... Management

M/s. Spice Jet Ltd. , Pt . No. 319 , Phase - IV , Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon , Haryana , [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

AWARD

Shri Anil Kumar was working in Modiluft Ltd. ,which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20.11.94 , when airtransport service permit was issued to it by the Director General of Civil Aviation. It was functioning with the support of technical know- how being provided by M/s . Lufthansa . In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. And M/s . Lufthansa was terminated and DirectorGeneral ofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Anil Kumar came to an end.

2. An industrial dispute was raised by workman before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceedings failed..Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L- 11012/ 29/2006- IR(CM -I) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with the following terms ofreference:

"Whether the action of the management ofModiluft/ Royal Airways/ Spice Jet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh.Anil Kumar S/ o Shri Mahender Singh w.e.f. 1-11-02 is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date ?"

3. Shri Anil Kumar filed a claim statement pleading therein that he worked as Loader with the management till 1-11-2002 .According to him he joined services of Modiluft in 1993. He was transferred to M/s . Royal Airways and lastly toM/s . Spicejet Limited. On 1-11-02 , he was sent out ofthe job without any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation Notice of demand was sent to the management, which was not responded to. He claims his reinstatement in services with continuity and full back wages.

4. The management demurred the claim of the workman pleading therein that when air line operations of Modiluft Limited came to an end on 19-11-96 , Anil Kumar abandoned the services . His services came to an end on that very day . Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airlines operations , commenced again . It has been claimed that since the companywas inoperative between 1996 to May, 05 there was no question ofemploying /terminating services of the workman on 1-11-02 . Airline operations commenced again with the, name of Spice Jet on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permit by the DG, Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-05 , consequent to the change in the name of the management. Under these circumstances , there is no substance in the claim filed by Shri Anil Kumar . His services came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport services was not renewed by the DG, Civil Aviation ..

5. Workman abandoned the proceedings . Notice was sent to the workman by registered post, calling upon him toprosecute his claim. Postal article was received backwith 3252G1 /09-25

5567 the report that the addressee has left the given address for good. Notice was sent to him through P.L. Srivastava , CB 280 Ring Road, Naraina , New Delhi , the address provided by the appropriate Government in terms of reference Since the workman was not available at the said address nor Sh . Srivastava responded to the notice issued by the Tribunal , under these circumstances the Tribunal could not lay its hand over the workman to call him to prosecute his claim.

6. To substantiate its stand , management had relied on copy of permit dated 20-11-99, its renewal dated 17-11-95, copy ofresolution dated 28-2-2001 , copy ofpermit to operate scheduled transport service ( Passenger ) dated 9-5-06 and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation issues , consequent upon change of name . Out of the facts pleaded bythe management and the documents referred above , it came to light that airline operations of Modiluft Limited came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the DG, Civil Aviation . Airline operations were recommenced by the company with the name of Spicejet Limited on 25-5-05, after issue of new permit on 17-5-05. Spicejet came into existence on 23-5-05 consequent to the change in the name ofthe management. All these facts make it clear that in January, 2002 airline operations were not in vogue. Under these circumstances it is apparent that there was no opportunity for Anil Kumar to work as Loader with the management . Consequently it is evident that Anil Kumar has not been able to show that he was in service of the management till 1-1-02. Airline operations commenced again only in May, 2005. All these facts are suggestive that the appropriate government made the reference in the mechanical manner . Anil Kumar was not in service ofthe management in January , 2002. Under these circumstances , there is noquestion ofadjudication of the fact that services ofAnil Kumar were terminated on 1-11-02 and there was no justifiability, fairness and legality in that action . The issue is accordingly answered against the workman to the effect that his services came to an end on 19-11-96. He is not entitled to any relief from the management . The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated 14-7-09 . Dr. R.K.YADAV , Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

का. आ. 2581.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सपाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/47/2006- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी 5568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009

S.O. 2581.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 42/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spicejet Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No. L- 11012/47/2006- IR(C-I) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . I, NEW DELHI, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 42/2006

K. Raj Kumar S/o . Shri Kaveri , Through Shri P.L.Srivastava, CB-280 , Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi- 110028 .

Workman

Versus

The General Manager, M/ s Spice Jet Ltd. , Pt. No. 319, Phase - IV, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Haryana ...Management

AWARD

Shri K. Raj Kumar was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94 , when air transport service permit was issued to it bytheDirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know - how being provided by M/s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. And M/ s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General ofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri K. Raj Kumar came to an end.

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Shri K. Raj Kumar before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed. Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L- 11012/47/2006- IR(CM - 1 ) dated 28.08.2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with the following terms of reference :

"Whether the action ofthe management ofModiluft/ Royal Airways /Spice Jet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh . K. Raj Kumar w.e.f. 1-1-02 is just, fair and legal ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date ? " 3. Workman filed claim statement pleading therein that he worked as Loader with the management till.1.1.2002 . According to him he joined services of Modiluft in 1993 .

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] He was transferred to M/ s . Royal Airways and lastly to M/ s . Spice Jet Limited . On 1-1-02 , he was sent out of the job without any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation Notice of demand was sent management , which was not responded to. He claims his reinstatement in services with continuity and full back wages.

4. The management demurred the claim of the workmanpleading therein that when airline operations of Modiluft Limited came to an end on 19-11-96 , K.Raj Kumar abandoned the services . His services came to an end on that very day . Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airlines operations , commenced again . It has been claimed that since the companywas inoperative between 1996 to May, 2005 there was no question of employing /terminating services of the workman on 1-1-02 . Airline operations commenced again withthe , name of Spice Jet on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permitby the DG, Civil Aviation on 17-5-05. Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-05, consequentto the change inthe name ofthe management . Under these circumstances , there is no substance in the claim filed by Shri K. Raj Kumar. Hisservices came to an end on 19-11-96 , when permit to operate scheduled air transport services was not renewed bythe DG , Civil Aviation .

5. Workman abandoned the proceedings . Notice was sent to the workman by registered post, calling upon him to prosecute his claim . Postal article was received back withthe report that the addressee has left the given address for good . Notice was sent to him through P.L. Srivastava , CB280 Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi , the address provided by the appropriate Government in terms of reference Since the workman was not available at the said address nor Sh. Srivastava responded to the notice issued by the Tribunal , under these circumstances the Tribunal could not lay its hand over the workman to call him to prosecute hisclaim.

6. Affidavit of Shri Sanjay Sharma was filed on behalf of the management . He gave confirmation to facı pleaded by the management in its written statement . To substantiate the stand of the management , Shri Sanjay Sharma proved copy ofpermit dated 20-11-99, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , copy of permit to operate scheduled transport service (Passenger) dated 9.5.06 and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation issued , consequent upon change of name. Outof the facts sworn by Shri Sharma and the documents referred above, it came to light that airline operations of Modiluft Limited came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the DG , Civil Aviation . Airline operations were recommenced by the company with the name of Spice Jet Ltd. on 25-5-05 , after issue of new permit on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet came into existence on 23-5-05 consequent to the change in the name of the management . All these facts make it clear that in January , 2002 airline operations were 5569 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

Versus

TheGeneral Manager , M/s Spice Jet Ltd. , P. No. 319 , Phase- IV, Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon, Haryana .

Management

AWARD

not in vogue . Under these circumstances it is apparent thatthere was no opportunity for K. Raj Kumar to work as Loader with the management. Consequently it is evident that K.Raj Kumar has not been able to show that he was in service ofthe management till 1-1-02 . Airline оронπίσης commenced again only in May, 2005. All these facts are suggestive that the appropriate government made the reference in the mechanical manner. K. Raj Kumar was not in service ofthe management in January, 2002. Under these circumstances, there is no question of adjudication ofthe fact that services of K. Raj Kumar were terminated on 1-1-02 and there was no justifiability, fairness and legality in that action . The issue is accordingly answered against the workman to the effect that his services came to an end on 19-11-96. He is not entitled to any relief from the management . The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated 14-7-09 . Dr. R.K. YADAV, PresidingOfficer

Shri Vinod Kumar was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94 , when air transport service permit was issued to it by the DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know- how being provided by M/s. Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. And M/ s . Lufthansa was terminated and DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit tooperate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence. On account of ceasure of airline operations , services ofShri Vinod Kumar came to an end.

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Shri Vinod Kumar before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed. Appropriate Government vide its Order. No. L-1:10:12/34/2006- IR(CM - 1 ) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with the followingterms ofreference :

का.आ. 2582. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस मेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 58/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/34/2006- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

स्नेह लता जयास , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of Modiluft/ Royal Airways /Spice Jet Ltd. , in terminating the servicesofSh . Vinod Kumar w.e.f. 1-1-02 isjust, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date ?" New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2582. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 58/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spice Jet Ltd. , and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No. L- 11012/34/2006- IR(C-I)

3. Workman filed claim statement pleading therein that he worked with the management till.1-1-2002. According to him he joined services ofModiluft in 1993 . He was transferred to M/s . Royal Airways and lastly to M/s. Spice Jet Limited . On 1-1-02 , he was sent out ofthe job without any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation Notice of demand was sent to the management, which was not responded to by the management . He claims his reinstatement in services with continuity and full back wages.

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT NO. I NEW DELHI, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

DELHI

I.D. No. 58/2006

Shri Vinod Kumar, Through Shri P. L. Srivastava, CB -280, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi- 110028.

Workman

4. The management demurred the claim of the workman pleading therein that when air line operations of Modiluft Limited came to an end on 19-11-96 , Vinod Kumar abandoned the services . His services came to an end on that very day. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airlines operations, commenced again . It has been claimed that since the companywas inoperative between 1996 to May, 2005 there was no question of employing /terminating services of the workman on 1-1-02 . Airline operations commenced again with the name of Spice Jet on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permitby the DG, Staff on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came 5570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

into existence w.e.f. 23-5-05 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . Under these circumstances, there is no substance in the claim filed by Shri Vinod Kumar. Hisservices came to an end on 19-11-96 , when permit to operate scheduled air transport services was not renewed by the DG , Civil Aviation .

का.आ. 2583, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं. -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/44/2006- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

5. Workman abandoned the proceedings .Notice was sent to the workman by registered post , calling upon him to prosecute his claim . Postal article was received back with the report that the addressee has left the given address for good. Notice was sent to him through P.L. Srivastava, CB 280 Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi , the address provided by the appropriate Government in terms of reference . Since the workman was not available at the said address nor Sh. Srivastava responded to the notice issued by the Tribunal , under these circumstances the Tribunal could not lay its hand over the workman to call him to prosecute hisclaim .

S.O. 2583.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.39/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Spicejet Ltd. and their workman , which wasreceived by the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No. L- 11012/44/2006 - IR(C - I ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- NO. - I NEW DELHI , KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 39/2006

Shri Sunil Kumar S/ o Sh Roop Ram , Through Shri P. L. Srivastava , CB -280 , Ring Road , Naraina , New Dehlh -28 ...Workman

V/s.

The General Manager , M /s . Spicejet Ltd. Pl . 319 , Phase- IV, Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon, Haryana . ...Management

AWARD

6. Affidavit of Shri Sanjay Sharma was filed on behalf of the management . He gave confirmation to fact pleaded bythe management in its written statement . To substantiate the stand of the management , Shri Sanjay Sharma proved copy ofpermit dated 20-11-99 , its renewal dated 17-11-95, copyofresolution dated 28-2-2001 , copy of permit to operate scheduled transport service (Passenger) dated 9-5-06 and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation issued , consequent upon change of name . Out of the facts sworn by Shri Sharma and the documents referred above , it came to light that airline operations of Modiluft Limited came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the DG, Civil Aviation . Airline operations were re- commenced by the company with the name of Spice Jet Ltd. on 25-5-05 , after issue of new permit on 17-5-05. Spice Jet came into existence on 23-5-05 consequent to the change in the name of the management . All these facts make it clear that in January, 2002 airline operations were not in vogue . Under these circumstances it is apparent that there was no opportunity for Vinod Kumar to work as Helper with the management . Consequently it is evident that Vinod Kumar has not been able to show that he was in service of the management till 1-1-02. Airline operations commenced again only in May , 2005. All these facts are suggestive that the appropriate Govemment made the reference in the mechanical manner . Vinod Kurnar was not in service of the management in January , 2002. Under these circumstances , there is no question of adjudication of the fact that services of Vinod Kumar were terminated on 1-1-02 and there was no justifiability, fairness and legality in that action . The issue isaccordingly answered against the workman to the effect that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 . He is not entitledto any relief from the management . The reference isanswered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated 13-7-09 . Dr. R.K. YADAV , Presiding Officer

Shri Sunil Kumar was working in Modiluft Limited which became Scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical knowhow, being provided by M/ s. Lufthansa . In the year 1996 agreementbetween Modiluft Ltd. and M/ s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport services after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 air line operations of Modiluft Limited were not in existence . On account of cesasure of airline operations , services of Shri Sunil Kumar came to an end .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5571

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Shri Sunil Kumar before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed. Appropriate Government vide its Order No. L- 11012/44/2006-( IR( CM - I) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with. following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the Management of Modiluft/ RoyalAirways/Spicejet Ltd. , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Sunil Kumar S/o Roop Ram Mudgal w.e.f. 1-1-02 is just, fair and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

3. Workman filed claim statement, pleading therein that he worked with the management till 1-1-2002. According to him he joined services of Modiluft in 1993 . He was transferred to M/s . Royal Airways and lastly to M/ s. Spice Jet Limited . On 1-1-02 , he was sent out of the job without any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation . Notice of the demand was sent to the management , which was not responded to by the management . He claims his reinstatement in the services with continuity and full back wages

by the manageent in its written statement . To substantiate the stand of the management , Shri Sanjay Sharma proved copyofpermit dated 20-11-99 , its renewal dated 17-11-95, copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , copy of permit to operate scheduled transport service ( passenger) dated 9-5-06 and copy offresh certificate of incorporation issued, consequent upon change of name. Out of the facts sworn by Shri Sharma and the documents referred above , it came to light that airline operations of Modiluft Limited came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the DG Civil Aviation. Airline operations were re- commenced by the company with the name of Spice Jet Limited on 25-5-05 , after issue of new permit on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet came into existence on 23-5-05 consequent to the change in the name of the management. All these facts make it clear that in January, 2002 airline operations were not in vogue . Under these circumstances it is apparent that there was no opportunity for Sunil Kumar to work as Security Guard with the management. Consequently it is evident that Sunil Kumar has not been able to show that he was in service of themanagement till 1-1-2002 . Airline operations commenced against only in May, 2005. All these facts are suggestive that the appropriate Government made the reference in the mechanical manner . Sunil Kumar was not in service of the management in January , 2002. Under these circumstances there is no question of adjudication ofthe fact that services of Sunil Kumar were terminated on 1-1-02 and there was no justifiability, fairness and legality in that action . The issue isaccordingly answered against the workman to the effect that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 . He is not entitled to any relief from the management . The reference isanswered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated 13-7-2009

Dr. R. K. YADAV, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

4. The management demurred the claim of the workman pleading therein that when air line operations of Modiluft Limited came to an end on 19-11-96 , Sunil Kumar abandoned the services . His services came to an end on that very day . Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airlines operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the cornpany was inoperative between 1996 to May, 05 there was no question of employing/ terminating services of the workman on 1-1-02 . Airline operations commenced again with the name of Spice Jet on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permit by the DG Staff on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-05 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . Under these circumstances , there is no substance in the claim filed by Shri Sunil Kumar. His services came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport services was not renewed by the DG Civil Aviation

का. आ. 2584.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 60/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/41 /2006- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009

5. Workman abandoned the proceedings .Noticewas sent to the workman by registered post calling upon him to prosecute his claim . Postal article was received back with the report that the addressee has left the given address for good. Notice was sent to him through P.L.Srivastava, CB 280, Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , the address provided bythe appropriate Government in terms of reference . Since the workman was not available at the said address nor Sh . Srivastava responded to the notice issued by the Tribunal , under these circumstances the Tribunal could not lay its hand over the workman to call him to prosecute hisclaim.

S.O. 2584.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.60/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 6. Affidavit ofShri Sanjay Sharma was filed on behalf of the management . He gave confirmation to facts pleaded 5572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . Spicejet Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009 .

[No. L- 11012/41 /2006- IR(C- 1 ) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT No. -I, NEW DELHI , KARAKDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 60/2006

Shri Rajesh Kumar S/ o Shri Zile Singh , C/ o Piyare Lal Srivastava , Bhartiya Mazdoor Union( Regd. ) , CB- 280 ,

RingRoad, Naraina ,

-Workman New Dehlh - 28

V/s.

-Management TheGeneral Manager , M/sSpicejet Ltd. Pl . No. 319, Phase - IV, Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon , Haryana.

AWARD

Shri Rajesh Kumar was working in Modiluft Limited whichbecame Scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, whenairtransport service permit was issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation. It was functioning with the support of technical knowhow , being provided by M/ s . Lufthansa . In the year 1996. agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/ s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General ofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport services after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 air line operations of Modiluft Limited were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Rajesh Kumar came to an end.

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Shri Suresh Kumar before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed .Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L- 11012/41 /2006- IR(CM- I ) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the Management of Modiluft/ RoyalAirways/Spicejet Ltd. , in terminating the services ofShri Rajesh Kumar S/ o Shri Zile Singh w.e.f. 1-1-02 is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what reliefis the concerned workman entitled and from which date ?"

3. Shri Rajesh Kumar was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents , before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt of reference order . The aforesaid reference wasmade by the approriate Government on 28-8-06. The

[ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government .

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman, in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 21-11-06 Shri Ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement . Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07 . Thereafter several opportunities were given , but claim stattement was not filed. From 28th January , 2008 till April , 2009, there was Presiding Officer in the Tribunal .

5. A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim statement . It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava, R/ o CB 280 , Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference. On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Rajesh Kumar S/o Zile Singh was residing at the given address . Consequently, it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good . He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman .

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19.11.96, workman ceased to be in the employment ofModiluft . Ltd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the company was inoperative between 96 to May , 2005, there was no question of employing/ terminating the services of theworkman in the year 2001-2002 . Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05, after issue of new permit by the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name ofthe management . It has been projected that under the- ctrcumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Rajesh . Kumar were dispensed with 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Rakesh came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand , the management filed copy of permitdated 20-11-94 , its renewal dated 17-11-95, copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy ofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06 , copy of news letter of Spicejet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name , Documents referred above , lands support to the facts pleaded by the management.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5573

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

7.As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General, Civil Aviation, it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind. Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Rakesh S/o Shri Babu Lal on 19-11-96 , on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services. Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication ,

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer Dated: 30-6-09

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2585.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सपाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/42/2006- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2585.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref.No.61/2006) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M /s . Spicejet Ltd. and their workman, received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No. L- 11012/42/2006- IR(C- 1 )] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT NO.-1 NEW DELHI, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

L.D. No. 61/2006

Shri Rakesh Kumar S/ o Sh Babu Lal ,

C/o Piyare Lal Srivastava,

Bhartiya Mazdoor Union (Regd .), CB-280 Ring Road , Naraina,

-Workman New Dehlh-28

V/s.

TheGeneral Manager ,

M/sSpicejet Ltd. Pl . No. 319 ,

Phase- IV, Udyog Vihar ,

-Management Gurgaon,Haryana.

AWARD

Shri Rakesh Kumar was working in Modiluft Limited which became Scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was issued to it byDirector General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know-how, being provided by M/s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996. agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/s Lufthansa was terminated and DirectorGeneral ofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit tooperate scheduled air transport services after 19-11-96 . Till23-5-05 air line operations ofModiluft Limited were not in existence. On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Rakesh came to an end.

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Rakesh S/ o Babu lal before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceedings failed. Appropriate Government vide its Order No. L- 11012/42/2006- IR( CM - 1 ) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms ofreference:

"Whether the action of the Management of Modiluft/ RoyalAirways/Spicejet Ltd. , in terminating the servicesof Shri Rakesh S/o Shri Babulal w.e.f. 1-1-02 isjust, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date ?" 3. Shri Rakesh was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documnets , before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt of reference order. The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal, in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriateGovernment .

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman, in prusuance of directions issued by the appropriateGovernment, notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 21-11-06 Shri Ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement. Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07. Thereafter several opportunities were given , but claim statement was not filed. From 28th January, 2008 till April , 2009 , there was noPresidingOfficer in the Tribunal .

5. A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim-statement . It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava, R/ o CB 280, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the approriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Rakesh S/o Shri 5574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] Babu Lal was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good . He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman.

लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण / श्रम न्यायालय सं. -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 65/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -11012/53/2006- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2586. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.65/2006) ofthe Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spice Jet Ltd, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009 ..

[No. L- 11012 /53/2006- IR( C- 1 ) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- I, NEW DELHI, KARAKDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 65/2006

Shri Kann Kutti S/ o Sh Damodharan , C/ o Piyare Lal Srivastava , Bhartiya Mazdoor Union (Regd . ) , CB -280 Ring Road , Naraina , New Dehlh - 110028

---Workman 6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96, workman ceased to be in the employment ofModiluft Ltd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05, the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the company was inoperative between 96 to May, 2005, there was no question of employing/ terminating the services of theworkman in the year 2001-2002 .Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permit by the Director General, Civil Aviation on 17-5-05. Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Rakesh.were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Rakesh came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002. To substantiate their stand , the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95, copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy ofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services ( Passenger ) dated 9-5-06 , copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name, Documents referred above , lands supportto the facts pleaded by the management .

V/ s .

SpicejetLtd., CargoComplex IGI Airport Terminal - I , New Delhi -37

-Management

AWARD

7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind. Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Rakesh s /o Shri Babu Lal on 19-11-96 , on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 30-6-09

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2586. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. स्पाईस जेट

Shri Kann Kutti S/ o Shri Damodharan was working in Modiluft Limited which became Scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94 , when air transport service permit was issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know how , being provided by M / s . Lufthansa . In the year 1996 agreement betweenModiluft Ltd. and M /s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport services after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 air line operations of Modiluft Limited were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Kann Kutti came to an end .

5575.

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Kann Kutti before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceedings failed. Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L- 11012/53/2006- IR(CM -I) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the Management of Modiluft/ Royal Airways/ Spicejet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Kann Kutti S/o Damodharan w.e.f. 2-1-02 is just, fair and legal? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

under the circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Kann Kutti were dispensed with1-1-2002. Since services of Shri Kann Kutti came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General , CivilAviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002. To substantiate their stand, the management filed copy ofpermit dated20- 11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy ofresolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy ofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5- 06, copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation, consequent upon change of name, Documents referred above, lands support to the facts pleaded by the management .

3. Shri Kann Katti was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documnets, before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt ofreference order . The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal, in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Govemment.

7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind. Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Kann Kutti on 19-11-96 , on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in prusuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government, notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 21-11-06 Shri Ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement . Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07 . Thereafter several opportunities were given , but claim statement was not filed . From 28th January 2008 till April , 2009, there was PresidingOfficer in the Tribunal .

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

-Dated: 30-6-09.

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2587. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करंण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

5. A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim staatement. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava, r/o CB 280 Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi, which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order ofreference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Kann Kutti S/o Sh. Damodharan was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good . He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman .

[सं. एल -11012/24/2006-आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2587.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No.1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Govemment on 21-8-2009 .

[No. L- 11012/24/2006- IR( C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer 6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96, workman ceased to be in the employment ofModiluft. Ltd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the companywas inoperative between 96 to May, 2005 , there was no question of employing/terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001-2002 . Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permit by the Director General, Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005, consequentto the change in the name of the management. It has been projected that

3252G1/09-26 5576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- I NEW DELHI

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DELHI

I.D. No.50/2006

Shri Dharambir S/ o Sh . Subhash Chand , C/ o Piyare Lal Srivastava , Bhartiya Mazdoor Union ( Regd. ) ,

CB-280 Ring Road, Naraina,

New Dehlh -28

-Workman

V/s.

The General Manager ,

M/sSpicejet Ltd. Pl . No. 319 , Phase - IV, Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon, Haryana .

[PART 11-SFC. 3 ( ii )] 4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in prusuance ofdirections issued by the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 21-11-06 Shri Ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement . Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07 Thereafter several opportunities were given , but claim statement was not filed . From 28th January 2008 till April , 2009, there was no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal .

-Management

AWARD

Shri Dharambir was working in Modiluft Limited which became Scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94 , when air transport service permit was issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation. It was functioning with the support of technical know how , being provided by M/ s Lufthansa . In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/ s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General ofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport services after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 air line operations of Modiluft Limited were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Dharambir came to an end .

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Dharambir before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed . Appropriate Government vide its Order No. L- 11012/ 24/2006- IR(CM - 1) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the Management of Modiluft/ Royal Airways /Spicejet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Dharambir S/o Subhash Chand w.e.f. 1-1-02 is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

3. Shri Dharambir was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement, with relevant documents , before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt ofreference order . The aforesaid reference was made by the approriate Government on 28-8-06. The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government.

5. A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim statement . It was to be served on the workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava , R/ o CB 280 , Ring Road, Naraina , New Delhi , which address was provided by the approriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was receieved back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Dharambir S / o Shri Subhash Chand was residing at the given address . Consequently itbecame evident that the workman has left the given address for good . He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman .

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96, workman ceased to be in the employment ofModiluftLtd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the company was inoperative between 96 to May, 2005 , there was no question of employing/ terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001-2002. Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permit by the Director General, Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under the circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Dharambir were dispensed with1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Dharambir came to an end on 19-11-96 , when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand, the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy of permit. to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06, copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name, Documents referred above , lends support to the facts pleaded by the management .

7.As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air 5577 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28,1931

AWARD

Transport Service was not renewed by the DirectorGeneral, Civil Aviation, it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind. Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Dharambir on 19-11-96 , on account ofnon renewal ofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R.K. YADAV , Presiding Officer

Dated: 30-6-09

Shri Kishan Lal was working in Modiluft Limited which became Scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94,when air transport service permit was issued to it byDirector General of Civil Aviation, It was functioning with the support of technical know how , being provided by M/s Lufthansa, In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/ s Lufthansa was terminated and DirectorGeneral ofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit tooperate scheduled air transport services after 19-11-96. Till23-5-05 air line operations ofModiluft Limited were not in existence . On account of cesasure of airline operations , services of Shri Kishan Lal came to an end.

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

2..An industrial dispute was raised by Kishan Lal before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed.Appropriate Government vide its Order No.L- 11012/ 28/2006- IR(CM - 1) dated 28-08-2006 has referred thedispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

का.आ. 2588. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सफाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/28/2006- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the Management of Modiluft Royal Airways /Spicejet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Kishan Lal Sto Shanker Lal. w.e.f. 1-11-02 isjust, fair and legal? Ifnot , towhat relief isthe concerned workman entitled and from which date? " New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009

3. Shri Kishan Lal was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement, with relevant documents , before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receiptofreference order . The aforesaid reference was made by the approriate Government on 28-8-06 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government.

S.Q. 2588. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.53/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman , which wasreceived by the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No. L- 11012/28/2006- IR(C- 1 )] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT-1, NEW DELHI

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman, in pursuance ofdirections issued by the appropriate Government, notice was sent to him for filing claim statement on 21-11-06 Shri Ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement. Matter was adjourried to 25-1-07 Thereafter several opportunities were given , but claim statement was not filed. From 28th January 2008 till April , 2009 , there was noPresidingOfficer in the Tribunal .

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DELHI

I.D. No. 53/2006

Shri Kishan Lal S/o Sh Shanker Lal,

CB -280, Ring Road, Naraina,

C/o Piyare Lal. Srivastava, Bhartiya Mazdoor Union (Regd. ), New Dehlh -28

-Workıpan

V/s.

Spicejet Ltd. ,

Cargo Complex, IGI Airport Terminal- I ,

NewDelhi-37

5. A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim staatement . It was to be served onthe workman through Shri P.L. Srivastava, r/o CB 280 , Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi, which address was provided by the approriate Government in the order ofreference. On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Kishan Lal S/o Shri Shanker Lal was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good. He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal, fromthe workman.

-Management.

5578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96, workman ceased to be in the employment ofModiluft . Ltd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again. It has been claimed that since the company was in operative between 96 to May ,2005 , there was no question of employing/ terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001-2002 . Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permit by the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management. It has been projected that under the- ctrcumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Kishan Kumar were dispensed with 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Kishan Kumar came to an end on 19-11-96 , when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002. To substantiate their stand , the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94 , its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copyofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06 , copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name , Documents referred above , lands support to the facts pleaded by the management .

7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , CivilAviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind . Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Kishan Kumar on 19-11-96, on account of non renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R.K. YADAV , Presiding Officer Dated: 30-6-09

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त , 2009

का.आ. 2589.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का ।4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सपाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण /श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/31 /2006- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

ち

[PART II--SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2589. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 56/2006) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Spice Jet Ltd. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009 .

[No. L- 11012/31/2006-IR(C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT- I , NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI I.D. No. 56/2006

Shri Anil Kumar S/ o Sh Ram Singh , C/ o Piyare Lal Srivastava , Bhartiya Mazdoor Union ( Regd .) , CB -280 , Ring Road , Naraina , New Dehlh -28

-Workman

Versus

Spice Jet Ltd. ,

Cargo Complex, IGI Airport Terminal -I , NewDelhi -37,

-Management

AWARD

Shri Anil Kumar was working in Modiluft Limited which became Scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94 , when air transport service permit was issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know how , being provided by M/ s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport services after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 air line operations of Modiluft Limited were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations . services of Shri Anil Kumar came to an end .

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Anil Kumar before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed . Appropriate Government vide its Order No. L - 11012/31 /2006 - IR( CM - 1 ) dated 28-08-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with followingterms of reference:

"Whether the action ofthe Management of Modiluft/ Royal Airways / Spice Jet Ltd. , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Anil Kumar S/o Ram 5579 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28, 1931

Singh w.e.f. 1-11-02 is just, fair and legal ? Ifnot, to whatrelief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand, the management filed copyofpermitdated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001, photo copy ofpermit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services(Passenger) dated 9-5-06, copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name , Documents referred above , lands support to the facts pleaded by the management .

3. Shri Anil Kumar was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documnets, before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt ofreference order . The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06. The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate . Government .

4. When claim statement was not filed workman, in pusuance of directions . issued by the appropriate Government, notice was sent to him for filing claim statement . On 21-11-06 Shri ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement. Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07 . Thereafter several opportunities were given, but claim statement was not filed. From 28th January 2008 till April, 2009 , there was PresidingOfficer in the Tribunal .

7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General, CivilAviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind. Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Ani ! Kumar on 19-11-96, on account of rion renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly . It be sent to the appropriateGovernment for publication.

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated:30-6-2009

नईदिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

5. A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim staatement. It was to be served on the workman through Shri P. L. Srivastava, r/ o CB- 280 , Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi, which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent. It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Anil Kumar S /o Shri Ram Singh was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good . He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman.

का.आ. 2590.-औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, कौन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जैद लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण /श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/60/2006- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2590.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 67/2006) ofthe Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management ofM/s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workmen, which was received bythe Central Government on 21-8-2009.

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airline operations came to an end on 19-11-96, workman ceased to be in the employment . ofModiluft . Ltd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the company was in operative between 1996 to May, 2005 , there was no question of employing/terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001-2002 . Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name ofthe Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05, after issue of new permit bythe Director General, Civil Aviation on 17-5-05 . Spice JetLimited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005, consequent to the change in the name of the management. It has been, projected that under the-circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Anil Kumar were dispensed with 1-1-2002. Since services of Shri Anil Kumar came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed bythe Director General, Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on

[No. L - 11012/60/2006- IR( C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer 5580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

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

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT NO. I NEW DELHI , KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DELHI

I.D. No. 67/2006

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement . On 21-11-06 Shri Ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement . Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07. Thereafter several opportunities were given, but claim statement was not filed . From 28th January , 2008 till April , 2009 , there wasno Presiding Officer in the Tribunal .

Shri Ram Bhajan S/o Shri Bipti ,

Workman

C/ o Piyare Lal Srivastava, Bhartiya Mazdoor Union ( Regd . ) , CB-280, Ring Road , Naraina , New Delhi - 110028 .

Versus

The General Manager ,

Spice Jet Ltd. ,

Pl.No. 319, Phase - IV , Udyog Vihar ,

Gurgaon , Haryana .

.Management.

AWARD

5. A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim statement . It was to be served on the workman through Shri P. L. Srivastava, R/ o CB 280 , Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Ram Bhajan S/ o Shri Bipti was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good . He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman .

6. The inanagement filed its reply to the term of

reference pleading that when airlines operations came to

an end on 19-11-96 , workman ceased to be in the

employment of Modiluft Ltd. Airline business was not

doneby the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline

operations commenced again . It has been claimed that

sincethe company was in operative between 96 to May ,

2005 , there was no question of employing/ terminating

the services ofthe workman in the year 2001-2002 . Airline

operations were relaunchedby the company with the Shri Ram Bhajan was working in Modiluft Ltd. ,which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94 , when air transport service permit was issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know - how being providedby M/s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/ s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director GeneralofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96. Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were, not in existence . Onaccount of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Ram Bhajan came to an end.

name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of

new permit by the Director General , Civil Aviation on

17-5-05. Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f.

23-5-2005, consequent to the change in the name of the

management . It has been projected that under these

circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition 2.An industrial dispute was raised by Ram Bhajan before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed. Appropriate Government vide its Order No. L- 11012 / 60/2006- IR(CM - I ) dated 28-8-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

that services of Shri Ram Bhajan were dispensed with

w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Ram Bhajan came

to an end on 19-11-96 , when permit to operate scheduled

air transport service was not renewed by the Director

General Civil Aviation, in that situation it cannot be said

that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002. Το

substantiate their stand , the management filed copy of "Whether the action of the management ofModiluft/ Royal Airways / Spice Jet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh . Ram Bhajan S/o Shri Bipti w.e.f. 1-1-2002 is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

permitdated 20-11-94, its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy

of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item

appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo

copy of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport

Services( Passenger) dated 9-5-06 , copy of news letter of

Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation ,

consequent upon change of name, Documents referred

above , lands support to the facts pleaded by the 3. Shri Ram Bhajan was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents, before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt of reference order . The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government .

management.

特

יין 5581 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

Versus

The General Manager ,

Spisejet Ltd.,

Pl.No. 319 , Phase - IV, Udyog Vihar ,

Gurgaon, Haryana.

.Management .

AWARD

7.As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General, Civil Aviation, it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind . Justifiability lies in the action ofthe management in dispensing with the services ofRam Bhajan on 19-11-96 , on account of non -renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services. Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated:30-6-2009

Dr. R.K.Yadav, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त , 2009

Shri Birmesh was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know-how being provided by M/s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/ s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General ofCivil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 mairline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations , services of Shri Birmesh came to an end .

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Birmesh before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed.Appropriate Government vide its Order No. L- 11012/ 37/2006- IR(CM- I ) dated 28-8-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

का.आ. 2591, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण /श्रम न्यायालय सं. -1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 59/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/37/2006- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

स्नेह खता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2009

"Whether the action of the management of Modiluft/RoyalAirways/ Spicejet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh . Birmesh w.e.f. 1-1-2002 isjust , fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date ?"

3. Shri Birmesh was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents, before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt of reference order . The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriateGovernment .

S.O. 2591. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.59/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of M/s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No. L- 11012/37/2006- IR(C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI R. K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . I , NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DELHI

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman, in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government , notice was sent to him for filing claim statement. On 21-11-06 Shri Ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement. Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07 . Thereafter several opportunities were given , but claim statement was not filed. From 28th January, 2008 till April, 2009, there was no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal .

I. D. No. 59/2006

Shri Birmesh,,

C/o Piyare Lal Srivastava,

Bhartiya Mazdoor Union (Regd.) ,

CB-280, Ring Road , Naraina,

Workman

NewDelhi- 110028 .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009

the report that no such person with the name of Shri Birmesh was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good . He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement could not reach this Tribunal , from the workman .

का.आ. 2592.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सपाईस जेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/32/2006- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009

S.O.2592 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.57/ 2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No. L- 11012/32/2006- IR( C - 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI R. K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT No. I NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DELHI

I. D. No. 57/2006

Shri Pardeep Kumar S/ o Shri Hari Singh , C/o Piyare Lal Srivastava, Bhartiya Mazdoor Union ( Regd . ) , CB -280 , Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi - 110028 .

Workman

Versus

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airlines operations came to an end on 19-11-96 , workman ceased to be in the employment of Modiluft . Ltd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed thatsince the company was in operative between 96 to May, 2005 , there was no question ofemploying/ terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001- 2002. Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05, after issue of new permit by the Director General , CivilAviation on 17-5-05 . Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under these circumstances , there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Birmesh dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Birmesh came to an end on 19-11-96 , when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation itcannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand , the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94 , its renewal dated 17-11-95 , copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06 , copy of news letter of Spice Jetand copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name , Documents referred above , lands support to the facts pleaded by the management . were

Spice jet Ltd. , CargoComplex IGI Airport Terminal -1 , NewDelhi- 37 .

Management .

AWARD

7.As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his service came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation, it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical, without application of any mind . Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Birmesh on 19-11-96, on account of non- renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated:30-6-2009

Dr. R.K.Yadav , Presiding Officer

Shri Pardeep Kumar was working in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permit was issued it byDirector General of Civil Aviation . It was functioning with the support of technical know- how being provided by M/ s . Lufthansa. In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/ s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in 5583

भारत का राजपत्र : सि

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) 1

का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ नाद 28 , 1931

existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations, services of Shri Pardeep Kumar came to an end.

2.An industrial dispute was raised by Pardeep Kumar before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed. Appropriate Govemment vide its Order No. L-41012/ 37/2006- IR(CM - I ) dated 28-8-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the management ofModiluft/ Royał Airways/Spice Jet Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh. Pardeep Kumar w.e.f. 1-11-2002 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the concernedworkman entitled and from which date?"

permit by the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05. Spice Jet Limitedcame into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005, consequent to the change in the name ofthe management. It has been projected that under these circumstances,there is no substance in the proposition that services of Shri Pardeep Kumar were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002. Since services of Shri Pardeep Kumar came to an end on 19-11-96, when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002. To substantiate their stind, the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11494, Its tonowal dated 17-11-95, copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated9-5-06, copy of news letter of Spice Jet and copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequentconsequent upon change ofname, Documents referred above, lands support to the facts pleadedby the management .

3. Shri Pardeep Kumar was instructed by the appropriate.Government to file a claim statement, with relevant documents , before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt of reference order. The aforesaid reference was made by the appropriate Government on 28-8-06. The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal, in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriateGovernment

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriate Government, notice was sent to him for filing claim statement . On 21-11-06 Shri Ravinder Singh appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time to file claim statement . Matter was adjourned to 25-1-07. Thereafter several opportunities were given , but claim statement was not filed. From 28th January , 2008 till April, 2009, there was no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal .

7. As the workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services was not renewedby the Director General , Civil Aviation, it came to light that the reference remade by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind . Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services ofPardeep Kumar on 19-11-96, on account of non - renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. Itbe sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated 30-6-2005

wal MDR.K YADAV, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , अगस्त , 2009

5. A registered notice was sent for 30-6-09 to file claim statement . It was to be served on the workman through Shri P. L. Srivastava, Río CB 280 Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi, which address was provided by the appropriateGovernment in the order of reference . Onthis very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Pardeep Kumar S/o Shri Hari Singh was residing at the givenaddress .Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good . He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statementcould not reach this Tribunal , from the workmari

कर भा. 2593 औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 कर14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केंद्रीय सरकार स्पाईस जेट लि. क प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम त्यायालयसं नई दिल्ली के अंदर्भ संख्या 5/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

smwollit drive napostbएल -11912/30/ 2007- कई सार आर ( सी-1 ) ]

स्नेह लता उम, देस्क, अधिकारी

AutoMau New Dolhi, the 26th August, 2009

393 pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 114 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes, the award (Ref . No. 5/2009 ) ofthe Cemil Government InchiInchiriat Tribunal Labour Cour No.1 , New Delhi nownow asas shownshown in the Annexure in the 6. The management filed its reply to the termterm ofof reference pleading that when airlines operations came to an end on 19-11-96, workman ceased to be in the employment of Modiluft. Ltd."Airime business was hot done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when aftine operations commenced again . "It has been claimed that since the company was in operative between 96 to May , 2005, there was no question of employing/terminating the services of the workman in the year 2001-2002. Airline operations were relatunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new

3252:G1/09-27 5584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spice Jet Ltd. and their workman, which wasreceived bythe Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

[No. L- 11012/30/2007 - IR(C- 1 )]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DELHI

I.D. No. 5/2009

Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra, S/ o Shri Jagat Singh Mishra, Through Shri P. L. Srivastava, CB-280, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi -110028 .

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager ,

3. Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra was instructed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement , with relevant documents , before this Tribunal within 15 days from the receipt ofreference order. The aforesaid reference wasmade by the appropriate Government on 18-2-08 . The workman opted not to file a claim statement before this Tribunal , in pursuance of the directions given by the appropriate Government .

4. When claim statement was not filed by the workman , in pursuance of directions issued by the appropriateGovernment . Notice was sent to him for filing claim statement . On 27-5-09 notice sent to the workman was received back with the report that the house in question was lying locked for last so many days . Consequently a fresh notice was issued to be served on the workman, to file his claim statement by23-6-09.

...Management

M/sSpice Jet Ltd. , Pt. No. 319, Phase - IV , Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon , Haryana.

AWARD

Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra was working as Security Officer in Modiluft Ltd. , which became scheduled Air Transport Service on 20-11-94, when air transport service permitwas issued to it by Director General of Civil Aviation . Itwas functioning with the support of technical know- how being provided by M/ s . Lufthansa . In the year 1996 agreement between Modiluft Ltd. and M/ s . Lufthansa was terminated and Director General of Civil Aviation did not renew its permit to operate scheduled air transport service after 19-11-96 . Till 23-5-05 airline operations of Modiluft Ltd. were not in existence . On account of ceasure of airline operations, services of Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra came to an end .

2. An industrial dispute was raised by Shiv Kumar Mishra before the Conciliation Officer . Conciliation proceedings failed . Appropriate Government vide its Order No. L- 11012/30/2007- IR(CM -I) dated 18-2-2008 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the management ofModiluft! Royal Airways / Spice JetLtd. , New Delhi in dismissing the services of Sh.Shiv Kumar Mishra , SecurityOfficer , w.e.f. 1-1-2002 isjustified and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

5. Notice was sent to the workman by registered post . It was to be served on the workman through Shri P. L. Srivastava, r/ o CB 280 Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi , which address was provided by the appropriate Government in the order of reference . On this very address notice was sent . It was received back with the report that no such person with the name of Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra s/o Shri Jagat Singh Mishra was residing at the given address . Consequently it became evident that the workman has left the given address for good. He opted not to inform this Tribunal about change of his residential address . Under these circumstances claim statement couid not reach this Tribunal , from the workman.

6. The management filed its reply to the term of reference pleading that when airlines operations came to an end on 19-11-96 , workman ceased to be in the employment of Modiluft . Ltd. Airline business was not done by the management till 23-5-05 , the date when airline operations commenced again . It has been claimed that since the company was in operative between 96 to May, 2005, there was no question of employing/terminating the services ofthe workman in the year 2001-2002 . Airline operations were relaunched by the company with the name of the Spice Jet Limited on 23-5-05 , after issue of new permit by the Director General , Civil Aviation on 17-5-05. Spice Jet Limited came into existence w.e.f. 23-5-2005 , consequent to the change in the name of the management . It has been projected that under these circumstances, there is no substance in the proposition thatservices of Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra, Security Officer were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-1-2002 . Since services of Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra came to an end on 19-11-96 , when permit to operate scheduled air transport service was not renewed by the Director General Civil Aviation , in that situation it cannot be said that his services were dispensed with on 1-1-2002 . To substantiate their stand, the management filed copy of permit dated 20-11-94, its 5585 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भार 28, 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SATNAM SINGH : PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT NO. IL, ROOM NO.33, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

GROUND FLOOR, DELHI.

I.D. No. 13/2008

Dated: 11-8-2009 renewal dated 17-11-95, copy of resolution dated 28-2-2001 , photo copy of news item appearing in Economic Times issue dated 3-1-2001 , photo copy of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) dated 9-5-06, copy of news letter of Spice Jetand copy of fresh certificate of incorporation , consequent upon change of name, Documents referred above , lands support to the facts pleaded by the management.

Inthe matter ofdispute between:

Smt. Vidya Devi

HouseNo. RZ-20/111 ,

Gali No. 1 , Main Sagarpur ,

New Delhi- 110046.

......Workman

Versus

TheCommandant

226, COY ASC (SUP)

Type-G, Delhi Cantt.

Delhi-110010.

.....Management.

AWARD

7. Asthe workman opted not to file claim statement and management projected that his services came to an end on 19-11-96 when permit to operate ScheduledAir Transport Service was not renewed by the Director General , Civil Aviation , it came to light that the reference made by the appropriate Government was mechanical , without application of any mind . Justifiability lies in the action of the management in dispensing with the services of Shiv Kumar Mishra, Security Officer , on 19-11-96, on account of non- renewal of permit to operate Scheduled Air Transport Services . Under these circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide order No. L- 14012/ 1 /2008 - IR ( DU) dated 8-4-2008 has referredthe following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

Dated:23-6-2009

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 27 अगस्त, 2009

"Whether the action of the management of the Commandant226, COY ASC (SUP ) Type 'G' Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services oftheir workman Smt. Vidya Devi w.e.f. April , 2006 is legal and justified/ Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman in sentitled to?"

का.आ. 2594. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947. (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कंमाण्डेन्ट, 226 सीओवाई एएससी ( एसयूपी ) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. -11 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 13/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/ 1/2008- आई आर (डी.यू. ) ]

SUBHESSION 2. Ever since the reference date 8-4-2008 has been received in this Tribunal the workman has never attended the Court and has not even filed his statement of claim till today. Noticeshave been received by the Court un- served repeatedly. it appears that the workman is not interested inthe outcome ofthis reference . Under these circumstances there is no option but to pass a no dispute award in this case, which is passed accordingly. File be consigned to therecordroom. 3

Dated: 11-8-2009

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

SATNAM SINGH , PresidingOfficer

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2009

695 का.आ. 2595.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 क्र. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन कार्डामॉम् रिसर्च इंस्टिटयूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कोचीन के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीस सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

8.O. 2594.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 13/2008) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No.11 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Commandant, 226 COY ASC (SUP) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on27-8-2009.

[सं. एल-42012/18/2007- आई.आर. (डी.यू.) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी [No. L- 14012/ 1 /2008-1R(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer 5586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] NewDelhi , the27th August , 2009

wasconducted in which they were found guilty of all the charges . The Disciplinary Authority dismissed them from service .

3. The workers questioned the validity and propriety of the enquiry proceedings and that aspect was considered as a preliminary issue holding that the enquiry wasproperly conducted and is vaild .

S.O. 2595.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947); the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.28/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Cochin as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Cardamom Research Institute and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-8-2009.

[No. L-42012/ 18/2007 - IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Monday the 10th day of August , 2009/ 19th Sravana , 1931 )

I. D. 28/2007

Workman:

4. According to the workers they were working in the plantations since 1996. While so, they had joined trade union ( CITU) , which was not liked by the management . The management was looking for an opportunity to flush them out. The disciplinary action is nothing but an act of victimisation . The allegations are vague and ambiguous . The officer who ordered enquiry and imposed punishment is incompetent to do so. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and not supported by evidence . The punishment is arbitrary , highly excessive and disproportionate . The workmen have a clean past record . This was not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority .

1. Shri R. Rajamani ,

S/o . Shri Ramaswamy,

C/o. Indian Cardamom Research Institute, Myladumpaara, Kailasanadu P. O. ,

Pin- 685 553 , Idukki

2. Shri M. Manikandan ,

S/o. Shri Madurai Veeran ,

C/o. Indian Cardamom Research Institute , Myladumpaara, Kailasanadu P. O. ,

Pin- 685 553 , Idukki

By Adv. Rajesh Nair & Bijoy Chandran .

Management:

5.According to the management they have not taken any revenge on any worker for having joined any union . The findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence . The two workmen had actively participated in causing damage to the company property and manhandling the security staff. One of them is an accused in serveral police cases and disciplinary action was taken against him in the past by the management . The punishment imposed is in accordance with the Standing Orders of the management institute . It is in proportion to the charges . There is no reason to interfere either with the findings or the punishment.

TheDirector.

C/o . Indian Cardamom Research Institute,

6. Inthe light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration:-

Myladumpaara, Kailasanadu P. O. ,

Pin- 685 553 , Idukki

1. Are the findings sustainable ?

ByAdv. Joseph Kodianthara .

2. Is the punishment proper ?

AWARD

7. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of MWI and Ext.MI Enquiry File .

This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act. The reference is:

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Cardamom Research Institute in terminating the services of their workmen Shri . Rajamani and Shri Manikandan , w.e.f. 17-4-1997 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"

8. Point No. 1 :- The charges are that on 30-3-1996 in the evening two workmen entered the premises of the farm office building of the management, manhandled the security staff, broke 11 window panes and damaged grills of gate . Sri . Rajamani alone is seen to have submitted explanation to the memo of charges . He has merely denied the charges saying that he has not done anything as alleged . Nine witnesses were examined on the side of the management and two witnesses on the side of the defence . MW1 is the Farm Manager . But he is not an eye witness to the incident . He has only hearsay knowledge . MW2, 5 and 9 are eye witnesses . MW2 is a planter near to the management institute ( ICRI) . While he was in a tea shop nearby he heard a hue and cry from ICRI farm office 2.The facts of the case in brief are as following:- Two workmen by name Rajamani and Manikandan were employers of Indian Cardamom Research Institute , Idukki working in plantations . They were charge sheeted for misconduct of manhandling the security personnel of the management and causing damage to the farm office building on the evening of 30-3-1996 . Adomestic enquiry 5587 [भाग II- खण्ड ३( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19. 2009/भार 28 , 1938 .

it has come out in evidence in the enquiry that there was no electric supply in the farm office building at the time of the incident the witnesses who support the case of the management, were familiar with the workmen and they had watched the incident from very near to the place of occurrence and being a village area people are accustomed to poor light during night and hence identification of assailants would not have been difficult for them . The fact that in the criminal case, in respect of thehe same incident thethe workmen who were accused were acquitted , does not mean that no departmental action. will lie . It is well settled that unless the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings involve identical set of facts and evidence , acquittal in a criminal case cannot be a ground for discharge in a departmental action (G. M. Tank v. State of Gujarat 2006 SCC ( L& S ) 1121 ), So far as the present case is concerned the evidence is not same in both cases . Though two of the witnesses in ... the domestic enquiry (MW5 and 6 ) were examined in the criminal case (PW6 & 9) other witnesses in the domestic enquiry were not examined in the criminal case. So also some of the witnesses in the criminal case were not examined in the domestic enquiry . No defence evidence . was adduced in the sessions case, Whereas in the domestic enquirydefence evidence was adduced . Thus the evidence in both cases are not identical . Therefore on that ground the delinquents cannot be let off in the disciplinary . action.

building. He went near to the office and found a large crowd. He sawManikandan smashing window panes with a stick. Since the delinquent was known to him he tried to dissuade him from acts of vandalism . MWS is Superintendent of Cardanom Estate of Sri . Mani . The estate is nearby the management institute . He says that he had witnessedthe incident . He saw Rajamani smashing window panes with stone and Manikandan breaking the window panes with astick. MW9 is an employee ofthe management since 1984. He is residing nearby the farm office . He saw Manikandan breaking the window panes with a stick and Rajamani and another person causing damage to the window. Nothing was brought out in their cross- examination to discredit their testimony. Though there is some discrepancy in the evidence of MWland other witnesses regarding electric supply at the time of the incident, they affirm that they witnessed the Incident as theywere close to the place ofoccurrence and the assailants wereknown to them . Therefore the contention ofthe learned counsel for the workers that since there was no electric supply and a mob had gathered there it was impossible to identify the assailants , cannot stand . Though MW3 , 4 , 6 and 7 have also supported the case of the management the Enquiry Officer did not rely on their testimony since they were security staff and some of them were involved in a preceding incident in which an outsider had sustained stab injury and died . MW8 is a broker and he says that he has not seen the delinquents, doing anything.৯-৩০ সিকান

For the reasons stated above I hold that the findings ofEnquity Officer are in order and do not call for any interference.

9. A few hours prior to this incident a quarrel had ensued in the same place . Some ladies from the family of employees ofthe management residing near to the farm hadbeento farm office compound to fetch drinking water. The security staff then locked the main gate and opened a side gate . This was questioned by the ladies and their family members who gathered at the gate. Awordy quarrel .. and scuffle ensued. It ended in assault and stabbing. An outsider sustained serious stab injury at the hands of security staff and he was hospitalised and died. After a few hours some people including the delinquents barged into the farm office compound , attacked the security staff, damaged the window panes and the gate grills . Though on the defence side two witnesses were examined, DW2 says that he had not seen the incident. DWI has altogether a different story to tell that it was MW2 and 5 who had destroyedthe window panes. This is noboby's case . DW1 is an accused in the murder case in which an outsider had sustained stab injuries and died. Hence the enquiry officer did not rely on his testimony: Thus the evidence of MW2 , 5and9 stands uncontroverted . Based on this evidence, the EnquiryOfficer came to the concconclusion that the workmen are guilty or the charges.

10. The contention of the workmen that the disciplinary action is an act of victimisation for having at taken membership in union is not substantiated . Though

12. Point No.2:- The punishment imposed is dismissal from service w.e.f. 17-4-1997, According to the workmen the punishment is shockingly disproportionate ... andexcessive. Sri . Rajamani had submitted a representation.. regarding the proposed punishment . The mitigating circumstances stated by him is that his sole source of income is the employment in the managemerit institute . In the claim statement no mitigating circumstances are pointed out except that their past service is without blemish . In the written statement in paragraph 10 the management has contended that there are several police cases against Sri.Rajamani for disturbing peace in ICRI Labour campus . There were several complaints from labourers that Sri . Rajamani was making life in labour quarters difficult: Actionwas taken against Rajamani for pilferage of fodder and firewood from the farm. On 29-4-2003 he had brutally... injured a permanent worker of the institute by name Sri . Andavar with a sickle while he was proceeding to the farm and a police case was registered in Santhanpara police station . Though the workmen filed a reply statement this aspect is not denied . In the absence of any plea regarding mitigating circumstances and in view of the fact that the past record at least of Sri . Rajamani is not clean...

5588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009/ BHADRA 28, 1931

[PART 11-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 10thday of August , 2009.

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Witness for the workmen

Exhibit for the workmen

Nil Witness for the management MW1 17-2-2009 M. V. Varkey Nil Exhibit for the management MI EnquiryFile.

नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त , 2009

का.आ. 2596.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक नोट प्रैस 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 सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर/ 13/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -16011/ 1/98- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

unlike contended in the claim statement and in view of the fact of indiscipline and highhandedness I don't think any leniency in the matter of punishment is warranted . At any rate the punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate . In M. P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sarma(2005) 3 SCC 401 an employee hit his superior officer with a tension screw in the presence of other employees and caused bleeding injury of the nose . Itwas held to be an act of indiscipline which warranted the punishment of dismissal and it was not a disproportionate punishment . In Federal Bank Ltd v . T. Sreekantan and others W. P. (C) 24901 and 35711/2007 it is held that unless the punishment imposed is shockingly disproporationate no interference is called for . However the learned counsel for the workmen relying on the decision in Mavji C. Lakum v. Central Bank of India (2009 ) 1 SCC ( L& S ) 245 , submitted that punishment can be interfered with even when findings are upheld . The learned counsel also relied on Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India ( P) Ltd. ( 1984 ) 2 SCC 569 regarding interference with punishment . It was held that a charge of abusing a co- worker in filthy language by itself will not invite extreme penalty of dismissal on a not- so-serious charge of misconduct . There was no previous adverse remarks against the delinquent . The punishment was found to be disproportionate and set aside and reinstatement was ordered by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt . In Palghat BPL and PSP Thozhilali Union v. BPL India Ltd. 1995 STPL ( LE) 20303 SC the workers were agitating over certain demands and the management wasnot conceding . While so, when the officers of BPL were on their way the workers intercepted and assaulted them. The management initiated disciplinary action and the workers were dismissed from service . The labour court ordered reinstatement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the circumstances the order of Labour Court was justified.

S.O. 2596.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.CGIT/ LC/ R/ 13 / 99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank Note Press and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-8-2009 .

[No. L- 16011 / 1 /98 - IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

13. But so far as the present case is concerned there is not even a plea about the mitigating circumstances . Besides Sri . Rajamani was involved in several acts of indiscipline and several criminal cases were pending against him. Due to the first incident the situation was tense in the area and the two workmen should not have created further chaos . In the light of the above circumstances the misconducı cannot be viewed lightly and therefore cannot be said to be excessive or shockingly disproportionate . Therefore I refrain from interfering withthe punishment either .

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

NO . CGIT/LC/ R/ 13/99

PresidingOfficer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

General Secretary,

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workmen is legal and justified and they are not entitled for any relief.

Bank Note Press Office Staff Association , 101, Adarsh Nagar Colony , Dewas (MP) ...Workman/Union The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .

5589

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Versus

...Management

TheGeneralManager, BankNotePress, Dewas(MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of August, 2009

4. During the course of proceeding, the applicant Union filed an application that the Union and the management held discussion relating to the said dispute and there is hope of amicable settlement . As such, the Union wants to close the present proceeding but reserve their right to raise the dispute again if no settlement is arrived at between the parties . It is submitted that no dispute award be passed. The management has no objection if the reference is disposed off as no dispute award.

1.TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its NotificationNo. L - 16011 / 1 /98/IR (DU) dated 30-11-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by thistribunal :-

5. Since good sense is going to prevail between the parties, no dispute award is passed without costs.

"Whether the action of the management ofGeneral Manager , Bank Note Press, Dewas in not filling the vacant post resulting in curtailment done under economydrive is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2597. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार व्हिकल फैक्ट्री 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 सीजीआईटी /एलसी/ आर/90/04) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/ 11/2004- आई.आर. (डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्रसिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 27th August, 2009 2. The case of the applicant in short is that Bank Note Press Office Staff Association is a registered Trade Union and the Bank Note Press is Government of India undertaking under the Ministry of Finance. It is stated that after computerisation w.e.f. January, 1988 , the management agreed that there would be no retrenchment and any worker rendered surplus would be absorbed and therewill be no adverse effect on the conditions ofwork, promotion prospect etc. of the employees . It was also agreed that there will be no reduction or loss in their present salary and there will be adequate safeguard to protect the workers interests. It is stated that the management assured that new posts would be created in the computer section but instead of creating new posts, the Ministry curtailed/abolished 114 posts which was vacant in breach ofthe argeement and against the procedure laid down by the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation . The management declared Shri G. L. Karma, Head clerk (Stores) as surplus and accommodated in costing section against vacant post of Dy. Accountant after curtailing/abolishing the said post in violence ofthe said guidelines . It is submitted thatthe curtailment of vacant posts by the management was illegal and unjustified.

S.O. 2597. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT/ LC/R/ 90/ 04 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelation to the management of Vehicle Factory and their workmen, which was received by the Central Govemment on27-8-2009.

[No. L- 14012/ 11 /2004- IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO . CGIT/LC/R/90/04

PresidingOfficer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

...Workman/Union

Shri Tekram Tiwari, House No. 760 -A, Jagdish Mandir , M. P. Choubey House, Jabalpur.

3.The management also appeared and filed Written statement in the case . The case of the management, inter alia, is that Bank Note Press, Dewas is Government of India indertaking under Ministry of Finance . It is admitted that an agreementwas reached between the management ofthe Bank and applicant Union as stated above but the management had not violated any conditions of the agreement . It is stated that in the year 1993 on the instructions of the Government , 114 posts lying vacant were abolished. It is stated that a proposal for creation of posts for Computer section was sent to the ministry and the same is under consideration . It is stated that no post of Head Clerkwas abolished and presently one Head clerk is working in the Store section and the service of Shri G. L. Karma is being utilized in costing section . On the basis of above facts, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

5590

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

Versus

The General Manager ,

Vehicle Factory,

Jabalpur.

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of August , 2009

there was no infirmity in conducting the departmental enquiry and passed order of compulsory retirement on 14-4-1994. It is stated that the applicant did not file any appeal before the Appellate Authority and the present reference is also filed after the lapse of ten years . It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the non-applicant .

1. TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 14012/ 11 /2004/IR (DU) dated 29-7-04 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

4. The applicant subsequently left the reference and became absent . The predecessor's Court after giving sufficient time proceeded exparte on 18-7-07 against the applicant/workman .

5. The only question is as to whether the management awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 14-4-94 to Shri Tekram Tiwari is justified?

"Whether the management of Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, MP in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on Shri Tekram Tiwari w.e.f 14-4-94 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. The case of the workman , in short, is that he was appointed as Fitter ( skilled) in non- applicant organisation and his service was always satisfactory. It is stated that on 16-5-92 in lunch time , he was taking lunch but in the meantime co- workman M.G. Patel came with a bottle of liquor and offered him . He refused , then the said co- worker sprinkled a glass of liquor on his face . He started talking loudly. On hearing, other co - workers came and some one complained to the Security Officer. He was sent to hospital for examination where Dr. Mrs. A. De examined but he was not in toxicated condition . Thereafter the applicant and Shri M. G. Patel were served with chargesheets . Departmental Enquiry was initiated against both . After enquiry, hewas held guilty, Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of Compulsory retirement. It is alleged that M. G. Patel was taken back in the service. The applicant after a long gap preferred appeal but the same was pending without any result as such he raised the present dispute.

6. To prove the case , the non -applicant/ management has proved the oral and documentary evidence . Shri Sandeep Jain is Works Manager . He has supported the case of the non - applicant . He has stated that the applicant wasfound under the influence of alcohol on 16-5-92 while he was on duty and was committing nuisance . He was examined by the Doctor who also found him under the influence of alcohol and declared him unfit for the day. He waschargesheeted for the misconduct which is marked as Exhibit M/ 1 . He denied the charges on 11-8-92 , as such enquiry was conducted against him by the Enquiry Officer . He had been given full opportunity to defend himself and theprinciple of natural justice was followed. After enquiry , theEnquiry Officer submitted report which is marked as Exhibit-M-2 and found the charges proved against hiın . The disciplinary Authority , after perusing the representation and enquiry report was satisfied that the enquiry was done in accordance with law and the charges were proved . Therefore passed the order of compulsory retirement which is marked as Exhibit M/3 . There is nothing inhis evidence to disbelieve this witness . Moreover there is no other evidence to rebut the evidence of the non- applicant . Accordingly it is established that there is no illegality in the proceeding and non - applicant was justitied in imposing punishment to the workman whose conduct was unbecoming a Government Servant .

7. In the result, the award is passed exparte against the workman and in favour of the management without costs.

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस्त , 2009

3. The non -applicant appeared and filed written statement . The case of the non - applicant inter- alia is that the workman was found under the influence of alcohol on 16-5-92 while on duty alongwith another worker and was creating nuisance in the section . Both were taken to hospital for medical examination and after examination , both were found under the influence of alcohol by the doctor and were made unfit for duty for one day. Disciplinary Authority placed them under suspension from the said date and departmental proceeding were initiated against both of them . The workman M. G. Patel admitted the charges and was accordingly punished . The applicant denied the charges and as such the Enquiry . Officer proceeded the enquiry. The workman participated in the enquiry and full opportunity was given to the applicant himself. There was no violation of natural justice. After enquiry , the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report and found the charge as proved . The Disciplinary Authority after perusing the enquiry report was satisfied that the workman had committed gorss misconduct and

का.आ. 2598-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑयल इंडिया 5591 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

IR (M) Dated : 24-12-2008 , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Act , 1947 , for adjudication of the dispute as described in the Schedule below.

लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , गुवाहाटी , असम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

SCHEDULE

[सं. एलं -30011/33/2008- आई.आर. ( एम. ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 28th August, 2009

"Whether the contention of the Oil Workers ' Association that service conditions to the 30 Nos . listed Works Contract Labour ( WCLs ) have been changed by the management of Oil India Ltd. by making 48 hours duty instead of 44 hours on Saturdays and also rule framed for shift duty from 1.00 P.M. to 9.00 P.M. and accordingly implementation and non -payment for shift duty allowance , is legal and justified? If not, what relief the effected workmen are entitled to and from which date?"

S.O. 2598.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati , Assam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oil India Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-8-2009.

[No. L-30011/33/2008- IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present:

Shri D. K. Deb Roy, M.A. , LL.B PresidingOfficer, CGIT-cum -LabourCourt, Guwahati ..

Ref. Case No. 1 of2009

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

The Management of Oil India Ltd. Duliajan , Assam.

TheGeneral Secretary, Oil India Workers Association , Duliajan , Assam.

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

:Sri S. C. Barman , Advocate

2. On receipt of the reference notices were duly. served upon the Oil India Ltd. Duliajan and M/s . P. Phukan & Company, contractor and the General Secretary Oil India Workers ' Association , Duliajan . On receipt of the notice the Oil India Ltd. ( herein called the Management ) submitted a petition challenging the maintainability of the order of reference . In obedience to summons M /s . P. Phukan & Company , Contractor submitted his W. S. Learned Counsel for the General Secretary , Oil India Workers Association took adjournments fixing 5-6-09 for objection hearing. That on 5-6-09 none appeared for the workman. So the matter could not be heard fixing 14-7-09 and on that day also neither the Advocate for the General Secretary nor M/s . P. Phukan & Company appeared before the Court. The learned Counsel for the Management emphatically submitted that the present reference is not maintainable as there is no relationship between the employer and employee between the 30 numbers of workmen and the management, Oil India Ltd. According to him, since the employer and employee relationship does not exist the matter should not have been referred by the Government of India under clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act , 1947 . In support of his argument he - relied on some decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court which I will discuss at a later stage .

:Sri S. N. Sarma, Sr. Advocate

For the Management

:Sri A. Sarma, Advocate :Sri N. Sarma , Advocate

:Sri A. Jahid, Advocate.

Date ofAward: 19-8-09

AWARD

1. The present reference is arising- out of the Government Notification vide Memo No. L - 30011/33/2008-

3. Now let me state that brief facts regarding the factum of maintainability as raised by the management . According to the management it is the settled position of law that contract labourers can not raise a dispute against the principal employer until and unless there is an order of prohibition of engagement of contract labourers by the Central Government U/ s 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition ) Act. Till today there is no such 3252G1/09-28 5592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

Notification prohibiting the employment of contract labourers in Oil India Ltd. , Duliajan . Accordingly the present reference is not maintainable so far as the management Oil India Ltd. is concerned . It is further alleged by the management that , on 2nd May, 2005 the Management had entered into an agreement with the Contractor namely M/s . P. Phukan & Company for erection and subsequent dismantling of telephone line and cable/ public address system etc. and certain other works . As per terms of the contract , the labourers engaged by the contractor will be entitled to Rs . 91.80 plus 12% PF contribution on basic wage for 8 hours service and they will be entitled for one rest day after every continuous 6 working days of service .

4. It is further averred that the allegations of the contract labourers that their working hours have been raised from 44 hours in a week to 48 hours . However as per the contract agreement the contractual labourer is entitled to get the prescribed rate of wages after working 48 hours in a week. The further allegation of the management is that ifthe labour contractor had chosen the least hour of work in a day in that event the management has nothing to do but it will be the prerogative ofthe management to deduct pro- rata amount from the contractor . It is further stated that as a matter of fact that the contract labourers were not the employees of the Management i.e. Oil India Ltd. and simply the principal employer as defined under the contract labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act. The contract labourers have master and servant relationship only with the contractor and the dispute if there be any, it is in between the contractor and the labourers . Oil India Ltd. being the principal employer has nothing to do withthat. According to the Management the service conditions of the contract labourers are governed by the contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and that the Rules framed therein as such , the reference is not maintainable and it is to be rejected.

5. M/s . P. Phukan & Company has also submitted written statement stating inter - alia that he was appointed as Labour Contractor vide Oil Letter No. CCO No. -INST/ 9408/2004dtd. 1-1-05 for services of WCL's for complete erection & subsequent dismantling of the telephone lines and cable/public address systemetc. of Oil India Ltd. Accordingly he engaged 30 numbers of workers for the purpose and daily wage @ Rs . 228.86 p was paid to per worker . According to him he is simply a commission agent. However, the General Secretary , Oil India Ltd. workers' Association has not submitted any W.S. even though he wasgiven ample opportunity . Mr. S.N. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel for the management in his efficacious submission has contended inter-alia that the relationship ofemployer and employee does not exist between Oil India Ltd. and the Contractual Labourers . In absence of relationship of employers and employee the dispute can

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] not be brought within the definition of Industrial Dispite as defined in Section 2 (k) of the Act.

6. It is thus abundantly clear that the contract labourers are the employees of the contractor and they are not the labourers under the management i.e. the Oil India Ltd. The learned counsel for the management relied on:-- i . (2001 ) 7 SSC 1 , Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.... Appellants -Vrs- National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors ..... Respondents .

I have gone through the observations arrived at by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and I do agree it is applicable in the case in hand . I also refer another decisions of the Supreme Court reported in:

ii . ( 1985-11 - LLJ - 4) , Workmen of Food Corporation of India .... Vrs .... Food Corporation of India . , wherein the Supreme Court held that when a contract system is in vogue the workmen employed by the contractor certainlyare notthe workmen of the Corporation.

In my opinion , the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in this decision fully applies to the fact of this case . Reliance has also been placed in a decision reported in :

iii . 1998 ( 2) GLT 67 , India Oil Corporation Ltd. ....Appellant .... Vrs .... Presiding Officer and Ors .... Respondents , wherein it has been observed , Industrial disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) - Reference-validity of- Labourers employed by the Contractor in the bottling plant of IOC seeking regularization of their services with the IOC .... No relationship of employer and employees between 1OC and contract labourers Cause of contract labourers not espoused by the direct employees of the principal employer .... Reference , held, noι maintainable .

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the management and having considered the materials placed before me , I am of the considered view that the Reference u/s clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Act , 1947 , is not maintainable . According to me, Mr. Sarma, the leamed counsel for the management has rightly pointed out that the present reference is not maintainable . I find sufficient force in the submission.

8. With the observation indicated above , the reference stands disposed of.

9. Prepare no relief award and send the same to the Ministry as per law.

Givenunder my hand and seal of this Court on this 19thday of August , 2009 at Guwahati .

D. K. DEB ROY, Presiding Officer 5593 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस्त, 2009

Industrial DisputesAct, 1947, referred the following dispute foradjudication to this Tribunal .

क्या कामगार श्री रतनदास ने मैसर्स अशोक घोष, पाकुड़ , के यहां 290 दिन कार्य किया है ? यदि हां , क्या नियोजक मैसर्स अशोक घोष , पाकुड़, दवारा अपने कामगार श्री रतनदास को कार्यमुक्त कर देने का कृत्य न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं तो कामगार वित्त राहत का हकदार है ।

का.आ. 2599.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. अशोक घोष (स्टोन माईन्स) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और 'उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण /श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 237/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29012/43/2000-आई आर ( एम) ]

कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th August, 2009

Thisreference case was received in this Tribunal on 18-9-2000. Thereafter , notices were sent to the parties to file written statement by the concerning union/ workman. Inspite of notices sentby speed post no written statement has been filed by the workman till 13-7-09 . It therefore , appears that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case .

In such circumstances , In render NO DISPUTE AWARD in this reference case.

H.M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 28 अगस्त, 2009

S.O. 2599.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.237/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial TribunalLabour Court No.1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of M/s . Ashok Ghosh (Stone Mines ) and their workman, received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009 .

[No. L-29012/43 /2000- IR(M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 2600.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. एसोसियेटेड स्टोन एण्डस्ट्रीज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29012/66/97- आई आर ( एम ) ] BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 DHANBAD

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28thAugust, 2009

In the matter of a reference under sectin 10( 1 ) ( d) &(2A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 237 of 2000

Parites: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Ashok Ghosh ( Stone Mines)

And

Their Workman

Present: Sri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer

S.O. 2600.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.29/97) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Kota now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Associated Stone Industries and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-8-2009 .

APPEARANCES :

[No. L-29012/66/97-1R (M ) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer :

None

Forthe Employers

अनुबन्ध

None

For the Workman

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , कोटा/केन्द्रीय/कोटा/राज. /

Dated, 5th August, 2009

AWARD

पीठासीन अधिकारी-अनुराधा शर्मा, आर.एच.जे.एस.निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांकः ओ.न्या./केन्द्रीय/-29/97

दिनांक स्थापितः 21-11-97

By Order No. L- 29012/ 43 /2000 /IR ( M) , dated 12-8- 2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of

प्रसंगः भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश संख्या एल. 29012/66/97- आई आर ( विविध ) दि. 17-9-97 5594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] निर्देश/विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( ध ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947

मध्य

मैरूलाल कोली पुत्र श्री धन्नालाल द्वारा महामंत्री, पत्थर कामगार यूनियन , कोटा ।

प्रार्थी श्रमिक

एवं

प्रबन्धक , एसोसियेटेड स्टोन इण्डस्ट्रीज ( कोटा ) ( रामगंज मण्डी)

पक्षकारों को सुना गया । पत्रावली , प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रार्थनानुसार आज पेशी में ली गयी । प्रार्थी श्रमिक की स्वयं स्वीकारोक्तिअनुसार उसने लंबित प्रकरण में अप्रार्थी नियोजक से तयशुदा लाभ प्राप्त कर लिये हों और अब प्रकरण को आगे नहीं चलाना चाहता , ना कोई राहत ही प्राप्त करना शेष है । अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने भी प्रार्थी के उक्त कथन पर अपनी सहमति व्यक्त की है । चूँकि प्रार्थी श्रमिक की स्वीकारोक्तिअनुसार उसने लंबित प्रकरण के सम्बन्ध में अप्रार्थी पक्ष से तयशुदा लाभ प्राप्त कर लिये हैं और कोई बकाया नहीं है । अतः सम्प्रेषित निर्देश /विवाद में अब प्रार्थी श्रमिक, अप्रार्थी नियोजक से किसी प्रकार का कोई अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है और इसी प्रकार अधिनिर्णित कर उत्तरित किया जाता है ।

अप्रार्थी नियोजक

अनुराधा शर्मा , न्यायाधीश उपस्थित

नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस्त, 2009 प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि:- श्री एन. के. तिवारी

श्री भैरूलाल कोली

(श्रमिकस्वयं)

अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः श्री आर. एस. शर्मा

एजीएम ( पी एण्ड ए)

अधिनिर्णय दिनांक: 3-7-09

का.आ. 2601. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.पी.सी.एल. के प्रबधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. -2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी- 2/67/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

अधिनिर्णय

[सं. एल-30012/34/2003- आई आर ( एम ) ]

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 28th August , 2009 भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश दिनांकित 17-9-97 के जरिये निम्न निर्देश/विवाद, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से संबोधित किया जावेगा ) की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( ध ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है : -

S.O. 2601. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.CGIT- 2/67/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribuna !! Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BPCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Govemment on 28-8-2009.

" क्या प्रबन्धन मैसर्स एसोसियेटेड स्टोन इण्डस्ट्रीज (कोटा ) लि. रामगंज मण्डी द्वारा उनके कर्मकार श्री भैरूलाल पुत्र श्री धन्नालाल कोली की सेवायें दिनांक 20-7-96 से समाप्त करने की कार्यवाही उचित एवं न्याया संगत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ? "

[No. L-30012/34/2003 - IR ( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , MUMBAI 2. निर्देश/विवाद , न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों को सूचना विधिवत रूप में जारी की गयी जिस पर दोनों पक्षों की ओर सेअपने-अपने अभ्यावेदन प्रस्तुत किये गये व साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी की ओर से शपथ- पत्र पर परीक्षित किये जाने उपरान्त अप्रार्थी की ओर से शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया जिस पर जिरह हेतु पत्रावली नियत रही ।

Present : A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT -2 /67 of 2003

Employers in relation to the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

The Managing Director ,

M/ s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn . Ltd. ,

Refinery Div . , Mahul , Chembur,

Mumbai 400 0074 .

3. पत्रावली वास्ते जिरह गवाह अप्रार्थी 8-9-09 को नियम थी, किन्तु स्वयं प्रार्थी ने मय अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि आज प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत कर निवेदन किया कि उसे लंबित प्रकरण में अप्रार्थी नियोजक से तयशुदा लाभ प्राप्त हो गये हैं और वो अब इस प्रकरण को आगे नहीं चलाना चाहता है और प्रकरण से संबंधित कोई राहत प्रार्थी को प्राप्त करना शेष नहीं है , अन्तिम निस्तारण चाहता है , अतः पत्रावली आज ही तलब कर प्रकरण का अन्तिम निस्तारण कर दिया जावे ।

...First Party 5595

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

v/ s

Sh . Ashok K. Kedare ,

A- 1 , Hiradevi Housing Society,

...Second Party Kharegaon , Kalwa.

APPEARANCE

: Shri R.S. Pai , Advocates Forthe Employer

For the Workmen : Shri Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate

Date ofreserving the Award : 09-04-2009 Dateofpassing the Award : 13-07-2009

AWARD PART- I

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

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L - 30012/34/2003 - IR ( B - M) dated 13th October, 2003 in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of BPCL Refinery in dismissing the services of the workman Shri Ashok K. Kedare for absenteeism w.e.f. 25-3-2002 is legal , proper and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?" 2. In support of demand made by the concerned workman Claim Statement is filed at Exhibit 7 making out the case that, he was takenby Ist Party in Refinery at Mahul w.e.f. 7-1-1982 as Utility Operator . He submits that, during the course of his employment he sustained disease of sleep apnoea due to peculier working conditions in which he was working there in the Refinery . It affected on his health and he started complaining about chest pain , Blood Pressure and Diabetics . He was taking treatment for all those diseases but did not get any relief. He states that, he undergone medical treatment and was compelled to remain away from his work because of his serious illness dueto working condition. It is stated that , said illness was know to the Management and the Management used to reimburse the concemed workman of medical expenses incurred by him from time to time . He states that , as a result ofthat , he did not report on duty. Even he says that , he had no intention to remain absent from the duties and commitmisconduct . He states that , he admitted the fact of absenteeism before the Enquiry officer but the punishment of removal was awarded on the alleged charge of absenteeism without prior permission and sanction .He states that, the finding given by the Enquiry Officer be declared perverse and the order of punishment awarded onthe basis of the said findings of the Enquiry officer be quashed and set aside with directions to the 1st Party to take him in the employment with all benefits .

3. This is disputed by the 1st party by filing written statement at Exhibit 8 making out the case that, the concerned workman was remaining absent on number of occasions . It is stated that , earlier he was held guilty on similar charges for 5 times. It is stated that , he was lastly charge sheeted on 21-12-2001 for remaining unauthorisedly absent for a long period which amouted to misconduct on the part of the concerned workman and domestic enquiry was held against the concerned workman and he participated in it . It is staed that, the concerned work admitted his guilt before the Enquiry Officer . It is stated that , accordingly the Enquiry Officer submitted the report and his findings on the basis of the evidence recorded by him holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges leveled against him . It is stated that , copy of the said finding was sent to the concerned workman directing him to submit his reply . It is stated that , the concerned workman participated in the enquiry . It is submitted that, the concerned workman admitted the charge before the Enquiry Officer and as such it is held that, the charge was proved. It is stated that, the Enquiry officer followed the procedure and gave the finding which is just and proper and does not require any interference . It is stated that, decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis ofthe said finding of the Enquiry Officer be upheld . It is prayed that , the Reference be rejected.

4. In view of the above pleadings Issues are framed atExhibit 13. Out of those Issue of fairness of enquiry was deleted since enquiry is not seriously challenged . Now issue of perversity of finding remains which is to be adjudicated treating as a preliminary issue and I answer it as under :

ISSUE

FINDING

No 2. Is finding perverse ?

REASONS:

ISSUE No. 2:

5. The concerned workman challenges the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as challenges the issue of decision of his termination taken by the Management on the said findings of the Enquiry Officer . According to the concerned workman , Enquiry Officer was not justified in observing the charges leveled against the concerned workman as proved and the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse. Whereas case of the Ist Party is that, since the concemed workman admitted that, he remained absent unauthorisedly without prior permission or sanction and admitted his unauthorized absenteeism before the Enquiry 5596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 / BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii )] Officer and when relying on admissions , finding is given by the enquiry officer does not require to be questioned . Besides show cause notice was issued to the concerned workman . Considering all that , 1st Party decided to discharge the concerned workman and the same was challenged by him before the Appellate Auhority who also turned down his appeal .

absence during the period between January , 2001 to November , 2001. It is stated that , the remained absent unauthorisedly without intimation or prior permisssion from 1-1-2001 to November , 2001 which was treated as habitually absent without permission or prior permission or intimation constituted gross misconduct .It is alleged that, he remained absent on number of occasions even previously . It is alleged that , remained absent without intimation or prior permission from January, 2001 to November , 2001 and as such it is stated that, he was habitual of remaining absent without intimation and sanction of leave which showed that, he was in the habit ofremaining absent without prior permission and intimation which amount to misconduct on the part of the concerned workman.

6. On that 2nd Party , the concerned workman filed affidavitat Exhibit 15 in lieu of examination - in -chief where he narrates the same story and states that, the finding of the Enquiry officer is perverse . In the cross he admits that, he was served with the charge sheets . He admits that he attended the Enquiry . He admits the signatures orr pages 5-7 of enquiry proceedings . He states that, he did not complaint about the enquiry proceedings recorded by the Enquiry Officer . He alleges that , the complained on findings . He states that , he has no evidence to that effect . He states that , he was terminated by order dated 25-3-2002 and the said was challenged by him before the Appellate Authority which was turned down . He admits that , he was punished before and the same was challenged . He states that , he has given medical certificates to the list Party. It was suggested by the Ist Party, whether he submitted the medical certificates before the Enquiry Officer to justify his absenteeism . He admits that, the Company has its own Doctor and he was examined by the Company's Doctor. He admits that, he has no proof on that point . On that , the concerned workman closed his evidence and filed closing purshis atExhibit 16.

7.1st Party filed affidavit of its witness K.M. Vankar, atExhibit 18 , in lieu of his examination - in -chief, who was the Enquiry Officer . He states that , he conducted the enquiry against the concerned workman in respect of the charges leveled against him in respect of the charge sheet dated 21-12-2001 . He states that , enquiry was fair and proper . He states that , the gave finding relying on the evidence and relying on the guilt admitted by the concerned workman . He states that , charge of absenteeism was proved against the concerned workman since he admitted it. He states that , nothing was brought by the concerned workman in the enquiry to justify his absenteeism . On that, 1st Party closed his evidence and filed closing purshis at Exhibit 19 .

8.Written arguments were submitted by both i.e. by the concerned workman at Exhibit 20 and by the 1st Party atExhibit 23 .

10. The case of the 2nd Party , concerned workman, isthat because of his sickness he was not in position to attend his duties regularly and as such remained absent . He pleaded guilty on the charge of absenteeismbefore the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer recorded the same in the enquiry proceedings on 6-2-2002 at page 6 of Exhibit 14. The concerned workman when admitted the charge of absenteeism and pleaded guilty of the charge of absenteeism then question was put to him by the Enquiry Officer what he has to say about absenteeism and relying on the admission given , the Enquiry Officer observed him guilty of the charge leveled against him as "proved" . Even , the concerned workman is not stating how finding of the enquiry is perverse . He only says that , finding is perverse . However, when concerned workman admits that, he was absent without prior pemission or intimation and when he has not proved that , he has given intimation or informed 1st Party how he can say that, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse ? Evidence was there before the Enquiry Officer to observe that , he remained absent unauthorisedly and whenhe admits his unauthorized absence without prior sanction or permission/ intimation , how finding given by the Enquiry Officer is perverse ? In this premises ifwe read the finding of Enquiry Officer in my considered view, there is no point in saying that, Enquiry Office was not having any evidence before him to conclude that, the concerned workman was not absent unauthorisedly and the story put up by him that , he submitted the medical certificates were not accepted .It is not made know to whom he gave those medical certificates . It is also not made know by the concerned workman for what period said certificates were given since we find Ist certificate is dated 10-6-1999 , 2nd dated 23-1-2001 , 3rd dated 13-9-2001 , 4th 6-11-2001 , 5th dated 12-12-2001 6th dated 10-4-2002 which are pages from 2 onwards of Exhibit 17 . But it is not proved , who gave those and whether he was 9. Inrespect ofthe said termination there are enquiry proceedings at pages 5-7 of Exhibit 14. Charge of unauthorized habitual absence , without permission is leveled against the concerned workman for his habitual [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5597

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-8-2009 .

[No. L-30012/37/2006- IR(M)]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDNG OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- I , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 9/2007

authorised to receive it? There may be certain reasons for the concerned workman to remain absent from duty. He does not claims that, he applied for leave . Even he does not claim that , he applied for leave for the above period of his absenteeism and it was not granted by the Ist Party. Even it is not his case that , his said absenteeism was made known to the 1st Party by applying for the same. When absence was not made known in advance and when there was no prior permission sought for it and when he remained absent unauthorisedly, in my considered view, charge of absenteeism appears to be proved against the concerned workman and on that basis , the Enquiry Officer has observed him guilty of the charge of absenteeism which need not be disturbed .

Sh. Hari Singh C/ o Shri M.L. Chandna, 38 -A, Pritam Nagar, Karnal .

....Applicant

Versus

15. When evidence brought on record reveals that , the concerned workman remained absent without permission in my cosidered view the finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be observed as perverse as prayed by the concerned workman . So I answer this issue to that effect holding that , the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not perverse and passes the following order:

The Deputy General Manager , Indian Oil Corporation (Marketing Division), Indian Oil Bhawan YusufSaria, New Delhi- 110016.

ORDER

....Respondent a.tinding is not perverse ,

APPEARANCES

.None

Forthe workman:

b.both parties are directed to appear on the point of quantum of punshment.

Shri Vivek Kaushal

For the management:

Bombay, 13thJuly, 2009

AWARD

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Passed on:- 1-8-2009 Panipat Camp Court नई दिल्ली , 28 अगस्त, 2009

Central Government vide Notification No. L - 300 12 / 37/2006- IR (M ), dated 15-01-2007, has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of IOCL , Panipat in terminating the services of Shri Hari Singh S/o Shri Chanan Ram , Electrician w.e.f. 1-9-2003 is just and legal? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to"?

का.आ. 2602. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.ओ.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं.- I , चंढीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या-9/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30012/37/2006- आईआर ( एम) ]

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th August, 2009

2. Case repeatedly called . No one appeared for the workman. The case is already two years old . Despite notice the workman has not put up his appearance for his evidence . It appears that workman is not interested to peruse with the present claim in reference. Hence , the present claim in the reference is returned to the Central Government as such for want of prosecution . Central Governmentbe informed. File be consigned .

Chandigarh

1-8-2009 Panipat Camp Court

S.O. 2602.-In pursuance of Section. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9 / 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 5598

[PART 11 -SEC..3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 / BHADRA 28 , 1931

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस्त, 2009

This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is:

का. आ. 2603.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ट्रावनकोर टाइटेनियम प्रोडक्ट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय इर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -43011/5/2007 - आई आर. ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. , Trivandrum in stopping the existing privilege of extension of service available to the workers for a maximurn period of two years on attaining the age of superannuation without following the provisions of Section 9 A of the ID Act , 1947 and without amending Clause 12 (c) of the Certified Standing Orders of the establishment , is justified ? If not , what should be the relief to be given to the workmen of the establishment ? " New Delhi , the 28th August , 2009

S. O. 2603.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.23 /2008 ) of the Central- Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Ernakularn now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government 28-8-2009 . on

[No. L-43011 /5/2007 - IR ( M ) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri P. L. Norbert , B. A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

2. The facts ofthe case in brief are as follows:-The management M / s . Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. is a public limited company owned by Government of Kerala . It is a scheduled industry as per the provisions of Industrial (Development and Regulation ) Act 1951 and the appropriate Government as per S.2 (a ) of Industrial Disputes Act is the Central Government . According to the union as per the Standings Orders from the very inception of the establishment of the company the retirement age of the workers was 60 years , provided a medical certificate regarding physical and mental fitness is produced . But in the year 2007 for the first time the management declined to extend the service ofworkers beyond 58 years on the ground that there isexcess manpower. It is a blatant violation of the provisions of Standing Orders and a change in the service conditions which cannot be imposed unilaterally by the management . Since long the workers were enjoying the privilege of service extension up to the age of60 years . Hence the retirement age of60 has to be restored .

(Friday the 31st day of July , 2009/9th Sravana , 1931 )

I. D. 23/2008

Unions : 1. The General Secretary , Titanium Workers Union ( AITUC) , Kochuveli , Thiruvananthapuram- 695021 .

2. The General Secretary ,

Titanium Products Labour Union (AITUC) , Kunnumpuram , Thiruvananthapuram - 695.0t 1 .

)

3. According to the management the retirement age at ail times has been 58 years and not 60 years . However the management is having the discretion to extend the service up to the maximum age of 60 years on proof of physical and mental health . Since 2004 the company has been running at heavy loss and the management in discussion with the unions decided to reduce the manpower considerably . As a step towards that , extension of service after the attainment of the age of 58 years was stopped . It is in accordance with the Standing Orders of the company . The extension of service up to the age of 60 years is not a privilege of the employees but a prerogative of the management .

4. In the light of the above contentions the points thatarise for consideration are : -

3. The General Secretary, Titanium General Labour Union CITU, Jawahar Smarakom, Kochuveli , Thiruvananthapuram - 695021 . (In person)

1. What is the retirement age ?

Management:

2. Are the workers entitled for extension of service

up to the age of 60 years ?

The Managing Director , Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. Kochuveli , Thiruvananthapuram- 695021 .

(In person)

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WW's. 1 and 2 and the documentary evidence of Exts . W- 1 to W- 23 on the side of unions and MW1 and Exts .M- 1 to M- 17 on the side of the management .

This case coming up for hearing on 27-07-2009 , this Tribunal -cum - Labour Court on 31-07-2009 passed the following .

5599

भारत का रामचव: सितम्बर 19, 2009/भाद्र 28 , 1931

6. Points 1 & 2 : The service conditions of standing orders that the retirement age at all times has been58 years and not 60 years . While Ext . M-5 Standing Orders use the words "shall continue " for one year more (upto59th year), Ext . M-6 and M - 1 the wording is "maybe given year to year extension " for two more years (up to 60th year) and "may extent up to maximum two year at the discretion ofmanagement " respectively. Therefore as per 1971 Standing Orders and 1980 Standing Orders it is purely the discretion of the management to give extension of service after attainment of the age to 58 year. The unions were heardbefore 1980 standing orders was certified. The disputed clause 12 is not challenged so far . Therefore the contention now that extension of service beyond the age of58 years is automatic on production ofa medical certificate iswithout merits . If it were so there is no question ofexercising discretion by the management as they will have nodiscretion at all . It is definitely true that discretion does not mean that the management can act according to theirwhims and fancies , but according to the law and for sound reasons.

employees ofthe company is governedby Standing Orders ofthecompany. Originallythere were two separate Standing Orders, one for staff and the other for labourers . The retirement age ofstaff was fixed as 60 years and that ofthe workers 58 years but with a clause to extend the service up te60 years on production of a medical certificate.Ext.MS isthe first standing orders ( 1967) in respect of workmen. It was amended in 1971 and Ext.M6 is the Standing Orders of 1971. Provision with regard to retirement age is similar. In 1980 a unified Standing Orders both for staff and workmen wascertified(Ext.M - 1 ). As per Ext . M1 the retirement age of staff is 60 years and of the workmen 58 years with extension ofservice for a maximum period oftwo years on production ofa medical certificate. Accordingto the union theextension ofservice up to the age of60 years is automatic on productionof a medical certificate. This privilege was being enjoyed at least for the last 28 years until 2007 and cannot be altered all on a sudden by the management without a notice under S.9A of I.D. Act. The employees who had joined service expecting retirement at the age of 60years, had set their life pattern accordingly and an abrupt change imposed unilaterally by the management has upset their life and life pattern . But the management contends that the retirement age has at all times been 58 years . Extension of service thereafter is purely in the discretion of the management . The exigency since 2004 required reduction ofmanpower and therefore extension of service beyond 58 years cannot be considered.

8. The prime reason stated by the management for not extending the service of the workers beyond 58 years is due to the heavy loss sustained by the company since 2004. There was discussion between management and unions regarding the ways and means to save the company. They reached a consensus to reduce the man power. Hence it is for the management to find out all possible ways to achieve this goal. One way may be by stopping fresh recruitment, another by retrenchment and a third one by not extending the service beyond retirement age. Ifretrenchment is resorted to then the company which isalready in debts will be further burdened by payment of retrenchment compensation . That may notbe a right decision for a weak company. When the management decides not to extend the servicebeyond the retirement age of 58 years it is concerning an entire class of such workmenwithout discrimination . It cannot be considered as an arbitrary exercise of discretion . The management stopped extension of service beyond 58 years from april 2007 and thereafter none was considered for extension . When standing orders confers discretionary power on management and that power is exercised soundly no malafides can be imputed on the management..

9. It is contended by the unions that the management is adopting double standard by reducing the manpower on the one hand and recruiting fresh hands on the other hand. Exts W-22 and 23 are produced to prove that fresh hands were taken by the management while the decision toreduce staffstrength is in force. Ext. W-22 is an appointment order to a retired Deputy General Manager (Materials) ofKerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. , Chavara, Kollam as Technical Advisor to CMD , TTPL , Thiruvananthapuram on contract basis for two years from 01-04-2009 on a consolidated pay ofRs . 50,000 per month. ExtW-23 is an advertisement of 2009 notifying vacancies 7. The contention of the unions that the retirement age at all times has been 60 years is incorrect. Exts. M-5 , 6 & 1 Standing Orders show that the retirement age has always been 58 years and not 60 years . As per Clause20- (c) ofExt. M-5, the first Standing Orders the retirement age is:- " A worker shall ordinarily retire from service on the completion ofhis 58th years. On production of a medical certificate from the ESI Doctor about his physical fitness and mental alertness he shall continue in service for one more year (i.e. up to 59th years) " . Clause 20-(c) was amended by Ext . M -6 Standing Orders in 1971 as follows: "On production of a medical certificate from the ESI Corporation Doctor to the effect that he is physically and mentally fit to remain in service, he may be given year to year extension to continue in his post for two more years , that is , up to the 60th years of his age " . Clause 12-(c) of 1980 Standing Orders (Ext.M1 ) with regard to retirement age is :" A workman who is at present covered by the provisions ofStanding Orders for workmen will retire on completion of the age of 58 and a workman who is now covered underthe Standing Orders for staff will retire on completion ofthe age of60. The management may however extend the service ofa workman up to a maximum period of 2years beyond his normal age of retirement as given above, at the discretion of the management if he is certified fit for such extended service by the ESI Medical Officer or such other competent authority in the case ofthose who are not covered by the ESI Act " . It is evident from the above.

3252G1/09-29 5600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

by the certifying officer and as long as that clause is not challenged .

of12officers in the managerial cadre and 12 electricians . It is to be noted that requirements of personnel in essential posts have to be met for the smooth functioning of an establishment . The need of an electrician cannot be met by transferring a general worker from the production wing . At any rate the number of vacancies attempted to be filled up isincomparable with the quantum of manpower decided to be reduced . The hands of management are not tied by one reason in exercising its discretion . They may be guided by any good reason . At any rate as a matter of right the workers cannot claim extension of service.

10. It is then contended by the unions that since 1967 the workers have been enjoying the privilege and a customary concession of extension of service and it has become a service condition . To change it a notice under S. 9-A of I.D. Act has to be given to the workers . The 4thschedule to I.D. Act refers to conditions of service for change of which a notice is required . Item No. 8 of the 4th schedule is regarding ' Withdrawal of a customary concession or privilege or change in usage' . But there is a provision regarding retirement age in all the Standing Orders rightfrom 1967. When there is written provision governing a service condition the question of a custom or privilege does not arise . The custom gets the force of law only in the absence of a written rule or provision to govern the situation . But so far as the present case is concerned the workers are governed by Standig Orders with regard to retirement age . It can be changed only by amending the standing orders . Since the retirement age is 58 years , refusal to extend service, does not amount to change in service condition. Hence no notice u/ s . 9A of I.D. Act is required. Extension of service is the discretionary power of the management and the decision not to extend service is backed by cogent reasons .

)

12. It is to be noted that some of the workers and union had approached Hon'ble High Court by Writ O.P. challenging the decision of the management not to extend service ofworkers. Ext . M- 10 is thejudgment in O.P.13568/ 94 filed by worker Sri . P.M. Kurian . It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the worker was bound by the settlement reached between management and union in 1990. Besides there is a Government order to continue the existing practice of fixing the retirement age as 58 years. It was also held that as a matter of right the worker cannot claim extension of service . It is for the management to decide whether to grant or not to grant extension of service . By Ext.M - 15 the 2nd union had challenged the decision ofthe management not to extend the service of worker , Sri P. Yohannan . But the Hon'ble High Court directed the management to consider the representation , to be made by the worker, in accordance with law. Ext . M - 16 is another O.P. filedby another worker for similar relief and a similar order was passed in that O. P. also . Ext . M - 17 is ajudgment in another O.P. filed by a worker for similar relief. But no relief was granted as the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice to his right to raise an industrial dispute . From 1971 onwards the provision with regard to retirement age and discretionary power of the management to extend the service up to 60 years were there . But so far that provision is not challenged by the unions . In 1990 there was a memorandum of understanding between management and unions regarding charter of demands submitted by the unions . As per item No. 20 Clause 12- ( c) of the Standing Orders was proposed to be amended to the effect that "the workman also will be allowed to continue up to the age of 60 " . Thereafter there was a memorandum of settlement on 15-05-1990 , Item No. 34 of the settlement is with respect to retirement age and the provision is : " the existing practice will continue" . Ext. M- 17 & 16 are the memorandum of understanding and memorandum of settlement respectively. The existing practice is to retire at the age of 58 years and if the management wants to continue him thereafter , they may consider his case according to their discretion after getting a medical certificate from him . There is no practice of automatic extension of service on production of a medical certificate . In 2008 the management wanted to make a uniform rule with regard to retirement age of staff and workmen and fix it as 58 years instead of 60 years for staff and 58 years for workmen. However the certifying officer (Regional Labour Commissioner) refused to accept the proposal of the management . Ext . W- 14 is the order of the Regional Labour Commissioner . The management though filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Labour Commmissioner it was disallowed. Ext. W- 15 is the order of Appellate Authority . It was challenged by the management before Hon'ble High Court and it is pending . Meanwhile on the basis of memorandum of understanding proposing retirement age of workers as 60 years , there was an order of 11. The union has produced Ext . W- 11 series and 12 to show that the management was giving service extension all along . Ext. W- 11 is an order extending service to one Shri A. Velayudhan in 1997 ( same as Ext . W- 18) , Ext. W - 11 ( a) is in respect of Sri S. Moni in 2002 [ same as Ext . W- 18 ( a) ] , Ext . W- 11 (b ) is in respect of Shri C.V. Kunhiraman in 1999 and Ext. W- 12 is in respect of Sri A. Natesan Asari in 2001 [ same as Ext. W- 18 (b ) ] . The management has produced Ext . M- 9 , M - 11 to 14 regarding refusal to extend service . Ext . M -9 is an order refusing to grant extension of service to Sri C. Venugopalan Nair in the year 2006. Exts . M - 11 & 12 are extension of service of two employees in 2004. Ext . M - 13 is refusal to grant extension to Sri C. Venugopalan Nair due to his continuous absence . Ext . M - 14 is an order not extending services of Sri K. K. Abdul Rehiman as he did not wish to continue . No other cases of extension or refusal to extend are brought on evidence . The union cannot be heard to say that the retirement age is not 58 years and extension is automatic as Clause 12 (C) of Standing Orders is differently worded and such a clause was incorporated after hearing the unions 5601

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

arbitrarily at any time . Therefore they are not entitled for anyrelief.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in not extending the service beyond the age of 58 years is legal and justified and the workers are not entitled for any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette.

the Government regarding retirement age. Ext .M -3 is the order of the Government dated 07-05-1990 whereby the memorandum of understanding 1990 ( Ext. W - 17) was approved except the proposal with regard to retirement age ofworker as 60 and directed that the "existing practice of58 years will continue" . This being the position there can be no doubt that the retirement age is 58 years and not 60years. The extension of service is purely the prerogative ofthemanagement and not a matter of right of employees.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 31stday ofJuly, 2009.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Unions

WWI 07-07-2009 Bose . M. Paret .

WW2 07-07-2009 R. Vikraman Nair .

Witness for the Management

MW1 07-07-2009 R. Vijayakumar

Exhibits for the Unions

WI Copy of the 1st page of the Standing Orders for Workmen, effective from Ist of September , 1967 (Definition ofWorker) .

W2 Copy of the 1st page of the Standing Orders for Staff,, effective from 14th June , 1967 (Definition of Staff).

W3 Copy of the 1st page of the Standing Orders for Workmen, effective from 21st May, 1980 (DefinitionofWorkmen) .

W4 Clause 20 (C) ofthe Standing Orders for Workmen, effective from 1st September , 1967 (Regarding the age ofRetirement) .

W5 Clause 20 (C) of the Standing Orde for Workmen, effective from 24th February, 1971 (Regarding the age of Retirement) .

W6 Clause 12(C) ofthe Standing Orders for Workmen, effective from 21st May , 1980 ( Regarding the age ofRetirement).

W7 Reported decision in Jeewanlal ( 1929) Ltd. V. Workmen(AIR 1972 SC 1210) .

W8 Reported decision in 1959 SC 1279, Guest Keen Williams (P) Ltd. V. P.J. Sterling.

W9 Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

W-10 Section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

13. It was lastly contended by the union that since 2009 the company is making profit and therefore there is no need to reduce the strength of employees or for that matter stopping extension of service up to the age of 60 years . Ext.W-20 is a newspaper cutting which refers to profit made by the management . Ext. W-21 is minutes of the meeting between management and unions . The company admitted in the meeting that since December , 2008 it was making profit. Even though the management is admitting that the company is making profit on account of various cost reduction measures adopted, still according to them, the financial position is not stable. The unions had agreedto reduce the manpower as one of the measures to save the company. The management decided not to extend the service of any employee from April, 2007 onwards . In pursuit to revive and retrieve the establishment from the depth ofdebts all possible measures were adopted by the management . Of course that does not mean that the employees are to be thrown out of service arbitrarily. If they are sent out before the age of superannuation they have to be given retrenchment compensation thereby company incurring further liability. But to retire at the age of superannuation does not amount to retrenchment. However if the prevailing circumstances of profit making continue it is only appropriate for the management to consider whether their discretionary power to extend service is to be exercised in favour of the employees who have put in long years of service and stood through thick and thin . But the employees cannot claim extension of service as a matter of right. The decision referred by the learned counsel for the first union and reported in Uptron India Ltd. V. Shammi Bhan AIR 1998 SC 1681 has no relevance to the issue in question . The reported decision relates to termination of service without hearing the employees and without following the provision in the Standing Orders which gives discretion to the management to terminate the service of an employee who overstays leave without permission. It is not a case regarding retirement age. In the instant case there is no retrenchment ortermination of service abruptly but only superannnuation as stipulated in the standing orders .

W- 11 Individual Memos served to workers .

W- 12 Individual Memos served to a worker.

W- 13 Employers proposal for the amendment of the Clause 12 (C)- submitted before the Certifying Officer.

14. In the light of the reasons stated above I find that the retirement age is 58 years and the workmen are not entitled for extension of service beyond 58 years as a matter ofright and it is the discretion ofthe management to do so and the managemetnt has not exercised that discretion 5602.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

and the endorsement from Chief Engineer recommending extension of service of Sri . P. Innás .

W-14 Proposed amendment of the Clause 12 ( c)- Decision of the Certifying Officer rejecting the proposal 1st and last page .

M13 TrueCopyofMemo dated 3-02-2006 from M ( P&A ) and the endorsement from CPM not recommending extension of service of Sri . Venugopalan Nair .

W- 15 Proposed amendment of the Clause 12 ( c)- Decision of the Appellate Authority - rejecting the appeal.

M14 TrueCopy ofMemo dated 8-05-2007 from M ( P&A ) and the endorsement from CPM not recommending extension ofservice of Sri . K. K. Abdul Rehiman .

W-16 Memorandum of Settlement dated 15-5-1990- 1st and 9th page - Item No. 34 .

W-17 MOU dated 01-02-1990 signed ahead of Settlement dated 15-05-1990- 1st and the 8th page ItemNo. 20.

M15 TrueCopy of Judgment dated 30-05-2007 from the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP (C). 13912/ 2007 filedby Titanium Products Labour Union .

W-18 Individual Memos served to the workers having no hint that their extension was given at the discretion of the employer.

M16 True Copy of Judgment dated 29-05-2007 from the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP ( C) . 16293/ 2007 fiied by Sri . Atli Vilonis .

M17 True Copy of Judgment dated 28-05-2008 fromthe Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP ( C) . 15791 / 2008 filed by Sri . C. Mohanan .

W-19 1st and 9th page of the proceedings of the Appellate Authority on the appeal preferred by the Titanium Products Labour Union regarding the age ofretirement ofworkers .

नईदिल्ली, 28 अगस्त, 2009

W-20 Copy ofthe newspaper cutting regarding the profit of the company ( Mathrubhumi daily dated 15-12-2008).

W-21 1st and 2nd page of the minutes of the meeting between the unions and the employer held on 01-06-2009. It refers of the profit ofthe company from December, 2008 onwards .

का. आ. 2604.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार प्रकाश स्टोन वर्कस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच,. अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 236/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

W-22 Government Order appointing a person who has been retired at the age of 58 from the Kerala Minerals andMetals Ltd, Chavara, Kollam .

Notification for Recruitment. W-23

[ सं. एल-29012 /42/2000- आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th August , 2009

Exhibits for theManagement

M1 True Copy ofStanding Orders 1980 .

M2 True Copy of Memorandum of Understanding between the Management and Unions dated 01-02-1990.

M3 TrueCopy of Government letter No. 156/H3/ 89/ID dt.07-05-1990.

S. O. 2604.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.236/2000 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No.1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industriai Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Prakash Stone Works and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-8-2009 .

M4 True Copy of Memorandum of settlement dt.15-05-1990.

[ No. L-29012/42/2000- IR ( M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer M5 TrueCopy of Standing Orders for Workmen 1967 .

ANNEXURE

M6 TrueCopyof amendment dt. 25-01-1971 to Clause 20 (C) of Standing Orders for workmen 1967 .

M7 True Copy of the Profit and Loss Account during 2005-2006.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, (NO . 1 ) , DHANBAD

M8 True Copy of memos extending service under Clause 12(C) of Standing Orders .

Inthe matter of a reference under section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) & ( 2A) ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 236 of 2000

M9 True Copy of memos not granting extension under Clause 12 ( C) of Standing Orders .

M10 True Copy of Judgment ofthe Hon'ble High Court dt. 12-10-1994 in O. P. No. 13568/94.

Parties: Employers in relation to the managemeat of Prakash Stone Works and

TheirWorkman

Present: Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

M11 TrueCopy of Memo from M ( P&A) dt . 4-11-2004 and the endorsement from Chief Engineer recommending extension of service of Sri . C.N. Ramachandran Pillai .

M12 True Copy of Memo from M (P&A) dt. 4-11-2004 For the employers : None 5603 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

ANNEXURE

None

FortheWorkman:

State : Jharkhand

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,

Industry: Coal

Dated, 4th August, 2009

AWARD

PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I. D. 10/2007

ShNasib Singh, C/ o Shri M. L. Chandna, 38 -A,

Pritam Nagar, Karnal

...Applicant

Versus

By Order No. L- 29012/42/2000/IR ( M) , dated 12-8-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

The Deputy General Manager , Indian Oil Corporation (Marketing Division) , Indian Oil Bhawan , Yusuf Sarai , New Delhi- 110016 . Respondent

APPEARANCES

Fortheworkman :

None

Shri Vivek Kaushal

Forthe Management:

"क्या कामगार श्री नन्द लाल सुरी ने मैसर्स प्रकाश स्टोन वर्कस पाकुड़ के यहां 240 दिन कार्य किया है । यदि हां, क्या. नियोजक मैसर्स प्रकाश स्टोन वर्कर्स पाकुड़ , अपने कामगार श्री नन्द लाल सुरी को कार्यमुक्त कर देने का कृत्य न्यायौचित है ? यदि नहीं, तो कामगार किस राहत का हकदार है । "

AWARD

Passed on : 1-8-2009 , Panipat Camp Court

The Central Government vide Notification No. L- 30012/ 38 /2006/IR ( M) , dated 15-1-2007 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Thisreference case was received in this Tribunal on 18-9-2000. Thereafter, notices were sent to the parties to file written statement by the sponsoring union/ workman. In spite of notices sent by speed post no written statement has been filed by the workman till 13-7-09 . It therefore, appears that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case.

In such , circumstances, I render No Dispute Award in this reference case .

"Whether the action of the management of IOCL, Panipat in terminating the services of Shri Nasib Singh S/o Shri Balbir Singh , Storekeeper/Store Assistant, on30/12/2003 , isjust and legal ? If not, to whatreliefthe workman is entitled to ?" H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस्त, 2009

2. Case repeatedly called . No one appeared for the workman. The case is already two years old. Despite notice the workman has not put up his appearance for his evidence. It appears that workman is not interested to persue with the present claim in reference . Hence the present claim in the reference is returned to the Central Government as such for want of prosecution . Central Governmentbe informed . File be consigned.

Chandigarh:

1-8-2009, Panipat Camp Court

का. आ. 2605.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. ओ. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer [ सं. एल-30012/38 /2006-आई आर ( एम) ]

नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर , 2009

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the28th August, 2009

का. आ. 2606, जबकि मैसर्स व्हील्स इंटरनेशनल लि. [राजस्थान क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या आरजे/ 6262 के अंतर्गत ] ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है

S.O. 2605. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 10/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-8-2009 .

2. और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं हैं और कर्मचारी भी समान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं । [No. L-30012/38/2006- IR(M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer 5604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/BHADRA 28 , 1931

3. केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान रखते हुए, उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 01-04-1996 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/49/2009-एस. एस-11 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 3rd September , 2009 S. O. 2606.-Whereas M/s Wheels International Ltd. , [under Code No. RJ/6262 in Rajasthan Region ] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied forexemption under clause ( a) of sub- section ( 1) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government , the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme , 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character .

3. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from timeto time , the Central Government, hereby , exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from01-04-1996 until further notification .

[No. S- 35015/49/2009-SS- II ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2607.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 91 -क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा कागजनगर , असम स्थित हिन्दुस्तान पेपर कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के नौगांव पेपर मिल के नियमित कर्मचारियों को इस अधिनियम के प्रचालन से 01-10-1994 से 30-09-2010 तक की अवधि के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है । 2. उक्त छूट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन है , अर्थात्: - 1. पूर्वोक्त स्थापना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं, एक रजिस्टर रखेगी, जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे ;

2. इस छूट के होते हुए भी, कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे जिनको पाने के लिए वे इस अधिसूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत होने की

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ] तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अंशदानों के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते हैं;

3. छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए , यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जा चुके हों, तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे ;

4. उक्तकारखाने/स्थापना का नियोजक उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने /स्थापना पर उक्त अधिनियम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात " उक्त अवधि कहा गया है " ) प्रवर्तमान था ऐसी विवरणियां , ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम, 1950 के अधीन उसे अवधि की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं;

5. निगम द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) दो अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई निरीक्षक या निगम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृत कोई अन्यपदधारी;

( i ) धारा 44 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टियों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ; अथवा

( ii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधारण ) विनियम , 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवधि के लिए रखे गये थे या नहीं; या (iii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी , नियोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को , जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है , नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं ; या ( iv) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान , जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के उपबंध प्रवृत्त थे , ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगा:-

(क) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदद्वारी आवश्यक समझता है ; अथवा

(ख) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगाधीन , किसी कारखाने, स्थापना कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा, बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज , ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे वें आवश्यक समझते हैं ; या

(ग ) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की , या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति की , जो ऐसे कारखाने स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए , यह विश्वास करने [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5605

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है , परीक्षा करना; या

(1) Verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 44 for the said period; or

(घ) ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर , लेखा , बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;

(ii) ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees ' State Insurance(General) Regulations , 1950 for the said period;or

(ङ) यथानिर्धारित अन्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करना ।

6.. विनिवेश/निगमीकरण के मामले में , प्रदत्त छूट स्वतः रद्द हो जाएगी और तब नए प्रतिष्ठान को छूट हेतु समुचित सरकार की अनुमति लेनी होगी ।

(iii) ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled tobenefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification ; or

[सं. एस-38014/48/2008 - एस.एस-1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

(iv) ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Acthad been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of this Act ; or

स्पष्टीकरण ज्ञापन:- इस मामले में छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देना आवश्यक हो गया है क्योंकि छूट के आवेदन पर कार्यवाही करने में समय लगा । तथापि , यह प्रमाणित किया जाता है कि छूट को भूतंलक्षी प्रभाव देने से किसी भी व्यक्ति के हित पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नहींपड़ेगा ।

NewDelhi , the 3rd September, 2009

S.O. 2607. In exercise of the power conferred by Section88 read with Section 91 -A ofthe Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of Nagaon Paper Mill of Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited located at Kagajnagar, Assam from the operation of the said Act for aperiod from01-10-1994 to 30-09-2010.

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts , books and other documents relating to the employment ofpersonal and payment ofwages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary ; or

2. The above exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely :-

(1) The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name anddesignations of the exempted employees .

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register , accountbook or other document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises; or (2) Notwithstanding this exemption , the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates ;

(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, ifalready paid, shall not be refundable ;

6. In case of disinvestment/ corporatization , the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption .

[No. S-38014/48/2008 -SS- 1 ]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect ofthe period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees ' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 ;

(5) Any Inspector appointed by the Corporation under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 45 ofthe said ESI Act or other official ofthe Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of:-

Explanatory Memorandum .It has become necessaryto give retrospective effect to the exemption in this case as processing of the applications for exemption took time . However, it is certified that the grant of exemption with retrospectove effect will not affect the interest ofanybody adversely.

5606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 / BHADRA 28 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 2608 , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 91-क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक नोट मुद्रण ( प्रा. ) लिमिटेड , मैसूर के नियमित कर्मचारियों को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रचालन से 01-04-2009 से 30-09-2010 तक की अवधि के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

2. उक्त छूट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन है , अर्थात्:-

1. पूर्वोक्त स्थापना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं, एक रजिस्टर रखेगी , जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे ;

2. इस छूट के होते हुए भी , कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे जिनको पाने के लिए वे इस अधिसूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत्त होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अंशदानों के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते हैं ;

3. छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए , यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जा चुके हों , तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे ;

4. उक्त कारखाने/स्थापना का नियोजक उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने /स्थापना पर उक्त अधिनियम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात " उक्त अवधि कहा गया है " ) प्रवर्तमान था ऐसी विवरणियां , ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम , 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं ;

5. निगम द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई निरीक्षक या निगम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृत कोई अन्य पदधारी ;

(i) धारा 44 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टियों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ ; अथवा

( ii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम , 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवधि के लिए रखे गये थे या नहीं; या

(iii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी , नियोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को , जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है , नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं ; या (iv ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान , जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] उपबंध प्रवृत्त थे , ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगा: - (क) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी आवश्यक समझता है; अथवा

(ख) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगाधीन , किसी कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा , बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज , ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं ; या

(ग) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति की , जो ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए, यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है , परीक्षा करना ; या

( घ ) ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर , लेखा , बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना ;

(ङ) यथानिर्धारित अन्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करना । 6. विनिवेश /निगमीकरण के मामले में , प्रदत्त छूट स्वतः रद्द हो जाएगी और तब नए प्रतिष्ठान को छूट हेतु समुचित सरकार की अनुमति लेनी होगी ।

[सं. एस-38014/48/2008 - एस एस -1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव स्पष्टीकरण ज्ञापन: - इस मामले में छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देना आवश्यक हो गया है क्योंकि छूट के आवेदन पर कार्यवाही करने में समय लगा । तथापि , यह प्रमाणित किया जाता है कि छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देने से किसी भी व्यक्ति के हित पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नहीं पड़ेगा

New Delhi , the 3rd September , 2009 S. O. 2608. In exercise of the power conferredby section 88 read with section 91 - A ofthe Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of Bharatiya Reserve BankNote Mudran (P) Ltd. , Mysore from the operation of the said Act for a period from 01-04-2009 to 30-09-2010 .

2. The above exemption is subject to the following conditions , namely :-

( 1 ) The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5607

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

name and designations of the exempted employees.

(2) Notwithstanding this exemption , the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates ;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period , if already paid, shall not be refundable ;

(4) The employer ofthe said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period) , such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as weredue from it in respect of the said period under the Employees ' State Insurance (General ) Regulations , 1950 ;

(5) Any inspector appointed by the Corporation under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other official ofthe Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of:-

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any returns submitted under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 44 for the said period ; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees ' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period;or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled tobenefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of this Act ; or (b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment , office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts , books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary ; or

3252G1/09-30

(c) examine the principal or immediate employer , his agent or servant , or any person found in such factory, establishment , office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or (d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintained in such factory , establishment , office or other premises ;

(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

6. In case of disinvestment/ corporatization , the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriateGovernment for exemption.

[No. S- 38014/48/2008-SS- 1 ]

S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

ExplanatoryMemorandum:-It has become necessary to give retrospective effect to the exemption in this case as processing of the applications for exemption took time . However, it is certified that the grant of exemption with retrospective effect will not affect the interest of any body adversely.

नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 2609.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 91 - क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा भिलाई इस्पात संयंत्र , भिलाई के नियमित कर्मचारियों को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रचालन से 01-10-2007 से 30-09-2010 तक की अवधि के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

2. उक्त छूट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन है , अर्थात्:-

2. इस छूट के होते हुए भी , कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे जिनको पाने के लिए वे इस अधिसूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अंशदानों के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते हैं;

3. छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए , यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जाचुके हों , तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे ;

4. उक्त कारखाने/स्थापना का नियोजक उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना पर उक्त अधिनियम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् " उक्त अवधि कहा गया है " ) 5608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

( ड़) यथानिर्धारित अन्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करना ।

प्रवर्तमान था ऐसी विवरणियां , ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं ;

6. विनिवेश/निगमीकरण के मामले में , प्रदत्त छूट स्वतः रद्द हो जाएगी और तब नए प्रतिष्ठान को छूट हेतु समुचित सरकार की अनुमति लेनी होगी ।

[सं. एस-38014/48/2008- एस एस-1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव 5. निगम द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोईनिरीक्षक या निगम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृत कोई अन्य पदधारी ;

(i) धारा 44 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टियों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ ; अथवा

स्पष्टीकरण ज्ञापन:- इस मामले में छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देना आवश्यक हो गया है क्योंकि छूट के आवेदन पर कार्यवाही करने में समय लगा । तथापि , यह प्रमाणित किया जाता है कि छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देने से किसी भी व्यक्ति के हित पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नहीं पड़ेगा ।

New Delhi , the 3rd September, 2009

(ii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम, 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवधि के लिए रखे गये थे या नहीं ; या

S. O. 2609.-In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 readwith Section 91 - A of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees ofBhillai Steel Plant , Bhillai from the operation of the said Act for a period from 01-10-2007 to 30-09-2010.

2. The above exernption is subject to the following conditions , namely : -

( 1 ) The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees .

( iv ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान , जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के उपबंध प्रवृत थे , ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगा: -

(क ) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी आवश्यकं समझता है; अथवा

(3) The contributions for the exempted period , ifalready paid , shall not be refundable ;

(ख ) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगाधीन , किसी कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा , बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज , ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं ; या

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period) , such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as weredue from it in respect of the said period under the Employees ' State Insurance ( General ) Regulations , 1950 ;

(ग ) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति की , जो ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए , यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है , परीक्षा करना ; या

(5) Any inspector appointed by the Corporation under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it , shall , for the purpose of: -

( घ ) ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर , लेखा, बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना ;

( i ) Verifying the particulars contained in any returns submitted under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 44 for the said period ; or 5609 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28, 1931

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees ' State Insurance(General) Regulations , 1950 for the said period; or

धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्द्वारा भारत रिफ्रेक्टरीज लिमिटेड [ आईएफआईसीओ रिफ्रेक्टरीज प्लांट, हजारीबाग (बिहार) , रांची रोड रिफ्रेक्टरीज प्लांट ( झारखंड ) ] के नियमित कर्मचारियों को 01-10-2006 से 30-09-2010 तक की अवधि तक के लिए तथा [भिलाई रिफ्रेक्टरीज प्लांट( छत्तीसगढ़ ) ] के नियमित कर्मचारियों को 01-10-2007 से 30-09-2010 तक की अवधि के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के प्रचालन से छूट प्रदान करती है । (iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled tobenefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or

2. उक्त छूट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन है , अर्थातू- (iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Acthadbeen complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factorytobe empowered to:

1. पूर्वोक्त स्थापना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं , एक रजिस्टर रखेगी, जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे ;

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose ofthis Act ; or

3. छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए, यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जा चुके हों, तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे ;

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory , establishment, office or other premises occupiedby such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts , books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary ; or

4. उक्त कारखाने/स्थापना का नियोजक उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना पर उक्त अधिनियम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात " उक्त अवधि कहा गया है" ) प्रवर्तमान था ऐसी विवरणियां , ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम , 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं ;

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises ;

(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

5. निगम द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई निरीक्षक या निगम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृत कोई अन्य पदधारी;

(i) धारा 44 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टियों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ ; अथवा

6. In case of disinvestment / corporatization , the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate government for exemption.

[No.S- 38014/48/2008-SS- I ]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

(ii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम , 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवधि के लिए रखे गये थे या नहीं; या

Explanatory Memorandum : - It has become necessaryto give retrospective effect to the exemption in this case as processing of the applications for exemption took time . However, it is certified that the grant of exemption with retrospective effect will not affect the interest of any body adversely.

(iv) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान , जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के का. आ. 2610, केन्द्रीय सरकार , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 91-क के साथ पठित 5610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

उपबंध प्रवृत थे, ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधों का अनुपालन' किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगा:-

(क) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी आवश्यक समझता है; अथवा

(ग ) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की , उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति की , जो ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए , यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है, परीक्षा करना ; या

( घ ) ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर , लेखा , बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना ;

(ड) यथानिर्धारित अन्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करना । 6. विनिवेश/निगमीकरण के मामल में, प्रदत्त छूट स्वतः रद्द हो जाएगी और तब नए प्रतिष्ठान को छूट हेतु समुचित सरकार की अनुमति लेनी होगी ।

[सं. एस-38014/48/2008- एस एस-1 ]

New Delhi , the 3rd September , 2009 S. O. 2610. In exercise of the power conferred by section 88 read with section 91 - A or the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of Bharat Refractories Ltd. [ IFICO Refracto : ies Plant, Hazaribagh , (Bihar ), Ranchi Road Refractories Plant ( Jharkhand) ] from the operation of the said Act for a period from 01-10-2006 to 30-09-2010 and Bhillai Refractories Plant ( Chhattisgarh ) for a period from 01-10-2007 to 30-09-2010 .

2. The above exemption is subject to the following conditions , namely: -

[ PART 11- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] (1 ) The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees .

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable ;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period ) , such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees ' State Insurance ( General ) Regulations , 1950 ;

(5) any inspector appointed by the Corporation under sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or olher official ofthe Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall , for the purpose of: -

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 44 for the said period; or

(ii ) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees ' State Insurance (General ) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

( iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification: or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Acthad been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to :

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of this Act ; or

1 (b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts , books and other document relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary : or [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5611

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register , account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment , office or other premises ;

(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

6. In case of disinvestment / corporatization, the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S- 38014/48/2008 - SS- I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

ExplanatoryMemorandum : - It has become necessaryto give retrospective effect to the exemption in this case as processing of the applications for exemption took time. However, it is certified that the grant of exemption with retrospective effect will not affect the interest of any body adversely.

नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 2611. केन्द्रीय सरकार , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 91 - क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा राष्ट्रीय उर्वरक लिमिटेड, पानीपत इकाई के नियमित तथा सी आई एस एफ कर्मचारियों को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रचालन से 29-09-2005 से 30-09-2010 तक की अवधि के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है । 2. उक्त छूट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन है , अर्थात्:-

4. उक्त कारखाने /स्थापना का नियोजक उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना पर उक्त अधिनियम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात " उक्त अवधि कहा गया है " ) । प्रवर्तमान था ऐसी विवरणियां , ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण) विनियम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं ;

( i ) धारा 44 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टियों को सत्यापित करने, के प्रयोजनार्थ ; अथवा

( iii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी , नियोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को, जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है , नकद में और वस्तुरूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं ; या ( iv) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान , जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के उपबंध प्रवृत थे , ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगा :-

(ग) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की , या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति की , जो ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए, यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है, परीक्षा करना ; या

( घ) ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गएकिसी रजिस्टर , लेखा , बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना ;

(ङ) यथानिर्धारित अन्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करना । 5612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009/ BHADRA 28 , 1931

[सं. एस-38014/48/2008 -एस एस-1 ]

New Delhi , the 3rd September , 2009 S. O. 2611.- In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read woth Section 91 - A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular and CISF employees of National Fertilizers Ltd. , Panipat Unit from the operation of the said Act for a period from 29-09-2005 to 30-09-2010 .

2. The above exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-

( 1 ) The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees .

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, ifalready paid, shall not be refundable ;

(4) The employer of the said factory/ establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period ) , such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as weredue from it in respect of the said period under the Employees ' State Insurance ( General ) Regulations , 1950 ;

(5) Any inspector appointed by the Corporation under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it , shall , for the purpose of:-

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any returns submitted under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 44 for the said period; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees ' State

[ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Insurance ( General ) Regulations , 1950 for the said period; or

( iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Acthad been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to :

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of this Act ; or (b) at any reasonable time enter any factory , establishment , office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts , books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary : or

(c) examine the principal or immediate employer , his agent or servant , or any person found in such factory, establishment , office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or (d) make copies of or take extracts from any register , account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment , office or other premises ;

( e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

6. In case of disinvestment / corporatization , the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption .

[No. S-38014/48 /2008 - SS- 1 ]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

Explanatory Memorandum: - It has become necessary to give retrospective effect to the exemption in this case as processing of the applications for exemption took time . However, it is certified that the grant of exemption with retrospective effect will not affect the interest of any body adversely.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

5613

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 19, 2009/ भाद्र 28 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 3 सितम्बर , 2009

उपबंध प्रवृत्त थे , ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगा:-

का. आ. 2612, केन्द्रीय सरकार , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 91- क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एत‌द्वारा अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट कारखानों/स्थापनाओं के नियमित कर्मचारियों को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रचालन से 01-10-2006 से 30-09-2010 तक की अवधि के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

2. उक्त छूट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन है , अर्थात्:-

1. पूर्वोक्त स्थापना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं , एक रजिस्टर रखेगी, जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे ;

(ख ) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगाधीन , किसी कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा , बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज , ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं ; या

3. छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए, यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जा चुके हों , तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे ;

(ग) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति की , जो ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए , यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है , परीक्षा करना ; या

( घ) ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर, लेखा , बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना ;

( ङ) यथानिर्धारित अन्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करना । 4. उक्त कारखाने/स्थापना का नियोजक उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना पर उक्त अधिनियम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात " उक्त अवधि कहा गया है " ) प्रवर्तमान था ऐसी विवरणियां , ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं ;

6. विनिवेश/निगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रदत्त छूट स्वतः रद्द हो जाएगी और तब नए प्रतिष्ठान को छूट हेतु समुचित सरकार की अनुमतिलेनी होगी ।

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

स्थापना कारखाने का नाम

1. नेशनल इन्वायरमेंटल इंजीनियरिंग रिसर्च इंस्टीट्यूट, नागपुर

(i ) धारा 44 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टियों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ ; अथवा

2. सेन्ट्रल टूल रूम , लुधियाना

3. हिन्दुस्तान फोटो फिल्म्ज मेन्यूफैक्चरिंग कम्पनी लिमिटेड, इन्दुनगर, ऊटकमंड तथा अम्बात्तूर , चैन्नई स्थित एक सहायक इकाई , कोचीन , बंगलौर , हैदराबाद , भोपाल , चंडीगढ़ , पटना और कोयम्बटूर स्थित शाखाओं को कवर करते हुए चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा कोलकता स्थित इसके क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों के साथ विपणन प्रभाग । ( iii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी , नियोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को , जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है , नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं ; या

[सं. एस-38014/48/2008 - एस एस-1 ] (iv) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान , जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के

एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव 5614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19 , 2009 /BHADRA 28 , 1931

स्पष्टीकरण ज्ञापन: - इस मामले में छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देना आवश्यक हो गया है क्योंकि छूट के आवेदन पर कार्यवाही करने में समय लगा । तथापि , यह प्रमाणित किया जाता है कि छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देने से किसी भी व्यक्ति के हित पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नहीं पड़ेगा ।

New Delhi , the 3rd September , 2009

S. O. 2612.- In exercise ofthe power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91 -A of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/ establishments specified in the schedule from the operation ofthe said Act for a period from 01-10-2006 to 30-09-2010.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following conditions , namely: -

(1 ) The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees.

(3) The contributions for the exempted period , ifalready paid, shall not be refundable ;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period) , such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees ' State Insurance ( General ) Regulations , 1950 ;

(5) Any inspector appointed by the Corporation under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalfby it , shall , for the purpose of: -

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any returns submitted under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 44 for the said period ; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees ' State Insurance (General ) Regulations , 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; ог

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period when

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to :

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of this Act ; or

(b) At any reasonable time enter any factory , establishment, office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts , books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary ; or (c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant , or any person found in such factory, establishment , office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment , office or other premises ;

(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed .

6. In case of disinvestment/ corporatization , the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption .

SCHEDULE

S. No. Name of the Establishment/Factory

1. National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur

2. Central Tool Room , Ludhiana

3. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg Co. Ltd. , Indunagar, Ootacamund & a subsidiary unit at Ambattur , Chennnai , Marketing Division with its Regional Offices at Chennai , Mumbai , Delhi and Kolkata covering the branches at Cochin , Bangalore , Hyderabad, Bhopal , Chandigarh , Patna and Coimbatore.

[No. S-38014/48 /2008 -SS- 1 ]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

Explanatory Memorandum : -It has become necessary to give retrospective effect to the exemption in this case as processing of the applications for exemption took time . However, it is certified that the grant of exemption with retrospective effect will not affect the interest of any body adversely.

Printed by the Manager, Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 110054 .