This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD.NO.D.L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्रीसं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

भारतका राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 391

No. 39]

नई दिल्ली, सितम्बर 20 सितम्बर 26 , 2009, शनिवार/भाद्र 29 आश्विन 4, 1931 NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 20-SEPTEMBER 26, 2009, SATURDAY /BHADRA 29- ASVINA 4, 1931 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके SeparatePagingis givento this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग -खण्ड 3 -उप-खण्ड ( ii)

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

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 ) नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2009 :

में किए गए अथवा उन्ही तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध या अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के संबंध में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण जम्मू और कश्मीर राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं-228/46/2009- एवीडी- II | चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi , the 15th September , 2009

S.O. 2613. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 , (Act No. 25 of1946), the Central Government with the consent of the StateGovernment of Janunu andKashmir, Civil Secretariat Home Department Srinagar vide notification (SR ) 288 ) No. Home/PB-1/IC/2009/13-dated 9th September, 2009 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members का. आ. 2613. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों काप्रयोग करते हुए जम्मू और कश्मीर राज्य सरकार, सिविल सचिवालय, गृह विभाग , श्रीनगर की अधिसूचना सं. ( एस.आर.ओ. 288 ) सं. गृह/पी.बी. -1/आई.सी./2009/13 दिनांक 9 सितम्बर, 2009 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से श्रीमती नीलोफर जॉन धर्मपत्नी श्री शकील अहमद तथा कुमारी आशिया जॉन सुपुत्री अब्दुल गनी अहंगर दोनों बोन गाँव शोपियान की निवासी की क्रूर हत्त्या के संबंध में पुलिस स्टेशन , शोपियान ( जम्मूऔर कश्मीर ) में जम्मूऔर कश्मीर राज्य रणबीर पेनल कोड सम्बत् 1989 ( 1932 ए.डी. ) ( 1989 का अधिनियम सं. 12) की धारा 302, 376, 326, 342 , 201 तथा 120-बी के अंतर्गत प्राथमिकी सं. 112/2009 के संबंध में अन्वेषण करने तथा प्रयास करने , दुष्प्रेरणों और बड़यंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम

3360 Gt/2009

(5615) 5616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

संचालन कने के लिए श्री एन. एस. नटराजन , अधिवक्ता को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[सं.-228/8/2009- एवीडी- II ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2009

oftheDelhi Special Establishment to the whole ofthe State ofJammu and Kashmir for investigation of FIR No. 112/ 2009 under Sections 302, 376, 326, 342, 201 , 120- B ofthe Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code Samvat, 1989 (1932 A.D. ) (Act No. XII of 1989), registered at Police Station, Shopian(Jammu and Kashmir) relating to gruesome murder ofMrs. Neelofar Jan wife of Shri Shakeel Ahmad Ahanger and Miss Asiya Jan daugther of Shri Abdul Gani Ahanger both residents of Bongam, Shopian and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned above and any other offence oroffences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facta.

[No. -228/46/2009-AVD-II] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

S.O. 2615. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub -section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , Central Government hereby appoints Shri N.S. Natarajan , Advocate as Special PublicProsecutor for conducting RC . 2/2002 ( theft of idols committedby agang ofthieves from Channakeshwa Temple Chhajrala, Distt . Nellore , Andhra Pradesh) in the Court of 5thAdditional District Judge , Nellore , Andhra Pradesh and appeals/ revisions or other matter arising out of the case in revisional or appellate courts established by law.

नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर , 2009

[No. -228/8/2009-AVD- II] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

विस मंत्रालय

(आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

का.आ. 2614.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्लीविशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित किए जाने वाले निम्नोत्तर अपराध का एतद्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करती है , नामत:-

नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर , 2009

जम्मूऔर कश्मीर राज्य रणबीर पेनल कोड सम्वत, 1989 (1932ए.डी. ) ( 1989 का अधिनियम सं. 12 ) की धारा 120-बी के अंतर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध ।

का.आ. 2616. वित्त मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग की दिनांक 5 जून , 2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना में आंशिक संशोध न करते हुए, वित्त मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग के निम्नलिखित अधिकारी को उनके नाम के सामने दिए गए प्रभाग के संबंध में केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी के रूप में पदनामित किया जाता है :

[सं. 228/46/2009 -एवीडी-II ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

पदनाम निम्नलिखित निम्नलिखित से

क्र. नाम

NewDelhi , the 15th September , 2009

सं

अधिकारी के संबंधित मामले

स्थान पर

डॉ. पी.जी.एस.राव , एफआईपीबी

अवर सचिव (सीएंडसी) उप निदेशक

1. श्री सुशील

कुमार

अवसंरचना एवं S.O. 2614. In exercise of the powers conferredby Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government hereby specifies the following offence which are tobe investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment , namely: -

निवेश संबंधी

कोछोड़कर मामले Offence punishable under 120- B of the Jammu and KashmirState Ranbir Penal Code Samvat, 1989 ( 1932 A.D. ) (Act No.XII of 1989) .

[फा. सं.1/1 /2005- आरटीआई ]

एस. कनकाम्बरन , अवर सचिव ( आर टी आई ) [No. 228/46/2009-AVD- II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 सितम्बर , 2009

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Economic Affairs)

New Delhi, the 9th September , 2009

का.आ. 2615.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता ,. 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( ४ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए 5वें अपर जिला न्यायाधीश , नेलौर , आंध्र प्रदेश के न्यायालय में आरसी -2/2002 ( चानकेश्वा टेम्पल छाजराला, जिला-नेलौर , आंध्र प्रदेश से चोरों के गिरोह द्वारा की गई मूर्तियों की चोरी ) के अथवा विधि द्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों केअपील, पुनरीक्षण का

S.O. 2616.- In partial modification Ministry of Finance , Department ofEconomic Affairs's notification of evennumber dated 5th June , 2009, the following officer of theMinistry ofFinance , Department ofEconomic Affairs is designated as Central Public Information Officer in respect ofDivision mentioned against his name .

5617

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

Designation Vice.

S. Name No:

Matters relatingto 1. Mr. Sushil US( C&C)

Kumar

Dr. P.G.S. Rao,DD

Infrastructure & Investment excluding FIPB

[F. No. 1 /1 /2005-RTI] S. KANAKAMBARAN, Under Secy. RTI

(राजस्व विभाग )

( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 2617.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) के नियम 5ग और 5ड़ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ दिनांक कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-2010 के आगे संगठन शास्त्र विश्वविद्यालय , चेन्नई को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' अन्य संस्था ' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:-

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

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

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

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

2. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-

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

(ख ) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (ग) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा

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

[अधिसूचना सं. 69/2009/फा. सं. 203/58/2009-आ.क.नि.- II ] डा. संजय कुमार लाल , अवर सचिव (Department of Revenue)

(Central Board ofDirect Taxes) New Delhi, the 15th September, 2009 S.O. 2617. It is hereby notified for gencral information that the organization Sastra University , Chennai has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5E ofthe Income- tax Rules, 1962 (saidRules ) , fromAssessment year 2009-2010 onwards in the category of' other Institution' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions, namely:...

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

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

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

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

5618.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

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

2. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-

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

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub -paragraph ( iii) of paragraph 1 ; or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub -paragraph ( iii) ofparagraph 1 ; or

(ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph ( iv) of paragraph 1 ; or

(ग) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दानं राशि एवं प्रयुक्त राशिका अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research acivities are not found to be genuine ; or

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

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section ( 1 ) of section 35. of the said Act read with rules 5C and 5E of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 69/2009/F : No. 203/58 / 2009 /ITA -II] Dr. SANJAY KUMAR LAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर, 2009

[ अधिसूचना सं. 68/2009/फा.सं. 203/6/2009- आ.क.नि.- II ] डा. संजय कुमार लाल , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th September, 2009 का.आ. 2618.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और 5ड़ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त नियमावली ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-2010 के आगे संगठन श्री अरोबिन्दो सोसाइटी , कोलकाता को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:-

S.O. 2618. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Sri Aurobindo Society, Kolkatahas been approved by the Central Government for thepurpose ofclause (ii ) of sub-section ( 1 ) of section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 ( said Act ) , read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 ( said Rules ) , from Assessment year 2009-2010 onwards in the category of 'other Institution' , partly engaged in research activities subject tothe following conditions , namely:---

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

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

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

( iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा । जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो. तथा उक्तः अधि निमा कमी भासा 233 की जन (2) के सीमा में माथा कराएगा और असा अधिनियम की धारा 139 बनी उप धाता ( 1 ) को परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामलों में क्षेत्राधिकार रखानेः काल्लो आधार प्रस्तुत करेगा,

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

( iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्तः दान तथा प्रयुक्तः सहितः वन आतामा फिवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखाः परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा । 5619

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

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

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

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii) of paragraph 1; or

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

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

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions ofclause (ii ) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and 5E of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 68 /2009 /F. No. 203 /6/2009 /ITA- II] Dr. SANJAY KUMAR LAL, Under Secy.

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 16 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2619.-रूग्ण औद्योगिक कंपनी ( विशेष उपबंध) अधिनियम , 1985 की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 5 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्द्वारा , श्री चेरियान वरगीस कोबाइफर में वरिष्ठतम सदस्य होने के कारण 17 सितम्बर , 2009 से अगले ओदश होने तक बाइफर के अध्यक्ष के रूप में कार्य करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[फा. सं. 20( 1 ) /2004- आईएफ- II ] डा. हरमीत सिंह, अवर सचिव (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi, the 16th September , 2009 S.O. 2619. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 5 ) of Section 6 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions ) Act , 1985 , the Central Government hereby authorises Shri Cherian Verghese , being the Senior Most Member in BIFR to act as Chairman , BIFR from 17th September, 2009 , until further orders .

[F. No. 20( 1 )/2004- IF - II] Dr. HARMEET SINGH, Under Secy.

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कस्क्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 27 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2620.-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 एतद्वास निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

2. चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ द्वारा प्रदत्त दंत चिकित्सा अर्हताओं को मान्यता देने के संबंध में, दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में क्रम सं. 56 के 1 के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में , संतोष डेंटल कॉलेज एंड हॉस्पिटल , गाजियाबाद के संबंध में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत अन्तः स्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

एमडीएस (पेरियो. ) ,

चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ, उत्तर प्रदेश

(2) पेरियोडोटिक्स (यदियह 23-02-2008 कोया उसके बाद प्रदान कीगई हो)

एमडीएस ( कंजरवेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री) , चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ, उत्तर प्रदेश

(3 ) कंजरवेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री ( यदियह 23-02-2008 कोया उसके बाद प्रदान कीगई हो)

एमडीएस ( आर्थोडान्टिक्स ) , चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ , उत्तर प्रदेश "

(4) आर्थोडान्टिक्स (यदि यह 21-02-2008 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

[फा. सं. वी -12017/13/2003 -डीई) आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health and Family Welfare) New Delhi , the 27th September , 2009 S.O. 2620. 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 ofthe Schedule to the said Act, namely 2.In the existing entries ofcolumn 2 & 3 against I of Serial No. 56, in respect of Santosh Dental College & Hospital , Ghaziabad, in Part- I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948), pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, the following entires shall be inserted thereunder:-

5620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

"(2) Periodontics (ifgranted on or after23-02-2008)

MDS(Perio. ) , Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut , Uttar Pradesh (3) Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on or after23-02-2008)

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

MDS(Ortho.), Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut , Uttar Pradesh" (4) Orthodonitics (ifgranted onor after21-02-2008)

[F. No. V- 12017/ 13/2003-DE] R. SANKARAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2621.-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 एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

2. पदमश्री डॉ. डी. वाई पाटिल सम विश्वविद्यालय , नवी मुंबई , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा प्रदत्त दंत चिकित्सा अर्हताओं को मान्यता देने के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम सं. 66 के 1 के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में , डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल डेंटल कॉलेज एंड हॉस्पिटल , नेरुल, नवी मुंबई के संबंध में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत अन्तः स्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

"vi . ओरल मेडिसिन एवं रेडियोलॉजी (यदि यह 12-06-2009 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

एमडीएस (ओरल मेडिसिन) , पदमश्री डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल सम विश्वविद्यालय , नवी मुंबई , महाराष्ट्र

एमडीएस (ओरल पैथो. ) , पदमश्री डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल सम विश्वविद्यालय , नवी मुंबई , महाराष्ट्र"

vii. ओरल पैथोलॉजी (यदियह 12-06-2009 कोअथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

[फा. सं. वी-12017/19/2003 -डीई] आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th September, 2009 S.O. 2621. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 10 ofthe 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 I of Serial No. 66, in respect ofDr. D. Y. Patil Dental College & Hospital , Nerul , Navi Mumbai , in Part- I ofthe Scheduleto theDentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) , pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

Deemed University , Navi Mumbai , Maharashtra , the following entires shall be inserted thereunder: -

"vi. OralMedicine& Radiology (ifgranted onor after 12-06-2009)

MDS ( Oral Med .), PadmashreeDr. D. Y. Patil. Deemed University, Navi Mumbai , Maharashtra

vii. Oral Pathology (ifgranted on or after12-06-2009)

MDS (Oral Path.) , Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil Deemed Univerdity, Navi Mumbai , Maharashtra

[F. No. V- 12017/ 19/2003-DE] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 सितम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 2622. 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 केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में सविता विश्वविद्यालय ( मानद विश्वविद्यालय ) चेन्नई द्वारा प्रदत्त डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता दिए जाने के संबंध में सविताडेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल , चेन्नई के बाने में क्रम सं. 79 के I के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी:-

एम डी एस ( कन्ज. डेनटिस्ट्री) , सविता विश्वविद्यालय , ( मानद विश्वविद्यालय ) , चेन्नई"

"कन्जरवेटिव डेनटिस्ट्री (यदि यह 19-06-2008 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

[फा. सं. वी -12017/23/2002 -डीई ] आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st September , 2009

S.O. 2622. 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 1 of Serial No. 79 , in respect of Saveetha Dental College & Hospital, Chennai , in Part - 1 of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948( 16 of 1948 ) , pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Saveetha University ( Deemed University) , Chennai the following entires shall be inserted thereunder:-

Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on or after19-06-2008)

MDS(Cons. Dentistry) , Saveetha University , (DeemedUniversity) , Chennai"

[F. No. V- 12017/23/2002-DE ] R: SANKARAN, Under Secy .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5621

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

नई दिल्ली , 1 सितम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 2623.-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 उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में एम जे पी रोहिलखंड विश्वविद्यालय, बरेली , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा प्रदत्त दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता के संबंध में क्रम सं 61 के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी , अर्थात:-

III . कोठीवाल डेंटल कालेज एंड रिसर्च सेन्टर , मुरादाबाद (i ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णात

आर्थोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 12-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) पेरियोडौन्टिक्स

(यदि 12-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) ओरल पैथोलाजी (यदि 15-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । ) प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 15-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) ओरल सर्जरी

(यदि 15-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) पेडोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 15-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) कन्जरवेटिव डेनटिस्ट्री

(यदि 12-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) कम्युनिटीडेनटिस्ट्री

( र्याद 12-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) ओरल मेडीसिन

(यदि 12-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) एम.डी. एस. ( आर्थोडोन्टिक्स ) एम जे पी रोहिलखंड विश्वविद्यालय , बरेली

एम.डी. एस . ( पेरियो. ) एम जे पी रोहिलखखंड विश्वविद्यालय , बरेली

एम.डी. एस. ( ओरल पैथोलाजी ) एम जे पी रोहिलखंड विश्वविद्यालय , बरेली

एम.डी. एस . ( प्रोस्थोन्टिक ) एम जे पी रोहिलखंड विश्वविद्यालय , बरेली

एम.डी. एस . ( ओरल सर्जरी ) एम जे पी रोहिलखंड विश्वविद्यालय , बरेली

एम.डी. एस. ( पेडोडोन्टिक्स ) एम जे पी रोहिलखखंड विश्वविद्यालय , बरेली

एम.डी. एस . ( कन्जरवेटिव डेनटिस्ट्री ) एम जे पी रोहिलखंड विश्वविद्यालय , बरेली

एम.डी. एस. ( कम्युनिटी डेनटिस्ट्री ) एम जे पी रोहिलखंड विश्वविद्यालय, बरेली

एम.डी. एस. ( ओरल मेडीसिन ) एम जे पी रोहिलखंड विश्वविद्यालय , बरेली

[फा.सं.वी-12017/48/ 2005 -डीई ]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the I'st September, 2009

S.O. 2623. 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 consulation 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 columns 2 & 3 against Serial No. 61 , in Part- I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by MJP Rohilkhand University , Bareilly, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:-

III . Kothiwal Dental College& Research Centre, Moradabad

(i) Master ofDental Surgery

Orthodontics

granted on or after 12-5-2009)

Periodontics

(ifgranted on or after 12-5-2009)

MDS, ( Orthodontics ) , MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

MDS , (Perio . ) , MJP Rohilkhand University , Bareilly , Uttar Pradesh 5622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii )] OralPathology (ifgranted on or after 15-5-2009)

MDS, (Oral Pathology) , MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

Prosthodontics (ifgranted on or after 15-5-2009)

MDS, (Prosthodontics) , MJP Rohilkhand University , Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

OralSurgery (ifgranted on or after 15-5-2009)

MDS, (Oral Surgery ) , MJP Rohilkhand University , Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

Pedodontics (ifgranted on or after 15-5-2009)

MDS, (Pedodontics ) , MJP Rohilkhand University , Bareilly , Uttar Pradesh

Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 12-5-2009)

MDS , (Con. Dentistry ) , MJP Rohilkhand University , Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

CommunityDentistry (ifgranted on or after 12-5-2009)

MDS , ( Com . Dentistry) , MJP Rohilkhand University , Bareilly , Uttar Pradesh

- Oral Medicine (ifgranted on or after 12-5-2009)

MDS, ( Oral Medicine) , MJP Rohilkhand University , Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh'

[F. No. V- 12017/48/2005-DF ] R. SANKARAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 1 सितम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 2624.- दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा10 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 एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में डा. बी. आर. अम्बेडकर विश्वविद्यालय , आगरा , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा प्रदत्त डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता दिए जाने के संबंध में डी. जे. कालेज आफ डेंटल साइसिज एंड रिसर्च , मोदीनगर के बारे में क्रमांक 58 के स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी :-

( ii ) दंत शल्य-चिकित्सा निष्णात पेडोडोन्टिक्स

एम.डी. एस. ( पेडोडोन्टिक्स ) डा. बी. आर. अम्बेडकर विश्वविद्यालय , आगरा

(यदि 3-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

पेरियोडोन्टिक्स

एम.डी. एस. ( पेरियोडोन्टिक्स ) डा. बी. आर. अम्बेडकर विश्वविद्यालय , आगरा

( यदि 6-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। )

ओरल पैथोलाजी

(यदि 30-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

एम.डी. एस. ( ओरल पैथोलाजी ) डा. बी. आर. अम्बेडकर विश्वविद्यालय , आगरा

प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स

एम.डी. एस. ( प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स ) डा. बी . आर. अम्बेडकर विश्वविद्यालय , आगरा

(यदि 6-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। )

[फा.सं.वी -12017/76/2005-डीई]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st September , 2009

S.O. 2624. -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 columns 2 & 3 , in respect of D.J. College of Dental Sciences and Research , Modinagar , against Serial No. 58 in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra, UP , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder: ---

5623 [.भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4,. 1931

MDS , ( Pedo ) , Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University , Agra

(ii)Master ofDental Surgery Pedodoritics (ifgranted on or after 3-6-2009)

MDS , (Periodontics ) , Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University , Agra

Periodontics (ifgranted on or after 6-5-2009)

Oral Pathology (ifgrantedon or after 30-5-2009)

MDS , (Oral Pathology) , Dr. BR. Ambedkar University, Agra

MDS, (Prosthodontics ) , Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra

Prosthodontics (ifgranted on or after 6-5-2009)

[F. No. V- 12017/76/2005-DE ] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 1 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 2625.- केन्दीय सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतदद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

2. भारती विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय ( मानद विश्वविद्यालय ) , पुणे द्वारा प्रदत्त दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता के संबंध में, दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग में भारती विद्यापीठ डेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल , पुणे के बारे में क्रम संख्या 54 के । के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अन्तर्गत रखी जाएंगी:-

"(vii ) पेडोडोन्टिक्स

(जब 9-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

एमडीएस (पेडोडोन्टिक्स ) भारती विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय , (मानद विश्वविद्यालय ) , पुणे

(viii ) ओरल मेडिसिन

(जब 9-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

एमडीएस (ओरल मेडिसिन ) भारती विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय , (मानद विश्वविद्यालय ) , पुणे"

[फा.सं.वी-12017/5/2005-डीई]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st September, 2009

S.O. 2625. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of1948), the Central Government , after consulation 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 columns 2 & 3 against I ofSerial No.54, in respect ofBharati Vidyapeeth Dental College &Hospital, Pune, in Part -I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by Bharati Vidyapeeth University (Deemed University), Pune, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:

"(vii) Pedodontics (ifgrantedonor after 9-6-2009)

MDS, (Pedo. ), Bharati Vidyapeeth University (Deemed University) , Pune

(viii) OralMedicine (ifgranted on or after 9-6-2009)

MDS, (Oral Med.), Bharati Vidyapeeth University ( Deemed University) ; Pune "

[F. No. V- 12017/5/2005-DE ] R. SANKARAN, UnderSecy.

नई दिल्ली, । सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2626:- दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप-धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रस्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारतीय दांत स्विकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्तः अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में एतद्‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

3360G1/09-2 5624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 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 की मान्यता दिए जाने के संबंध में क्रमांक 50 के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों मेंनिम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी:-

"XIV. सी.के. एस. तेजा इंस्टिटयूट आफ डेंटल साइंसिज एंड रिसर्च , तिरूपति

( i ) मास्टर आफ डेंटल सर्जरी-

प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स

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

एम.डी. एस. (प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स ) एन. टी. आर. स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश " ।

[फा.सं.वी-12017/53/2005-डीई ]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st September, 2009

S.O. 2626.- 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. Inthe existing entries of columns 2 & 3 against Serial No. 50 , in Part- I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of1948) pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by N. T. R. University ofHealth Sciences , Vijayawada, AP, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

"XIV. C. K. S. Teja Institute ofDental Sciences

&Research , Tirupati

(i)Master ofDental Surgery

Prosthodontics

(ifgranted on or after 21-4-2009)

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

[F. No. V. 12017/53/2005-DF ]

R. SANKARAN , Under Sccy .

नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2627. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर द्वारा प्रदत्त डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता दिए जाने के संबंध में क्रमांक 72 के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी:-

VII. दर्शन डेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल , उदयपुर , राजस्थान

( i ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णात प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 2-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

एम.डी. एस. ( प्रोस्थो. ) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, जयपुर

( ii ) ओरल मेडीसिन एंड रेडियोलॉजी

(यदि 2-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। )

एम.डी. एस. ( ओरल मेडीसिन एंड रेडियोलॉजी) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर

(iii ) कन्जरवेटिव डेनटिस्ट्री

(यदि2-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। )

एम.डी. एस. ( कन्जर. डेनटिस्ट्री) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, जयपुर

(iv) पेडोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 1-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

एम.डी. एस. (पेडोडोन्टिक्स) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर 5625

भारत काराजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(v) आर्थोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 2-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) (vi ) ओरल एंड मेक्सिलोफेशियल सर्जरी

(यदि2-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) (vii ) पेरियोडोन्टिक्स

( यदि 2-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) (viii ) कम्युनिटी डेनटिस्ट्री

(यदि 2-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) एम.डी.एस. (आर्थों ) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालयं , जयपुर

एम.डी. एस. ( ओरल एंड मेक्सि. सर्जरी ) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर

एम.डी. एस. ( पेरियो . ) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, जयपुर

एम.डी. एस. ( कम्युनिटी डेनटिस्ट्री) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, जयपुर

[फा. सं.वी-12017/60/2005--डीई ]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd September, 2009

S.O. 2627.- In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16of1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments inPart- I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 & 3 against of Serial No.72, in Part - 1 of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

VII. Darshan Dental College & Hospital, Udaipur, Rajasthan

(i) Master ofDental Surgery

(i) Prosthodontics (ifgranted on or after 2-6-2009)

(ii ) Oral Medicine & Radiology (ifgranted on or after 2-6-2009 )

(iii) Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 2-6-2009)

(iv) Pedodontics (ifgranted on or after 1-6-2009 )

(v) Orthodontics (ifgranted on or after 2-6-2009)

(vi)Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (ifgranted on or after 2-6-2009 )

(vii ) Periodontics (ifgranted on or after 2-6-2009)

(viii) Community Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 2-6-2009 )

MDS (Prosthodontics ) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur

MDS ( Oral Medicine & Radiology) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur

MDS (Conservative Dentistry), Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur

MDS ( Pedodontics ) , Rajasthan University of Health Scilneces , Jaipur

MDS ( Orthodontics) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur

MDS (Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery) , Rajasthan University ofHealth Sciences, Jaipur

MDS (Periodontics) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur

MDS (Community Dentistry) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur.

[F. No. V- 12017/60/2005-D

R. SANKARAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2628. 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 एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है . अर्थात्:-

5626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART 41-SEC.3( ii ) ] 2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 कां 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर द्वारा प्रदत्त डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता दिए जाने के संबंध में क्रमांक 72 के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी:-

"VIII पेसिफिक डेंटल कालेज , उदयपुर

( i ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णात

पेरियोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 30-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) (ii ) ओरल सर्जरी

( यदि 30-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) ( iii ) ओरल मेडिसिन एंड रेडियोलॉजी

(यदि.4-6-2009 को या. उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) (iv) प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 4-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) (v) ओरल पैथोलाजी

(यदि 4-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) (vi ) पेडोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 4-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) (vii) कन्जरवेटिव डेनटिस्ट्री

(यदि4-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) (viii ) आर्थोडोन्टिक्स

(यदि 4-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) (ix) कम्युनिटी डेनटिस्ट्री

(यदि 4-6-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) एम. डी. एस. (पेरियोडोन्टिक्स) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर

एम. डी. एस. ( ओरल सर्जरी ) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर

A एम. डी. एस. ( ओरल मेडिसिन एंड रेडियोलॉजी) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर

एम. डी. एस. (प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स ) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर

एम. डी. एस. (ओरल पैथोलाजी ) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर

एम. डी. एस. ( पेडोडोन्टिक्स ) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर

एम. डी. एस. ( कन्जरवेटिव डेनटिस्ट्री ) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, जयपुर

एम. डी. एस. ( आर्थोडोन्टिक्स ) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर

एम. डी. एस. (कम्युनिटी डेनटिस्ट्री) , राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर ।

[फा. सं. वी-12017/59/2005 -डी ई ]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd September, 2009

S.O. 2628. 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 columns 2 & 3 against Serial No. 72, in Part- 1 of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degree awarded by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:-

"VIII . PacificDental College, Udaipar (i) Master ofDental Surgery

(ifgentodomom 052

(in OutBungary

(iigvantudeonora -6809)

( iv) Prosthodontics

(ifgemiadomorлівае 446-2009)

(v) OralPathology

(ifgrantedonor after 4-6-2009)

(vi) Pedodontios

(ifgranted on or after 4-6-2009)

MDS ( Periodontics ) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur

MDS ( Oral Surgery ) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur

MDS (Oral Medicine & Radiology) , Rajasthan University ofHealth Sciences , Jaipur

MDS (Prosthodontics ) ,, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur

MDS ( Oral Pathology) , Rajasthan University ofHealth Sciences ; Jaipur

MDS ( Pedodontics) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur 5627 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

MDS (Conservative Dentistry) , Rajasthan University of HealthSciences, Jaipur

(vii) Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 4-6-2009 )

(viii) Orthodontics

MDS (Orthodontics) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur

(ifgranted on or after 4-6-2009)

(ix)CommunityDentistry (ifgranted on orafter 4-6-2009)

MDS ( Community Dentistry) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur

[F. No. V- 12017/59/2005-DF] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

नागर विमानन मंत्रालय (ए. ए. आई. अनुभाग ).

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2009

का. आ. 2629.- भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण , अधिनियम , 1994 ( 1944का सं. 55 ) की धारा 3 के तहत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा नागर विमानन मंत्रालय में संयुक्त सचिव, श्री आलोक सिन्हा , आई. ए. एस. को तुरंत प्रभाव से श्री अरूण मिश्रा के स्थान पर भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण के बोर्ड में अंशकालिक सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती हैं ।

[फा.सं.एकी-24015/2005/94-वीबी] 'बी. एस. ए. पद्मानाभ , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

(AAI Section)

New Delhi , the 31st August, 2009

S.O. 2629. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act , 1994 (No. 55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Alok Sinha, IAS, Joint Secretary, MinistryofCivil Aviation, aspart-time Member of the Board ofAirports Authority of India vice Shri Arun Mishra with immediate effect.

[F. No. A.V-24015/2005/94-VB ] B. S. A. PADMANABHA, Under Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2630.- 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 जिन भारतीय मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह वे स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक संख्या

मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की

संख्या और वर्ष

(3)

(2)

(1)

(4) 30-4-2009 1. उच्च वोल्टता के स्विचगियर और नियंत्रणमियर भाग

201 कि वो से 52 कि वो तक की रेटित वोल्टता के लिए ए सी विद्युतरोधित खोलबंद स्विचगियर और नियंत्रणगियर

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

[संदर्भ : ईटी 08/टी-43

आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञा. ई. एवं प्रमुख (विद्युत तकनीकी ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 15th September, 2009

S.O. 2630.-In pursuance ofclause (b ) ofsub - rule ( 1 ) of Rules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :-- 5628

[PART II-SEC.3 (ⅱ ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of Indian Standard

Sl. No.

(1)

1. High-voltage Switchgear and Controlgear Part 201 AC Insulation-enclosed Switchgear and Controlgear for Rated Voltages above 1kV and up to and Including 52 kV

Date of Establishment

No. and Year of the Indian Standards, ifany , Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4) (3)

30-4-2009 Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices , New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices, Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: ET08/1-43] R. K. TREHAN, Scientist ' E ' and Head Electritechnical

नई दिल्ली, 17 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2631.- 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 जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक संख्या

(1)

(2)

1. आई एस 15854 : 2009 नाभिकीय ग्रेड आयन-विनिमय रेजिन विशिष्ट

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

(3)

(4)

28-2-2009 इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरुवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 30/आई एस 15854] ई. देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञा. एफ. एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the 17th September , 2009

S.O. 2631.-In pursuance ofclause (b) of sub- rule ( 1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each .

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. No. & Year of the Indian Standard Established

(1) 2

1. IS 15854: 2009 NuclearGrade Ion-ExchangeResins-Specification

Date of Established

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

(3)

(4)

28-2-2009 Copyofthese Standard are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices, New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch 5629

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Offices , Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: CHD 30/IS 15854]

E. DEVENDAR , Scientist and Head (Chemical )

नई दिल्ली, 17 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2632.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है किं जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

संख्या

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

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4) 1.

30-5-2009 आई एस 3025 ( भाग 33 ) 2009 जल और अपशिष्ट जल के नमूने लेने तथा परीक्षण ( भौतिक एवं रसायन ) की पद्धतियाँ भाग 33 आयोडाईड ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

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

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 32/ आई एस 3025 ( भाग 33 ) ]

ई. देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख (रसायन )

New Delhi , the 17th September, 2009

S.O. 2632.-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 Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each .

SCHEDULE

Date of Establishment Sl No. No. & Year of the Indian Standard Established

No. and Year of the Indian Standards , if any, Supersededby the New Indian Standard

(4)

(β)

(1)

31-5-2009 1. IS 3025 (Part 33 ): 2009 Methods of Sampling and Test (Physical and Chemical ) for water and Wastewater Part 33 Iodide (Second Revision)

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

[Ref: CHD 32/IS 3025 (Pt. 33) ]

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist F and Head (Chemical)

नई दिल्ली, 17 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2633.-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 जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

5630

[PART II SEC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

अनुसूची

स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

नए भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय स्थापित तिथि मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

30-4-2009 आई एस 11239 ( भाग 1) : 2009/आई एस ओ 1923 : 1981 दृढ़ जालीदार तापीय ऊष्मारोधी सामग्री की परीक्षण पद्धति भाग 1 आयाम ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

30-4-2009 आई एस 11239 ( भाग 2) : 2009/आई एस ओ 845 : 1988 दृढ़ जालीदार तापीय ऊष्मारोधी सामग्री की परीक्षण पद्धति भाग 2 आभासी घनत्व ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

30-4-2009 4590: 2002 दृढ़ जालीदार तापीय ऊष्मारोधी सामग्री की

१ आई एस 11239 ( भाग 5) : 2009/आई एस ओ परीक्षण पद्धति भाग 5 खुले और बंद सेलों का आयतन प्रतिशत ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

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

[संदर्भ : सीएचडी 27/आई एस 11239 ( भाग 1 , भाग 2 , भाग 5 ) ]

ई. देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the 17th September , 2009

S.O. 2633. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each.

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. No. & Year of Indian Standard Established

Date of Establishment

No. and Year of the Indian Standards , if any, Supersededby the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(4)

30-4-2009 1. IS11239 (Part 1) : 2009/ISO 1923 : 1981 Method ofTest for rigid Cellular Thermal Insulation Materials Part 1 Dimensions (FirstRevision)

30-4-2009 IS11239 (Part 2) : 2009/ISO 845 : 1988 Method ofTest for rigid Cellular Thermal Insulation Materials Part 2 Apparent Density (FirstRevision)

30-4-2009 IS11239 ( Part 5) : 2009/ISO 4590: 2002 Method ofTest for rigid Cellular Thermal Insulation Materials Part 5 Volume Per cent of Openand Closed Cells ( First Revision)

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

[Ref: CHD 27/1S 11239 (Pt. 1 , Pt. 2, Pt . 5) ]

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist FandHead (Chemical) 5631 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26 , 2009/ आश्विन 4 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 17 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2634.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम , 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खखंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मामक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन सं. 2 , अगस्त, 2009

31अगस्त, 2009

आई एस 1397: 1990 क्राफट कागज- विशिष्ट ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

31अगस्त, 2009

संशोधन सं. 2 , अगस्त, 2009

आई एस 13892:1999 पत्राचार के लिए लिफाफे विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

30सितम्बर , 2009

आई एस 2771 ( भाग 1 ): 1990 संशोधन सं. 3 , सितम्बर , 2009

पनालीदार रेशागत्ते के बाक्स- विशिष्टि भाग 1 सामान्य

आवश्यकताएं ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

संशोधन सं 5 , अगस्त, 2009

31अगस्त, 2009

आई एस 12765: 1989 मुद्रण कागज- विशिष्टि

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

[सदर्भ सीएचडी-15/ आई एस 1397 , 13892 , 2771 ( भाग 1 ) , 12765 ]

ई. देवन्द्र, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

NewDelhi , the 17th September , 2009

S.O. 2634.-In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub- rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies ' that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Date from which the Sl.No.

amendment shall have effect

No.andyearof

the amendment

No. and year ofthe Indian Standards

31August, 2009

Amendment No. 2,

IS1397: 1990 Kraft Paper-

Specification

August, 2009

Amendment No. 2,

31August, 2009

IS13892: 1999 Correspondence Envelopes- Specification

August, 2009

30 September, 2009

IS 2771 (Part 1): 1990 Corrugated Fibreboard

Amendment No. 3,

September,2009

Boxes-Specification

31August, 2009

Amendment No. 5,

IS 12765 : 1989 Printing Paper, Map-Specification

August,2009

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

[Ref.CHD-15/IS 1397, 13892, 2771 (Part 1 ), 12765] E. DEVENDAR, Scientist F & Head (Chemical) 3360 G1 /09-3 5632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 18 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2635.--भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम, 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया /किये गये हैं:

अनुसूची

संशोधित भारतीय

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संख्या मानक की संख्या

और वर्ष और शीर्षक

31अगस्त, 2009

संशोधन संख्या 1 , अगस्त, 2009

आई एस 15633: 2005 स्वचल वाहन सवारी कारों के लिए वातिल टायर-

आड़ी और रेडियल प्लाई-विशिष्टि

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

[संदर्भः टी ई डी/जी-16 ]

टी. वी. सिंह, वैज्ञानिक ई. एवं प्रमुख ( टी ई डी )

NewDelhi , the 18th September, 2009

S.O. 2635. 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 amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Date from which the No. year and title ofthe

SL No.

Indian Standards

No. and year of

the amendment

amendment shall have effect

IS 15633 : 2005 Automotive

31August, 2009

AmendmentNo.1 ,

August, 2009

Vehicles -Pneumatic tyres for passenger car vehicles -Diagonal and radial ply- Specification

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

[Ref.TED/G-16]

T.V. SINGH, Scientist E & Head (Transport Engg. )

नई दिल्ली, 18 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2636.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित

मानक ( कों ) की संख्या

संख्या

भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि

वर्ष और शीर्षक

कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

1132: 1985

आई एस 1132:2009 साइकिल- नीचे

31मार्च , 2009

के ब्रैकेट के बाल कप-विशिष्टि

(तीसरा पुनरीक्षण) 5633 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

6685:1972

31मार्च, 2009

आई एस 6685 :2009 लाइफ जैकेट- विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

8450:1977

30अप्रैल, 2009

3. आई एस 8450 :2009 जलपोत निर्माण और समुद्री संरचनांए-डॉग-स्टैप वाली सीढ़ी के डंडे ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

30अप्रैल, 2009

4. आई एस 15875:2009 अहानिकारक माल के लिए मध्यम साइज के बल्क कंटनेर ( आईबीसी) पारिभाषिक शब्दावली

30अप्रैल , 2009

5. आई एस 15876:2009 जलपोत और समुद्रीप्रौद्योगिकी-बोल्ट लगे ढक्कन वाले मेनहोल

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

[संदर्भः टी ई डी/जी -16 ]

टी. वी. सिंह , वैज्ञानिक ई. एवं प्रमुख ( टी ई डी)

New Delhi , the 18th September, 2009

S.O. 2636. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1) ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau 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 issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

Date Established

No. & year of Indian

No. , Year & title of the Indian Standards -Established Standards , ifany, Supersededby the new Indian Standard

1132:1985

31March, 2009

IS1132:2009 Bicycle-Bottom bracket ball cups -Specification (third revision)

6685:1972

31March, 2009

IS6685: 2009 Lifejackets- Specification(first revision)

8450:1977

30April,2009

IS8450: 2009 Shipbuliding and marine structures- Rungs for dog- step ladders (firstrevision)

30April ,2009

IS 15875: 2009 Intermediate bulkcontainers (IBCs) for non-dangerous goods Terminology

30April2009

IS 15876: 2009 Ships and marine technology Manholes with bolted covers

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

[RefTED/G- 16]

T.V. SINGH, Scientist E & Head (Transport Engg . ) 5634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली, 16 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2637. केंद्रीय सरकार को प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किये जाने की संभावना है;

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

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले रेखाक सं. एमसीएल/एसबीपी/जीएम ( एल/ आर. एंड आर. )/ अनंत विस्तार/ 2009/225 तारीख 10 अप्रैल, 2009 का निरीक्षण महाप्रबंधक ( भूमि/राजस्व और पुर्नवास ) , महानदी कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड , जागृति विहार , बुर्ला, संबलपुर -768020 (ओडिशा ) के कार्यालय में या कलेक्टर और जिला मजिस्ट्रेट , अंगुल ( ओडिशा ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाली भूमि में, हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों , चारों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र के प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिनों के भीतर महाप्रबंधक ( भूमि/ राजस्व. और पुनर्वास ) , महानदी कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, जागृति विहार, बुर्ला, संबलपुर -768020 (ओडिशा ) के कार्यालय में भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

महानदी कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड अनन्त विस्तार परियोजना ( फेज- III ) कोल खनन ब्लॉक , तालचेर , जिला अंगुल , ओडिशा (रेखांक सं. एमसीएल/एसबीपी/जीएम ( एल/आर एंड आर )/ अनंत विस्तार/ 2009/225 तारीख 10 अप्रैल, 2009 )

मौज/ग्राम

थाना

जिला

टिप्पणी

हेक्टेयर एकड़ में क्षेत्र

क्रम सं

में क्षेत्र

ग्राम संख्या

तालचेर

169.53

भाग अल्लाहदनगर

68.64

अंगुल

305.99

755.80

तालचेर

हिलोई

अंगुल

पूर्ण 3.

202.35

499.81

तालचेर

इकडाल

अंगुल

पूर्ण तालचेर

29.62

73.16

पूर्ण

अंगुल

अजातिपुर

तालचेर

66.62

164.55

पूर्ण

अंगुल

बीररामचंद्रपुर

तालचेर

43.61

107.71

पूर्ण

अंगुल

कुरिहांन

भोग 7.

कांटापल्ली

61.54

तालचेर

152.00

अंगुल

29.15

72.00

भाग तालचेर

अंगुल

दीनबंधुपुर

22.59

तालचेर

09.14

रंगमटिया

पूर्ण

अंगुल

50.00

भाग

20.24

तालचेर

10.

अंगुल

रघुनाथपुर

कुल योग

2067.15 एकड़

$36.89 हेक्टेयर लगभग

लगभग

' 'को ओसभी की पुरानी अर्जित रेखा है और रेखा ' करख' हँसमुल और अल्लाहदनगर ग्राम की सम्मिलित करती है ।

ख-गः ' ग ' रेवाग्राम की सारी सीमा से मुरत है ।

ग-मः रेखा ' ग ' क्रमपुरीपूर्वी से ली है ।

घ-ड: रंटिया की पूर्वी सीमा से सुधरती है ।

ङ- चः रेखा ' अन्य' ग्राम एकखालको पूर्वी और उत्तरी सीमा से होती हुई गुजरती है ।

च-छः ' बछ ' रेखा ग्राम हिलोई की पूर्वी सीमा से होती हुई गुजरती है । 5635 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii )]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26 , 2009/ आश्विन 4 , 1931

छ-जः ' छज' रेखा ग्राम दीनबंधुपुर की मध्य रेखा से होती हुई गुजरती है ।

ज - श - अ ' जाम ' रेखा ग्रामः कन्टापल्ली की उत्तरी - पश्चिमी तरक की मध्य रेखा से गुजस्ती हुई जाती है ।

अ-टः रेखा ' अट ' ग्राम डिलोई , जोरगारिया और कुरियों के तिराहे खंभे से और ग्राम राकस की पश्चिमी ओर गुजरती है ।

ट-छ- डः रेखा ' टतड ' ग्राम राकस के उत्तर सीमा की ओर जाती है ।

ड- वः रेखा' उड ' ग्राम वृंदावनपुर के उत्तरी सीमा से होकर मुहरती है ।

ढ़ -णः रेखा' ढण ' ग्राम वृंदावनपुर की पूर्वी सीमा के ओर से ग्राम वृंदावनपुर और अल्लाहदनगर की सम्मिलित सीमा से गुजरती है । ण-कः रेखा ' णक' आगे बढ़ती हुई अन्नत विस्तार ओ.सी.पी. की पुरानी अर्जन सेवा से होती हुई प्रारम्भिक बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/17/2009-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

NewDelhi , the 16th September, 2009

S.O. 2637. Where it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

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

Theplan bearing number MCL/SBP/GM ( L/R & R )/ ANANTA EXTN./2009/225 dated the 10th April , 2009, of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Genral Manager, ( Land/Revenue and Rehabilitation), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagruti Vihar: Burla, Sambalpur- 768020 (Odisha) or at Office of the Collector and the District Magistrate, Angul , (Odisha) or at Office ofthe Coal Controller , 1. Council House Street, Kolkata.

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , chart and other documents referred in sub - section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the General Manager, ( Lend/ Revenue & Rehabilitaion) , Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 (Odisha) within ninety days from the date ofpublication ofthis notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LIMITED

Ananta Extension Project ( Phase- III)

CoalMining Block

Talcher, District Angul, Odisha

(Planbearing number MCL/SBP/GM ( L/R & R)/ ANANTA EXTN./2009/225 Dated the 10th April , 2009) Thana

District

Remarks Mauja/Village

Sl. No.

Village Number

Area inhectares

Arca inacres

Talcher

68.64

169.53 Part

Angul

Allahadnagar

305.99

755.80

Hiloi

Full Talcher

Angul

Ekdal

202.35

499.81 Full 3

Talcher

Angul

29.62

73,16

Full Talcher

Angul

Ajatipur

66.62

164.55 Full Biraram-

Talcher

Angul

Chandrapur

43.61

107.71

Full Talcher

Kurihan

Angul

61.54

152.00 Part 7

Talcher

Angul

Kantapalli

29.15

72.00

Part 8

Talcher 77

Angul

Dinabandhupur

9.14

22.59

Full 9

Talcher

Angul

Rangamatia

20.24

Part

50.00

Talcher 91

Raghunathpur

Angul

2067.15

836.89

Total

acres

hectares

approximately approximately 5636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] BoundaryDescription of Ananta Expn. Ph - III-

A-B: The line AB start from point "A" which is old acquistion line ofBhubaneswari OCP & AB line passing through the commonboundary ofHensmul village & Allhadnagar.

B-C: The line BC passing through North side of Hensumul village boundary.

C-D: The line CD passing through the Eastern side of village boundary ofBiraramachandrapur.

D-E: The line DE passing through the Eastern side of village boundary Rangamatia.,

EF: The line EF passing through the East & North side of Ekdal village boundary .

FG. TheFG line passing through the North side ofHiloi village boundary.

GH The line GH passing through the middle line ofDinabandhupur village.

HƯ: The line HIJ passing through the middle line of North- West side of village Kantapali

JK: The line JKpassing through the Tri - Juction pillar of Hiloi , Joragadia & Kurihan and Western side of Rakas village boundary.

KLM: The line KLM passing through the North side of Rakas village boundary.

MN: The line MN passing through the North side ofBrundabanpur village boundary.

NO: The line NO passing through the Eastern side of Brundabanpur village boundary & common boundary of Brundabanpur & Allahadnagar.

OA: The line OA passing through the old acquistion line of Ananta Extn . OCP & meet at starting point "A".

[F. No.43015/17/2009- PRIW- 1 ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2638.-कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन भोर विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2259 तारीख 7 अगस्त, 2008 , जो भारत का राजपत्र, भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 16 अगस्त, 2008 में प्रकाशित होने पर , उक्त अधि सूचना ( जिसे इसमें पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर अधिकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर , आत्योंतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गये थे;

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि महानदी कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , संबलपुर , ( ओडिशा ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्त का , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामंद है;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शाक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि या इसके इस प्रकार निहित अधिकार, तारीख 16 अगस्त, 2008 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने की बजाय , निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , उक्त सरकारी कंपनी में निहित हो जायेंगे , अर्थातः-

1. उक्त सरकारी कंपनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन अवधारित प्रतिकर , ब्याज , और नुकसानी और ऐसी ही मदों की बाबत किये गये सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी;

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

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

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

5. उक्त सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे शर्तों और निदेशों का , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिपोरित की जाएं , पालन करेगी ।

[फा.सं. 43015/21 /2009- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- I ( जिल्द II ) ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव 5637 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/ आश्विन 4, 1931

New Delhi , the 15th September, 2009

S.O. 2638.- Whereas , on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2259 dated the 7th August, 2008 in the Gazette of India , Part - II , section 3 , sub - section (ii) dated the 16th August, 2008 issued under sub- section ( 1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of1957) (herein after referred to as the said Act) the lands and the rights described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub -ection ( 1 ) of section 10 of the said Act;

And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited , Sambalpur ( Odisha) (hereinafter referredto as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore , in the exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 1) of Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 the Central Government hereby directs that the said lands and rights so vested shall with effect from the 16th August, 2008 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government vest in the Government company, subject to the following terms and conditions , namely:-

1. The Government company shall re - imburse the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation interests , damages and the like as determined under the provisions of the said Act; 2. A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amount payable to the Central Government bythe Government Company under conditions ( 1 ) and all expenditure in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government company and similarly , all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals etc. for or in connection with the rights , in or over the lands so vested shall also be borne by the Government Company;

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

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

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

[F.No. 43015/21/2004- PRIW- 1 (Vol . II ) ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2639.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है , कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में से कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

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

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले रेखांक सं. सी-1 ( ई) III/जेजेएनआर/781-0409 , तारीख 2 अप्रैल , 2009 का निरीक्षण , वेस्टर्न कोलफीड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) , कोल ईस्टेट , सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर 440001 ( महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक (एक्सप्लोरेशन ) , केन्द्रीय खान , योजना और डिजाईन संस्थान , गोंडवाना पॅलेस, काँके रोड, राँची के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काऊंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता के कार्यालय में या जिला कलेक्टर , यवतमाल ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है । इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में, हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभा नक्शों, चार्ट और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से 90 दिनों के भीतर , मुख्य महाप्रबंधक , वणी उत्तर क्षेत्र, पोस्ट- भालर, तहसील वणी , जिला यवतमाल-445304 ( महाराष्ट्र) या मुख्य खनन अभियंता ( भू/ रा ) , वेस्टर्न कोल फील्ड्स लिमिटेड , राजस्व विभाग , कोल एस्टेट , सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर -440001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) को भेजेंगे । 5638

[PART II -SC. 3 (ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

अनुसूची

घोन्सा सेंट्रल और गार्थ क्वारी ब्लॉक

वणी उत्तर क्षेत्र

जिला यवतमाल ( महाराष्ट्र)

( रेखांक सं. सी.- i ( ई ) III/जेजेएनआर/ 781-0409 तारीख 2 अप्रैल , 2009 )

(भाग-क)

ग्राम का नाम

तहसील

टिप्पणी

जिला

क्रम सं

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में

पटवारी सर्कल संख्या

वणी

भाग

8.30

कुंभारखनी

यवतमाल

8,30

कुल

(भाग-ख)

230

वणी

25.35

भाग

यवतमाल

फुलोर

घोन्सा

वणी

3.48

भाग 98

यवतमाल

28,83

कुल

(भाग-ग)

भाग

वणी

यवतमाल

घोन्सा

66.69

230

वणी

यवतमाल

10.83

भाग फुलोर

77,52

कुल

(भाग-क)+( भाग-ख) + ( भाग -ग) -

8.30+ 28.83+77.52

कुल क्षेत्रः 114.65 हेक्टर ( लगभग )

या

283.30 एकड़ ( लगभग ) । सीमा वर्णम ( भाग-क ): -

क

-ख- गः रेखा ग्राम कुंभारखनी में बिन्दु 'क ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम कुंभारखनी में बिन्दु 'ख' के पास से गुजरती हुई ग्राम कुंभारखनी और ग्राम फुलोर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु 'ग ' पर मिलती है ।

ग- घ-कः रेखा ग्राम कुंभारखनी और ग्राम फुलोर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है और नदी के किनारे पर बिन्दु 'घ ' के पास से गुजरती हुई नदी के किनारे से लगकर गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है ।

(भाग-ख)

ड. -चः रेखा ग्राम रासा , ग्राम कुंभारखनी और ग्राम फुलोर के त्रिसंघीय बिन्दु 'ड. ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम कुंभारखनी और ग्राम फुलोर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है और ग्राम फुलोर , ग्राम कुंभारखनी और ग्राम घोन्सा के त्रिसंघीय बिन्दु 'ज' पर मिलती है ।

च -छः रेखा ग्राम घोन्सा और ग्राम फुलोर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु 'छ ' पर मिलती है ।

छ -ज- श- ञः रेखा ग्राम फुलोर से होकर गुजरती है और ग्राम फुलोर में बिन्दु 'ज ' और बिन्दु 'इझ ' के पास से गुजरती हुई ग्राम घोन्सा और ग्राम फुलोर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु ' अ ' पर मिलती है ।

ज-टः रेखा ग्राम घोन्सा और ग्राम फुलोर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु 'ट ' पर मिलती है । 5639 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

ਟ- ਚ- ਚ : रेखा ग्राम फुलोर से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ठ ' के पास से गुजरती हुई ग्राम फुलोर और ग्राम रासा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा बिन्दु 'ड' पर मिलती है ।

ड-ढ़: रेखाग्राम फुलोर और ग्राम रासा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से घोन्सा से लगकर गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु 'छ ' पर मिलती है । (भाग-म):-

ढ़-णः रेखा ग्रामं घोन्सा में बिन्दु 'छ ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम घोन्सा से गुजरती हुई नदी के किनारे गरै बिन्दु 'ण ' पर मिलती है । ण- त-थः रेखा नदी के किनारे से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु 'त' के पास से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' थ ' पर मिलती है ।

थ-द- ध- न रेखा ग्राम घोन्सा से गुजरती है और बिन्दु 'द ' और बिन्दु ' थ ' के पास से गुजरती हुई ग्राम घोन्सा और ग्राम फुलोर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु 'ग' पर मिलती है ।

न-प-

फः रेखा ग्राम फुलोर से गुजरती है और बिन्दु 'प ' के पास से गुजरती हुई ग्राम फुलोर और ग्राम घोन्सा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा. पर बिन्दु 'क' पर मिलती है ।

फ-ढ़ः रेखाग्राम घोन्सा से होकर गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु ' छ ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा.सं. 43015/16/2009-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ] एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 15th September, 2009

S.O. 2639.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the localitymentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

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

Theplanbearing number C - 1 (E) III/JJNR/ 781-0409 dated the 2nd April, 2009 of the area covered by this notification canbe inspected in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department) , Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur-440001 (Maharashtra) or at the office of the ChiefGeneral Manager (Exploration Division) , Central Mine Planning andDesign Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office ofthe Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata or at the office of the District Collector, Yavatmal (Maharashtra).

Allpersons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and otherdocuments referredto in sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the office of the ChiefGeneral Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Wani NorthArea, Post Bhalar, Tahsil Wani , District Yavatmal - 445 304 (Maharashtra) or ChiefMining Engineer (Land and Revenue), Western Coalfields Limited, Revenue Department, Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur - 440 001 (Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date ofpublication of this notification in the OfficialGazette.

SCHEDULE

GHONSA CENTRAL AND NORTH QUARRY BLOCK

WANI NORTH AREA

DISTRICT YAVATMAL (MAHARASHTRA)

(Plan bearing number C- 1 (E) III/ JJNR/781-0409 dated the 2ndApril, 2009)

" PART-A"

Remarks

Tahsil

District

Area inhectares

S1. No.

Nameof village

Patwari circle number

Part 42

8.30

Yavatmal

Kumbharkhumi

Wani

8.30

Total

3360 Gi /094 5640

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA4, 1931

"PART- B"

Tahsil

District

Remarks SL No.

Nameof village..

Area inhectares

Patwari circle number

Fulor

230

Wani

Yavatmal

25.35

Part 2.

Ghonsa

Wani

3.48

Part

Yavatmal

TOTAL:

28.83

"PART-C"

Ghonsa

Yavatmal

66.69

Part

Warn

230

Fulor

Wani

10.83

Part

77.52

Yavatmal TOTAL:

(PART -A) + (PART - B) +. (PART - C) =

8.30+ 28.83+ 77.52 = Total 114.65 hectares (approximately)

283.30 acres (approximately)

Boundarydescription (Part-A) :-

A- B - C: Line starts from Point ' A' in village Kumbharkhani and passes nearby Point ' B ' and meets on common village boundary ofvillages Kumbharkhani and Fulor at Point ' C' .

C - D - A: Line passes along the common village boundary at villages Kumbharkhani and Fulor , then passes along the river and meets at starting Point ' A' .

(Part-B):-

E- F : Line starts from Point ' E' on trijunction of villages Rasa, Kumbharkhani and Fulor and passes along the commonvillage boundary ofvillages Kumbharkhani and Fulor and meets at Point ' F ' on trijunction ofvillages Fulor, Kumbharkhani and Ghonsa.

F - G

Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Ghonsa and Fulor and meets at Point 'G' .

G-H-I-J: Line passes through village Fulor and passes nearby Point ' H' , ' I ' and meets at Point ' J ' on common village boundary ofvillages Ghonsa and Fulor.

J -K : Line passes along the Common village boundary of villages Ghonsa and Fulor and meets at Point 'K'.

K - L - M : Line passes through village Fulor and passes nearby Point ' L' and meets at Point 'M' on common village boundary ofvillages Fulor and Rasa.

M-E : Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Fulor and Rasa and meets at starting Point 'E' .

(Part-C):-

N-O : Line strats from ' N' through village Ghonsa and meets at Point ' O ' on bank of River .

O-P-Q : Line passes along the River and passes nearby Point ' P ' and meets at Point ' Q'

1 Q-R- S-T: Line passes through village Ghona and passes nearby Point ' R' , ' S ' and meets at Point ' T ' on common village boundary of villages Ghonsa and Fulor .

T- U- V: Line passes through villagė Fulor and passes nearby Point ' U' and meets at Point ' V' on common village boundary ofvillages Fulor and Ghonsa.

V-N:

Line passes through village Ghonsa and Meets at starting Point 'N' .

[F.No.43015/16/2009- PRIW - I ]

M.SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

5641

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2640.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

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

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र का रेखांक सं. डी.जी./08753 तारीख 16 फरवरी , 2009 का निरीक्षण महाप्रबंधक ( गवेषण प्रभाग ) , सेन्ट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीच्यूट, गोन्डवाना प्लेस , काँके रोड, राँची या कोयला नियंत्रक, काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700 001 कार्यालय में या जिला समाहर्त्ता, जिला कोरबा , छत्तीसगढ़ के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है;

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चारों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर मुख्य महाप्रबंधक (गवेषण प्रभाग ) , सेन्ट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीच्यूट , गोन्दवाना प्लेस , काँके रोड, राँची को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

मोरगा साउथ ब्लॉक , हसदो अरंड , कोयला क्षेत्र जिला कोरबा , छत्तीसगढ़

(रेखांक सं. डी.जी. /08753 तारीख 16 फरवरी , 2009 )

क्र. ग्राम सं.

पटवारी सर्किल सं./ग्राम संख्या

थाना/ तहसील 1.

पोंडी अपरोरा

13/550302-176-

मोरगा

पोंडी अपरोरा उचलेंगा 13/550302-167

13/550302-166

पोंडी अपरोरा अरसिया

पोंडी अपरोरा

पतुरिया

सु. वन क्षेत्र (1)

पोंडी अपरोरा

पतुरिया सु. वन क्षेत्र (2)

कुल

सीमा विवरण :

क-ख

जिला

टिप्पणी

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर

क्षेत्रफल एकड़

740

भाग

1828.54

कोरबा

भाग

कोरबा 1334.34

540

कोरबा

732

भाग

1808.77

भाग

304

कोरबा 751.18

731.41

296

भाग

कोरबा

6454,24 (लगभग)

2612 (लगभग)

रेखा मोरगा गाँव में ' क ' बिन्दु से शुरू होती है और उसी गाँव के बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग रेखा ' ख ' बिन्दु से उचलेंगा एवं अरसिया गाँव एवं जंगल से गुजरती हुई पतुरिया जंगल में ' ग ' बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ग-घ रेखा पतुरिया जंगल के ' ग ' बिन्दु से शुरू होकर दक्षिण की ओर मुड़कर उसी जंगल के बिन्दु ' घ ' पर मिलती है ।

घ-ङ रेखा ' घ ' बिन्दु से शुरू होकर पश्चिम की ओर मुड़ती है तथा गाँव अरसिया , उचलेंगा से गुजरत्नी हुई मोरगा गाँव के बिन्दु ' ङ ' पर मिलती है ।

ङ-क रेखा मोरगा गाँव के उत्तरी - पश्चिमी क्षेत्र की ओर मुड़कर उसी गाँव के बिन्दु ' क' पर पुनः मिल जाती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/ 11/2009- पीआरआई डब्ल्यू-11

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिय 5642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]

NewDelhi, the 15th September , 2009

S.O. 2640.-Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 1) of Section 4 of the Coal BearingAreas (Acquisitions andDevelopment) Act, 1957 ( 20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government herebygives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein;

Theplanbearing number DG/08753 dated the 16th February, 2009 ofthe area covered by this nofification canbe. inspected at the office ofthe ChiefGeneral Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street, Calcutta or at the office oftheDistrict Collector, District Raigarh, Chattisgarh.

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred in sub- section (7) of Section 13 of the said.Act to the ChiefGeneral Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning andDesign Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi within ninety days from the date ofpublication ofthis notification in the Official Gazette .

SCHEDULE

MORGA SOUTH BLOCK, HASDO ARAND COALFIELD,

DISTT . KORBA, CHATTISGARH

(PlanbearingNo. DG/08753 dated the 16th February, 2009)

Remarks Thana/Tehsil

Village

Sl. No.

Patwari Circle No./VillageNo.

13/550302-176 District

Area in Hectares

Area in Acres

740

Part Korba

1828.54

PondiUprora

Morga

13/550302-167

Part Korba

1334.34

540

PondiUprora

Uchlenga

13/550302-166 3.

Arsia

Korba

732

Part

1808.77

Pondi Uprora

Paturia R.F. (1 ) 13

Part Korba

751.18

304

Pondi Uprora

Paturia R.F. (2) 13

Korba

296 Part

731.41

PondiUprora

TOTAL BoundaryDescription:

A-B

6454.24

2612

(approd

(approad

nuantely)

ruately)

Line starts from point ' A' in village Morga and meets at point ' B ' in the same village .

Downwillige Morgathodaghvillages Uchlenga and Arsia through intervening forest and CD: Homρρίου in parteaed Tavoline towards south and meet at point ' D' in Paturia protected DE

E-A

tim part ofvillage Arsia, Uchłenga and Morga and meets point

ойнооd weaves through village.Morga and navets point ' A' in the same

[F. No. 43015/11/2009/PRIW- I ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5643

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2641. केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने कीसंभावना है;

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

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र का रेखांक सं. डी.जी./08754.तारीख 19 फरवरी , 2009 का निरीक्षण महाप्रबंधक ( गवेषण प्रभाग ) , सेन्ट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीच्यूट , गोन्डवाना प्लेस , कॉके रोड , राँची या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता कार्यालय में या जिला कलक्टर , जिला दुमका , झारखण्ड के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ;

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चारों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर महाप्रबंधक ( गवेषण प्रभाग ) , सेन्ट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीच्यूट , गोन्डवाना प्लेस , कॉके रोड , राँधी को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

केयादा-बौधर गरयायानी ब्लॉक , महुआगड़ी , कोयला क्षेत्र जिला दुमका, झारखण्ड

(रेखांक सं. डी.जी. /08754 तारीख 19 फरवरी , 2009)

ग्राम

क्र. सं

थाना/ तहसील 1.

गोपीकांदर गोपीकांदर

गोपी कांदर खैरबाड़ी

गोपी कांदर चुनरमोली

काटलडांगा

गोपी कांदर 5.

गोपी कांदर डुबराजपुर

भागाबांध

गोपी कांदर 7.

बासकीडांगा गोपी कांदर 8.

गरियापानी

गोपी कांदर 9.

गोपीकांदर सलाईपहाड़

सीमा विवरण:

क-ख

जिला

टिप्पणी क्षेत्रफल एकड़ (लगभग)

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर (लगभग)

भाग दुमका

3290.00

1330.00

भाग दुमका

दुमका

भाग दुमका

कुल

3290,00 एकड़ (लगभग)

1330,00 हेक्टेयर (लगभग)

रेखा चुनमौली गाँव में उत्तर में ' क ' बिन्दु से शुरू होती है और पूर्व में जाकर बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग रेखा' ख ' बिन्दु से दक्षिण की ओर मुड़कर गोपी कांदर गाँव के दक्षिण में बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है ।

ग-घ रेखा ' ग ' बिन्दु से पूर्व की ओर मुड़कर बिन्दु ' घ ' पर मिलती है ।

ম-ভ रेखा' घ' बिन्दु से दक्षिण की ओर मुड़ती है और कुरूडीह गाँव जाने वाली सड़क से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु 'ङ' पर मिलती है । ड- च रेखा ' ङ ' बिन्दु से दक्षिणी- पश्चिमी क्षेत्र की ओर मुड़कर सलाईपहाड़ गाँव से होती हुई बिन्दु ' च ' पर मिल जाती है । च- छ

छ-ज

रेखा 'च ' बिन्दु से पश्चिम की ओर मुड़कर काठीकुण्ड बिन्दु ' छ ' पर मिलती है ।

रेखा ' छ' बिन्दु से उत्तर- पश्चिम की ओर मुड़कर चौदर पहाड़ से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ज ' से मिलती है । 5644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] ज- झ- ज- ट रेखा बिन्दु ' ज ' से उत्तर की ओर मुड़कर बिन्दु ' झ' और बिन्दु ' अ ' से गुजरती हुई दक्षिण में चुनरमोली गाँव में बिन्दु ' ट ' पर मिलती है ।

ट-क रेखा बिन्दु ' ट ' से उत्तर की ओर गुजरकर चुनरमोली गाँव में बिन्दु ' क ' पर पुनः मिल जाती है ।

[फ्न. सं. 43015/8/2009-पीआरआई डब्ल्यू- I ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th September, 2009

S.O. 2641. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

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

Theplanbearing number DG/08754 dated the 19th February, 2009 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division) , Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, GondwanaPlace, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta or at the office ofthe District Collector, District Dumka, Jharkhand;

Allpersons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred in sub - section (7) ofSection 13 of the said Act to the ChiefGeneral Manager (Exploration Division) , CentralMine Planning andDesign Institute , Gondwana Place , Kanke Road, Ranchi within ninety days from the date ofpublication ofthis notification in the Official Gazette .

SCHEDULE

KEYADA--CHOUDHAR GRIAPANI BLOCK, MAHUAGARHI COALFIELD,

DISTT. DUMKA, JHARKHAND

(Planbearing No. DG/08754 dated the 19th February, 2009)

Thana/Tehsil Village

Sl. No.

Gopikandar

Gopikandar 2.

Kherbari

Gopikandar 3.

Chunarmole

Gopikandar 4.

Gopikandar Kataldanga

Dubrajpur

Gopikandar 6.

Gopikandar Bhagabandh

Baskidanga

Gopikandar 8.

Gopikandar Gariapani

Gopikandar Solapahur

TOTAL District

Remarks Area in acres

Area in hectares

Part Dumka

3290.00

1330.00

Part Dumka

Dumka

Part Dumka

Dumka

Part Dumka

3290.00

Acres

(approxi-

mately)

1330.00 hectares (approxi- mately) 5645 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Boundary Description:

A-B Line starts from point ' A' in the north of village Chunarmole and meets at point ' B ' in the east.

B-C From 'B' the line turn towards south and meet point ' C' south of village Gopikandar .

C-D From point ' C' the line turn towards east and meet at point ' D'

DE From point ' D ' the line turn towards south and meets part of village Kurudih road at E.

EF From point ' E' the line turns towards south west and passes through village Salaipahar and meets point 'F ' F-G From point ' F ' the line turns towards west and meets at pointG.

GH From point 'G' the line tums towards north- west and moves along Chaudhary Pahar to meet point H. H-I -J-K . From point 'H ' the line moves towards north through point ' I ' and ' J ' and meets point ' K' in south ofChunarmole village.

K-A From point ' K' the line moves towards north and meets village Chunarmole at point 'A' .

[F. No. 43015/8/2009- PRIW - 1 ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2642.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, सरकारी संस्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड (ii ) , तारीख 16 मार्च 1998 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 674 , तारीख 16 मार्च , 1998 का अधिक्रमण करते हुए, नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तम्भ, ( 1 ) के अधिकारियों को जो कम्पनी के अधिकारी हैं और केन्द्रीय सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के पंक्ति के समतुल्य हैं , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रायोजन के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारियों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है , जो उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) की तत्संबंधी प्रविष्टि में विनिर्दिष्ट सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवर्गों की बावत अपनी अधिकारिता की सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन सम्पदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और उन पर अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेंगे ।

सारणी

सरकारी स्थान के प्रवर्ग और अधिकारिता की स्थानीय सीमा

अधिकारी का पदनाम

(2)

(1)

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड रांची के और उसके प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन सभी परिसर

उप मुख्य इंजीनियर ( सिविल )/ भूमि और राजस्व, सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस , लिमिटेड रांची , पिन कोड सं. -834029

स्टाफ आफिसर

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित कथास क्षेत्र का भाग है और बोकारो तथा गिरिडीह जिलों में फैले हुए हैं । (परियोजना और योजना ) सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड , कथारा , पिनकोड सं. - 829116

स्टाफ आफिसर

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित ढोरी क्षेत्र का भाग है और बोकारो में फैले हुए हैं ।.

(परियोजना और योजना ) सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, ढ़ोरी ,

पिन कोड सं. - 825102

स्टाफ आफिसर

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर , जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित बोकारो और करगली क्षेत्र के भाग हैं और बोकारो तथा गिरिडीह जिलों में फैले हुए हैं ।

(परियोजना और योजना ). सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, करगली,

पिनकोड सं. - 829104

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित बोकारो और करगली क्षेत्र के भाग है और बोकारो तथा गिरिडीह जिलों में फैले हुए हैं । 5646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

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

(2)

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित बरका-सयाल क्षेत्र के भाग में और रामगढ़ जिले में फैले हुए हैं । स्टाफ आफिसर (परियोजना और योजना ) सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, बरका-सयाल , पिन कोड सं.- 829103

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिंमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित अस्गडा क्षेत्र के भाग हैं और रामगढ़ जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

स्टाफ आफिसर (परियोजना और योजना) सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, अरगडा, पिन कोड सं. - 829101

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित कुज्जू क्षेत्र के भाग हैं और रामगढ़ जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

स्टाफ आफिसर (परियोजना और योजना) सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, कुज्जू, पिनकोड सं. - 825316

स्टाफ आफिसर (परियोजना और योजना )

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर ज़ो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित चरही क्षेत्र के भाग और हजारीबाग जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, चरही, पिन कोड सं. - 825336

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित पिपरवार क्षेत्र के भाग हैं और हजारीबाग चतरा और रांची जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

स्टाफ आफिसर (परियोजना और योजना ) सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड , पिपरवार , पिन कोड सं. - 829201

स्टाफ आफिसर

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित उत्तरी कर्णपुरा क्षेत्र के भाग हैं और चतरा और रांची जिले में फैले हुए हैं । (परियोजना और योजना ) सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , उत्तरी कर्णपुरा , डकरा , पिन कोड सं. - 829210

स्टाफ आफिसर (परियोजना और योजना)

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित राजहारा क्षेत्र के भाग हैं और पलामू जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड , राजहारा , डाल्टेनगंज, पिन कोड सं. - 822101

स्टाफ आफिसर (परियोजना और योजना )

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित बरकाकाना के भाग हैं और जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

सेन्ट्रलकोलफील्डस लिमिटेड , केन्द्रीय कार्यशाला, बरकाकाना , पिन कोड सं. -829103

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित खनन बचाओ केन्द्र, नईसराय के भाग हैं और रामगढ जिलें में फैले हुए हैं । स्टाफ आफिसर ( कार्मिक) सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड , खनन बचाओ केन्द्र, नईसराय , पिन कोड सं. - 829122

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित रजरप्पा क्षेत्र के भाग हैं और रामगढ़ बोकारो जिले में फैले हुए हैं । स्टाफ आफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड , रजरप्पा , पिनकोड सं. - 825101

स्टाफ आफिसर ( कार्मिक और प्रशासन ) सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड , ( ग्रुप - बोकारो कोल- फील्डस वाशरी ) , पिन कोड सं. - 829116

सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो झारखण्ड राज्य में स्थित ग्रुप बोकारो वाशरी क्षेत्र के भाग हैं और रामगढ , हजारीबाग और बोकारो जिले मेंफैले हुए हैं ।

[फा. सं. 43022/2/97- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-I ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव 5647 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2009

S.O. 2642. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) (herein after referred to as the said Act) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofCoal number S.O. 674, dated the 16th March, 1998, published in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 , sub-section ( ii ) , dated the 4th April, 1998, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (1 ) of the table below being the officers of the Company and equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Central Government , to be the Estate Officers for the purpose ofthe said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act, within the limits of their jurisdictions in respect ofthe categories of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said table .

TABLE

Categories ofthe Public premises and local limits ofjurisdiction Designation oftheOfficer

(1)

(2)

All the premises belonging to and under the administrative control ofCeritral Coalifields Limited, Ranchi .

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part ofKathara Area situated in the State of Jharkhand spread over in the Districts of Bokaro and Giridih.

Deputy ChiefEngineer; (Civil)/Landand Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi , PinCodeNo.834029 StaffOfficer(Project and Planning) Central CoalfieldsLimited, Kathara, PinCode No.829116

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Dhori Area spread over in the District of Bokaro and situated in the State of Jarkhand .

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and StaffOfficer(Project and Planning) Central Coalfields Limited, Dhori , PinCodeNo : 825102 StaffOfficer (Project and Planning) Central Coalfields Limited,Kargali, PinCodeNo. 829 104

forming part of Bokaro & Kargali Area spread over in the Districts of Bokaro , Giridih and situated in the State of Jharkhand.

StaffOfficer(Project and Planning) Central Coalfields Limited, Barka Sayal

PinCodeNo. 829 103

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part ofBarka Sayal Area spread over in the Districts of Hazaribagh Ramgarh and situated in the State of Jharkhand.

StaffOfficer(Project and Planning) Central Coalfields Limited,Argada PinCode No. 829 101

All the preïnises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Argada Area spread over in the Districts of Hazaribagh and Ramgarh situated in the State of Jharkhand.

StaffOfficer(Project and Planning) Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju, PinCode No. 825316

StaffOfficer(Project and Planning) Central Coalfields Limited, Charhi ,

PinCodeNo. 825 336

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Kuju Area spread over in the Districts of Ramgarh and Hazaribagh and situated in the State of Jharkhand. All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Charhi Area spread over in the Districts of Hazaribagh and Ramgarh and situated in the State of Jharkhand.

StaffOfficer(Project and Planning) Central Coalfields Limited, Piparwar, PinCodeNo. 829 201

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Piparwar Area spread over in the Districts of Hazaribagh, Chatra and Ranchi and situated in the State of Jharkhand.

StaffOfficer (Project and Planning) Central Coalfields Limited, North Karanpura, Dakra PinCode No. 829210

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of North Karanpura Area spread over in the Districts of Chatra and Ranchi and situated in the State of Jharkhand.

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Rajhara Area spread over in the Districts of Palamau and situated in the State of Jharkhand.

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Central Workshop Barkakana Area spread over in the districts of Hazaribagh and Ramgarh and situated in the State of Jharkhand.

StaffOfficer (Project and Planning) Central Coalfields Limited, Rajhara, Daltonganj , PinCode No. 822 101 StaffOfficer(Personnel ) Central Coalfields Limited, Central Workshop, Barkakana; PinCode No. 829 103

3360 G1 /09-5 5648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

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

StaffOfficer (Personnel ) Central Coalfields Limited, Mines Rescue Station, Naisarai, PinCode No. 829 122

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Mines Rescue Station, Naisarai spread over in the districts of Ramgarh and situated in the State of Jharkhand.

StaffOfficer (Personnel) Central Coalfields Limited, Naisarai Hospital ,Naisarai , PinCode No. 829 122

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Naisarai Hospital spread over in the district of Ramgarh and situated in the State of Jharkhand.

StaffOfficer (Project and Planning) Central Coalfields Limited , Rajrappa, PinCode No. 825 101

All the premises. belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Rajrappa Area spread over in the Districts of Ramgarh and Bokaro and situated in the State of Jharkhand .

StaffOfficer (Personnel and Admn. ) Central Coalfields Limited, (Group Bokaro Coalfields Washery) , Pin Code No. 829 116

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part ofGroup Bokaro Coalfield Washery spread over intheDistricts of Ramgarh , Hazaribagh and Bokaro and situated in the State of. Jharkhand.

[No. 43022/2/97 - PRIW- 1 ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 सितम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 2643.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय द्वारा जारी की गई अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 844 , तारीख 16 मार्च , 2007 , जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड (ii ) , तारीख 24 मार्च , 2007 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 1025.00 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 2532.78 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन और भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण , भाग 11 , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) , तारीख 13 मार्च , 2009 में प्रकाशित , भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 730 (अ) , तारीख 12 मार्च , 2009 द्वारा तारीख 23 मार्च , 2009 से प्रारम्भ होने वाली एक वर्ष की एक और अवधि को उस अवधि के रूप में विनिर्दिष्ट करती है, जिसके भीतर केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त भूमि या ऐसी भूमि में या उन पर के अधिकारों का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दे सकेगी;

अतिरिक्त भूमि जो उमरेर क्षेत्र में गोकुल ओपनकास्ट ब्लॉक के अधीन जारी उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 4 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 2765 , तीरख 29 , सितम्बर , 2008 द्वारा अधिसूचित की गई थी , भारत के राजपत्र के भाग 11 , खण्ड 3 उप- खण्ड (ii ), तारीख 4 अक्तूबर, 2008 में प्रकाशित की गई थी । केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में , जिसका माप 104.23 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 257.56 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है , कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है , कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में निहित उक्त भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त योग्य है;

अतः, केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 740.85 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1830.64 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकारों का अर्जन करने की अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;

टिप्पण 1: इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या सी-1 ( ई ) 111/ एफयूआर/ 786-0509 , तारीख 9 मई, 2009 को कलक्टर , नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काऊंसिल स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता ( पिन-700 001 ) के कार्यालय में या वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) , कोल ईस्टेट , सिविल लाईन्स , नागपुर -440 001 (महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

टिप्पण 2: उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है, जिसमें निम्नलिखित उपबंध हैं:-

अर्जन की बाबत् आपत्तियाँ-

" 8 ( 1 ) कोई व्यक्ति जो किसी भूमि में , जिसकी बाबत धारा 7 के अधीन अधिसूचना निकाली गई है , हितबद्ध है , अधिसूचना के निकाले जाने से तीस दिन के भीत्तर सम्पूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का अर्जन किए जाने के बारे में आपत्ति कर सकेगा । 5649 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

स्पष्टीकरण: -

( 1 ) इस धारा के अर्थान्तर्गत यह आपत्ति नहीं मानी जायेगी , कि कोई व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में कोयला उत्पादन के लिए स्वयं खनन संक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी संक्रियाएं केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं करनी चाहिए ।

(2 ) उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आपत्ति सक्षम अधिकारी को लिखित रूप में की जायेगी और सक्षम प्राधिकारी , आपत्तिकर्ता कोस्वयं सुने जाने का या विधि व्यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपत्तियों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जाँच यदि कोई हो , करने के पश्चात् जो वह आवश्यक समझता है , वह या तो धारा 7 की उप -धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि के या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न टुकड़ों या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आपत्तियों पर अपनी सिफारिशों और उसके द्वारा की गई कार्रवाई के अभिलेख सहित विभिन्न रिपोर्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा ।

(3 ) इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होता , यदि भूमि या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए जाते हैं " । टिप्पण 3 केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काऊंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700 001 को उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 के अधीन अधिससूचना सं. का.आ. 2519 तारीख 27 मई , 1983 द्वारा जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) ,में प्रकाशित की गई थी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया है ।

अनुसूची

गोकुल ओपनकास्ट ब्लॉक

उमरेर क्षेत्र

जिला नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र)

समस्त अधिकार : -

(रेखांक सं. सी । ( ई ) III /एफयूआर/ 786-0509 , तारीख 9 मई , 2009 ).

टिप्पण

तहसील

जिला क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

पटवारी सर्कल - संख्या

क्रम संख्या

ग्राम का नाम

भाग

40क

318.18

पिराया

नागपुर

भिवापुर

भाग

166.44

40क

पोलगांव

नागपुर

भिवापुर

40क

246.70

भाग

नागपुर :

भिवापुर

सुकली

9.53

भाग

40क

भिवापुर नागपुर

बेसुर

740.85

कुल:

हेक्टर ( लगभग )

या

1830.64

एकड़ (लगभग )

ग्राम पिराया में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक: -

1 , 2 , 3 , 4/1 , 4/2 , 4/3 , 4/4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8/1 , 8/2 , 8/3 , 9 ए, बी, सी , 10ए, 10बी , 11 , 12/1 , 12/2 , 13/1 , 13/2 , 14+ 17/1 , 14 + 17/2 , 15 , 16/1 , 16/2 , 18 , 19 , 20, 21 , 22 , 23 , 24/1 , 24/2 , 25/1 , 25/2 , 26 , 27 , 28/1 , 28/2 , 29/1 , 29/2 , 29/3 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34/1 , 34/2 , 35/1 , 35/2 , 35/3 , 36 , 37/1 , 37/2 , 38/1 , 38/2 , 39 , 40/1 , 40/2 , 40/3 , 41 ए, 41 बी , 42/1 , 42/2 , 43 , 44 , 45/1 , 45/2 , 45/3 ,46/1 , 46/2 , 47 , 48 , 55, 56/1 , 56/2, 56/3 , 57/1 , 57/ 1 ए, 57/2 , 57/3 , 58/1 , 58/2 , 59 , 60/1 , 60/2 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64/ए , 64/ए2 , 64/बी, 65/1 , 65/2ए , 65/ 2बी , 65/3 ,65/4 , 66 , 67/1 , 67/2 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76/1 , 76/2 , 76/3 , 77 , 78/1 , 78/2 , 78/3 , 79ए, 79बी , 80 , 81 , 82/1 , 82/2 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90, 91/1 , 91/2 , 92, 93 , 94, 95/1 , 95/2 , 96, 97 , 98/1 , 98/2, 99 , 100/1 , 100/2 , 101 , 102/1 , 102/2 , 103/1 , 103/2 , 104/1 ( भाग ) , 105, 106, 107 , 108/1 , 108/2 , 108/3 , 109 , 110/1 , 110/2 , 110/3 , 110/4 , 111/1 , 111/2 , 112, 113 / 1 ए, 113/ 1 बी , 113 / 2 ए , 113/2 बी , 114 , 115 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120/1 , 120/2 , 121 , 122/1 , 122 / 2 ए , 122/2बी, 122 /3 ए, 122 /3 बी , 122/3 सी , 123 ( भाग ) , 124/1 ( भाग ) , 124/2 ( भाग ) , 125/ए , 125 /ए2 ( भाग ) , 125/बी , 126/1 ( भाग ) , 126/2 ( भाग ) , 126/3 ( भाग ) , 127/1 ( भाग ) , 127/2 ( भाग ) , 129 , 130 ( भाग ) , 131/1 ( भाग ) , 131/2 (भाग ) , 5650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA4, 1931

[PART II-Sec.3 ( ii)] 134/1 ( भाग ) , 134/2 ( भाग ) , 134/3 , 135/1 ए ( भाग ) , 135/1 बी ( भाग ) , 135 /2ए ( भाग ) , 135 /2बी ( भाग ) , 135/3 , 135/4 ( भाग ) , 136/1 , 136/2 , 137 , 138 , 139/1 , 139/2 , 140, 144/1 , 144/2 , 144/3 , 191 , 197/1 , 197/2, 198 , 199, 200/ 1,200/2, 200/3, 206/1 ए, 206/ए2 , 206/2, 206/3 , 206/4 ए , 206/4थी , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210/1 , 210/2 , 210/3 , 211/1 , 211/2 , 212/1 , 212/2 , 212/3 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , सड़क ( भाग ) , नाला ( भाग ) ।

ग्राम पोलगांव में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक:-

17, 18, 19, 20, 261 , 262 , 263 , 264, 265 , 266, 267, 268/1 , 268/2 , 268/3 , 294, 295, 296, 297/1 , 297/2, 297/3 , 298/1 , 298/2, 298/3 , 298/3 ए, 298/4, 298/5 , 299 , 300/1 , 300/2 , 300/3 , 300/4 , 301 , 302 , 303/1 , 303/2 , 304, 305/1 , 305/2 , 306/1 , 306/1 ए, 306/2 , 307 , 308 , 309/1 , 309/2 , 309/3 , 315 , 316 , 317 , 318 / 1 ए, 318/ 1 बी, 318 /2 ए, 318/2 जी, 318/3 , 318/4 , 319 , 320 , 321/1 , 322/2 , 321/3 , 321/4 , 324/1 , 324/2 , 325 , 326 , 327 , 328 , 329 , 330 , 331 , 332, 333 , 334 , 335/ 1 ए, 335/1 बी , 335/2, 335/3 , 336, 337/1 , 337/2ए, 337/2बी , 338/ 1 ए, 338 /1 बी , 338/ 1 ए1 , 338/2 , 338/2ए , 338/2बी , 338/3 , 339/1 , 339/2ए, 339/2थी , 339/3 , 339/4, 340, 341 , 342/1 , 342/2 , 343/1 , 343/2 , 343/3 , 344 , 345 , 346 , 347/1 , 347/2 , 347/3 , 347/4, 347/5 , सड़क ( भाग ) , नाला (भाग) ।

ग्राम सुकली में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक:-

24/1, 24/2 , 24/3 , 25/1 , 25/2 , 25/3 , 26/1 , 26/2 , 26/3 , 27 , 28 , 29/1 , 29/2ए, 29/2बी , 49/ए, 49/बी , 49/सी , 49/डी , 50/ए, 50/बी, 51 , 52/1 , 52/2 , 53 , 54/1 , 54/2ए, 54/2बी , 57 , 79/1 , 79/2 , 80 , 81 , 82/1 , 82/2 , 82/3 , 82/4 , 83 , 84 , 85/1 , 85/2 , 85/3 , 85/4 , 85/5, 85/6, 86, 87/ए, 87/बी , 88/1 , 88/2 , 88/3, 88/4, 89/ए1 , 89/ए2 , 89/बी, 90/1 , 90/2 , 90/3 , 91 , 92, 93 , 94/1 , 94/2 , 94/3 , 95, 96, 97/1 , 97/2 , 98/1 , 98/2 , 99 , 100, 101 , 102/1 , 102/2, 103 , 104, 105/1 , 105/2 , 105/3 , 106, 107/1 , 107/2 , 108/1 , 108/2 , 109 , 110 , 111/1 , 111/2 , 112 /ए, 112/बी , 112 /सी , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116, 117 , 118/ 1 ए , 118 / 1 बी , 118/2 , 118/3 , 118/4 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124/1 , 124/2 , 125, 126/ए1 , 126/ए2 , 126/ए3 , 126/बी , 126/सी , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130/1 , 130/2 , 130/3 , 130/4 , 131 , 132 , 133, 134/1 , 134/2 , 135/1 , 135/2 140 , सड़क ( भाग ) , नाला (भाग ) 1

ग्राम बेसुर में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक:-

195/1 , 195/2, 196/1 , 196/2 , 197 , 198/1 , 198/2, 199

सीमा वर्णन:

क-ख: रेखा बिन्दु ' क ' से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम पिराया से गुजरती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 122/1 , 124/2 , 124/1 , 125 /2 बी , की बाह्य सीमा से होते हुए सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 126/1 , 126/2 , 126/3 , 129 , 130 ( भाग ) , 131/2 ( भाग ) , 131/1 ( भाग ) , 134/2( भाग ) , 134/3 , 144/1 , 144/2 , 140 , 139/1 , की बाह्य सीमा से होते हुए फिर सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्या 138 की बाह्य सीमा से होते हुए फिर सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 1 , ( आबादी, सरकारी जमीन ) की बाह्य सीमा से होकर , सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 191 , 3 , 213 , 206/ 1 ए, 200/3 , 200/2 , 200/1 , 199 , 197/2 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती हुई ग्राम पिराया तथा ग्राम पोलगांव की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा को पार करती है और बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग: रेखा ग्राम पोलगांव से गुजरती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 19 , 20 , 17 , 347/1 , 340 , 339/3 , 339/ 2बी , 339/2 ए, 339/1 , 297/1 , 297/2 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती हुई सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 294 , 268/1 , 268 /2,268 / 3 , 265 , 261 , 263 , 262 , की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती हुई , सड़क पार करती है तथा प्लॉट संख्यांक 307 , 308 , 309/1 , 315 , 321/4 , 321/3 , 321/2 , 325 , 324/1 , 324/2 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती हुई , ग्राम पोलगांव तथा ग्राम सुकली की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा को पार करती है और बिन्दु' ग ' पर मिलती है ।

ग -घ: रेखा ग्राम सुकली से गुजरती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 140 , 133 , 134/1 , 134/2 , 135/2 , की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती हुई सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 82/4 , 82/1 , 82/2 , 82/3 , 81 , 80 , 79/1 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती हुई नाला पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्या 57 से होते हुए नाला पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 53 , 54/ 2 बी , 54/1 , 49/ए , 49/बी, 49/सी, 29/1 , 29/2ए , 28 , 27 , 24/3 से होकर नाले की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती हुई , नाले के मध्य में ग्राम सुकली तथा ग्राम पिराया की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु 'घ' पर मिलती है ।

घ-क: रेखा ग्राम पिराया में नाले से होकर , प्लॉट संख्यांक48 , 47 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती हुई सड़क पार करती है , फिर प्लॉट संख्यांक 55, 56/2 , 57/ 1 ए , 57/3 , 57/2 की बाह्य सीमा से जाते हुए , ग्राम पिराया और ग्राम बेसुर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा को पार करती है , फिर ग्राम बेसुर में प्लॉट संख्यांक 195/1 , 196/2 , 196/1 की बाह्य सीमा से होते हुए ग्राम बेसुर और ग्राम पिराया की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा को पार करती है , फिर ग्राम पिराया से प्लॉट संख्यांक 115 , 114 , 113/ 2बी , 113 / 1 ए, 113 / 1 बी , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120/2 , 120/1 , 121 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती है और आरम्भिक बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/12/2006- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- I ( खण्ड- II ) ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव 5651. [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4 , 1931

NewDelhi , the 17th September, 2009

S.O.2643 . Whereas by the notification the Government of India in the Ministry ofCoal number S.O. 844 dated the 16th March, 2007 , issued under sub - section ( 1) of Section 4of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquistion and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part -II , Section-3 , Sub- section (ii) dated the 24th March, 2007 the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 1025.00 hectares (approximately) or 2532.78 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to thatnotification;

And, whereas , the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 730(E) datedthe 12th March, 2009 under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the said Act and published in the Gazette of India (Extra-ordinary) inPart- II , Section 3, Sub-section ( ii) dated the 13th March, 2009. The Central Government specified a further period ofone year commencing from the 23rd March , 2009 as the period within which the Central Government may give notice of its intention to acquire the said lands or any rights in or over such lands;

Additional land was notified for Gokul Opencast Block in Umrer Area vide number S.O. 2765 dated the 29th September , 2008 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the said Act and published in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section3, Sub -section (ii ) dated the 4th October, 2008. The Central Government give notice of its intention to prospect for çoal in 104.23 hectares (approximately) or 257.56 acres (approximately) ofthe lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;

Andwhereas the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in the part of said lands prescribed in the Schedule( s) appended to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 the Central Government hereby gives notice ofits intention to acquire- AllRights in or over the lands measuring 740.85 hertares (approximately) or 1830.64 acres(approximately) described inSchedule.

Note1: Theplanbearing number C- 1 ( E) III/FUR/786-0509 dated the 9th May, 2009 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office ofthe Collector, Nagpur (Maharashtra ) or in the office ofthe Coal Controller , I , Council House Street , Kolkata (Pin 700 001 ) or in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department) , Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) .

Note2: Attention ishereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-- Objections to Acquisition

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

Explanation:--

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

2. Every objection under sub - section ( 1 ) shall be made to the competent authority in writing , and the competent authority shall give the object or an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall , after hearing all such objector and after making such further inquiry if any , as he thinks necessary , either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Sub- section ( 1) ofSection 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land , to the Central Government , containing his recommendations on the objections , together with the record ofproceedings held by him , for the decision of that Government.

3. For the purpose ofthis section , a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled toclaim aninterest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act . " Note: 3 TheCoal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata- 700001 has been appointed by the Central Governtnent asthe competent authority under Section 3 of the said Act , vide notification number S.O. 2519 dated the 27th May, 1983 published in Part - II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) ofthe Gazette of India , dated the 11th June, 1983 .

5652

[PART II SEC . 3(ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

SCHEDULE

GOKUL OPENCAST BLOCK

UMRERAREA

DISTRICT NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

ALL RIGHTS :

[Plannumber C- 1 (E ) II/FUR/786-0509 dated 9th May, 2009)

Remarks

Tahsil

District

Sl . No. Name ofvillage PatwariCircle number

Areain Hectares

Part

40A

318.18

Piraya

Bhiwapur Nagpur

40A

166.44

Part

Nagpur

Polgaon

Bhiwapur

Sukali

246.70

40A

Part

Bhiwapur Nagpur

Besur

9.53

40A

Bhiwapur

Nagpur

Total:

740.85 Hectares

(approximately)

or 1830.64 Acres

(approximately)

Plot numbers tobe acquired in village Piraya:

1 , 2, 3 , 4/1 , 4/2 , 4/3 , 4/4 , 5 , 6, 7 , 8/1 , 8/2 , 8/3 , 9A, 9B, 9C, 10A, 10B, 11 , 12/1 , 12/2 , 13/1 , 13/2 , 14+ 17/1 , 14+ 17/2 , 15 , 16/1 , 16/2, 18, 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23 , 24/ 1,24/2,25/ 1,25/2, 26, 27, 28/1 , 28/2, 29/1 , 29/2, 29/3 , 30, 31 , 32, 33 , 34/1 , 34/2,35/1,35/ 2,35/ 3,36, 37/1 , 37/2 , 38/1 , 38/2 , 39 , 40/1 , 40/2 , 40/3 , 41/A, 41 /B , 42/1 , 42/2 , 43 , 44, 45/1 , 45/2, 45/3 , 46/1 ,46/2, 47, 48 , 55, 56/1 , 56/2, 56/3 , 57/1 , 57/1A, 57 /2,57/3,58 / 1,58/2,59 , 60/1 , 60/2, 61 , 62, 63 , 64/ A1 , 64/A2, 64/B , 65/1 , 65/2A, 65/ 2B, 65/3 , 65/4, 66, 67/1 , 67/2,68 ,69 , 70, 71 , 72 , 73, 74 , 75 , 76/ 1,76/ 2,76/ 3,77,78 / 1 , 78/2 , 78/3 , 798, 79 /B , 80, 81 ,82/ 1,82/2, 83 , 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 , 89, 90, 91/1, 91/2, 92 , 93, 94, 95/1 , 95/2, 96, 97, 98/1 , 98/2, 99, 100/1 , 100/2, 101 , 102/1 , 102/2 , 103/1 , 103/2 , 104/1 ( Part ) , 105 , 106, 107, 108/1 , 108/2, 108/3 , 109, 110/1 , 110/2, 110/3 , 110/4, 111/1, 111/2, 112, 113 /1A, 113/1B, 113/2A, 113 /2B, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120/1, 120/2 , 121 , 122/1 , 122/ 2A, 122/2B, 122 /3A, 122/B , 122/ 3C, 123 (Part) , 124/1 ( Part) , 124/2 (Part ), 125/ A1 , 125/ A2 (Part ) , 125/B , 126/1 (Part ), 126/2 (Part ) , 126/3 (Part) , 127/1 ( Part ) , 127/2 (Part ) , 129 , 130° (Part) , 131/1 ( Part ) , 131/2 (Part ) , 134/1 (Part), 134/2 (Part ) , 134/3 , 135/ 1A (Part ), 135/ 1B ( Part ), 135/2A ( Part) , 135 /2B (Part ) , 135/3 , 135/4 ( Part ) , 136/1 , 136/2 , 137, 138, 139/1 , 139/2, 140, 144/1 , 144/2 , 144/3 , 191 , 197/1 , 197/2 , 198, 199, 200/1 , 200/2/ 200/3 / 206/1A, 206/ A2,206/2 , 206/3, 206/4A, 206/4B, 207, 208 , 209, 210/1 , 210/2 , 210/3 , 211/1 , 211/2 , 212/1 , 212/2 , 212/3,213,214,215 , 216 , 217 , 218. road (part),nallah(part ).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Polgaon :

17 , 18 , 19 , 20, 261 , 262 , 263 , 264, 265, 266 , 267, 268/1,268/2 , 268/3 , 294, 295 , 296 , 297/1/297/2 , 297/3 , 298/ 1,298/2 , 298/3, 298/3A/ 298/4 , 298/5 , 299 , 300/1 , 300/2 , 300/3 , 300/4, 301 , 302 , 303/1 , 303/2, 304, 305/1 , 305/2/306/1 , 306/ 1A, 306/2 , 307, 308, 309/1 , 309/2, 309/3 , 315 , 316, 317, 318/14, 318 / 1B, 318 /2A, 318 /2Β, 318/3/318/4/319 , 320 , 321/1/321/2/321/3 , 321/4,324/ 1,324/2 , 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331 , 332, 333 , 334/335/14, 335/ 1B, 335/2/335/3 , 336, 337/1 , 337/2A, 337/2B, 338/14, 338/ 1B, 338/ 1A1 , 338/2, 338 /2A, 338 /2B, 338/3 , 339/1 , 339/24, 339/2B, 339/3 , 339/4, 340 , 341 , 342/1 , 342/2 , 343/1 , 343/2,343/3, 344, 345, 346, 347/1 , 347/2, 347/3 , 347/4, 347/5 / road (part ) , nallah(part) .

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Sukali:

24/1,24/2,24/3,25 / 1,25 / 2,25 / 3,26/1,26/2,26/3 , 27, 28 , 29/1 , 29 /2A, 29/2B, 49/ Α, 49/B , 49/C , 49/D , 50/ A, 50/3 , 51 , 52/1 , 52/2 , 53 , 54/1 , 54 /2A, 54/2B, 57, 79 , 1/79/2 , 80, 81 , 82/1 , 82/2, 82/3 , 82/4, 83 , 84, 85/1,85/2,85/3,85 / 4,85 / 5,85/ 6,86,87 / Α, 87/Β , 88 /1,88/2 , 88/3 , 88/4 , 89/ A1 , 89/ A2, 89/B , 90/1 , 90/2 , 90/3 , 91 , 92, 93 , 94/1 , 94/2 , 94/3 , 95, 96, 97/1 , 97/2 , 98/1 , 98/2 , 5653 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

99, 100 , 101 , 102/1 , 102/2 , 103 , 104, 105/1 , 105/2 , 105/3 , 106, 107/1 , 107/2 , 108/1 , 108/2 , 109, 110, 111/1 , 111 /2/ 112 / Α , 112/B , 112/C, 113 , 114, 115 , 116, 117 , 118/ 1A, 118/ 1B, 118/2, 118/3 , 118/4, 119, 120, 121 , 122 , 123 , 124/1 , 124/2 , 125 , 126/ Al , 126/ A2 , 126/ A3 , 126/B , 126/C , 127, 128 , 129 , 130/1 , 130/2/130/3/130/4, 131 , 132, 133 , 134/1 , 134/2 , 135/1 , 135/2 , 140 , road (part), nallah (part).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Besur :

195/1 , 195/2 , 196/1 , 196/2, 197, 198/1 , 198/2, 199 .

Boundary description:

A- B: Line starts from point ' A' and passes through village Piraya along the outer boundary of plot numbers 122/1 , 124/ 2, 124/1 , 125/B, crosses road then passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 126/1 , 126/2, 126/3 , 129, 130 (Part), 131/2 (Part ) , 131/1 (Part), 134/2 (Part ) , 134/3 , 144/1 , 144/2 , 140, 139/1 , again crosses Road, and passes along with the outer boundary of plot number 138 , again crosses Road and passes along the outer boundary of plot number 1 (Abadi ) again,crosses road , then passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 191,3,213,206/ 11 , 200/3,200/2 , 200/1 , 199, 197/2 and meets on common village boundary of villages Piraya and Polgaon at point 'B' .

B - C: Line passes through village Polgaon along the outer boundary at plot numbers 19, 20 , 17 , 347/ 1,340,339/3,339/ 2B, 339/2A, 339/1 , 297/1 , 297/2 , crosses road and passes along the outer boundary ofplot numbers 294, 268/1 , 268/2,268/3 , 265, 261 , 263 , 262, crosses road and passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 307 , 308 , 309/ 1,315,321/4,321/3 , 321/2 , 325, 324/1 , 324/2 and meets on common village boundary of villages Polgaon and Sukali atpoint'C' .

C-D: Line passes through village Sukali along the outer boundary of plot numbers 140, 133 , 134/1 , 134/2 , 135/2 , crosscs road then passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 82/4 , 82/1 , 82/2,82 /3,81,80, 79/1 , crosses road then passes along the outer boundary of plot number 57, crosses nallah and passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 53 , 54/2B , 54/1 , 49/ Α, 49/B, 49/C, 29/1 , 29/ 2A, 28, 27, 24/3 , then passes along the outer boundary of nallah and meets on centre of nallah and common village boundary ofvillages Sukali and Piraya at point'D' .

D-A: Line passes through nallah in village Piraya along the outer boundary ofplot numbers 48, 47, crosses road then passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 55, 56/2 , 57/ 1A, 57/3 , 57/2 , crosses common village boundary of villages Piraya and Besur and passes through village Besur along the outer boundary of plot numbers 195/1 , 195/2 , 196/2 , 196/1 , crosses common village boundry of villages Besur and Piraya, then passes through village Piraya along the other boundry ofplot numbers 115, 114, 113/ 2B, 113/ 1A, 113/ 1B , 117, 118 , 119, 120/2 , 120/1 , 121 and meets at staring point ' A' .

[F. No. 43015/ 12/2006- PRIW- I (Vol . II) ] M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 17 सितम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 2644. केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

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

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले रेखांक संख्या राजस्व/2 /2009 , तारीख 10 जुलाई , 2009 का निरीक्षण महा प्रबंधक ( भूमि और राजस्व) , दरभंगा हाउस, सी.सी.एल. , रांची या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक , पिपरवार क्षेत्र या उपायुक्त, चतरा , झारखंड या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक , ( खोज प्रभाग ) , केन्द्रीय खनन योजना और डिजाइन संस्थान के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है;

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 , की उप - धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चाटों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिनों के भीतर भेजेंगे । 5654

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 /ASVINA 4, 1931

अनुसूची

अशोक वेस्ट कोल माइनिंग ब्लॉक

जिला-चतरा , ( झारखंड )

(रेखांक संख्या राजस्व/02/2009,दिनांक 10 जुलाई , 2009)

सभी अधिकार

थाना

ग्राम/थाना मौजा/ग्राम

सं क्र. सं

1. सरैया

टंडवा

87/244 2

टंडवा

91/248 झुलुंदा

टंडवा

92/249 3. लुकुया

टंडवा

93/250 तोरहड

टंडवा

94/251 5. हेन्जदा

कुल सीमा का विवरण:

अशोक वेस्ट ब्लॉक :

क- ख - ग- ম-ভ

जिला

टिप्पणी

क्षेत्र एकड़ में (लगभग)

क्षेत्र हेक्टेयर में (लगभग)

100.50

चतरा

40.69

(भाग)

235.00

95.14

चतरा

(भाग)

502.50

203.44

चतरा

(भाग)

173.75

70.34

चतरा

(भाग)

33.25

चतरा

13.46

(भाग)

1045.00

423,07

.: रेखा 'क ' से आरम्भ होती है और चिरलुंगा और कोयलारा की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ- साथ होते हुए ग्राम सरैया, लुकुमा और झुलुंदा से होते हुए बिन्दु 'ङ' पर मिलती है ।

ड-च

रेखा झुलुंदा और हेन्जदा ग्राम से होते हुए जो उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 ( 1 ) के अधीन का.आ. 1502 तारीख 26 मई, 1990 द्वारा अशोक ब्लॉक की सम्मिलित सीमा का निर्माण करती है , से होकर गुजरती है और 'च्च' बिन्दु पर

मिलती है ।

च-छ

रेखा ग्राम हेन्जदा और तोरहड और ग्राम थेथोगी और सरैया की सम्मिलित सीमा ( जो पूर्वोक्त का.आ. 150। तारीख 26 मई, 1990 द्वारा अशोक ब्लॉक की सम्मिलित सीमा का गठन करती है ) से होकर गुजरती हैं तथा बिन्दु 'छ' पर मिलती है ।

छ -क रेखा ग्राम सरैया से होते हुए जो पूर्वोक्त का.आ. सं. 1501 तारीख 26 मई , 1990 द्वारा अर्जित अशोक ब्लॉक की सम्मिलित सीमा का गठन करती है , से होकर गुजरती है और प्रारंभ बिन्दु 'क ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/21 /2009- पीआरआई डब्ल्यू-1 ) ।

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 17th September, 2009

S.O.2644 . Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the localitymentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

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

The plan bearing number REV/2/ 2009 dated the 10th July, 2009 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the General Manager (Land and Revenue ) , Darbhanga House, CCL, Ranchi or Chief General Manager, Piparwar Area or Dy.Commissioner , Chatra, Jharkhand or at the office ofthe ChiefGeneral Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office ofthe Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Calcutta.

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred in sub- section (7 ) of Section 13 of the said Act within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification inthe Official Gazette .

5655

भारत का समय सिर 26 2000 स्थन4, 1931

SCHEDULE

Ashoka West Coal Mining Block

Distt. Chatra,(Jharkhand)

(PlanbearingNo. Rey/2/2009 dated the 10th July, 2009)

ALL RIGHTS

Thana

District

Mauja/Village

Village/Thana SL No.

No. 1.

Tandwa 87/244

Chatra

Saraiya

2 Jhulunda

91/248

Tandwa

Chatra

92/249

Tandwa

4. Torhad

Tandwa 93/250

Chatra

Tandwa 94/251

Chatra

Henjda

BoundaryDescription

Ashoka WestBlock:

ABCDE

Remarks Areainhectare (approximately)

Area in acres ( approximately)

40.69

100.50 (Part) 95.14

235.00 (Part)

Chatra .

203.44

502.50 (Part) 70.34

173.75 (Part) 13.46

33.25 (Part)

TotalArea

423.07

1045.00

Line starts from ' A' and passes through in village Sariya, Lukuia, Jhulunda along common boundary ofChirlunga and Koilara arid nucets at point'E' ...

Line passes , through villages Jhulunda and Henjda which forms common boundary of Ashoka Block under Section 9( 1 ) ofthe said Act, vide number 8. 0. 1501 dated 26th May, 1990 and meets atpoint 'F' .

Line passes, through villages Henjda and Torhad and common boundary of villages Thethangi and Seraiya ( which forms common boundary of Ashoka Block acquired vide aforesaid number S.O. 1501 dated26th May, 1990 and meet at point 'G'...

Linepasses , through in village Saraiya which forms.common boundary ofacquired AshokaBlock vide aforesaid number S. O. 1501 dated 26th May, 1990 and meet at starting point 'A' .

[F.No. 43015/21/2009/PRIW- I ] M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली , 18 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ.2645.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार में कोयला मंत्रालय के द्वारा जारी की गई अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3018 तारीख 31 अक्टूबर , 2008 जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II खंड 3 उपतखंड (ii ) तारीख 8 नवम्बर , 2008 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका मापः 54.007 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 133.44 एकड़ (लगभग ) है , कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में निहित की गई उक्त भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त है;

अतः , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 53.822 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 132.99 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;

टिप्पण 1 : > इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. एसईसीएल बी.एस.पी. /बी.एम/पीएलजी/लैंड/341 तारीख 28 अप्रैल , 2009 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर जिला- उमरिया ( मध्य प्रदेश ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , । , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर-495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है 1

टिप्पण 2 : कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) , अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है , जिसमें निम्नलिखित उपबंध है :-

3360G1/09-6 5656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] अर्जन के बाबत् आपत्तियाँ:-

" 8 ( 1 ) कोई व्यक्ति जो किसी भूमि में जिसकी बाबत् धारा 7 के अधीन अधिसूचना निकाली गई है , हितबद्ध है , अधिसूचना के निकाले जाने से तीस दिन के भीतर सम्पूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्ही अधिकारों का अर्जन किए जाने के बारे में आपत्ति कर सकेगा ।

स्पष्टीकरण:-

( 1 ) इस धारा के अन्तर्गत यह आपत्ति नही मानी जाएगी कि कोई व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में कोयला उत्पादन के लिए स्वंय खनन संक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी संक्रियाएं केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नही करनी चाहिए ।

(2) उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आपत्ति सक्षम अधिकारी को लिखित रूप में की जाएगी और सक्षम अधिकारी , आपत्तिकर्ता को स्वयं सुने जाने , विधिव्यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपत्तियों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जाँच , यदि कोई हो, करने के पश्चात् जो वह आवश्यक समझता है , वह या तो धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि का या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न टुकड़े या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आपत्तियों पर अपनी सिफारिशों और उसके द्वारा की गई कार्यवाही के अभिलेख सहित विभिन्न रिपोट केन्द्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा ।

(3 ) इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होगा , यदि भूमि या किसी ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए जाते हैं " । टिप्पण 3 केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700001 को उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र भाग-11 , खखंड-3 , उपखंड (ii ) में 4 अप्रैल , 1987 में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 905 , तारीख 20 मार्च , 1987 द्वारा सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया है ।

अनुसूची

कंचन खुली खदान विस्तार ब्लाक , जोहिला क्षेत्र

जिला उमरिया ( मध्य प्रदेश )

(रेखांक सं. एसईसीएल/बी.एस.पी./जी.एम/( पीएलजी )/लैंड/341 तारीख 28 अप्रैल , 2009 )

सभी अधिकार

टिप्पण

तहसील

जिला क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

ग्राम का नाम

क्र. सं

पटवारी हल्का संख्या

साधारण संख्या

658

उमरिया

20.304.

(भाग)

बान्धवगढ़

लहंगी कोठार, 103

उमरिया

6.540

246

(भाग )

बान्धवगढ़

छुईहाई 103

21.463

उमरिया

351

धनबाही

(भाग)

बान्धवगढ़

उमरिया

5.515

नौसेमेर 104

380

(भाग)

बान्धवगढ़

(लगभग)

53.822 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 132.99 एकड़

कुल क्षेत्र

1. ग्राम लंहगी कोठार ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:-

4/279( भाग ) , 13 ( भाग ) , 14( भाग ) , 15, 16, 17 ( भाग ) , 19( भाग ) , 20( भाग ) , 24( भाग ) , 30( भाग ) , 33 ( भाग ) , 34 ( भाग ) , 35 (भाग ) , 37 ( भाग ) , 38 ( भाग) , 39( भाग ) , 40( भाग) , 41 (भाग ) , 45 ( भाग ) , 46( भाग ) , 47( भाग ) , 48 ( भाग ) , 49 ( भाग ) , 51 ( भाग ) , 52( भाग ) , 56( भाग ) , 57 ( भाग ) , 59( भाग ) , 60 ( भाग ) , 61 से 63 , 64 ( भाग ), 65 ( भाग ) , 67 ( भाग ) , 68 ( भाग ) , 212 से 215 , 221 ( भाग ) , : 222 (भाग ) ।

2. ग्राम छुईहाई ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:-

1 (भाग ) , 2 ( भाग) , 56( भाग ) , 59( भाग ) , 60( भाग ) , 61 , 62, 63 ( भाम) , 65 ( भाग ) , 66( भाग ) , 67( भाग ) , 68( भाग ) , 69 ( भाग ) , 5657 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931,

70( भाग) , 73( भाग ) , 76( भाग) , 91 ( भाग ) ।

3. ग्राम धनबाही ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या: -

17( भाग) , 36(भाग ) , 37(भाग) , 38( भाग ) , 39( भाग ) , 40(भाग ) , 42( भाग ) , 43 ( भाग ) , 44 ( भाग ) , 59, 60( भाग ), 60/172 , 61 (भाग) , 66( भाग ) , 67 ( भाग ) , 69 ( भाग ) , 70 ( भाग ) , 71 ( भाग ) , 72 , 73 ( भाग ) , 74 ( भाग ) , 155 ( भाग ) , 159 ( भाग ) , 155/170 (भाग ) , 155/1711

4. ग्राम नौसेर ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:

30( भाग ) , 50( भाग) , 51( भाग ) , 52, 53( भाग) , 55( भाग)

सीमा वर्णन:-

क-ख - ग- घ : रेखा ग्राम लहंगी कोठार में बिन्दु " क " से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम लहंगी कोठार के प्लाट संख्या 221 , 215 , 214, 212 , 37 के पूर्वी सीमा और बिन्दु " ख " , 40 , 41 , 30 , 46, 45 , 49 बिन्दु " ग " से होकर 51 के पश्चिमी सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " घ" पर मिलती है ।

घ-ङ- च रेखा ग्राम लहंगी कोठार के प्लाट संख्या 51 , 52 , 56 बिन्दु " ङ " 57 , 65 , 64 ,59 ,67 , 68 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " च " पर मिलतीहै ।

च-छ : रेखा ग्राम लहंगी कोठार के प्लाट संख्या में 68 , 13 , 4/279 ,17 से गुजरती हुई ग्राम छुईहाई में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्या73 , 70 ,69 ,68 ,66, 63 ,69 से गुजरती हुई ग्राम धनबाही में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्या 155 , 71 ,74 , 73 , 39 , 38 , 17 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है ।

छ- ज-झ : रेखा ग्राम धनबाही के प्लाट संख्या 17;137; 36, 44 बिन्दु " ज " से होकर प्लाट संख्या 60 के उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " झा" पर मिलती है । e that

झ-अ-ट : रेखा ग्राम धनबाही के प्लाट संख्या 60 के पश्चिमी सीमा से गुजरती हुई ग्राम नौसेमेर में प्रवेश करती है और बिन्दु " ज " से होकर प्लाट संख्या 60 के दक्षिणी सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ट " पर मिलती है ।

2-ठ -ड : रेखा ग्राम नौसेमेर के प्लाष्ट संख्या 50 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होकर प्लाट संख्या 50, 51 , 53 , 55 से गुजरप्ती हुई ग्राम छुईहाई में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्या 2 से होती हुई बिन्दु " ड " पर मिलती है । aan des

ड-दे -ण-त : रेखा ग्राम छुईहाई के प्लाट संख्या 2 , 1 से होकर ग्राम धनबाही में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्या 159/163 , 159 बिन्दु " ढ " 60 , बिन्दु " ण " 61 , 43 , 42 , 40, 2 , 37 से होती हुई बिन्दु " तं " पर मिलती है ।

त- थ -द- ध : रेखा ग्राम धनबाही के प्लाट संख्या 37 , 39 ,66, 67 , 69 , 159 , 70 बिन्दु " थ ", बिन्दु " द " , 159 , 155/170 , 155 से होकर ग्राम छुईहाई में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्या 65 , 56, 59 , 60 से होकर 61 , 62 के दक्षिणी सीमा तथा 66, 76, 70 , 73 से होकर, ग्राम, लहंगी कोठार में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्या 17 , 19 , 20 , 24, 20 , 14, 13 , 59 से होती हुई बिन्दु " ध " पर मिलती है ।

ध- न-प : रेखा ग्राम लहंगी कोठार के प्लाट संख्या 59 से होकर प्लाट संख्या 61 के पश्चिमी सीमा तथा प्लाट संख्या 60 , 57 , 52 , 56 बिन्दु" न ". 52, 51 , 49, 48 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 30 , 39 , 37 , 38 , 37 , 35 , 34 ,33 से होती हुई बिन्दु " प " पर मिलती है । प-फ-ब : रेखा ग्राम लहंगी कोठार के प्लाट संख्या 33 , 222 से होकरसे होकर ग्राम छुईहाई में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्या 91 , बिन्दु " फ " से होकर प्लाट संख्या 91 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ब " पर मिलती है ।200.00

ब-क : रेखा ग्राम छुईहाई के प्लाट संख्या 91 से होकर ग्राम लहंगी कोठार में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्या 222 , 221 से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

फा. सं. 43015/17/2008-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- I ) ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th September , 2009

S.O.2645. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 3018 dated the 31st October , 2008 issued under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section 3, sub-section ( ii ) dated the 8th November , 2008, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 54.007 hectares ( approximately) or 133.44 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;

5658

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

Andwhereas the Central Government is satisfied that coal-is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed in the Schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Arcas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 53.822 hectares (approximately) or 132.99 acres (approximately) in All Rights as described in the Schedule appended hereto:

Note 1: The plan bearing number SECL/BSP / GM/PLG / LAND/341 dated the 28th April , 2009 of the area covered by this notificationmay be inspected in the office of the Collector, Umaria (Madhya Pradesk ) os in the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 or in the office ofthe South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur, 495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Note2: Attention is hereby invited to the provisions ofSection 8 of the said Act which provides as follows: -- ObjectiontoAcquisition

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

Explanation,-

(1) It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires toundertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operation should notbe undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.

(2) Every objection under sub-section ( 1 ) shall be made to the competent authority in writing , and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity ofbeing heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry , ifany, as he thinks necessary, eithermakes a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in orover such land, to the Central Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together withthe recordof the proceedings held by him , for the decision of that Government .

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claiman interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act ." Note3 : The Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata, 700001 , has been appointed by the Central Government as the competent authority under Section 3 ofthe said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905 , dated the 20th March, 1987, published in part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii ) of the Gazette ofIndia , dated the 4th April 1987.

SCHEDULE

KanchanOC Expansion Block, JohditaArea

Distt- Umaria(Madhya Pradesh)

(Plannumber SEC/LBSP/GM (PLG)/LAND/ 341 Dated the 28thApril , 2009)

AllRights:

Remarks

Tahsil

District

Name ofvillage

Area in Hectares

Sl. No.

General Number

Patwari halka Number

Part

20.304

Umaria

103

658 Bandhogarh

Lahagi Kothar

6.540

246

Part

Umaria

2. Chhuihai

103

Bandhogarh

Part

Umaria

21.463

351

Dhanbahi

Bandhogarh

104

5.515

Part 4.

380

Umaria

Nausemar

Bandhogarh

Total: 53.822 Hectares (Approximately) or 132.99 Acres (Approximately).

5659 [ भाप - खण्ड 3( ii) ]

-भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Lahangi Kothar (Part):

4/279(P), 13(P), 14(P ), 15 , 16, 17 (P), 19(P), 20(P), 24(P), 30(P), 33(P), 34(P), 35 (P), 37(P), 38 (P), 39(P), 40(P), 41 (P.), 45(P), 46(P), 47 (P) ,48(P), 49(P) , 51 (P) , 52(P), 56 (P), 57(P), 59(P), 60 (P ), 61 to 63 , 64(P) , 65(P) , 67 (P), 68(P), 212 to215, 221 (P), 222(P).

2. Plot numbers to be acquired invillage Chhuthai (Part):

1 (P), 2(P), 56(P), 59(P), 60(P), 61 , 62, 63 (P) , 65(P), 66(P ), 67, 68 (P), 69(P), 70(P ), 73(P), 76(P), 91 (P) .

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

17 (P), 36(P) , 37 (P), 38 (P), 39(P) , 40(P) , 42(P), 43(P), 44(P ), 59, 60(P), 60/172, 61 (P ), 66(P) , 67 (P ) , 69(P) , 70(P),71 (P), 72, 73(P), 74(P), 155(P), 159(P), 155/170(P), 155/171.

4. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Nausemar (Part):

30(P),50(P) , 51 (P) , 52, 53 (P), 55(P) .

BoundaryDescription:

A-B-C-D Line starts from point ' A' in village Lahangi Kothar and passes along the eastern boundary of plót no. 221 , 215 , 214, 212, 37, through point ' B ' , plot no . 40, 41 , 30, 46, 45, 49 , point ' C' , then along western boundary ofplot no. 51 andmeets at point 'D' .

D-E-F Linepasses in village Lahangi Kothar through plot no. 51 , 52, 56, point 'E' , 57 , 65 , 64 , 59, 67, 68 and meets at point 'F'.

Linepasses invillage Lahangi Kothar through plot no. 68, 13, 4/279, 17 then enter in village Chhuihai and passes through plot no , 73, 70, 69, 68, 66, 63 , 69, after that enter in village Dhanbahi and passes through plot no. 155, 71 , 74, 73, 39, 38, 17and meets at point. 'G' .

GHI Linepasses invillage Dhanbahi through plot no . 17 , 37, 36 , 44, point ' H, northern boundary ofplot no. 60 and meets at point ' 1' .

I-J-K Linepasses invillage Dhanbahi along western boundary of plot no . 60 then enter in village Nausemar and passes through point ' J' , along southern boundary of plot no . 60 and meets at point 'K' .

K-L-M Linepasses in village Nausemar along western boundary of plot no. 50, through plot no . 50, 51 , 53 , 55 then enter in village Chhuihai and passes through plot no. 2 and meets at point 'M' ,

M-N-O-P Line passes in village Chhuihai through plot no . 2, 1 then enter in village Dhanbahi and passes through plot. no. 159/163 , 159, point ' N' , 60, point ' 0' , 61 , 43, 42, 40, 37 and meets at point ' P' .

P-Q-R-S Line passes in village Dhanbahi through plot no . 37, 39,66, 67, 69, 159 , 70, point 'Q ' , point ' R ' , 159 , 155/170, 155 thenenter invillage Chhuihai and passes through 65, 56, 59, 60, southern boundary ofplot no . 61 , 62, through plot no . 66, 76, 70, 73 after that enter in village Lahangi Kothar and passes through plot no . 17, 19, 20, 24, 20, 14, 13, 59 and meets atpoint' S'.

S-T -U Linepasses in village Lahangi Kothar through plot no. 59 , western boundary of plot no . 61 , through plot no . 60,57, 52, 56, point ' T' 52, 51 , 49 ,48,45 ,46, 47,30 ,39, 37, 38 , 37, 35 ,34, 33 and meets at point 'U' .

U-V-W Line passes in village Lahangi Kothar through plot no. 33 , 222 then enter in village Chhuihai and passes through plot no. 91 , point ' V' , along western boundary of plot no . 91 and meets at point 'W' .

W-A Line passes in village Chhuihai through plot no. 91 then enter in village Lahangi Kothar and passes through plot no. 222, 221 and ineets at point 'A' .

[F.No.43015/17/2008 - PRIW- 1 ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

5660

[Part II Sec. 3 ( i THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 2646.-फेन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1179 दिनांक 28.04.09, 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 सांपला 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 18.06.2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी,

और, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उधारा (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 हैं कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबंद्ध 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 । 5661 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

अनुसूची

तहसील : सांपला

राज्य : हरियाणा

जिला: रोहतक

क्षेत्रफल गाँव कानाम

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

खसरा/ किला संख्या

(1)

(2)

(4)

(5) (6)

(3)

(7) 1. पाक्समा

4/2

5/1/1

5/1/2

5/2

.00

25/1/2

25/2/1

25/2/2

11/2

79-

.86

23/1/1

23/1/2

23/2/1

23/2/2

23/3/1

23/3/2

4/1

4/2

00 GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

5662THE

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

15/1

16/2

25/1

25/2

10/2/2

19/1

19/2

20/1

22/1

9/2

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)]

(7)

(6)

(5)

66 00

90 00

84 00

50 00

08 00

62 00

81 00

00 [भाग II- खष्ठ 3 (ii ) ]

5663

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

(2)

(4) (1)

(3)

12/1

12/2

19/1

23/1/1

23/1/2

23/2

24/1/1

(6)

(7) (5)

13 00

06 00

25 00

65 00

25 00

4 00

26 00

25 00

50 00

24/2/1/1

75 00

24/2/1/2

3/1/1

3/2/2

4/1

4/2

6/2

14/2

228

216

208

219 2. कसरेन्टी

1/1

1/2

10 3360 G1/09-7

63 00

53 00

37 00

1.2

90 00

08 00

25 00

51 00

50 00

77 00

09 00

33 5664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASHVINA 4 , 1931

(3)

(4)

(5)

12/2

18/1

5/1/1

5/1/2

5/2

17/2

18/1

24/1

24/2

25/1

25/2/1

25/2/2

1/1

1/2

8/1

8/2

10/1

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

57 06

36 09

01 00

63 11

56 05

79 03

91 04

30 02

25 00

26 02

53 00

75 13

66 09

61 06

07 06

07 01

01 00

60 08

50 00

27 02

75 13

25 00

25 14

92 01

77 01

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5665

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

17/1

17/2

रास्ता

21/1

21/2

17/1

17/2

25/1

25/2

8/1

8/2

14/1 (5) (6) (7) 00

16 00

57 00

01 00

50 00

25 00

16 00

25 00

02 00

34 00

79 00

30 00

65 00

07 00

83 00

25 00

61 00

85 00

36 00

50 00

07 00

51 5666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

14/2

15/2

गस्ता

रास्ता

17/1

1/1

गस्ता

3/1

3/2/2

14 3. मोरखेडी

16/1

16/2/1

16/2/2

17/1

5/1

5/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

(6)

(5)

(7) 00

75 00

55 00

25 00

16 00

51 00

50 00

42 00

75 00

42 00

77 00

84 00

57 00

54 00

81 00

25 00

13 00

34 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4) (1)

11/2

11/3

14/1

14/2

16/1

16/2

17/1

1/1

1/2

1/3

2/2

12/1/2

12/2

5667 (6)

(7) 05

06 00

81 05

83 00

25 10

12 02

78 10

37 04

09 08

25 00

66 13

25 09

86 04

12 10

75 02

65 12

75 00

25 05

31 00

75 06

57 05

31 01

26 12

65 00

75 00

25 07

84 05

31 00

25 5668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

23/1

100/2 4. समचाना

19/1

19/2

7/2

7/3

7/4

13/2

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

(7) 00

15 00

03 00

06 00

26 00

51 00

89 00

07 00

25 00

83 00

25 00

06 00

12 00

02 00

13 00

25 00

78 00

12 00

25 00

90 00

84 00

31 00

89 00

50 00

63 00

30 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5669

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

(5)

(2)

(4) (1)

(3)

22/1/1

22/1/2

2/2

8/2

9/2

12/2

12/3

13/1

106

7/2

24/1

24/2

115

5/1

5/2

7/1

(7) (6)

09 08

40 11

56 05

53 01

77 00

75 11

13 01

77 09

86 00

25 01

50 09

61 11

38 09

63 11

32 06

54 00

38 11

03 03

34 09

25 00

02 09

86 01

26 11

38 11

87 5670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4 , 1931

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

116

21/1

132

20/1

20/2

133

140

19/1

19/2

156

20/1

.20/2

157

16/1/1

16/1/2

16/2

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

25 03

28 10

12 11

38 06

07 05

06 10

87 00

50 03

54 00

03 03

08 11

38 11

13 01

01 08

85 06

83 03

75 00

04 00

25 07

84 10

75 00

09 11

38 11

38 01

26 00

25 02

53 5671

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

16/3

157

23/1/1

25/1

25/2/1

25/2/2

163

8/1

8/2

13/1

13/2

17/2

23/1.

24/1

24/2

171

6/1/2

6/2

14/1

15/1

15/2

227.

230

231

236 3360 G1/09-8

(5) (6) (7) 00

31 00

12 00

27 00

31 00

38 00

01 00

30 00

07 00

61 00

50 00

38 00

02 00

57 00

38 00

02 00

26 00

75 00

51 00

77 00

01 5672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

267

279

298

536

537

546

573

574

583

603

606

16 5. मैसरू खुर्द

9/1

9/2

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

(7) 00

51. 00

51 00

25 00

02 00

51 00

26 00

25 00

50 00

28 00

54 00

09 00

13 00

83 00

25 00

63 00

30 00

04 00

13 00

63 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931 (1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(5)

3/1

3/2

4/1

4/2

4/3

7/1/2

7/2

14/1

14/2

10/1

1/1

2/1

2/2

2/3

5673 (6) (7) 01

01 01

01 00

75 02

31 05

55 07

33 04

55 07

08 00

25 06

83 05

31 11

63 11

13 08

09 00

25 12

25 00 .

12 02

02 12

50 00

26 01

55 01

26 00

25 08

जारी 1 5674

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

(3)

(2)

(4) (1)

3/2

10/1

10/2

76/2/2

105

106

6.भैसरू कलां

20/2

3/2

(6) (7) (5)

86 00

57 00

08 00

83 00

65 00

28 00

60 00

02 00

14 00

37 00

28 00

50 00

51 00

07 00

77 00

87 00

10 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

7/1

7/2

2/1

5675

(7) (5) (6)

75 00

39 00

26 00

86 00

12 00

14 00

25 00

09 00

04 00

85 00

28 00

14 00

09 00

75 00

14 00

25 00

00 5676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4)

2/2

9/1

9/2

102

12 7. नयाबांस

9/3

12/1

12/2

12/3.

12/4

17/2

18/1

18/2

19/1

19/2

19/3

24/1

24/2/1

4/1

4/2

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

(7)

(6)

02.

02 :

50 00

61 00

53 00

31 00

04-

80 00

45 00

95 00

63 00

77 00

45 00

25 00

08 00

77 00

25 00

14.

92 00

25 00

01 00

77 00

50 00

28 00

02 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5677

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6)

(7)

6/1

6/2

108

[फा. सं. आर-31015/5/2009- ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 22th September, 2009

S. O. 2646. 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. 1179 dated the 28th April 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 Sampla, District Rohtak , in Haryana State;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the pubiic on 18.06.2009.

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.

5678

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASHVINA 4, 1931

SCHEDULE

State : HARYANA

District : ROHTAK

Tehsil : SAMPLA

Area

Nameof Village

Are

Hectare

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Square Metre

(5) (6)

(7) (1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

4/2

1. PAKASMA

5/1/1

5/1/2

5/2

25/1/2

25/2/1

25/2/2

12-

11/2

23/1/1

23/1/2

23/2/1

23/2/2

23/3/1

23/3/2

4/1

4/2

5 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

15/1

16/2

25/1

25/2

5679

(6) (7) (5)

90 00

84 00

50 00

62 00

02 00

62 00

53 00

10/2/2

19/1

19/2

20/1

22/1

9/2

21 3360G1 /09-9

75 00

61 00

01 00

30 00

03 00

40 00

51 5680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

(2)

(4)

(3)

12/1

12/2

19/1

23/1/1

23/1/2

23/2

24/1/1

24/2/1/1

24/2/1/2

3/1/1

3/2/2

4/1

4/2

6/2

14/2

228

216

208

219

2. KISARHANTI

1/1

1/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

(6) (7) (5)

13 00

06 00

25 00

65 00

25 00

04 00

62 00

26 00

25 00

-00

50 00

75 00

25 00

63 00

53 00

37 00

26 00

51 00

01 00

25 00

77 00

33 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

12/2

CartTrack

18/1

5/1/1

5/1/2

5/2

17/2

18/1

24/1

24/2

25/1

25/2/1

25/2/2

1/1

1/2

8/1

8/2

10/1

5681 (5)

(7)

(6)

57 00

36 00

01 00

25 00

56 00

79 00

30 00

53 00

26 00

53 00

66 00

07 00

01 00

25 00

66 00

25 00

92 00

01 00 5682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASHVINA 4, 1931

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

(6)

(3)

(4)

(7)

(5)

(2)

17/1

17/2

CartTrack

CartTrack 00

21/1

21/2

17/1

17/2

25/1

25/2

8/1

8/2

14/1

00 5683

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

14/2

15/2

(7)

(6)

(5)

25 00

CartTrack

17/1

1/1

CartTrack

3/1

3/2/2

3. MORE KHARI

16/1

16/2/1

16/2/2

17/1

5/1

5/2

55 00

02 00

25 00

16 00

25 00

01.

25 00

75 00

00.

75 00

84 00

54 00

79 00

25 00

13 00

34 00

08 5684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

11/2

11/3

14/1

14/2

16/1

16/2

17/1

1/1

1/2

1/3.

2/2

12/1/2

12/2

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

(6) (7) 05

06 00

50 05

81 06

83 00

25 10

12 02

78 10

37 04

04 08

09 00

25 13

66 00

25 09

86 04

04 10

12 00

75 02

53 12

65 00

75 00

25 05

31 00

75 06

31 05

26 12

65 00

75 00

25 07

84 05

31 00

25 5685

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

(2)

(1)

(4)

(3)

23/1

100/2

10.

4. SAMCHANA

19/1

19/2

7/2

7/3

7/4

13/2

(6) (7) (5)

06 00

26 00

51 00

89 00

07 00

83 00

66 00

25 00

06 00

25. 00

02 00

25 00

12 00

25 00

50 00

63 00

30 00.

04 5686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASHVINA 4, 1931

(2)

(5)

(3)

(4)

22/1/1

22/1/2

2/2

8/2

9/2

12/2

12/3

13/1

106

7/2

24/1

24/2

115

5/1

5/2

7/1

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

09 13

40 11

13 05

56 02

53 01

77 00

75 11

77 01

86 09

25 00

61 09

86 09

63 11

25 06

32 03

25 00

38 11

38 03

03 08

10 09

25 00

02 09

26 01

38 11-

38 11

87 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन4, 1931 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

21/1

116

132

20/1

20/2

133

140

19/1

19/2

156

20/1

20/2

157

16/1/1

16/1/2

16/2 3360 GI/09-10

5687

(7)

(6)

(5)

25 00

28 00

12 00

38 00

07 00

06 00

87 00

54 00

25 00

03 00

08 00

13 00

01 00

85. 00

83 00

79 00

04 00

84 00

87 00

75 00

09 00

38 00

26 00

25 00

00 5688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

157

16/3

23/1/1

25/1

25/2/1

25/2/2

163

8/1

8/2

13/1

13/2

17/2

23/1

24/1

24/2

171

6/1/2

6/2

14/1

15/1

15/2

227

230

231

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

50 05

31 10

12 00

27 02

31 02

27 00

50 02

53 11

38 01

01 04

30 06

07 09

61 01

25 00

50 11

38 02

02 02

02 06

57 11

02 02

26 01

85 00

25 00

13 11

34 08

51 01

77 भारत पर रायपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आस्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii)]

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

267

279

298

536

537

546

573

574

583

603

606

5.BHANSRU KHURD

9/1

9/2

5689 (5) (6) (7) 00

51 00

03 00

02 00

51 00

25 00

02 00

50 00

28 00

25 00

09 00

13 00

13 00 . 06

25 00

30 00

50 00

13 00

63 00

25 5690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

(1)

(2)

(4)

(5)

(3)

3/1

3/2

4/1

00.

4/2

4/3

7/1/2

7/2

14/1

14/2

10/1

1/1

2/1

2/2

2/3 [Part II Sec. 3( ii)] (6) (7) 01

01 01

01 00

75 02

78 05

55 04

33 04

55 07

08 00

25 06

83 05

31 11

63 11

13 08

09 00

25 12

14 00

12 10

02 12

14 00

50 11

63 01

26 04

55 01

26 00

85 08

06 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931 (1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

3/2

10/1

10/2

76/2/2

105

106

6. BHANSRU KALAN

20/2

3/2

5691

(7) (5) (6)

86 00

57 00

08 00

83 00

65 00

28 00

51 00

63 00

14 00

26 00

50 00

07 00

77 00

10-

87 5692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

7/1

7/2

2/1

[Part II-Sec. 3( u ) ] (5) (8) (7) 00

39 00

26 00

63 00

86 00

25 00

12 00

78 00

14 00

25 00

09 00

04 00

39 00

25 00

85 00

04 00

28 00

25 00

63 00

28 00

14 00

33 00

25 00

25 5693

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

2/2

9/1

9/2

102

7. NAYABAS

9/3

12/1

12/2

12/3

12/4

17/2

18/1

18/2

19/1

19/2

19/3

24/1

24/2/1

4/1

4/2

(7)

(6)

(5)

02 00

50 00

61 00

31 00

07 00

63 00

77 00

45 00

25 00

08 00

77 00

25 00

13 00

28 00

02 00

02 5694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

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

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

6/1

6/2

108

[ F. No. R -31015/5/2009- O.R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 2647.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि , मैसर्स रिलायंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की आन्ध्र प्रदेश के पूर्वीतट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेवपुर - हावड़ा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में , श्री के. गंगाचलम , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, डोर नं 67-11-21/2 , साविसुजा , न्यूसेंचुरी पब्लिक स्कूल के सामने, एल. बी. नगर, काकीनाडा-533003 , पूर्वी गोदावरी जिला , आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 5695

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: रनस्थलम

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:श्रीकाकुलम

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

2 1

81.

1 ) देवुनिपालक्लसा

77/6

77/9

58/4

58/3

58/5

58/1

58/6

57/3

54/1

54/2

54/9

49/3

49/4

49/5

49/1

49/6

49/7

49/8

49/9

48/26

48/25

291/1 2) संतसाम

291/2

290/2

290/3

290/4

288/2

287/1

287/ 2ए

287/ 2वी 3360 G1/09-11

आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

5 00 14

01- 00

02 00 60

85 00 23

98 00

76 00 05

06 00

62 06

82 40

00 32

16 00 19.

82 00 49

64 09

80 00

59 00

45. 00

14 05

26 21

78 00

95 00 00

67 00

32 00

92 00 00

43 20

76 00 41

86 17

96 00

21 00

47 00 08

14 00 19

77 16

00 5696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

286/2 2) संतसाम (निरंतर)

286/3

286/4

286/5

285/1

230/8

231

232/2

232/3

232/6

232/7

232/8

232/9

232/10

232/11

232/12

232/13

232/15

232/16

232/17

282

234/4

234/5

234/9

250/10

250/11

250/12

250/13

250/14

250/15

250/17

250/18

250/19

250/20

250/21

251/7

273

252/1

252/2

252/3

252/4

252/5

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

5 00

72 00

00 05

84 00

11 00

16 00

24 00

31 00 00

16 00 01

49 00

45 00

38 00 09

75 00

74 00

69 00 07

46 00

99 00

98 00

32 00 05

56 00 00

81 00 27

63 00 02

59 00 00

10 02

34 02

45 00

14 06

50 00 06

97 00

10 00

00 00

15 00

91 00

84 00

40 00 06

97 00

60 04

00 04

18 00 00

67 00 30

84 00 50

49 00 00

10 00 00

69 [ भागं II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

5697

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

252/9ए 2) संतवाण (निरंतर)

252/9वी

252/10

252/12

253

256/1.

256/2

256/3

255/1

255/2

3 ) नेलिवाडा

73/18 4) तिरपतिपालेम

108/13

108/7

108/8

108/3

108/9

108/10

107/16

107/24

107/23

107/18

107/22

112/10

107/21

105/8

112/2

112/9

112/12

112/11

112/4

113/12

113/13

113/11

113/14

113/15

113/10

113/16

113/18

113/17

113/8

113/7

04 00

74 02

89 00

23 00

50 00

14 00

55 00 2.9 45 00 36

54 00 09

79 00

13 00

00 02

52 00

33 00 27

19 00 00

54 00 01

00 00

13 00

10 02

00 38

61 00

10 00

11 00

82. 00 01

89 00 05

43 00 04

67 00

18 00

93 0.2

10 00 00

80 00

15 00 05

62 5698

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

2 1

113/6

4) तिरपतिपालेम (निरंतर)

102/22

102/21

102/3

102/20

102/23

102/16

102/15

102/14

102/13

102/12

102/10

102/11

114/1

114/2

101/4

101/5

101/6

101/7

99/30

100/3

100/4

100/8

100/2

100/9

100/10

100/11

100/1

98/30

98/32

98/27

98/33

98/34

98/35

98/25

98/26

98/24

98/19

98/22

98/21

5 00 00

30 00 08

63 00

48 00

53 00

71 00 00

70 00 09

54 00

22 00

88 00 07

35 02

44 00 09

43 00

27 00

10 00 03

89 00 02 45 02

12 00

48 00

34 00

25 00

45 00

08 01

31 00 02

00 00

39 00

95 00 13

44 00 00

10 00 05

41 00

73 00

50 00 02

10 01

89 00 00

71 00 05

18 00 00

10 00

25 00 01

44 00 42

22 00

04 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5699

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

2 1

5) . बंटुपस्ली

84/1

80/16

80/18

80/17

80/19

80/12

80/11

80/10

81/10

80/9

80/8

81/7

81/8

81/6

81/5

81/1

71/5

70/8

70/7

70/2

70/1

70/3

60/36

60/37

60/38

60/42

60/39

60/40

60/22

60/41

60/9

60/8

60/10

62/2

61/8

61/6

61/7

61/5

61/4

5 00 95

73 00

07 00 03

95 00

61 00 21

13. 00

69 00

76 00

67 00 03

28 00 06

98 00

92 00 00

10 00 06

02 00

10 00

77 00 02

35 00

77 12

00 00

78 00 04

70 00 06

49 00 11

88 10

31 00 00

30 00 01

40 00

21 08

48 07

00 00

10 00

08 00 06

69 00 02

31 00 02

13 00 08

73 00 01

08 00

10 00

77 00 02

08 00

52 00

94 04

02 00

06 -30 5700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 /ASHVINA 4 , 1931

61/1

5) बंदुपल्ली (निरंतर)

61/3

61/2

62/1

64/2

65/4

65/3

65/2

65/1

65/5

43/7

43/6

43/4

41/1

45/29

45/25

45/24

45/32

45/23

45/22

45/33

45/34

45/12

45/36

45/35

45/11

34/9

34/5

34/6

34/7

34/8

30/1

29/1

27/17

28/9

28/10

114/6

114/5

28/6

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

5 00 00

44 00 04

63 00

64 00 05

04 00 08

28 00 03

72 00 04

00 00 06

86 00. 04

39 00 01

85 00

51 00 08

08 00

10 00 02

07 00

48 00 01

61 00 15

59 00

98 00 00

50 03

32 00

42 01

00 03

12 00 07

65 00 04

78 00

30 00 00

10 00

15 00

16 00 01

58 00 06

50 05

47 00 00

12 00 02

83 00 46

70 00

74 00

23 00

28 00

59 00

43 00 13

27 00 29

91 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5701

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

114/1 5) बंदुपल्ली (निरंतर)

114/2

113/1

113/2

13/42

17/7

6) मुकदुमपुरम

17/6

17/5

17/4

17/2

17/3

12/22

12/1

12/21

12/15

12/16

12/18

12/19

12/20

12/17

12/10

11/25

11/24

11/23

11/22

11/21

11/20

11/19

11/18

11/17

11/4

11/3

11/5

11/6

11/12

11/14

11/13

10/2

10/1

67 00

10 00 00

36 00 08

33 00

92 00 01

40 00 05

18 00

17 00 02

23 00

00 03

44 00 00

10 00

00 02

83 00

40 00 02

12 00 00

10 00 00

62 00 01

18 00 01

86 00 02

88 02

95 03

41 00

19 00 02

66 00 01

51 00 00

74 00

10 00 02

29 00

56 00

60 00

05 00

76 00

40 06

03 00

13 00

33 00

05 00 45 5702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASHVINA 4, 1931

7/41 6) मुकदुमपुर (निरंतर)

7/42

7/43

7/45

7/35

7/34

7/36

7/29

7/28

7/30

4/1

4/2

4/3

43 7) कोंडामुलागाम

45/10

45/8

45/9

45/2

45/1

46/15

46/17

46/16

46/12

46/11

46/10

46/9

72/19

72/2

72/1

70/12

70/29

70/30

70/28

67/5

67/6

67/7

67/4

67/8

67/3

67/9

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

5 00

10 00

00 01

43 00 05

37 00 07

26 02

49 00 02

57 00 09

14 00 13

00 04

74 00 02

00 05

72 00

13 00

57 11

00 00

22 00 20

15 16

00 01

48 00 00

96 00 06

08 00 06

01 00 06

57 01

58 00

44 08

00 06

33 00 02

33 00 05

54 00 01

89 00

91 02

38 00

72 00 00

26 00

36 00 02

81 00

14 05

81 00 00

10 00 04

08 00

76 00

10 00

75 03 5703

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

67/30 7) कोंडामुलागाम (निरंतर)

67/28

67/27

67/26

67/10

67/12

67/13

67/14

69/28

68/31

68/32

68/33

68/34

68/28

68/29

68/30

68/22

68/23

68/24

68/25

68/26

68/2.7

68/13

68/14

65/22

65/21

65/20

65/19

65/18

65/23

65/24

65/17

65/16

65/9

65/8

65/7

65/6

65/5

65/4

65/3

65/2

3360GI/09-12

5 00

00 00

10 00

24 00

4.1 0.0 00

35 00 00

45 00 03

26 00

00 00

94 00

10 00 02

91 00

90 02

10 00

89 00

92 00

81 00

29 01

77 00

98 00 00

47 04

20 00 00

94 00 01

60 03

00 02

03 00 00

25 00 07

75 00 06

48 00

14 00

13 00

44 00

00 00

45 00

10 00 00

26 00 5704

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

63/2

7) कोंडामुलागाम (निरंतर)

64/38

64/32

64/11

64/10

64/9

64/8

64/7

64/4

64/1

64/2

64/3

18/51

18/52

18/44

18/45

18/46

18/47

18/5

18/6

18/7

18/8

18/9

18/10

18/11

18/14

18/15

20/46

20/42

20/44

20/45

20/25

20/24

20/22

20/23

19/26

19/25

19/27

19/24.

19/23

19/22

19/21 3

93 00

0.2

35 00 04 65

95 00 00

83 00 05

45 00 02

65 00 02

09 00

85 00

45 02

10 00

28 02

62 00 01

74 00 01

99 00 01

10 00 00

00 05

22 00 00

23 0.2

62 00

55 00

10 00

00.

00 02

33 00 00

75 00 05

34 00

00 02

77 00 03

83 00 00

26 00

53 00

75 00

63 05

06 04

02 00 04

34 00

11 00

51 06

80 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5705

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

2 1

19/5

7) कोंडानुलापान (निरंतर)

19/4

19/1

21/3

21/2

21/4

21/5

21/6

21/18

21/7

21/8

21/17

22/6

22/5

22/4

22/7

22/8

31/1

8 ) सीतमवलसा

31/2

17/1

17/2

17/5

17/6

17/7

17/8

17/10

18/4

18/5

18/9

18/10

18/20

18/26

18/27

18/28

18/29

18/30

18/31

18/32

18/35

5 3

70 00

63 06

68 00 .

72 00 02

53 02

14 00 05

49 00

83 00

62 00

94 00 00

10 08

11 07

75 00 . 17

01 01 32

00 06

75 00 12

28 00

10 00

00 09

42 03

34 00

65 03

79 00

19 00

22 00 00

00 07

89 00

00 15

83 00 01- 82 02

80 00

40 00 02

50 00 02

75 01

10 00

10 01

03 5706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 /ASHVINA 4, 1931

14/1

8) सीतमवलसा (निरंतर)

14/2

14/3

14/5

14/6

14/7

14/8

14/9

14/10

14/11

14/12

14/13

14/14

14/15

14/16

27/1

27/2

27/10

27/11

27/12

27/13

27/14

27/15

27/17

27/22

27/24

28/11

28/12

28/14

28/15

28/16

28/17

28/18

29/1

8/18

8/19

8/20

8/21

8/22

8/25

47/1

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

09 00

65 00 28

34 00

03.

10 00 02

98 00 02- 00 00 05

57 00 05

59 00

63 05

00 06

18 00 00

92 0.0

00 04

69 00 02

29 00 00

67 00 11

79. 04

54 00

00 09

65 00 00

10 00 01

78 00 19

10 00 00

40 01

00 04

42 00 06

41 00

88 00 10

08 00 03

52 00 00

10 0.0 00

10 00

62 01

00 10

82 00 07

65 00 03

01 00

48 00 08

59 00 00

45 5707

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

48/1

8) सीतमवलसा (निरंतर)

49/1

49/2

49/3

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:लावेरू

75 00 01

71 00

11 राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:श्रीकाकुलम

25/6

1) केशवरायपुरम

25/7

25/12

25/13

25/14

25/15

26/2

28/3

28/8

28/9

28/10

28/11

28/12

28/13

28/14

28/15

36/10

36/11

36/14

36/15

36/16

51/1

51/3

51/4

51/8

49/2

49/3

49/4

49/5

49/6

49/10

315/2

2) लावेरू

315/8

315/9

315/7

49 00

56 00 16

37 00 05

10 00

11 00

95 00 07

06 00 07

17 00 03

73 00

1.1

21 00

19 00 08

02 00 03. 34 00 12

45 00 02

94 00

65 00 08

48 00

99 00

64 00

42 00

39 00

57 00 00

10 00

90 00 00

66 00 01

36 00

80 00

00 02

62 00

00 00

12 00

53 00 00

19 00

49 5708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASHVINA 4, 1931

315/6 2) लावेरू (निरंतर)

315/5

315/4

314/5

314/15

314/17

314/19

314/20

311/21

311/22

311/23

312/2

312/3

312/4

312/7

312/6

312/11

312/10

312/13

312/12

312/14

312/15

322/1

322/9

322/10

323/1

323/2

323/3

333/2

333/4

327

326/7

326/8

326/26

326/24

326/27

323/9

326/25

328/4

328/6

328/5

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

5 00 07

94 02

56 20

94 00

66 17

11 00

00 07

29 00

50 00 00

28 00

33 00

59 05

00 06

39 00 05

97 07

20 00

33 00

89 00

90 03

03 00

57 00 00

98 00 07

33 00 06

00 03

75 00 22

19 00

56 00

49 04

80 00

50 01

46 00

10 00 49

00 06

15 04

13 00

10 00

00 02

09 00 03

50 00

10 00

00 03

11 00

33 00

01 02

07 00

71 00

01 [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

5709

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

2 1

328/3 2) लावेरू (निरंतर)

328/1

328/10

328/11

328/12

328/2

330/6

330/7

330/8

330/9

330/25

330/24

330/23

330/11

330/29

330/26

330/27

330/22

330/21

330/20

330/19

330/18

331

194/32

194/30

194/29

194/28

194/27

194/26

194/25

194/24

194/14

194/15

194/16

194/23

194/22

194/21

194/20

20/22 3 ) ताल्लबलसा

20/21

20/20

20/11

52 00 06

00 02

26 00 00

80 00 円

25 00 01

75 00 0.1

26 00 01

85 00 01

28 00 00

30 00 02

71 00

09 00 00. 10 00

0.3

00 00 01

02 00 01

38 00 01

00 00 00

18 00

17 00 10

00 35

45 00

10 0.0

00 02

67 00 02

59 00 06

80 0.0

12 08

0.0 04

26 00

33 03

0.3

86 00

60 00 00

54 00 00

13 00

65 12

00 02

60 01

0.0

14 00 00

62 00 08

26 00 20

22 00

73 06

76 5710

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

2 1

20/10 3 ) ताल्लवलसा (निरंतर )

20/12

20/9

20/8

20/7

20/6

20/5

20/4

20/3

20/2

19/1

14/1

14/2

14/3

14/4

14/5

14/10

14/9

14/11

14/17

14/19

14/16

14/15

14/14

14/13

13/2

13/1

5/11

5/9

5/10

5/14

5/15

5/16

4/1

4/2

4/13

3/6

3/8

3/7

3/25

5 3

00 04

91 00 00

10 00 . 02

19 00

05 01

99 04

43 00 01

00 05

04 02

92 04

58 00

00 09

60 00 05

00 19

25 00 19

26 00 01

36 00 01

28 00

60 00 18

27 00

93 00

32 03

10 00

00 09

09 00

28 03

42 04

55 07

13 00

21 00 00

74 00

30 00

00 02

09 00

23 22

50 00

15 00 00

10 00

28 06

26 00

-00

78 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5711 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

3/27

24 3 ) तास्लक्लसा (निरंतर)

3/24

3/20

3/28

3/21

3/23

00 00

3/26

3/22

00 00

3/18

00 05

3/19

00 03

3/17

00 00

3/16

00 06

41/1

41/2

41/3

41/4

[फा. सं. एल-14014/33/2009-जी.पी.

के.के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23th September , 2009

S. O. 2647. Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/s . Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country, Kakinada-Basudebpur-Howrah gas pipeline should be laid by M/s . Relogistics Infrastructure Limited;

And , whereas , it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such 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 isdescribed in the Schedule annexed hereto;

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

Anyperson interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty one days from the date ofwhichthe copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1) of Section 3 of the said Act, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of Right ofUser therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri K. Gangachalam, Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , D. No. 67-11-21 /2 , Savnisuja, Opp New Centuary Public School , L. B. Nagar , Kakinada -533003 , East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh State .

3360GI/09-13 5712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009 / ASHVINA 4, 1931

[Part Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

Schedule

District: Srikakulam Mandal/Tehsil/ Taluk: Ranasthalam

Survey No./Sub-Division No

Village

2 1

1) Devunipalavalasa

77/6

77/9

58/4

58/3

58/5

58/1

58/6

-57/3

54/1

54/2

54/9

49/3.

49/4

49/5

49/1

49/6

49/7

49/8

49/9

48/26

48/25

291/1 2) Santsam

291/2

290/2

290/3

290/4

288/2

287/1

287/2A

287/2B State: ANDHRA PRADESH Area tobe acquired for Rou Hec

Are

C-Are 5

72 00

01 00

85 00

81 00

17 00

76 00

16 00

83 00

82 00

64 00

80 00

59.

22 500

45. 00

14 00

95 00

67 00

10 00

92 00

76 00

96 00

21 00

47 00

15-

91 00

77 00

16 [ भागःII-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 93110

286/2 2) Santsam ( Contd)

286/3

286/4

286/5.

285/1

230/8

23.1

232/2

232/3

232/6

232/7

232/8

232/9

232/10

232/11

232/12

232/13

232/15

232/16

232/17

282

234/4

234/5

-234/9

250/10

250/11

250/12

250/13

250/14

250/15

250/17

250/18

250/19

250/20

250/21

251/7

273

252/1

252/2

252/3

252/4

252/5

5713

00-

00 5714

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASHVINA 4 , 1931

252/ 9A 2) Santsam(Contd)

252/9B

252/10

252/12

253

256/1

256/2

256/3

255/1

255/2

3) Nelivada

73/18 4) Tirapatipalem

108/13

108/7

108/8

108/3

108/9

108/10

107/16

107/24

107/23

107/18

107/22

112/10

107/21

105/8

112/2

112/9

112/12

112/11

112/4

113/12

113/13

113/11

113/14

113/15

113/10.

113/16

113/18

113/17

113/8

113/7 3

5 22

46- 01

13 02

62 5715

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

113/6 4) Tirapatipalem ( Contd)

102/22

102/21

102/3

102/20

102/23

102/16

102/15

102/14

102/13

102/12

102/10

102/11

114/1

114/2

101/4

101/5

101/6

101/7

99/30

100/3

100/4

100/8

100/2

100/9

100/10

100/11

100/1

98/30

98/32

98/27

98/33

98/34

98/35

98/25

98/26

98/24

98/19

98/22

98/21

09.

22 5716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

5) Bantupalli

84/1

80/16

80/18

80/17

80/19

80/12

80/11

80/10

81/10

80/9

80/8

81/7

81/8

81/6

81/5

81/1

71/5

70/8

70/7

70/2

70/1

70/3

60/36

60/37

60/38

60/42

60/39

60/40

60/22

60/41

60/9

60/8

60/10

62/2

61/8

61/6

61/7

61/5

61/4

[Part I Sec. 3 (1 ) 3

06 भारत का राजपत्र: ভাस्कर 26 , 2009 /भर 4,1931:

61/1 5) Bantupalli (Contd)

61/3

61/2

62/1

64/2

65/4

65/3

65/2

65/1

65/5

43/7

43/6

43/4

41/1

45/29

45/25

45/24

45/32

45/23

45/22

45/33

45/34

45/12

45/36

45/35

45/11

34/9

34/5

34/6

34/7

34/8

30/1

29/1

27/17

28/9

28/10

114/6

114/5

28/6

5717 3

00 .

25.

91 5718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

2 5) Bantupalli ( Contd)

114/1

114/2

113/1

113/2

13/42

17/7 6) Muktumpuram

17/6

17/5

17/4

17/2

17/3

12/22

12/1

12/21

12/15

12/16

12/18

12/19

12/20

12/17

12/10

11/25

11/24

11/23

11/22

11/21

11/20

11/19

11/18

11/17

11/4

11/3

11/5

11/6

11/12

11/14

11/13

10/2

10/1

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

05 भारत का राजपत्र डपतम्बर 26, 2009/ भद्र 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7/41 6) Muktumpuram ( Contd)

7/42

7/43

7/45

7/35

7/34

7/36

7/29

7/28

7/30

4/1

4/2

4/3

7) Kondamulagam

45/10

45/8

45/9

45/2

45/1

46/15

46/17

46/16

46/12

46/11

46/10

46/9

72/19

72/2

72/1

70/12

70/29

70/30

70/28

67/5

67/6

67/7

67/4

67/8

67/3

67/9 3360 G1/09-14

5719 4

03 5720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASHVINA 4, 1931

67/30 7) Kondamulagam( Contd)

67/28

67/27

67/26

67/10

67/12

67/13

67/14

69/28

68/31

68/32

68/33

68/34

68/28

68/29

68/30

68/22

68/23

68/24

68/25

68/26

68/27

68/13

68/14

65/22

65/21

65/20

65/19

65/18

65/23

65/24

65/17

65/16

65/9

65/8

65/7

65/6

65/5

65/4

65/3

65/2

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

10.

.81

10 .

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

63/2 7) Kondamulagam( Contd)

64/38

64/32

64/11

64/10

64/9

64/8

64/7

64/4

64/1

64/2

64/3

18/51

18/52

18/44

18/45

18/46

18/47

18/5

18/6

18/7

18/8

18/9

18/10

18/11

18/14

18/15

20/46

20/42

20/44

20/45

20/25

20/24

20/22

20/23

19/26

19/25

19/27

19/24

19/23

19/22

19/21

5721 3

80 5722

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

19/5 7) Kondamulagam(Contd)

19/4

19/1

21/3

21/2

21/4

21/5

21/6

21/18

21/7

21/8

21/17

22/6

22/5

22/4

22/7

22/8

31/1

8) Sitamavalasa

31/2

17/1

17/2

17/5

17/6

17/7

17/8

17/10

18/4

18/5

18/9

18/10

18/20

18/26

18/27

18/28

18/29

18/30

18/31

18/32

18/35

03 5723

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

14/1

8) Sitamavalasa (Contd)

14/2

14/3

14/5

14/6

14/7

14/8

14/9

14/10

14/11

14/12

14/13

14/14

14/15

14/16

27/1

27/2

27/10

27/11

27/12

27/13

27/14

27/15

27/17

27/22

27/24

28/11

28/12

28/14

28/15

28/16

28/17

28/18

29/1

8/18

8/19

8/20

8/21

8/22

8/25

47/1

57.

00 5724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

2 8) Sitamavalasa (Contd)

48/1

49/1

49/2

49/3

Mandal/ Tehsii /Taluk: Laveru

District: Srikakulam

25/6

1) Kesavarayapuram

25/7

25/12

25/13

25/14

25/15

26/2

28/3

28/8

28/9

28/10

28/11

28/12

28/13

28/14

28/15

36/10

36/11

36/14

36/15

36/16

51/1

51/3

51/4

51/8

49/2

49/3

49/4

49/5

49/6

49/10

315/2 2) Laveru

315/8

315/9

315/7

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

State: ANDHRA PRADESH 00

01 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5725

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

315/6 2) Laveru (Contd)

315/5

315/4

314/5

314/15

314/17

314/19

314/20

311/21

311/22

311/23

312/2

312/3

312/4

312/7

312/6

312/11

312/10

312/13

312/12

312/14

312/15

322/1

322/9

322/10

323/1

323/2

323/3

333/2

333/4

327

326/7

326/8

326/26

326/24

326/27

326/9

326/25

328/4

328/6

328/5

66-

1.1

.00

61 5726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4 , 1931

328/3 2) Laveru ( Contd)

328/1

328/10

328/11

328/12

328/2

330/6

330/7

330/8

330/9

330/25

330/24

330/23

330/11

330/29

330/26

330/27

330/22

330/21

330/20

330/19

330/18

331

194/32

194/30

194/29

194/28

194/27

194/26

194/25

194/24

194/14

194/15

194/16

194/23

194/22

194/21

194/20

20/22 3) Tallavalasa

20/21

20/20

20/11

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] 4

01-

76 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5727

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

20/10 3) Tallavalasa (Contd)

20/12

20/9

20/8

20/7

20/6

20/5

20/4

20/3

20/2

19/1

14/1

14/2

14/3

14/4

14/5

14/10

14/9

14/11

14/17

14/19

14/16

14/15

14/14

14/13

13/2

13/1,

5/11

5/9

5/10

5/14

5/15

5/16

4/1

4/2

4/13

3/6

3/8

3/7

3/25

3360 G1 /09--15

.09

78 5728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

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

5 3) Tallavalasa ( Contd)

3/27

3/24

3/20

3/28

3/21

3/23

3/26

3/22

3/18

3/19

3/17

3/16

41/1

41/2

41/3

24.

41/4

[F. No. L- 14014/33/2009-G.P . K.K.SHARMA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 23 सितम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 2648.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि, मैसर्स रिलायंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की आन्ध्र प्रदेश के पूर्वीतट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेवपुर - हावड़ा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में, श्री के. गंगाचलम , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, डोर नं. 67-11-21 / 2 , साविसुजा, न्यूसेंचुरी पब्लिक स्कूल के सामने , एल. बी. नगर, काकीनाडा-533003, पूर्वी गोदावरी जिला , आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5729

अनुसूची

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक लावेरू

जिला:श्रीकाकुलम गाँव का नाम

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

2 1

118/18 1 ) गरूगुबिल्ली

118/23

118/24ए

118/24वी

118/25 आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

43 00 01

00 00

82 00 06

59 00 17

सर्वे नंबर 118/18 और 120/14ए के बीच में

120/1

120/3

120/4

120/6

120/7

120/8

120/9

120/11

120/12

120/13

120/14ए

120/14बी

120/15

120/16

123/1

123/2

124/1ए

124/2

122/3ए

122/3बी

122/4

122/5ए

122/5वी

122/6ए

122/ 6वी

122/9ए

14.1/1ए

141/1वी

141/2

141/3ए

141/3वी 00

94 00

38 00

14 00

00 00

06 00

37 00

46 00

01 00

34 00

00 0.0

45 00 00

17 00

00 00

10 00 00

52 00

66 00

79 00 15

08 00 08

47 00

34 00

00 01

30 00 04

46 00

26 00 5730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

141/4 1) गरूगुबिल्ली (निरंतर)

141/14ए

141/14वी

141/15ए

141/15वी

141/18ए

140/2

140/4वी

140/5

140/6ए

140/ 6वी

140/7

140/8ए

140/8 वी

140/9ए

140/9वी

140/10ए

140/11 ए

140/11 वी

140/12

140/13

140/14ए

140/15ए

140/16ए

139/24ए

137/1 ए

137/1वी

137/2ए

137/ 2बी

137/3ए

137/3वी

137/4

137/5ए

137/ 5वी

137/14

137/16ए

137/17ए

137/17वी

137/18 ए

137/19ए

138/16वी

138/17

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

5 00 00

65 00 02

51 00

38 01

00 01

98 00 00

10 00 01

04 00 01

58 00

10 00

00 03

66 00

12 02

87 00 00

15 00 01

24 00

0.0

99 00 02

01 00 00

15 00

46 01

96 00

92 03

00 01

79 00 00

81 00 01

00 00 04

69 00 00

00 00

11 00

22 00

15 00 01

16 01

62 00

90 05

77 03

20 06

33 00 14

20 00 03

36 00 10

98 00 02

14 00 03

78 00

82 00

33 00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5731

भारत का राजपत्र : सिम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

2 1

138/18वी 1) गरूगुबिल्ली (निरंतर)

138/19वी

138/20वी

138/21ए

138/21वी

138/ 22ए

138/22वी

138/23ए

138/23वी

138/24ए

133/14वी

133/15

133/16

135/1 ए

134/1 ए

135/1वी

135/9ए

135/10

134/1वी

134/2

134/4

134/5ए

134/7

52/1

52/ 2वी

52/3

52/2ए

50/5ए :

50/ 5वी

50/6

50/7

50/9

50/14

50/15

50/16ए

51/1

51/4

51/5

48/1वी

48/2

55 00

31 00 01

92 00 07

21 00 04

0.5 00

41 00

47 00 01

12 00

00 00

10 00

75 00 00

95:

70 00

23 00 00

00 02

87 00

67 00

00 05

34 00

58 00 00

10 00

10 00 17

38 00 06

49 00

25 00 00

10 00 08

76 00

44 00 01

06 00 09

00 00

96 00

45 00 08

66 00 03

33 00 03

12 00 08

54 00

46 5732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

48/3

1 ) गरूगुबिल्ली (निरंतर)

48/4ए

48/5

47/6

47/7

23/3

2) सिगरिकोत्तफ्ल्ली

23/1

23/2

6/1

6/8

6/7

6/2

6/3

5/7

5/20

5/8

5/19

5/18

5/9

5/26

5/27

5/17

5/16

5/28

3/3

3/2

382

3) अडपाका

383

186/17

186/18

186/16

187/12

187/13

187/14

187/16

187/17

187/18

187/8

187/9

188/11

188/13

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

5 00 10

88 00

32 00

71 00

23 00 10

40 00 05

27 00

00 02

38 00

66 00 00

10 01

79 09

25 00

00 00

10 00

04 00

60 01

00 03

98 03

21 00

00 00

07 00 02

17 00

68 00 03

59 00 12.

33 00 04

73 00 09

37 00 12

88 00

05 00 19

65 00

39 00 05

00 09

76 00 07

78 00

22 00 15

50 00

54 00

18 24

99 00 00

85.

5733 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

5 1

188/14

3) अडपाका (निरंतर)

188/15

188/16

188/17

00 00

188/21

188/7

04-

188/8

191/10

00 00

191/11 .

191/15

191/16

191/6

191/7

191/9

00 03

191/5

191/4

00 24

192/1

192/2

192/5

193/1

215/4

215/5

215/6

216/10

216/5

00 00

216/3

216/4

00 14

216/6

216/7

00 06

216/8

00 01

216/9

230/1

230/12

00 07

230/13

230/14

230/3

230/4

230/7

00 09

230/8

00 06

00 20

232/1

00 00

234/11

234/12

5734

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

2 1

234/13 3) अडपाका (निरंतर)

234/14

234/15

234/16

234/18

234/33

234/35

234/36

234/37

234/38

234/39

235/1

235/10

235/11

235/17

235/18

235/2

235/25

235/26

235/3

235/4

235/5

235/9

235/6

236/1

236/2

237/11

237/16

237/17

237/18

238/11

238/14

238/15

238/16

238/17

238/2

238/4

238/5

238/6

239/1

239/2

239/3 3

5 4

63 00

00 10

04 07

38 01

17 02

70 00

03 00

00 01

54 07

25 03

67 00

72 00

00 07

84 00

10 00

26 00 04

23 00

00 02

55 01

17 00

10 00

00 00

48 00 04

08 09

91 00

50 02

04 00 00

15 02

10 00

07 00

00 01

02 00 05

00 09

60 00

16 00 01

62 00

00 00

57 06

79 00

25 00

96 06

00 01

93 00

75 00

00 15

71.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5735

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

239/4 3) अडपाका (निरंतर)

239/6

239/7

240

241/10

241/20

373/19

373/20

373/21

373/22

373/23

373/24

373/25

373/26

373/27

373/4

373/5

374/1

374/19

374/2

374/21

374/3

374/6

374/7

375/12

375/13

375/2

375/3

375/4

376/1

378/1

378/14

378/2

378/3

378/4

378/5

378/6

378/7

378/8

378/9

378/10

379/1

3360 G1/09-16

00 05

78 00 00

72 00 03

56 00

96 00 04

31 00

30 00 05

00 01

23 00 00 : 65 00 03

94 00

20 00 04

63 00

10 00

71 00 02

00 00

68 06

63 00

00 00

16 00 10

10 00 00

26 00

85 00 25

96 00 00

93 00 20

55 00 00

48 01

21 01

80 00

81 00

61 00

32 05

10 00 00

47 00 08

03 06

65 00

99 00 01

16 00.

98 5736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASHVINA 4, 1931

379/3 3) अडपाका (निरंतर)

380/4

380/5

398/10

398/11

398/12

398/18

398/7

398/8

399/1

399/2

399/3

399/4

400

401

402/1

403/1

403/2

403/4

403/5

404

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

5 01

74 00 15

00 00

92 22

69 00 06

05 00 05

96 00

56 0.2

00 08

78. 00 07

30 00

25 00 01

99 00 01

20 00 00

26 00

75 00

97 00 44

83 00 00

11 00 00

21 00 16

36 22

95 00

सर्वे नंबर 383 और 382 के बीच मे

105/19 4 ) पेद्दाकोत्तपल्ली

105/20

105/24

105/21

105/22

105/23

106/14

106/13

106/12

106/11

101/ 6वी

101/ 6ए

106/10

101/5

101/4

101/3

101/1

101/2

101/12

101/13

511

00 02

13 00

00 07

90 00

10 00

91 00

00 08

21 00 02

50 00

71 04

12 04

00 06

00 00 02

87 00 09

00 01

30 00

76 00 06

97 00 03

10 00 00

55 00

10 00

68 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

100/8 4) पेद्दाकोत्तपल्ली (निरंतर)

100/10

100/9

99/19

99/18

99/16

99/15

99/14

99/13

99/10

99/3

99/4

99/5

99/8

99/7

99/6

80/44

80/43

82/3

82/2

80/33

80/32

82/1

82/11

82/12

82/13

82/20

82/15

82/14

82/16

82/17

81/6

81/4

81/3

81/2

81/1

50/39

50/30

50/31

50/32

50/38

50/33

5737 3

27- 00

00 12

26 00 04

11 00

73 00

27 00 07

49 00 06

40 00 02

00 00

12 00 01

00 03

70 00 01

92 00

66 00

00 10

45 00 06

92 00

97 00 02

81 00

10 00 03

57 00. 00

43 00

94 00

26 00 04

75 00 02

01. 21 00 .

26 00

70 00 18

61 00 03

59 00

95 02

04 00

00 00

56 00 02

12 00 02

67 02

00 5738

[Part II-Sec . 3(ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

2 1

50/37 4) पेद्दाकोत्तापल्ली (निरंतर)

50/36

50/35

146/5

146/6

50/26

146/4

146/8

146/3

146/14

146/1

146/2

146/15

146/16

146/17

146/18

150/13

147

150/33

150/36

150/12

150/11

150/39

150/10

150/40

150/41

150/42

150/5

150/6

150/4

150743

150/46

150/47

150/58

150/48

150/49

150/51

150/52

149

148/5

45/28

45/27

17 00

00 03

85 00 01

38 00 02

33 00 08

7.4 00 00

10 00 08

68 00

72 00

93 00 09

02 00

45 00 02

08 03

97 00 01

43 00

00 01

90 00 00

56 00 02

06 00 02

73 00 01

67 00 04

00 00

77 00

63 03

57 00 00

48 06

41 00

29 00 01.

00 11

43 00 00

78 00 06

51 00

12 07

89 07

79 00

05 00 00

10 00 02

67 00

10 00

11 00 02

98 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

5739

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

45/26 4) पेद्दाकोत्तापल्ली (निरंतर)

155/3

155/4

155/5

155/8

155/9

155/10

155/14

155/15

155/16

155/17

155/18

155/19

15.6

44/11

44/12

44/13

44/14

44/15

44/16

44/17

33/9

33/16

33/17

33/15

33/14

34/14

44/22

34/22.

34/21

34/20

: 34/19

35/4

35/2

37/5

35/3

36/6

37/4

37/3

38/1

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:पोंदूरू

5 00 00

10 00 03

25 00 06

38 00 06

05 00 08

84 00 04

75 00

26 00

00 03

30 00 02

29 00 01

87 00 02

04 00

07 00 10. 56 00 07

73 00 00

19 00 09

80 00

35 00 00

04 00 22

55 00 03. 59 00

00 00 00

10 00

89 00

72 00 18

31 00 06

08 00 08

35 00

00 75

55 00 54

85 00

00 04

12 राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:श्रीकाकुलम

151

1) लोलुगा

152/5

51 00 06

48 5740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

152/4 1) लोलुगा (निरंतर)

152/3

152/6

152/7

152/8

152/9

154/7

155/30

155/31

155/32

155/23

155/22

155/21

155/20

155/19

155/18

155/17

155/16

155/10

155/9

155/11

155/15

155/14

155/13

186/13

189/4

189/2

189/3

190/22

190/23

190/15

190/13

190/14

196/16

196/12

196/11

196/1

196/8

196/9

196/10

196/4

196/2 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] 3

5 .00

01 00 03

61 00 03. 20- 00 15

43 00 14

37 00 03

00 50

27 00

43 00 07

03 02

00 00 09

00 06

38 00 06

14 00 03

76 00 01

58 00

03 00

59 00 02

24 00 06

71 00

83 00 02

03 00

88 00 00

10 00 35

99 00 05

13 00

55 00 06

13 00

94 00 00

62 00 00

03 00

35 02

18 00

00 03

55 02

59 00

02 00 06

90 00

55 02

17 00

00 00

10 5741

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

196/3 1) लोलुगा (निरंतर)

196/7

196/5

196/6

194/27

194/28

194/25

195

193

200/52

200/51

200/50

200/54

200/55

203/39

200/40

200/39

203/2

203/1

203/3

200/38

203/4

203/5

203/6

203/8

203/7

201/19

203/9

201/20

201/46

201/47

201/50

201/51

201/49

202

209/15

209/16

209/14

209/12

209/7

209/8

209/6

5 3

00 00

61. 00

63 00 02

00 07

56 00 00

45 00 11

00 00

43 00

07 00 03

00 20

04 00

79 00 01

10 00 09 90 02

03 00

03 00 09

60 00 00

78 00

09 00 04

00 00

38 00 03

88 00 09

53 00

63 00

90 00

08 00 08

45 00 04

39 00 08

97 00 02

0.0

67 00

86 00

39 5742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

209/9 1) लोलुगा (निरंतर)

209/1

209/4

210/20

210/9

214/15

214/6

214/9

214/7

214/4

214/5.

214/3

214/2

213/22

216/20

215

217/6

217/2

216/19

216/18

216/17

217/5

217/4

217/3

223/1

233/1

232/31

232/1

232/2

232/3

232/4

232/5

232/6

232/7

232/8

224/41

224/42

231/8

231/9

231/10

231/6

231/11

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

5 00

00 00 00

34 00 20

32 00 13

95 00 02 46 00 00

82 00

11 00 00

30 00

54 00

55 00 05

60 00 04

47 00 00

61 00 03

66 06

49 00 03

69 00

25 00

79 03

00 00

80 00 06

11 00 02

.11 00

60 05

25 25

89 01

02 00

00 04

04 00

26 05

87 02

65 00 02

19 00 01

09 00 01

17 00

68 03

98 00

72 00 05

17 00 15

43 00 02

93 5743

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

231/12 1) लोलुगा (निरंतर)

231/5

231/13

231/14

231/20

231/21

231/15

231/17

231/19

149

2) बुरिंडाकंचाराम

150/1

150/4

150/3

148

5 3

97 00 00

61 00 01

08 00

00 00

94 00

05 00 01

52 00 06

27 00

28 04

42 00 06

64 00 00

146/10डी

146/16

146/15

146/14

146/17

146/18

145/1

145/2

145/3

145/4

145/5

145/6

145/12

145/11

145/24

143/3

143/2

143/1

143/7

143/6

143/8

143/9

143/10

129/21

129/18

129/17

130/14

130/13 3360 G1/09-17

62 00

36 00 03

60 06

75 02

11 00

18 00 00

00 09

98 00

67 06

06 03

43 00

12 27

43 00

00 03

59 01

58 00

61 04

82 00

63 04

10 00

00 07

32 03

10 00 00

74 00

76 00

23 00

10 04

58 00 5744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

2 1

130/12 2) बुरिंडाकंचाराम (निरंतर)

130/11

130/10

130/9

130/8

130/5

142/10

142/9

142/8

142/7

142/6

142/5

142/4

142/3

130/15

142/2

142/1

142/12

142/16

133/6

133/9

133/8

133/10

133/13

133/12

133/11

133/4

134

121

40/14

40/17

40/16

40/15

40/12

40/11

40/10

40/9

40/6

40/5

40/4

118/4

118/1 [Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)] 4

5 00 02

95 00

74 01

24 00 00

97 00 00

53 00 00

18 00

17 00

82 00

39 02

00 02

07 00 02

78 01

64 00 00

33 00 02

29 02

94 00

11 00

10 00

00 02

91 02

04 00 05

58 00

90 00

26 00

10 00

42 00

91 00 03

35 00

49 00

86 00

21 00

65 00

43 00

00 00

10 00

00 09

58 5745

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

2 1

118/2 2) बुर्रिडाकंचाराम (निरंतर)

42/37

42/38

114/1

114/2

114/5

43/18

43/23

43/24

43/28

43/31

43/30

43/29

43/27

43/26

43/11

113

184

112

181/1

181/2

181/3

110

107

108

72/7

72/6

72/9.

72/5

72/4

72/11

72/12

71/20

71/13

71/14

71/15

71/16:

71/19

71/18

71/17

71/21

74/11

5 05

13 00

00 02

05 00 08

98 00

10 00 00

23 00

66 00

00 01

33 00 08

21 00

10 00

00 01

04 02

49 00 00

82 00

10 00 05

83 50

54 00 .01

71 06

99 00

85 00

24 03

00 00

11 00 30

24 00 40

00 -17

91 00

18 00

79 00 10

29 00. 01

00 03

86 00

36 00

00 00

87 00

14 11

35 00 03

64 00. 05

00 01

83 00 02

18 00 05

82 00

25 0001

06 00 02 5746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

74/10 2 ) बुरिंडाकंचाराम (निरंतर)

74/2

74/3

74/1

63/20

63/10

63/6

63/7

63/9

63/8

62/11

62/10

62/9

62/8

62/7

62/6

77/6

77/5

77/3

77/4

77/2

77/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ]

00 06

62 00

91 00 08

84 00

00 09

48 -00 11

81 00 05

44 00

9.6 00 02

70 00 05

93 00 06

65 00

00 07

52 00 07

59 00 05

45 00 02

50 00

20 00 02

34 00 03

18 00 02

97 00 09

15 00 08

55 [फा. सं. एल-14014/33/2009-जी.पी.

के.के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23th September, 2009

S. O. 2648. Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation ofnatural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/s . Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts ofthe country, Kakinada-Basudebpur -Howrah gas pipeline shouldbe laidby M/s . Relogistics Infrastructure Limited ;

And, whereas, it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such 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 hereto;

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

Anyperson interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date of which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe said Act , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition ofRight ofUser therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri K. Gangachalam, Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, D. No. 67-11-21 / 2 , Savnisuja, Opp New Centuary Public School , L. B. Nagar, Kakinada -533003 , East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh State.

5747

भारत काराजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Schedule

District: Srikakulam Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Laveru

State : ANDHRA PRADESH

Survey No./Sub-Division No

Village

2 1

118/18 1) Garugubilli

118/23

118/24A

118/24B

118/25

Inbet. Svy. No. 118/18 & Svy . No. 120/ 14A 00

120/1

120/3

120/4

120/6

120/7

120/8

120/9

120/11

120/12

120/13

120/14A

120/14B

120/15

120/16

123/1

123/2

124/ 1A

124/2

122 /3A

122/3B

122/4

122/5A

122/5B

122/6A

122/6B

122/9A

141/ 1A

141/ 1B

141/2

141 /3A

141/3B Area to be acquired for RoU Hec

Are 4.

C-Are 5

00 :01

05 5748

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

141/4 1) Garugubilli (Contd)

141 / 14A

141/14B

141/ 15A

141/153

141/18A

140/2

140/4B

140/5

140/6A

140/6B

140/7

140/8A

140/8B

140/9A

140/9B

140/ 10A

140/11A

140/11B

140/12

140/13

140/14A

140/15A

140/16A

139/24A

137/ 1A

137/1B

137/ 2A

137/2B

137/3A

137/3B

137/4

137/5A

137/ 5B

137/14

137 /16A

137/ 17A

137/17B

137/ 18A

137/19A

138/16B

138/17 3

-65

33 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5749

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

2 1) Garugubilli(Contd)

138/18B

138/ 19B

138/20B

138/21A

138/21B

138 / 22A

138/ 22B

138 /23A

138/23B

138/24A

133/14B

133/15

133/16

135/ 1A

134/1A

135/ 1B

135/9A

135/10

134/ 1B

134/2

134/4

134/ 5A

134/7

52/1

52/2B

52/3

52/2A

50/5A

50/5B

50/6

50/7

50/9

50/14

50/15

50/16A

51/1

51/4

51/5

48/1B

48/2

08.

46 5750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

48/3 1) Garugubilli (Contd)

48/4A

48/5

47/6

47/7

23/3

2) Sigirikottapalli

23/1

23/2

6/1

6/8

6/7

6/2

6/3

5/7

5/20

5/8

5/19

5/18

5/9

5/26

5/27

5/17

5/16

5/28

3/3

3/2

382

3) Adapaka

383

186/17

186/18

186/16

187/12

187/13

187/14

187/16

187/17

187/18

187/8

187/9

188/11

188/13

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

5 00

00 .

85 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

188/14 3) Adapaka (Contd)

188/15

188/16

188/17

188/21

188/7

188/8

191/10

191/11

191/15

191/16

191/6

191/7

191/9

191/5

191/4

192/1

192/2

192/5

193/1

215/4

215/5

215/6

216/10

216/5

216/3

216/4

216/6

216/7

216/8

216/9

230/1

230/12

230/13

230/14

230/3

230/4

230/7

230/8

232/1

234/11

234/12 3360 G1/09-18

5751 3

02.

00 5752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

2 1

234/13 3) Adapaka ( Contd)

234/14

234/15

234/16

234/18

234/33

234/35

234/36

234/37

234/38

234/39

235/1

235/10

235/11

235/17

235/18

235/2

235/25

235/26

235/3

235/4

235/5

235/9

235/6

236/1

236/2

237/11

237/16

237/17

237/18

238/11

238/14

238/15

238/16

238/17

238/2

238/4

238/5

238/6

239/1

239/2

239/3

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)] 4

15 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26 , 2009/ आश्विन 4, 1931

2 1

239/4 3) Adapaka ( Contd)

239/6

239/7

240

241/10

241/20

373/19

373/20

373/21

373/22

373/23

373/24

373/25

373/26

373/27

373/4

373/5

374/1

374/19

374/2

374/21

374/3

374/6

374/7

375/12

375/13

375/2

375/3

375/4

376/1

378/1

378/14

378/2

378/3

378/4

378/5

378/6

378/7

378/8

378/9

378/10

379/1

5753 4

00 00

00 .

98 5754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4, 1931

2 3) Adapaka ( Contd)

379/3

380/4

380/5

398/10

398/11

398/12

398/18

398/7

398/8

399/1

399/2

399/3

399/4

400

401

402/1

403/1

403/2

403/4

403/5

404

In bet . Suy no . 383 & 382

105/19 4) Peddakottapalli

105/20

105/24

105/21

105/22

105/23

106/14

106/13

106/12

106/11

101/6B

101/6A

106/10

101/5

101/4

101/3

101/1

101/2

101/12

101/13

[Part II Sec . 3 (ii) ] 4

68 भारत क्रा राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

100/8 4) Peddakottapalli (Contd)

100/10

100/9

99/19

99/18

99/16

99/15

99/14

99/13

99/10

99/3

99/4

99/5

99/8

99/7

99/6

80/44

80/43

82/3

82/2

80/33

80/32

82/1

82/11

82/12

82/13

82/20

82/15

82/14

82/16

82/17

81/6

81/4

81/3

81/2

81/1

50/39

50/30

50/31

50/32

50/38

50/33

5755

00-

ΟΙ

1-8

00 5756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASHVINA 4 , 1931

2 4) Peddakottapalli ( Contd)

50/37

50/36

50/35

146/5

146/6

50/26

146/4

146/8

146/3

146/14

146/1

146/2

146/15

146/16

146/17

146/18

150/13

147

150/33.

150/36

150/12

150/11

150/39

150/10

150/40

150/41

150/42

150/5

150/6

150/4

150/43

150/46

150/47

150/58

150/48

150/49

150/51

150/52

149

148/5

45/28

45/27

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

01.

98 5757

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

45/26 4) Peddakottapalli (Contd)

155/3

155/4

155/5

155/8

155/9

155/10

155/14

155/15

155/16

155/17

155/18

155/19

156

44/11

44/12

44/13

44/14

44/15

44/16

44/17

33/9

33/16

33/17

33/15

33/14

34/14

44/22

34/22

34/21

34/20

34/19

35/4

35/2

37/5

35/3

36/6

37/4

37/3

38/1

District: Srikakulam Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk: Ponduru

151

1) Loluga

152/5 4

State: ANDHRA PRADESH 16

06 5758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASHVINA 4 , 1931

2 1

152/4 1) Loluga ( Contd)

152/3

152/6

152/7

152/8

152/9

154/7

155/30

155/31

155/32

155/23

155/22

155/21

155/20

155/19

155/18

155/17

155/16

155/10

155/9

155/11

155/15

155/14

155/13

186/13

189/4

189/2

189/3

190/22

190/23

190/15

190/13

190/14

196/16

196/12

196/11

196/1

196/8

196/9

196/10

196/4

196/2

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

00.

00,

10 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

196/3 1) Loluga (Contd)

196/7

196/5

196/6

194/27

194/28

194/25

195

193

200/52

200/51

200/50

200/54

200/55

203/39

200/40

200/39

203/2

203/1

203/3

200/38

203/4

203/5

203/6

203/8

203/7

201/19

203/9

201/20

201/46

201/47

201/50

201/51

201/49

202

209/15-

209/16

209/14

209/12

209/7

209/8

209/6 3360 G1/09-19

5759 4

00 .

00.

01 5760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASHVINA 4 , 1931

2 1) Loluga (Contd)

209/9

209/1

209/4

210/20-

210/9

214/15

214/6

214/9

214/7

214/4

214/5

214/3

214/2

213/22

216/20

215

217/6

217/2

216/19

216/18

216/17

217/5

217/4

217/3

223/1

233/1

232/31

232/1

232/2

232/3

232/4

232/5

232/6

232/7

232/8

224/41

224/42

231/8

231/9

231/10

231/6

231/11

[Part II-Sec. 3( ii )] 4

00 . 06

93 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26 , 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

231/12 1) Loluga ( Contd)

231/5

231/13

231/14

231/20

231/21

231/15

231/17

231/19

149

2) Burindakancharam

150/1

150/4

150/3

148

146/10D

146/16

146/15

146/14

146/17

146/18

145/1

145/2

145/3

145/4

145/5

145/6

145/12

145/11

145/24

143/3

143/2

143/1

143/7

143/6

143/8

143/9

143/10

129/21

129/18

129/17

130/14

130/13

130/12

130/11

130/10

130/9

130/8

130/5

142/10

142/9

142/8

5761 4

00.

39 .

5762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASHVINA 4 , 1931

2 2) Burindakancharam ( Contd)

142/7

142/6

142/5

142/4

142/3

130/15

142/2

142/1

142/12

142/16

133/6

133/9

133/8

133/10

133/13

133/12

133/11

133/4

134

121

40/14

40/17

40/16

40/15

40/12

40/11

40/10

40/9

40/6

40/5

40/4

118/4

118/1

118/2

42/37

42/38

114/1

114/2

114/5

43/18

43/23

43/24

43/28

43/31

43/30

43/29

43/27

43/26

43/11

113

184

112

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

90 00

99 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

181/1 2) Burindakancharam (Contd )

181/2

181/3

110

107

108

72/7

72/6

72/9

72/5

72/4

72/11

72/12

71/20

71/13

71/14

71/15

71/16

71/19

71/18

71/17

71/21

74/11

74/10

74/2

74/3

74/1

63/20

63/10

63/6

63/7

63/9

63/8

62/11

62/10

62/9

62/8

62/7

62/6

77/6

77/5

77/3

77/4

77/2

77/1

5763

01.

[F. No. L-14014/33/2009-G.P. K.K.SHARMA , Under Secy.

5764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2009

Sh . Suraj Singh was employed as a casual labour, oftenand then at Circle Stationery Department , State Bank ofIndia , Faridabad , Haryana, in case ofneed. He worked there somewhere in the month of April , May , June and July, 2000. His wages were paid. He was not employed thereafter . Feeling aggrieved he raised an industrial dispute . Since conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal vide letter No.L- 12012/ 267/ 2004-1R ( B - I ) dated 3/21-3-2005 with followingterms:

का.आ. 2649.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , संख्या I , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/267/2004- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofIndia in terminating the services ofShri Suraj Singh s/ o Shri Pat Ram Sorter- cum- Messenger w.e.f. 15-10-2001 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

New Delhi , the 25th August, 2009

S.O. 2649. In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 10/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum -Labour Court- I, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25-8-2009.

[ No. L- 12012/267/2004- IR(B-I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2.Claim statement was filed by the workman , pleading therein that he was appointed as Sorter- cum- Messenger bythe Bank in January, 1999 , against regular vacancy and paid on daily wages basis . He worked there in the bank for 250 days in 1999,252 days in 2000 and 245days in 2001. He wasbeing paid @ Rs . 501 per day. When he requested for payment ofwages in accordance with Bipartite Settlements , besides regularization of his job , it irked the management . Assistant General Manager terminated his services on 15-10-01 without any speaking order . He was not allowed tojoinhis duties on 16-10-01 . Neither any appointment letter nor termination letter was issued to him . Termination ofhis services is in violation of the provisions of section 25-F, 25G and 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act) . Though he was performing duties of a regular employee yet he was shown as a temporary employee by the management . Neither notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. He seeks reinstatement in service with continuity and fullback wages.

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

I. D. No. 10/2005

Shri Suraj Singh S /o Shri Pat Ram , C/o Shri J.N. Kapoor, R/o 33-34 , Bank Enclave , Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, NcwDelhi

Workman

Versus

The Assistant General Manager ,

State Bank of India , Stationery Department , Sector- 6, Plot No. 3 , Faridabad.

3. Contest to claim was given by the management, pleading therein that the claimant was never appointed as Sorter-cum-Messenger by the management . It was denied that he worked in the bank from January , 99 to October , 2001. It was further denied that he rendered 250 days service in 1999 , 252 days in 2000 and 245 days service in 2001. He was not appointed against any vacancy , hence there was no question of paying him Rs . 50 per day . It has beenpleaded that allegations to the effect that his services were terminated on 15-10-2001 are uncalled for . Since he was never taken in the service of the bank , therefore , question of compliance of the provisions of section 25F , Gand H of the Act does not arise . It is pleaded that occasionally he was engaged for doing somejob ofpurely casual in nature . That engagement cannot be construed that he was appointed in the bank as a Sorter- cum- Messenger. It was claimed that he is not entitled to any

.Management 5765 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

relief muchless relief of reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

4.Workman opted not to come forward to establish facts pleaded by him in his claim statement . Management has examined Shri Indra Singh Kaler , Chief Manager, Circle Stationery Department . State Bank of India, Faridabad, Haryana to substantiate its stand . No other witness was examined in the case .

thatthe workman worked with the bank for a few days in April , May, June and one day in July, 2000 , for which he moved written applications for payment of his wages . Thoseapplications are proved as Ex.MWI/ 1.to Ex.MWI /4 . Outofthe contents of these applications , it came to light that the claimant worked as a casual labour with the management for 3 days in April , 4 days in May, 4 days in June and one day in July , 2000 , for which his payments were released . These facts bring it over the record that the claimant had not rendered 240 days continuous service with the management bank in a calender year , to claim benefits of an industrial employee .

5.Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri J.N.Kapoor, authorized representative , presented facts on behalf of the workman . Shri J.Buther , authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the management . I have givenmycareful consideration to the arguments advanced atthe bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

9. An employee , who was made to perform casual work for a few days cannot claim himself to be a regular employee of the Bank . Burden of proof was there on the workman to establish that he rendered continuous service for 240 days in a calendar year. This burden was not discharged by him . Consequently, it has come over the record that he was not an industrial employee , working with the management bank. In such a situation provisions ofthe Act does not come to his rescue . Law to this effect was laid in Kishore Chander Samuel (2006 LLR 65 SC ) Rakesh Kumar (2006 LLR 1144) Shamal Chand Bhowmik (2006( 1 ) SCC- 337) and Gangaben Laljibhai ( 2006 VI AD (SC) 31 ).

6. Shri Indra Singh Kaler deposed that the claimant was never appointed as Sorter- cum- Messenger in the bank. There was no question ofpaying him on daily wage basis. The bank has its own recruitment procedure for making appointments . Claimant was never recruited in accordance with the recruitment procedure of the bank. He projects that he has not worked for 250 days in 1999, 252days in 2000 and 245 days in 2001 , as claimed by him . Heunfolds that since the claimant was never appointed in the service of the bank , no question arises to pay him @ Rs . 50 per day . He never marked his attendance . Occasionally he was engaged on casual basis for odd jobs ofpurely casual in nature . His claim that his services were terminated on 15-10-2001 is false . He denies that the claimant had rendered continuous service of more than 240 days in a calender year . He denied that he rendered continuous service as Sorter - cum- Messenger for a period of 747 days from 1999 to 2001. He asserts that the claimant was paid labour charges for the casual work performed vide documents Ex.MWl /l to Ex . MWI /4 .

10. In view of the reasons referred above , it is evident that the claimant was not appointed by the management bank as Sorter- cum- Messenger . In such a situation question of terminating his services does not arise . Non- engagement of the services of Suraj Singh by the management bank , when there was no work for him nowhere comes in the arena of unjustifiability and illegality . Themanagement bank was within its rights not to engage Suraj Singh, for casual jobs any further . Suraj Singh is not entitled to any relief of whatsoever nature . The reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 11-8-2009

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2009 7. Out of facts projected by Shri Kaler , it Came to light that the claimant was never engaged as Sorter- cum- Messenger by the Bank. It has not emerged over the record that Suraj Singh rendered continuous service of 250 days in 1999 , 252 days in 2000 and 245 days in 2001. Onus was on the workman to establish that he rendered continuous service for more than 240 days in a calendar year . Not to talk ofdischarging the onus resting on him , workman opted not to enter the witness box . Under these circumstances it became crystal clear that the workman has failed to establish that he was employed as Sorter - cum- Messenger by the management Bank .

का.आ. 2650.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थ वेस्ट रेलवे एवं श्री राजेन्द्र कुमार के बीच निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रमः न्यायालय अजमेर द्वारा पारित पंचाट दिनांक 28-11-2002 में दिनांक 5-3-93 के स्थान पर 5-2-93 पढा जाये संदर्भ संख्या 16/99 के संशोधन को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/ 145/99- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 8. No evidence worth name came over the record to suggest that the workman rendered continuous service of more than 240 days in a calender year as contemplated by Section 25 -B of the Act . Consequently provisions of Section 25F , 25G and 25H of the Act never came into operation, in this case . On the other hand Shri Kaler proved 5766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009

उपरोक्तानुसार अवार्ड में संशोधन लाल स्याही से किया जावे ।

मिसिल फैसल शुमार होकर दाखिल दफ्तर हो ।

ह./

न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त , 2009

S.O. 2650.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Corrigendum in r/o Ref. No. 16/99 of Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court , Ajmer (Raj) stating that in the award passed on 28-11-2002 the date5-3-93 maybe read as 5-2-93 , in respect of industrial dispute between the management of North West Railway and Shri Rajendra Kumar , received by the Central Government on 26-8-2009.

[ No. L-41012/ 145/99- IR(B- I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

अनुबंध

का.आ. 2651.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , संख्या I , चण्डीगढ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 153/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/57/96- आई आर ( बी 1 ) | श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , अजमेर प्रकरण संख्या सी.आई.टी.आर. 16/99

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2009

प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित अप्रार्थी अधिवक्ता उपस्थित उभय पक्ष को प्रार्थी के प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 23-12-2008 पर सुना गया पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया प्रार्थी के प्राथर्ना पत्र में अंकित विवादित तिथि 5-2-93 के स्थान पर 5-3-93 अवार्ड दिनांक 28-11-2002 में अंकित है जबकि वास्तविक तिथि 5-2-93 सेवा मुक्ति की है जो टंकण त्रुटि से 5-3-93 टकित हुई है ।

S.O. 2651. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 153/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum -Labour Court - I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Patiala and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 26-8-2009.

[ No. L - 12012/ 57/ 96- IR( 13-1) | उक्तअवार्ड के विरूद्ध अप्रार्थी पक्ष में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय एकल/खंड पीठ जयपुर में S B Civil Write petition No. 1247/03 प्रस्तुत करी थी जिसमें माननीय न्यायालय के award दिनांक 28-11-2002 को " विधि की समस्त अपेक्षित अपेक्षाओं को पूर्ण करते हुए पारित किया गया है हस्तक्षेप करने की " मैं कोई आवश्यकता नहीं समझता हूँ " वर्णित कर यथावत रखा है ।

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

उक्त award का Notification दिनांक 24-1-03 को केन्द्र सरकार श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा भी किया जा चुका है ।

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT प्रार्थी पक्ष ने इस न्यायालय में CLCC 3/08 वास्ते अप्रार्थी से अवार्ड के अनुसार क्लेम प्राप्त करने हेतु, प्रस्तुत कर रखा है ।

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case I.D.No. 153/97

उभय पक्ष के सुनने व पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि टंकण त्रुटि से Removal of service दिनांक 5-2-93 के स्थान पर 5-3-93 टंकित हो गया है ।

The Deputy General Secretary , All India State Bank of Patiala Staff Federation , C/o 307, Housing Board , Jind .

....Applicant

Versus

The General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, The Mall , Patiala.

Respondent प्रार्थी ने प्रस्तुत क्लेम में तथा अप्रार्थी ने क्लेम के जबाव व प्रार्थी राजेन्द्र की साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत शपथ पत्र में सेवा मुक्ति दिनांक 5-2-93 को ही स्वीकार किया है । अतः 5-3-93 के स्थान पर 5-2-93 संशोधित किया जाना न्यायसंगत है प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार किया जाता है । निम्न संशोधन प्रकाशनार्थ केन्द्र सरकार को भेजा जावे ।

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

:Sh . Raj Kaushik

:Sh . N. K. Zakhmi

For the Management

C. I. T. R. No. 16/99 उनवान राजेन्द्र कुमार बनाम पश्चिम रेलवे , अजमेर में पारित अवार्ड दिनांक 28-11-02 में तारीख 5-3-93 को 5-2-93 पढा जावे । [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

5767

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4 , 1931

AWARD

Passed on 17-8-09

Government of India vide Notification No. L- 12012/ 57/96- IR(B- I) dated 16-7-97, by exercising its powers under Section 10 ofthe Industrial Dispute Act ( herein referred as anAct), referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofPatiala, Patiala in imposing punishment on Sh. Shyam Lal Mehta, Cashier- cum-Clerk of Bhiwani Branch i.e. ( 1 ) Reversion of Sh. Mehta from Clerical to Subordinate (2) to effect the recovery and (3 ) to stop 4 annual grade increments with future effect, is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

The facts of the claim are that the workman was awarded three punishments by the disciplinary authority on the basis of inquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer after conducting the detailed inquiry . The punishments were:-

1. Reversion of the workman from Clerical to Subordinate,

2. Recovery of the amount which he has received during theperiod he had worked as a clerk, and 3. To stop four annual grade increments with future affect.

As stated earlier, three punishments were imposed by the disciplinary authority after inquiry conducted on the basis of charge-sheet issued to the workman on the facts that the workman obtained his promotion from subordinate to clerical grade on the basis of false and fabricated matericulation certificate.

The workman challenged the inquiry and punishments inhis claim petition on the ground ofviolation of principle of natural justice. it is also contended by the workman that the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct, if any.

The management of bank justified his action on the ground that the lesser punishments were given by the disciplinary authority on the basis of inquiry report given by the enquiry officer after conducting a fair and proper inquiry.

The issue regarding the genuineness of inquiry has beendecided by this Tribunal vide order dated 09-02-2009. Inthe order dated 09-02--2009 , it was held by this Tribunal , on the genuineness of the inquiry that the inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and there has been no violation ofany rule of principle ofnaturaljustice . The question of decision making (perversity in evaluation of evidence , if any) was call upon for the parties to prove.

3360 GI/09-20

Bothof the parties were asked to adduced evidence on the perversity in decision making , if any, and the quantum of punishment . No evidence was adduced by any of the parties.

I have gone through inquiry report , inquiry proceedings and the proceeding held by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority.

The main contention of the workman is that there has been violation of principle of natural justice by the disciplinary authority because after receiving the inquiry report , disciplinary authority without affording the opportunity of being heard concur the findings of the enquiry officer and awarded the punishment to the workman. The workman has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court of India published in 1994( 1 ) Recent Services Judgment 443 , Managing Director, ECIL , Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar.

The workman has relied on Paras 9 and 27 of the judgment . I have gone through not only Para No.9 and 27 but entire judgment . This case was related to ECIL , Hyderabad, having the different rules than that of State Bank ofPatiala. Instead of it, ratio of the judgment is equally applicabie on the issue of violation of principle of natural justice. In this judgment the consequences of non- supplying of inquiry report and the procedure to be adopted by the disciplinary authority before awarding the punishment are given. in the instant case the copy of inquiry report was provided to the workman along with the show cause notice .On the plain reading of show cause notice, it is evident that the disciplinary authority passed an order that he concurred the finding of enquiry officer, and thereafter, provided the opportunity to the workman to reply the inquiry report . Proposed punishments were also mentioned in show cause notice . It means even after concurring the finding of the enquiry officer, it was open to the disciplinary authority to take any decision on the inquiry report. After perusing the reply of workman on show cause notice , the disciplinary authority was at liberty todischarge the notice given to the workman and ordered him to scot free from the charges. He could have altered the punishmentproposed in the show cause notice , ifthe workman had satisfied the disciplinary authority that the proposed punishment is not proportionate to the misconduct .

It isthe requirement of rules ofdepartment that the disciplinary authority has to concurred the finding and issue the show cause notice with proposed punishments . Itdoes not mean that disciplinary authority has no power on presentation of the workman , but to award the punishments proposed in the show cause notice . Discretion of the disciplinary authority was open to be exercised even after receiving the representation of the workman on show cause notice . Thus , no prejudice was caused to the workman by just writing one sentence 5768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] regarding the concurring to finding or the enquiry officer in show cause notice . In the judgment relied upon by the workman in Para No. 30 Clause V it has been held by the SupremeCourt.

would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only ifthe Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. Where after following the above procedure , the Courts/ Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/managementto proceed with the inquiry , by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back- wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstaternent if ultimately ordered, should invariably he left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome . If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benetits , if any and the extent ofthebenefits , he will be entitled . The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside or the inquiry for failure to furnish the report , should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more , where such fresh inquiry is held . That will also be the correct position in law" .

"The next question to be answered is what the effect onthe order ofpunishment when the report of the Enquiry Officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases . The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. Whenthe employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non - furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence, to direct reinstatement of the employee with back- wages in all cases is to reduce the rules ofjustice to a mechanical ritual . The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights . They are not incantations tobe invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions . Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report , has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case . Where, therefore , even after the fumishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits . It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept ofjustice to illogical and exasperating limits . It amounts to an"unnatural expansion of natural justice " which in itself is antithetical to justice".

It means that when the issue regarding violation of principle of natural justice is raised by the workman the Tribunal has to see the prejudice caused to the workman for violation of any of his rights to which he termed to violation ofprinciple of natural justice?

The court further held :

In this case , as stated earlier that no prejudice was caused to him and proper and adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded before awarding the punishment . Thus , the decision making process of disciplinary authority doesn't suffer with any illegality on plea of workman on violation of principle of natural justice.

The next question to answer is whether the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority to the workman is adequate and proportionate to the misconduct? As stated earlier, the workman was guilty of getting this promotion on forged and fraudulent matriculation certificate . For this misconduct he was awarded three punishments as mentioned above . The punishment No. 1 and 3 seems to be the proportionate punishment with the committed misconduct . But the punishment No.2 regarding the recovery of wages from the workman is not justified and seems to be the punishment which is not proportionate to the committed misconduct . The workman was promoted to the clerical grade . He worked as a Clerk and was given the wages of Clerk . It is true that he was "Hence, in all cases where the enquiry officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings , the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court/Tribunal , and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non - supply of the report . If after hearing the parties , the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non - supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/ Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The Courts should avoid resorting to short - cuts . Since it is the Courts /Tribunal which will apply their judicial mind to the question and given their reasons for setting aside the order of punishment , (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority) , there [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5769

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4 , 1931

promoted to the Clerical grade on the basis of forged and fabricated matriculation certificate, but the wages are linked with the working of a workman in particular cadre . The workman worked as a Clerk and as such it had close nexus with the getting ofwages . Even after the promotion tothe Clerical grade was given on a forged and fabricated. document, the workman cannot be denied the wages for the work he discharged as a Clerk. Thus , the recovery of amount ofwages is illegal . Accordingly, it is directedthat ifthe entire amount has not been recovered, the recovery shall be stopped at once and the amount which has already been recovered shall be returned to the workman along with 7% interest per annum from the date of recovery till the final payment.

Accordingly, this reference is answered that a fair and proper inquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer. There was no violation of principle of natural justice . Punishment No. 1 and 3 awarded to the workman are proportionate to the misconduct, whereas, punishment No. 2 is void. The wages cannot be recovered from the workman because actually he has worked as a Clerk. Ifthe entire amount has not been recovered, the recovery is stopped. However , if the entire amount has been recovered or it has recovered in part , the management of the bank is directed to return the same within one month from the date of publication of the award along with 7% interest from the date ofdeduction ofthe amount till final payment. Let Central Government be informed for publication of award , and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.. 2652.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , संख्या I , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1306/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/149/2006- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 26th August, 2009

S.O. 2652.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1306/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum - Labour Court - I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26-8-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 149/2006- IR(B- I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Case I.D.No. 1306/2007

The President, State Bank of India, SBI SC/ST Employees ' Association, H. No. 3086, Sector -44-D, Chandigarh.

...Applicant

Versus

TheDeputy General Manager , State Bank of India, Module- II , Z.O. (Pb. ), Ludhiana (Punjab)

....Respondent APPEARANCES

For the Workman

None.

For theManagement :

Shri Ashok Kumar Khullar.

AWARD

Passed on 12-8-09

The Central Government vide Notification No. L- 12012/ 149/2006- IR (B-I) dated 8-2-2007 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bankof India, Ludhiana in imposing the penalty of lowering two stages down in pay of Sh . T. P. Singh is illegal and unjustified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

2. Case repeatedly called . None appeared for the workman. The reference was referred by the Central Government in2007 and already two years old. It appeared thatworkman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned as such to the Central Government for want of prosecution . The Central Government be informed. File be consigned.

Chandigarh.

12-8-2009

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2653.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध 5770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

other employees of Northern Railway perporting same or similar nature of duties was fair , legal and unjustified? If not, to what relief they are entitledto and from which date ? "

में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या I , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1223/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -41011 /5/2005- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 26th August , 2009

2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the parties despite notice. This reference was referred by the CentralGovernment in the year 2005 and already four years old. It appeared that workman is not interested to pursue withthepresent reference . In view of the above the present reference is returned as such to the Central Government forwant ofprosecution . Central Government be informed. Filebe consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

10-8-2009

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 27 अगस्त, 2009 .

S.O. 2653. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1223/2005) 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, receivedby the Central Government on 26-8-2009.

[No. L-41011 /5/2005- IR(B- I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 2654.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

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

[सं. एल-22012/347/1992- आई आर ( सी-11 ) ] Case I.D.No. 1223/2005

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009 The Secretary, Uttar Railway Karamchari Union , EF -430, KrishnaNagar , M. G. Road , Jalandhar, Punjab .

....... Applicant

Versus

TheGeneral Manager , Northern Railway, Baroda House , NewDelhi

......Respondent

APPEARANCES

S.O. 2654. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/93 ) 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 WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-8-2009.

For the Workman

None

[No. L- 22012/347/ 1992- IR( C- II) ] :

None.

Forthe Management

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer AWARD

ANNEXURE

Passed on: 10-8-09

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

NO. CGIT /LC/R/48/93

The Central Government vide Notification No. L-41011 /5/2005 - IR (B -I ) , dated 21-11-2005 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan

General Secretary , Μ.Ρ.Κ.Κ.Μ.Ρ. (HMS) , PO Junnardeo ,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP) .......Workman/Union

Versus

"Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway, represented through General Manager , Northern Railway , Baroda House , New Delhi in not treating the Employees Cooperative Store Jalandhar at parwith other employees of Northern Railway and also by not giving benefits of the wages at par with 5771

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Manager,

DamuaColliery,

WCL, PO Damua, Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

proved beyond doubt obtained approval from Competent Authority and dismissed him w.e.f. 1-4-88 . Shri Santoo did not file any appeal against the dismissal order. It is submitted that the action ofthe management was justified and lawful .

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of August, 2009

4. The workman/ applicant absented in this proceeding. The predecessor's Court gave ample opportunity and lastly proceeded ex-parte on 3-6-08 against the workman .

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012/347/92- IR (C- II ) dated 23-2-73 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

5. The point for consideration is as to whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was legal and proper?

"Whether the action of the management of Damua Colliery of W.C. Ltd. , Kanhan Area, PO Damua, Distt . Chhindwara , in dismissing Shri Santoo S/oDhondoo, Badli Tub Loader/Temp. D.P.R. from services w.e.f. 1-4-88 is justified? If not, to what reliefthe worker is entitled to ? "

2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman was Tub Loader and had a clean service of 15 years. It is stated that he was never served with chargesheet rather enquiry letters were given on 12-2-88 and 13-2-88. As such , he failed to defend himself. It is alleged that his L.T.I. was taken on papers without disclosing the contents ofthe same as he was illiterate adivasi . It is stated thatex- parte proceeding was conducted and thereafter he was dismissed w.e.f. 1-4-88 . The dismissal order was not served rather orally he was stopped from work. It is submitted that the act of the management was illegal and in view to minimise the surplus workman . It is stated that he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages with costs .

6. To prove the case the management has adduced oral and documentary evidence. The workman has not adduced any evidence . Shri I. P. Bannerjee was Personnel Manager of Damua . He has stated that he was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the chargesheet was served on the workman Shri Santoo on his unauthorized absence which ismarked as Exhibit M/ 1 . His memo of appointment is marked as Exhibit- M/2 . He has further stated that the detailed departmental . enquiry was set up and again the chargesheet was served on the workman which is marked as Exhibit M/3 . He fixed the date of enquiry . On that day , the workman filed an application seeking time which is marked as Exhibit M/4. The date of enquiry was adjourned to 5-3-68 . On that day again the workman appeared and sought for time which was granted . M/5.1 and M/5.2 are the proceedings of the two dates . He has stated that thereafter the workman did not participated in the proceeding and after perusing the oral evidence and document submitted enquiry report which is marked as Exhibit- 7. Thereafter the Manager on approval passed the orderofdismissal w.e.f. 1-4-88 which is marked as Exhibit M/8 . He has been cross examined but there is nothing to disbelieve his evidence . It is also clear that there is no illegality in the proceeding and the principle of natural justice was followed. This issue is answered in favour of the management .

7. The another important point is as to whether the punishment was just and proper or not?

8. It is not out ofplace to say that the workman was Badli Tub Loader and the management was at liberty to strikeoff his name from the list of the colliery without any notice but even then , the management gave reasonable opportunity to defend the workman . He became absent evenin this proceeding and therefore in absence of the workman , it appears that there is no need to interfere in the order ofdismissal . This issue is also answered in favour of themanagement.

9. In the result, the award is passed ex parte against the workman and in favour of the management without costs.

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

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement in the case. The contention of the management is that the workman Shri Santoo was enlisted as a Badli Tub Loader (Daily Piece rated) worker at Damua Colliery of the employers on 15-12-1984. The badly Tub Loader is to meet the exigencies of work specially when the regular/ permanentworkers are temporarily absent from work either due to leave or other unforeseen reasons . The workman was supposed to report every day but he was very irregular in his attendance but from March 1985, he was continuously absent. He was served with chargesheet on 9-2-88 for a period ofthree years of his absence and directed to submit explanation . He did not submit his explanation . Again further opportunity was given to appear and defend himself in the departmental proceeding. Shri Santoo appeared before the enquiry officer and sought time which was granted . On the next date , he again appeared and sought time that his co- worker was not available . Thereafter he did not appear in the proceeding and the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte and held enquiry . The Enquiry Officer after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him found that the wokman was fit to be dismissed and, his name was fit to be struck off. The . Manager, Damua Colliery after considering the enquiry report arrived at the conclusion that the charges had been

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer 5772

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 27 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2655.-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 , न. I , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

This unfortunate reference came before this Tribunal for award after 18½ years from referring the reference by the Central Government . I am dictating it to be the unfortunate reference because it was infected with the infactious disease of delay in adjudication . Reasons may be many, it may be due to the court lying vacant for the substantial period of time or so many other reasons but the ultimate sufferer had been the workman who is a lady, which is still considered as the deprived class of the Indian society.

[सं. एल-22012 (432 )/एफ/ 1990- आईआर(सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

The Government of India vide Notification No. ' L-22012 (432)/F/ 90- IR( C - II) dated 25-2-1991 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication ofthis Tribunal : -

"Whether the demand of the workman Snit . Asha W/o Shri Vishnu Dass for his entployment as Typist with the management of FCI , Dist . Manager , Dist . Office,Harinder Nagar , Faridkot , w.e.f. 16-3-88 is just reasonable and legal? If yes , what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?" S.O. 2655.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on27-8-2009.

[No.L- 22012 (432)/F/ 1990- IR(C -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. No. 20/91

Smt . Asha , W/ o Shri Vishnu Dass ,

Gali Mohammad Khan,

Backside T.B. Hospital, NewAbadi,

Applicant

Faridkot (Pb)-151203

Versus

1. Senior Regional Manager,

The contention of the workman as is clear from the averments of statement of claim is that she was appointed as a Typist by Food Corporation of India , Faridkot on 31-12-1984 at the daily wages of Rs . 28. She was madeto work under he immediate employer of Industrial Securities and Allied Services ( Registered ) , Kapurthala from 20-10-1986 illegally because she was directly serving the Food Corporation of India and was getting the wages directly from the Food Corporation of India. It was further contendedbythe workman that she throughout the períod worked with the management and was under the administrative control of the Food Corporation of India . Her juniors were retained in the services , whereas , her services were terminated against the provisions of the Act . No notice or retrenchment compensation was given toher, which makes her termination illegal and void, being against the provisions of the Act . On the basis of above facts , the workman has requested for an order for her reinstatement into the services with full back wages and other consequential benefits .

Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Punjab , Sector-34, Chandigarh. 2. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, HarinderNagar, Faridkot (Pb. )- 151203 .

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : Shri Arun Kumar Batra,

Advocate

For the Management : Shri Ravi Kant Sharma Advocate

The management of Food Corporation of India contested the claim of the workman by filing written statement . It was alleged by the management of Food Corporation of India that the workman was engaged with the Food Corporation of India on 20-10-1986 through the Industrial Security and Allied Services , (the ISAS in short) . She was not directly appointed by the Food Corporation ofIndia, and accordingly, there was no employer -employee relationship. The management has denied the payment of anywages between 31-12-1984 to 20-10-1986. It was further contended by the management of Food Corporation of India that as the services of the workman were provided through the contractor , there was no question of termination of the services of the workman by the Food Corporation of India .

AWARD

Passed on 17-8-2009

Both of the parties were afforded opportunity for adducing evidence . Smt . Asha filed the affidavit and she 5773 [भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

was cross -examined by learned counsel for the management . On the other hand Shri B.M. Khosla, filed the affidavit on behalf of the management and he was cross-examined by learned counsel for the workman.

6. At the cost of repetition, the wages were paid directlyto the workman by the management of Food Corporation of India and the Acquaintance Rolls were prepared by the management of Food Corporation of India to make the payment to the workman.

Parties also preferred to file the documentary evidence. The photo copies of payment of wages for the year 1984 and 1985 have been filed by Smt. Asha, workman alongwith the office order. The management has filed the relevant documents regarding the payment of wages to the workman by FCI through the Director ISAS. These documents include , Sanction Order, License , Payment of wages to the Director ISAS , Attendance marked by the ISAS and verified by the officer of theFood Corporation ofIndia for the payment of wages . Smt. Asha, the workman has also filed an award passed in ID No. 7 of 1992 Smt. Rajwant Kaur Versus DM , FCI, dated 20-12-1999 . The certifiedcopies of evidence adduced and filed in ID No. 7 of1992 have also been filed by the workman .

If the above mentioned facts are applied to the instant case , it is evidently clear that workman has contendedthat she had worked with the Food Corporation ofIndia directly from 31-12-1984 to 16-3-1988 when her services were terminated by Food Corporation of India. On the other hand, the Food Corporation of India has deniedanyrelationship with the workman from 31-12-1984 to 20-10-1986, but contended that the workman worked withthe Food Corporation of India from 20-10-1986 and her services were provided by the Director ISAS . The documents filed by the workman prove that she worked with the Food Corporation of India in the year 1984 and 1985 as well . No doubt, zerox copies have been filed by theworkman, but the same shall be relied by this Tribunal. on account of failure of management to file the originals .

Ihaveheard learned counsel for the parties at length. I have also perused the entire materials on record. The mainissue for adjudication before this Tribunal is whether Smt. Asha, the workman was appointed directly by the management of Food Corporation of India and there existed a relationship of employee - employer between the Smt. Asha and management of Food Corporation of India?

The contention of the management in written statement and affidavit filed by the witnesses of the management is the same that workman had not worked with Food Corporation of India before 20-10-1986 , but the genuineness of these documents filed by the workman has not been challenged. It is no where the contention of the management of Food Corporation of India that these documents are forged or otherwise prepared and filed some other documents bearing the signatures of Assistant Manager for District Manager , FCI , Faridkot have been filed.

Itwill be proper to discuss the nature ofdocuments filed and relied by the workman . The documents are in two sets.One document is the amount of money to be paid to Smt . Asha, Typist C/ o Kalra Commercial College and another is order of payment which was made good to Smt . Asha . The language of the order of payment is as follows:-

First ofall it will be proper to mention the condition under which it can be said that a relationship ofemployer- employee between the parties . In the instant reference, the workman has challenged the nature of contractual appointment made through the Director of ISAS. The workman has further contended that the contract in between the contractor and the management of Food Corporation of India is camouflage and shame . This contention of the workman provided the opportunity to the Tribunal to discuss the circumstances under which a contract canbe declared as camouflage and sham . InGM, ONGC, Silcher Versus ONGC Contract Workers Union , 2008 - LLR- 801 , Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid downthe criteria to establish the direct employee-employer relationship between the workman and the management ofany organization . If we apply the ratio ofjudgment in GM,ONGC Silchur's case (supra) the workman has toprove the following facts to establish the employee -employer relationship:-

"Sanction of the District Manager is hereby conveyed for payment of Rs . 399.00 ( Rupees Three hundred ninety-nine only) in favour of Smt . Asha C/oKalra Commercial College , Faridkot, on account ofTyping work as per the detail enclosed . The typing workdone with effect from 1-9-85 to30-9-85 . " 1. That there existed a relationship of master and servant .

2. That there was no contractor appointed by the management of Food Corporation of India.

3. That the management of Food Corporation of India used to supervise the alleged work assigned to the workman.

4. That the management of Food Corporation of India took disciplinary action , if any, and calls for the explanation of the workman .

5. That the workman was paid wages by the management of Food Corporation of India directly and not through the contractor.

Likewise, there are several sets , which show the typing work of workman with management of Food Corporation of India and payment of wages . In the order passedby the District Manager for the payment of wages , it is nowhere mentioned that Smt . Asha is an employee of Kalra Commercial College, Fridkot. It is only mentioned that a certain amount is paid to Smt . Asha C/ o Kalra Commercial College , Fridkot. Moreover, these documents have not to be interpreted and considered in isolation. These are certain certificates issued by the Assistant Manager for District Manager Food Corporation of India, Faridkot. The language of all the certificates is the same , I 5774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] am quoting the language of one certificate which was issued for the month of July 1987 :-

"Certified that Smt . Asha, casual typist , has attended the typing work of QC Section during the month of July 87 except on 11th, 12th, 19th , 20th, 26th and 27th July 1987."

This certificate, as stated earlier has been signed by the Assistant Manager. There are several certificates of different period . Again, the payment order and these certificates are not to be considered in isolation . Here is an order passed by the Assistant Manager for District Manager , Food Corporation of India , District Office , Faridkot dated 9-4-87 . The file No. in which the orderNo. ispassed is E.5 ( Lab) / FDK/ QC - 87/ 395 dated 9-4-87 . The genuineness of this zerox order has not been challenged by the Food Corporation of India but originals have not beenfiled . Thus , there is no occasion for this Tribunal not to rely this document and to reads their content . The contents of the letter are as follows:-

"THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DISTRICT OFFICE, FARIDKOT

Corporationof India . Accordingly, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there existed employer- employee relationship between the workman and the Food Corporation of India . A paper arrangement was made by the Food Corporation of India for the purposes of making the payment good to the workman , whereas , there was no contract to provide the services of the workman to Food Corporation of India. This paper arrangement was made forthe period of 31-12-84 to 20-10-86 through the Kalra Commercial College , Faridkot and from 20-10-86 till the dateof termination ofthe services of the workman through the Director ISAS . As stated earlier , it is not established thatfor the period from 31-12-84 to 20-10-86, the services ofthe workman were provided through Kalra Commercial College , Faridkot and accordingly, there was no contract or contractor involved during this period . For the rest of the period i.e. after 20-10-86 , I am also of the view that it was a paper arrangement and in fact the services of the workman were continued to be taken directly by the management of Food Corporation of India for all purposes. The workman was working directly for the Food Corporationof India and her termination was made by the Food Corporation of India . Admittedly , the services were terminated without notice , or retranchment , which made the termination of the workman illegal and void being against the provisions of the Act .

FILE No. E.5 ( Lab )/FDK/QC- 87/395 Dated 9-4-87 Ondt . 4-4-87 , the District Manager was requested to post 1 ( One) typist in QC Section as QC work was suffering a lot due to an efficient typist.

Ourworthy District Manager advised me to ask Mrs. Asha to work in QC Section w.e. f. in the AN of4-4-87 and she will continue only in QC Section .

The message of District Manager was conveyedto the AM ( Movt . ) verbally and AM (Movt. ) verbally retrieved/ asked Mrs. Asha to work in QC Section . Therefore , Mrs. Asha is and will be working as typist in QC Section only.

Sd/-9-4-87 Asstt. Manager ( QC) ForFCI Distt . Office, Faridkot

To Asstt . Manager ( Admn .) FCI Local"

The workman has also relied on the award and some other documents relating to ID No. 7 of 1992 , Smt . Rajwant KaurVersus District Manager, Food Corporation of India , Faridkot . I have gone through the Award passed by this very Tribunal on 6-5-1999 and the other documents filed by the workman . In this award this Tribunal has declared the contract to be sham and camouflage and directed the Food Corporation of India for reinstatement of Smt . Rajwant Kaur with full back wages . She was also awarded the cost of litigation . On account of non implementation oftheaward , Smt. Rajwant Kaur filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Hon'ble Court after hearing both of the parties , directed the Food Corporation of India to reinstate the services of Smt. Rajwant Kaur with full back wages . I have gone through the order passed by Hon'ble High Court in Civil WritPetition No. 9680 of2001. In this order Hon'ble High Court had upheld the findings of the Tribunal even in a award dated 20-12-99 passed in ID No. 7 of 1992 declaring the contract as camouflage and sham . Smt. Rajwant Kaur is in service. Thus , two workman namely; Smt . Rajwant Kaur and Smt. Asha were equally placed employee of Food Corporation of India. The differential ties only in pleadings in ID No. 7 of 1992 Smt. Rajwant Kaur Vs. DM , Food Corporation of India , Faridkot , it was contended by the workman that she was appointed through an interview by the Food Corporation of India . It was denied and proved that she was interviewed by the Food Corporation of India , but was not selected , and thereafter , she was appointed on contract. This contract was found by this Tribunal as sham and camouflage . The second difference in pleadings isthat Smt . Rajwant Kaur in ID No. 7 of 1992 sought the protection of a Circular letter No. E- I (21 )/NZ - 1 / 276 , dated All the three documents mentioned above if taken altogether, it is established that the workman , Smt. Asha was directly engaged by the Food Corporation of India. She was paid wages directly upto 20-10-86 by the order passed by the Assistant Manager, Food Corporation of India . For the making of payment good, it was a paper arrangement that firstly she was paid the wages under C/o Kalra Commercial College , Faridkot , whereas , it has nowhere been established by the Food Corporation of India that the services of the workman were provided to the Food Corporation of India by Kalra Commercial College, Faridkot . Thus , for all purposes the workman was employed by the Food Corporation of India and not that of the Kalra Commercial College , Faridkot . Accordingly, there was a master- servant relationship between the two . It is also established by the certificates , order of payment and order passed by the management dated 9-4-87 that she was also under the administrative control of the Food 5775 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

S.O. 2656. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 90/97) 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 SECL and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on27-8-09 .

[No. L - 22012/ 115/ 1996- IR(C- II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/90/97

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan 11-8-89 of the Food Corporation of India regarding the regularization ofthe services ofthe casual workers engaged priorto 14-5-87 in Punjab Region. This tribunal considered, Smt. Rajwant Kaur as casual labour of Food Corporation of India and directed the Food Corporation of India to give the benefit of this Circular letter and this was upheld by Hon'ble High Court . No doubt, the workman in the instant case has not sought the benefit of this Circular letterbut she has requested this Tribunal for reinstatement ofher services withfull back wages and for ends ofjustice the benefit of Circular letter should be extended to the workman, if she is otherwise eligible . The ignorance of circular cannotprevent any workman from its benefit. On detailed scrutiny ofthe files Smt . Rajwant Kaur in ID No. 7 of 1992 , Iam of the view that these two workmen had similarly and equally placed. This is the reason that at the beginning of this award I have titled this reference as unfortunate . Both of these references should have been disposed off simultaneously but the reference of Smt . Rajwant Kaur was adjudicated in the year 1999 and this Tribunal got the occasion to answer this reference after 10 years .

Secretary,

Workman / Union

Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh , Chirimiri Area, Post West Chirimiri Colliery, Distt. Surguja (M.P. )

Versus

Apart from the findings given by this Tribunal in ID No. 7 of 1992, which were upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 9680 of 2001 , the workmanhas able to prove that she was appointed by the Food Corporation of India as casual typist and was under the administrative control ofthe Food Corporation of India. She has also proved that wages were paid to her by the Food Corporation of India and contract, if any, was a camouflage and sham.

The Sub AreaManager, DumanHillGroup ofMines , Post Sonawani Colliery, Distt. Surguja (M.P. )

.Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of August, 2009

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L- 22012/ 115/96- IR(C - II) dated 18-3-97- has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Chirimiri Area of SECL in dismissing Shri Jai Prasad, Gencral Mazdoor Cat- I from services w.e.f. 15-2-91 is legal and justified? If not,to what relief is the workman entitled ?" Thus, onboth of the counts namely ; proved by the workman her status as the casual typist and parity with Rajwant Kaur , I am of the view that the services of the workman Smt . Asha were illegally terminated by the Food Corporation of India and she is entitled for the reliefsought by her. Accordingly , management is directed to reinstate the services of the workman with full back wages within one month from the publication of the award. The management ofFood Corporation of India is also directed to give the benefit of Circular Letter No. E- I ( 21 )/NZ - 1 / 2761, dated 11-8-89 to the workman immediately. Let the CentralGovernment be approached for publication ofthe award, and thereafter , the file be consigned to record room.

G.K.SHARMA , Presiding Officer

2. The workman / Union did not appear inspite of notice. The predecessor's Court proceeded ex partc against him on 20-11-06.

नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2656. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.ई.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 90/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/115/ 1996- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]

3. The management appeared and filed written statement . The case of the management in short is that the workmanwas appointed on 2-10-83 as a General Mazdoor . He became absent from duty on several occasion without any reason . The management exonerated his misconduct only to give him opportunity to improve his conduct but he again remained absent unauthorisedly without any intimation, permission or leave . Lastly the workman was served with chargesheet. He gave reply alongwith documents but the same was found unsatisfactory.. Thereafter departmental proceeding was initiated against him and Shri S.K. Lahiri , Sr. Executive Engineer was अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

3360G1/09-21 5776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 27 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2657. 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 मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या60/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/264/2003- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th August , 2009

appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri R.P. Gupta was Presenting Officer of the management. The Enquiry Officer conducted the proceeding. The workman participated in the proceeding and admitted the charge leveled against him . The Management adduced his evidence . The workman declined to cross - examine the witnesses of the management. He also adduced his evidence in rebuttal . After enquiry proceeding , the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the workman and submitted his report before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority having satisfied that the proceeding was conducted after following the principle of natural justice and the charges were established against the workman and also taking into account his past records , passed the order of termination of the workman . He preferred appeal against the order of termination but the appellate authority found no marit dismissed the same . It is submitted that action ofthe managemant in dismissing the workman with effect from 15-2-91 is legal and proper.

S.O. 2657. In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputesAct, 1947 ( 14 of1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 60/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-8-09 .

4. The only point for consideration is that the action of the management in dismissing the workman w.e.f. 15-2-91 was legal , proper and justified or not?

[No. L-22012/264/2003 - IR (CM - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT IINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : N.K.Purohit , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 60/2004 Ref. No. L - 22012/264/ 2003- (CM - II ) dated 23-6-2004 Between The State Secretary

5. To prove the case , the management has adduced oral and documentary evience . Shri N.R.Das , who is Personnel Mananger in Duman Hill , SECL Chirimiri Area, is examined in the case . He has supported the case of the management. He has stated that the workman was appointed as General Mazdoor at Daman Hill Colliery and he was habitual absentee unauthorisedly without any leave . A charge - sheet was served on him which is marked as Exhibit M/ 1 . The workman gave reply which is Exhibit M/ 2 . The reply was found unsatisfactory as such departmental proceeding was initiated and Enquiry Officer was appointed which is M/ 3 . He has stated that the workman participated in the enquiry and opportunity was providedtodefend himself. He has stated that the workman admitted the charges . However the management adduced evidence . The workman also gave his evidence . His enquiry proceeding is marked as ExhibitM/5 .

Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh 5/6, Habibullah Estate Lucknow (Espousing Cause of Shri B. B. Lal )

And The Regional Manager Food Corporation of India 5/6 , Habibullah Estate Lucknow AWARD 12-08-2009 .

6. The Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the charges and submitted his report which is ExhibitM/ 6. The Competent Authority having satisfied that the charges had been proved against the workman passed the order of termination w.e.f. 15-2-91 which is Exhibit M/ 8 . There is no other evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of the management. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence ofthe management. I find that the enquiry was proper and principle of natural justice was followed . Thus the reference is answered in favour of the management .

7. In the result, the award is passed in favour of the management and agaist the workman without any costs.

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

1. By order No. L - 22012 /264/ 2003-(CM - II ) dated 23-6-2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh , 5/6 , Habibullah MOHD . SAHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Offcer 5777 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

arguments; and in pursuance thereof the workman filed it writtenargument .

Estate , Lucknow (Espousing cause of Shri B.B. Lal ) and the Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, 5/6 , Habibullah Estate , Lucknow for adjudication .

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"KYA PRABANDHAN BHARTIYA KHADYA NIGAM , LUCKNOW DWARAKARMKAAR SHRI B.B. LAL SERUPAY 33,964 KERECOVERY DANDAADESH DINANAK 14-1-2003 KE DWARA KIYA JANA NAYAYSANGAT HAI? YADI NAHI , TO SAMBANDHIT KARMKAAR KIS ANUTOSH KA HAQDAAR HAI ? "

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman was served upon a charge sheet dated 14-8-2002 under Regulation 60 of the Staff Regulation 1971 for alleged storage loss amounting to Rs . 1,02,975 and was penalized vide impugned order dated 14-1-2003 for recovery of Rs. 33,900 towards alleged storage loss .

8. On the date fixed for written submission of the management, the representative of the workman's union filedanapplication dated 10-8-2009 ( W-26) wherein it has been submitted that the workman concerned has been retired on 31-7-2009 and does not want pursue the case . Accordingly, it has been prayed that the present dispute be stood withdrawn , as not pressed and appropriate orders may be passed . The authorised represntative of the FC1 has also made its endorsement to the effect that he has no objection regarding withdrawal of the case . Subsequently, on 12-8-2009 the workman concerned filed an application dated 12-8-2009 ( W-27) wherein he has submitted that the matter under consideration in present industrial dispute has been settled down between the parties , as such , no dispute exists ; and accordingly , has prayed that no claim award be passed.

9. In view of the above since the matter in dispute has been settled down between the parties and grievances of the union and workman stand redressed, there is no need to adjudicate on merit of the dispute . There is no grievance left with the workman and the union concerned. Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned and no claim award is passed. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly .

10. Award as above .

Lucknow 21-8-2009 N.K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2009

4. Ithas been alleged by the workman's union that the opposite party passed impugned order dated 14-1-2003 without considering the reply dated 29-8-2002 of the workman for the said charge sheet , in as much as the management of FCI violated the provisions of Regulation 60( 1 ) (d) ofStaff Regulation 1971 while deciding the charges as its reasons were not supported by cogent evidence . The workman's union has submitted that there is no norm in FCI to decide the justification of storage loss and there are number of factors responsible for storage loss such as moisture content , micro -organisms , longer period of storage, degradation of grain, rodents , pests , birds etc. Further it has been submitted that the quality control wing is responsible for maintenance of quality of foodgrain andnot the workman who had no control over conditions .Accordingly , the workmar's union has prayed that the impugned order dated 14-1-2003 be set aside with consequential benefits to the workman concerned.

का.आ. 2658. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार फेडरल बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , एरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 33/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/313/2003- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 27th August, 2009

5.Themanagement of FCI, in its written statement has denied the allegation of the workman's union that it has passed impugned order in violation of any of the provisions ofStaff Regulations and has submitted that its conducted the disciplinary proceedings against the workman in bonafide manner and he was given proper opportunity to defend himself , against charges leveled against him, before passing the penalty order dated 14-1-2003 and there is nothing wrong with it; and accordingly, it has prayed that the claim of the workman's union be rejected without any relief to the workman concerned.

6. The workman's union has filed rejoinder whereby it has only reiterated its averments in the statement of claim and has not introduced any new fact.

S.O. 2658.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of Federal Bank Ltd. and their workman , received bythe Central Government on 27-8-09 .

7. The parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. The workman's union examined the workman in support of their case whereas themanagement did not examined any one in spite ofample opportunitybeing extended to them which led to ex -parte against the management and next date was fixed for

[No. L - 12012/313/2003- IR(B- I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 5778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 /ASVINA 4 , 1931

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM PRESENT: SHRI P.L.NORBERT, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

(Friday the 6th August, 2009/ 15th Sravana , 1931 ) I.D.33/2006 I.D. 6/2004 of State Labour Court, Ernakulam .

Union:The General Secretary, Federal Bank Employees Union , P.B. No. 10 , Aluva- 683101 .

By. Adv. Shri Anilkumar

Management : The Chairman , Federal Bank Ltd. , Federal Towers , Post Bag No. 103 , Aluva-683101 .

By Adv. M/ s . B.S. Krishnan Associates .

This case coming up for hearing on 31-7-2009 , this Tribunal - cum - Labour Court on 6-8-2009 passed the following.

AWARD

This is a reference made under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is:

"Whether the dismissal of service of Shri Jaiju Cherianbythemanagement of Federal Bank Limited is legal and justified ? If not, what are the reliefs entitled to the said employee?"

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: - Sri Jaiju Cherian was a Bankman of Puthencruz branch of Federal Bank Ltd. He was proceeded against by the management for certain serious misconduct . The allegation was that he had demanded and compelled a temporary Bankman of the branch to buy for him liquor almost everyday, that he had misbehaved to a lady customer, that he along with some other employees of the bank borrowed money from customers and that the workman had failed to pay the bill amounts to a stationery shop from where stationery items for the bank were purchased and for which bill amount were received by the workman from the bank . A charge sheet was issued to the workman and an enquiry was conducted . He was found guilty of the charges and was dismissed from service. Though he filed an appeal he did not succeed .

3. According to the workman the findings of the Enquiry Officer is based on uncorroborated testimony of management witnesses . The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment in a mechanical manner without taking into consideration the clean past record of the worker. The punishment is shockingly disproportionate

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] to the charges . The workman is out of employment and there is no other source of income .

4. According to the management the enquiry was conducted in full compliance with the principles of naturaljustice . The workman was given every opportunity to cross examine management witnesses and adduce defence evidence . He was assisted by a defence representative. The workman fully attended the enquiry . No defence evidence was adduced though opportunity was given. The workman was heard regarding findings as well as punishment. Considering the gravity of the misconduct the punishment of dismissal was imposed. The appellate authority did not find any reason to differ from the opinion of the disciplinary authority. The conduct of the workman has adversely affected the interest and reputation of the bank . The punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct .

5. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration:---

1. Are the findings sustainable ? 2. Is the punishment proper?

6. The evidence consists of the Enquiry File, Ext . M 1 alone

7. Point No.1 :-The charge sheeted employee was aBankman of Puthencruz branch . Six charges are levellcd against him as per Ext . E 1 charge sheet . According to the workman the management initiated action against him not on the basis of any complaint but on the basis of investigation report. The submission is not fully correct . Ext. ME-2 is the investigation report submitted by the Senior Manager ofthe Vigilance Department of the bank regarding irregularities in the bank. Ext . ME -2 report shows thatM/s.Kuzhivelil Super Bazar had complained to Barnch Managerand matter was reported by the Branch Manager to the Vigilance Department . Ext.ME- 3 is the statement of temporaryBankman Saju T. John stating that the workman had demanded liquor from him. The statement is signed by Saju T. John . Ext.ME-24 is the statement of Smt. Esther Cherianstating that the workman had received from her the receipt of gold ornaments pledged when she approached the bank for redeeming the gold ornaments. But the receipt was neither returned to her nor to the concernedofficer for releasing the ornaments . Instead she was shouted at in the presence of customers . Exts ME- 31 and 32 are statements given to the Investigating Officer by a customer of the bank complaining that the workman and some other employees of the bank had requested for a loan from him . Ext.ME-29 is the statement of Sri K.R. Karunan alleging that one of the employees of the bank had borrowed money from him with the knowledge ofworkmam. Ext. ME- 36 is a complaint of M/s . Kuzhivelil Super Bazar . Besides , MW2 the Proprietor of M/ s Kuzhivelil Super Bazar was examined in enquiry as MW3 . Though the workman has a contention that the signed statements were obtained by the vigilance officer during 5779 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

accusing him . This was said in the presence of other customers and the lady felt humiliated. She gave Ext.ME- 24statement to MWI . Ext.ME - 25 is the gold loan pledged card. Ext.ME-26 is gold loan pledged card of another date. She went to the bank to get the gold ornaments released on 20-03-2001 . The statement was given to the Investigating Officer on 24-11-2001 . The receipt was recovered from the cash counter . The customer could not have spun a yarn out of nothing , especially when she had no motive to book him . There is not even a suggestion by the defence that there was ill feeling between Smt .Esther Cherian and the workman . The workman has not been able to show that it is a cooked up story . The charge stands proved.

investigation.and they were not given voluntarily by the authors of statements , they are signed statements and none has come forward to deny the statements . It is true thatthe authors of the statements are not examined . The statements were marked through the Investigating Officer , MW 1. But the authors of the statements being customers ofthe bank it is not in the interest of the bank to drag them to a domestic enquiry. The position is supportedby the decision in State Bank of India v . Tarun Kumar Banerjee 2000 Lab . I.C. 3136 (para 6) . "A customer of the Bank need not be involved in a domestic enquiry conducted as such a course would not be conducive to proper Banker- Customer relationship and , therefore, would not be in the interest of the Bank " . If the worker wanted he could have summoned the authors of the statements and test the authenticity of the statements . However he did not choose to do so or adduced any evidence . Therefore there is no merit in the contention that there was no complaint from any quarters against the workman.

10. Smt . Sujatha is another customer ofthe bank . The allegation against the workman is that whenever Smt.Sujatha had been to bank the workman used to flirt her. During investigation MW I came to understand from the staffofthebank that Smt . Sujatha had bitter experience with the workman. Though MW1 confirmed this fact from the customer, the latter was not willing to give a statement in writing. Ext.ME- 27 is a statement of account of Smt .Sujatha. It is the case of the union that there was no such incident and it is a cooked - up story of the management . But it is relevant to note a question put to MW1 during cross examination ( page 21 ) : ' Did she not like flirting by the workman ? ' The answer of MWI was that: ' Ifit were so, Smt. Sujatha would not have complained to MWI when he had contacted her' . Normally no lady will disclose such incidents to anyone to avoid publicity and humiliation. Ext.ME - 1 investigation report narrates different incidents and allegations against the workman . MWI has reiterated the evidence came out during investigation and mentioned in the report .

8. The first charge is that the workman was in the habit of collecting money as commission from temporary Bankmen and Sweepers of the branch . He compelled a temporaryBankman Sri.Saju T.John to buy liquor for him almost everyday during 2000-2001 . Similar temporary Bankmen were also asked to buy liquor for the workman . Ext.ME3 is a statement given to the Investigating Officer by Saju T. John . He stated that he had worked only for a few days in the branch as temporary bankman . But almost everyday afternoon he was required to buy a quarter bottle of liquor for the workman. Exts . ME-4 to 23 are vouchers showing wages received by Saju T. John from the bank. It is contended by the workman that unless himself and Saju T. John worked together there was no occasion for demanding liquor everyday from Saju T. John . But it has come out in the evidence that there were two permanant bankmen in the branch during 2000-2001 . Whenever one ofthem took leave temporary bankman Saju T. John was engaged ( MWI page 17) . It is for the workman to show thathe had not worked together with Sri Saju T John . Ext . ME3 statement of Saju T. John was proved through MW- 1 . The defence had not adduced any evidence to disprove the allegation .

9. The 2nd charge is that a lady cutomer Smt . Esther Cherian had pledged some gold ornaments in the bank . When she went to redeem the gold ornaments she had entrusted the pledged receipt to the workman. after remitting the pledged amount of Rs . 40,780 to the cashier she was waiting at the counter for getting the ornaments released . Meanwhile the Branch Manager happened to come out and on seeing the customer he had enquired as to why she was waiting . She told the reason . The Branch Manager asked for the receipt . She then told that the receipt was handed over to the workman . The workman then got wild and shouted at her saying that she might have misplaced the receipt somewhere and was unnecessarily

11. Next charge is that the workman had induced Sri .Vinod Kumar a merchant and a customer to purchase a cheque of Sri . N.K. Bose an employee of the bank by discounting it . The customer agreed . Sri . N.K. Bose handed over a cheque for Rs . 25,000 drawn on Indian Bank. It was discounted and credited in the account of the customer for Rs.24,805. Besides the customer had given another sum ofRs.5,000 to Sri.N.K. Bose by cheque . Rs.5,000 was repaid by Bose in two instalments . But the cheque of Sri .Bose for Rs.25,000 when sent for collection to Indian Bank, it returned for want of sufficient fund . Ext.ME- 30 is. the statement of account of Sri .Vinod Kumar . It shows that on 13-09-2001 a cheque for Rs.25,000 was discounted and an.amnunt ofRs.24,805 was credited in Vinod Kumar's account . The account also reveals that an amount of Rs.5,000 was withdrawn by cheque. Ext. ME-34 is the cheque for Rs . 25,000. Ext . ME- 33 is the dishonour memo . Ext.ME- 31 & 32 are statements given by Sri . VinodKumar toMW 1 , Investigating Officer. MW I has given evidence about the transaction . The workman had induced and pressurised Sri . Vinod Kumar to purchase the cheque of 5780

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASVINA 4 , 1931

Sri.N.K.Bose . There is no defence evidence to disprove this fact. The charge stands proved.

articles from the shop . MW-2 is the owner of the shop. He has given evidence that the workman had purchased stationery items but had not paid the bills so far (page- 25). Ext.ME-49 is the receipt acknowledging payment of Rs.412.50 to the owner of the stationery shop on 29.01.2002 by the bank. MW3 is the Manager. He has stated that the workman , though received bill amount from the bank, did not pay it to the shop owner . No defence evidence was adduced. Nothing was brought out during cross examination of MWs.2 and 3 to discredit their testimony.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons and circumstance , I find that the conclusions reached by the EnquiryOfficer regarding the guilt of the workman suffers from no vices or infirmities .

12. Sri N.K. Bose hadborrowed Rs . 20,000 from a customer, Sri K.R. Kuranan. The latter had informed the BranchManager about the transaction . The workman did not like it . He questioned Sri Kuranan for infroming the matter to the Branch Manager . The workman also demanded a bottle of liquor for getting a loan sanctioned. Thereafter he dropped that demand as the customer had lent some money to Sri Bose . According to the workman hehas no role in the transaction . The money was borrowed by Sri N.K. Bose and the workman had not requestedBose to lend money to Bose . However the very fact of questioning the propriety of passing on the information about the transaction to the Branch Manager itself reveals the involvement and interest of the workman in the deal . Ext.ME- 28 is the withdrawal slip by which Rs . 17,500was withdrawn from the account of Sri Kuranan and the remaining amout (Rs . 2,500) to make up the shortage was given from his pocket . Other than Ext . ME- 8 withdrawal by withdrawal slip , all other transactions were done by cheques and not by withdrawal slip . Ext . ME -29 is the statement of Sri Kuranan about the transaction . MW 1 has given evidence as aforementioned . Ext . ME - 1 investigation report narrates the incident . There is no contra evidence and the charge stands proved.

15. Point No.2 :-The punishment imposed is dismissal from service . According to the workman the disciplinary authority had not taken into consideration the clean past record of the worker . At any rate the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges . The workman has no other source of income . The mitigating circumstances stated by the worker before the appellate authority is that he has unblemished service records, that he belongs to a poor family consisting of wife and one daughter aged two years , that he is the sole earning member of the family and he is residing in a rented building. This was considered by the appellate authority. When these circumstances stated by the workman is weighedwith the charges levelled against him the balance does not tilt in favour of the delinquent employee . An employee who has committed several serious misconduct as alleged above cannot be accommodated in service by a banking institution where public money is handled and the business ofthe bank depends on the trust of the public inthe institution. Looked from that angle I don't think that workmandeserves any leniency in the punishment. Hence Irefrain from interfering with the punishment either.

Inthe result an award is passed finding that the action ofthe management in dismissing the workman Sri . Jaiju Cheriyan from service is legal and justified and he is not entitled for any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 6thday ofAugust , 2009 ,

13. The next allegation is that the workman had the duty of bundling vouchers and attending office . But he failed to bundle the vouchers . Besides the SB account opening cards were kept in the card index box as a bundle without keeping them in the serial order. This was noticed byMW 1 during investigation and he has given evidence. Ext. ME- 1 contains the report regarding failure of the workman in discharging his duties . MW - 3 the Branch Manager has also deposed that the workman was allotted the duty of bundling the vouchers . However MW- 1 admitted during cross examination that the allotment of duty to the workman was not properly recorded in the office order book (page -22 ) . The Branch Manager (MW- 3) has stated that the workman has the duty to bundle slips as per oral instruction (page31 ) . The workman has neither replied to the charge sheet nor adduced defence evidence to support his contention that the work allotted to him was different and it did not include bundling of slips . In the absence of such contra evidence the version ofMW- 3 the Branch Manager has to be believed regarding the charge .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

Appendix

Witness for the Union -Nil

Witness for the Management -Nil

-Nil

Exhibitfor the Union

Exhibit for the Management

14. The next allegation is that the workman had purchased stationery items for the bank from M/s. Kuzhivelil Super Bazar on credit. Though the workman received the bill amounts from the bank he did not pay it to the shop owner and misappropriated the same . Ext . ME-36 is the complaint of the owner of the shop . Ext.ME- 39 to 46 are the bills and vouchers of the purchase of M1 - Enquiry File .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5781

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

नईदिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2659. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल.आई.सी. हाऊसिंग फाईनान्स लिमिटिड प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-17012/3/2004- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

S.O. 2659. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on27-8-2009.

[No. L- 17012/3/2004- IR(B- I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

N.K.Purohit , Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 50/2004 Ref. No. L- 17012/3/2004- IR (B- I) dated 12-04-2004 BETWEEN

Shri Balwant Kumar Bhalla , S/o Late Shri Kasteri Lal Bhalla, C/o Shri R.N. Awasthi , Secretary U.T.U.C. , U.P. , 130 E , Barra Kanpur (U.P. )

AND

1.The Chief General Manager L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited CorporateOffice Mumbai 2. The Regional Manager L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited 4/291 , Vivek Gomti Nagar Lucknow.

3. The Area Manager L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited CorporateOffice Jabalpur

AWARD 14-08-2009

Byorder No. L- 17012/3 /2004- IR(B - I) dated 12-04-2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Balwant Kumar Bhalla, S/o Late Shri Kasteri Lal Bhalla , C/ o Shri R.N. Awasthi , Secretary, U.T.U.C. , U.P. , 130 E, Barra , Kanpur and the Chief-General Manager , L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited, CorporateOffice, Mumbai , the Regional Manager , L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited, 4/291 , Vivek Gomti Nagar , Lucknow & the Area Manager , L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited Corporate Office , Jabalpur for adjudication .

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Kya Jeevan Beema Grih Vitta Limited, Lucknow dwara karmkaar Shri Balwant Kumar Bhalla Putra Swa . Kastoori Lal Bhalla ko dinank 13-8-2003 se naukari se nikala jana uchit avam nyaysangat hai ? Yadi nahi tokarmkaar kis anutosh ka adhikaari hai?" 3. It is not disputed that workman Balwant Kumar Bhalla was appointed as Junior Excutive Assistant vide letter dated 21-04-95 and he was posted at Jabalpur office and his services were governed by the LIC Housing Finance (Employees Disciplinary and Appeal ) Rules , 1990 . The workman was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 16-08-99 and supplementary charge sheet dated 23-08-2002 for the alleged misconduct of raising loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited for purchase ofproperty which was not in existence by submitting false documents and utilizing the money for other purposes .

4. The workman denied all charges levelled against him. After regular enquiry the workman was found guilty for the above- alleged misconduct and he was removed from service vide impugned order dated 13-08-2003. The appeal filed against the said order was also rejected vide orderdated 28-10-2003 . The workman in his statement of claim questioned the validity of disciplinary proceedings against him on the ground that he was not allowed the assistance of his representaive nor he was provided the copies of report and other documents . He has alleged that charges were not proved, despite this punishment of removal from service has been imposed. Therefore , disciplinary proceeding was in violation ofprinciples of natural justice and alleged that the findings of Enquiry report are perverse . The LIC Housing Finance Ltd. has denied the above allegations and has stated that the departmental enquiry was conducted in consonance of the relevant rules .

5. Following preliminary issued were framed vide order dated 25-05-2005 & subsequent order dated 03-1-2007:

(1) Whether the enquiry was conducted in violation of principle of natural justice and worker was deprived of the opposite party to defend as alleged in the statement of claim?

(ii) Whether the findings of the enquiry officer is perverse?

6. The workman has examined himself as witness . In rebuttal , the LIC Housing Finance Limited examined 5782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

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

6. ( 2006) 6SCC 187 Divisional Controller , NEKRTC vs H. Amresh

Shri S.K. Patra , Manager and Shri V.D. Shukla, the Inquiry Officer . After hearing both the sides the then learned Presiding Officer while deciding both the issues against the management passed following order dated 05-03-2007:

11. 1 have given my thoughful consideration on the rival submissions on both the sides and scanned the relevant material on record.

"Both the issues are decided against the management . However, the management is called upon to substantiate its charges against the worker inthis court , Fixed 30-4-07 for furnishing details of evidence which the management wants to produce to prove the charges against the worker . "

7. In pursuant to the said order , the management filed list ofdocuments ( C -70) and list of witnesses (C- 71 ) . In order to prove charges against the workman, the LIC Housing Finance Limited has examined Shri Jai Prakash Tripathi , Shri Anoop Jindal and Shri Abhay Shandilya. In rebuttal the workman has examined himself as witness .

12. The learned representative on behalf of the workmanhas raised a legal objection regarding competency of the Regional Manager to pass the impugned order dt . 13-08-2003 whereby the workman has been removed from service . He has contended that workman was appointed bythe Chief General Manager whereas the impugned order has been passed by the Regional Manager who is junior tothe appointing authority . Therefore , impugned order is null and void . In this regard he has placed reliance on 1986 FLR page 310 Bank of India vs CGIT and others (P & II High Court).

8. Heard the learned representative on behalf of both the sides and scanned the entire material on record .

13. The learned representative on behalf of the management has urged that prior to amendment in the Schedule 1st only General Manager was the appointing authority of Jr. Excutive Assistant but after amendment , General Manager as well as Regional Manager both are the appointing authority of the Jr. Executive Assistant and both the post are equivalent and having same pay scale . Therefore, Regional Manager was competent to pass the impugned order terminating the services of the workman. He has also placed amended Schedule 1st of the relevant rules in support of his contention ,

9. The learned representaive on behalf of the workman has contended that the management has failed toprove the charges leveled against him. The management has failed to establish that the disputed property inspected on31-5-97 and subsequently inspected on 13-10-01 were different. It is evident from both the inspection reports thatthe property, which was inspected , is same. He has further contended that all the 3 witnesses examined by the management side have admitted in their cross examination thatproperty for which the workman entered into an agreement with the builder was verified physically before grant of loan to the workman . He has further contended that Regional Manager was not competent to terminate the services ofthe workman & the punishment of removal from service is harsh and disproportionate.

10. Per contra, the learned representative on behalf of the management has submitted that it is evident from the evidence of the management witnesses that property A- 1 at Samiksha Town , Shyama Prasad Mukherjee is not existence and in place of alleged property, A- 8 is in existence. The boundaries of A- 1 shown in the map annexed with sale deed & boundaries of house situated at that site are different. Thus , the workman has raised the loan for the purchase of the property which was not in existence , by submitting false documents therefore , impugned order of his removal from service by the disciplinary authority is justified and is in consonance with law. He has placed reliance on following case laws .

1. (1972) 1SCC814 Air India Corporation, Bombay vsV.A. Rebellow and another .

14. Admittedly , the workman was given appointment as Jr. Executive Assistant by the ChiefGeneral Manager (HR/ MS) vide letterdt. 21-4-95 (C- 20/ 1 ) whcreas the services of the workman has been terminated by the Regional Manager vide impugned order dt. 13-8-2003 . Earlier as per Schedule 1st of LICHF ( Remuneration & certain other terms & conditions of service of employces ) Rule 1990 General Manager was the appointing authority for Jr. Executive Asstt . but after amendment in Schedule 1st of the above rules , General Manager as well as Regional Manager both have been shown as appointing authority for the post of Jr. Executive Asstt. But in case of the workman, the appointing authority was Chief Gerneral Manager whereas his services have been terminated by the Regional Manager who is junior in rank . In 1986 1LR page 310 Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court the appointment of the workman was made by the General Manager and services were terminated by the Zonal Manager who is subordinate to the appointing authority. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court relying on the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Court has observed as under :

2. ( 1972) 4SCC 569 Francis Klein and Company Pvt. Ltd. vs their workmen .

3. (2000 ) 7SCC 517 Janata Bazar Sough Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & others Vs Secretary , Sahakari Noukarara Sangha & others.

4. (2000 ) 9SCC 521 UPSRTC Vs Mohan Lal Gupta

5.(1998 ) 4SCC 310 Union Bank of India Vs Vishwa Mohan.

"The order of removal or termination of services in the case of the respondent- workman and other employees similarly situated, could only by passed by the General Manager and not by the Zonal Manager , an officer subordinate to the General Manager . Consequently , the finding of the learned Labour Court that the order of the termination of services of the petitioner (sic ) was null and void having been passed by an authority subordinate to 5783 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

the appointing authority , is upheld and the challenge against the same is repelled."

15. As per Schedule IInd LIC Housing Finance (Employees Conduct, Discipline andAppeals ) Rules 1990 as regards Jr. Executive Assistant Gernéral Manager/ Regional Manager have been shown as disciplinary authority and CE /CGM have been shown as Appellatte Authoritywhereas modified Schedule Ist of the Rules 1990the appointing authority has been shown as GM/RM but in the matter of the workman his appointment as Jr. Executive Assistant had been made by the Chief General Manager who is Appellate authority in the matter of disciplinary proceeding against the Jr. Executive Assistant . Although Regional Manager /General Manager are disciplinary authority and appointing authority of the Jr. Executive Assistant and both are of equal status but the impugnedorder has been passed by the Regional Manager, an authority subordinate to the appointing authority of the workman i.e. ChiefGeneral Manager therefore, in the light ofprinciple laid down in the aforementioned case law, the impugned order is null & void.

"Records pertaining domestic enquiry would not constitute " fresh evidence ' as those proceedings have already been found by the Labour Court to be defective . Such record would also not constitute 'material on record " within the meaning of Section 11 - A as the enquiry proceedings , on being found bad, have to be ignored altogether . The management for a limitedpurpose of showing at the preliminary stage that the action taken against the appellant was just and proper and that full opportunity of hearing was given to her in consonance with the principles of natural justice . This contention has not been accepted by the Labour Court and the enquiry has been held to be bad . In view of the nature of objections raised by the appellant , the record of enquiry conducted by the management ceased tobe "material on record " within the meaning of Section 11 - A and the only course open to the management was tojustify its actionby leading fresh evidencebefore Labour Court . If such evidence has not been led, the management has to suffer the consequences ."

16. Before embarking upon the merit of the case, it is pertinent to mention that the proviso of section IIA envisages that in any proceedings under this section , the Tribunal shall rely on the material on record and shall not takeany fresh evidence. But in the matter ofNeeta Kaplish vs. PresidingOfficer , Labour Court and another 1999 SCC (L& S) 302 while considering the question of material evidence under section 11A ofthe I.D. Act, Hon'ble Apex Court has held;

17. In view of the above legal position the proceedings of the domestic enquiry including evidence recorded by the enquiry officer , is to be ignored to prove charges leveled against the workman and to justify action against the workman . The management can only rely on fresh evidence i.e. evidence adduced subsequent to the order dt . 05-03-2007 passed by the Tribunal whereby the proceedings ofthe domestic enquiry held vitiated duc to violationofprinciple of natural justice .

18. Vide charge sheetdt. 16-8-99 the following charges leveled against the workman are as under;

You entered into an agreement on 7thMay 1997 for purchase of a house with M/ s R. Constructions , through its proprietor Sh . Rajendra Verma,Builder from his project developedby him at Plot No. 3 Block 14 Shyama Prasad Mukherjee ward , Jabalpur for total consideration of Rs . 2,75,000 Against the said purchase price you paid Rs . 10,000 as Advance under the said agreement .

Onthe basis ofaforsaid agreement you applied for loan with Jabalpur Area Office of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (The Company) on 23-4-97 and got Rs . 1.20 lacs sanctioned on 23-5-97. However, in your application , you mentioned the Block no . as 16 .

"Inall cases where enquiry has not beenheld or the enquiryhas been found to be defective labour court/ tribunal can call upon the management or the employertojustify action taken against the workman and to show by fresh evidence that the termination ordismissal order was proper. If management does not lead any evidence by availing of this opportunity, it cannot raise any grouse any subsequent stage that it should have been given that opportunity , as the Tribunal , in those circumstances, would be justified in passing an award in favour of the workman. If however , opportunity is availed of and evidence is adduced by the management , validity of action taken by it has to be scrutinized and adjudicated on the basis ofsuch fresh evidence . "

You put up an Office Notedt. 28-5-97 to get the property title cleared on the basis of Non Encumbrance Certificatedt . 28-5-97-from Panel Advocate Sh . Ravi Shankar Agarwal. The Non Encumbrance certificate was forBlockNo. 14 though you applied for purchase of Block No. 16 and got the same sanctioned.

Without arranging any Valuation Report in respect ofproperty to be purchased and without investing your share and submitting proof thereof you got the 1st instalment of loan of Rs . 50,000 released from the company.The cheque No. 760760dt. 31-5-97drawn on Bank of India, Napier Road , Jabalpur for Rs. 50,000 was " It is a fallacious argument that it was open to management to rely upon demestic enquiry proceedings , including the evidence recorded by theEnquiry Officer , and that management was under no obligation to lead further evidence, particularly as themanagement was of the view that the charges against appellant stood proved on the basis of evidence lead hefore the Enquiry Officer. It is also not correctto say enquiry proceedings constituted "material on record under Section 11 -A and they could not be ignored."

3360 G1/09-22 5784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] paid to M/ s R. Constructions , through Proprietor Sh . Rajendra Verma Power of Attporney holder of Smt . Shankutla Yadav W/ o Sh . K.P. Yadav on execution of Sale Deed for Rs . 65,000 in your favour on 13-6-97 . In the said Sale Deed the builder acknowledged receipt of payment of Rs.42,500/ - against the cost of land and Rs . 23,000/- against the cost of Construction.

You entered into an agreement on 7thMay , 1997 for purchase of a house with M/s R. Construction , through its proprietor Sh. Rajendra Verma, Builder from his project developed by him at Plot No. 3 Block 14 Shyama Prasad Mukherjee ward , Jabalpur for total consideration of Rs . 2,75,000 Against the said purchase price you paid Rs . 10000 as Advance under the said agreement.

You signed ablank Memorandum ofDeposit ofTitle Deeds without completing the same . The Schedule I & II oftheMemorandum have also not been given.

Onthe basis of aforesaid agreement you applied for loan with Jabalpur Area Office of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (The Company) on 23-4-97 and got Rs . 1.20 lacs sanctioned on 23-5-97. However , in your application , you mentioned the Block no . as 16 .

On inspection of the aforesaid property conducted by company, alongwith you on 13-10-2001 , it was found that the house mentioned by you in your application for which you had taken loan was different from the one inspected on 13-10-2001 , further the property shown by you on 13-10-2001 is different from the one shown and indentified by you to Sh . S.K. Patra , Asstt . Manager on 30-5-97.

Inthe Sale Deed the property sold is shown as Block No. 13 & 14 , Plot No. 3 , Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward,dist.Jabalpur . However , the said Sale Deed did not containthe full particulars of the property, like SurveyNo. boundaries etc. which was essential to identify the property purchased. However the same was stated as marked in Red in attached site map . But on actual inspection the said house does not exist as stated in the Sale Deed and annexed map . Moreover in the Sale Deed it was stated that the sellertransferred all the right ofproperty including possession of property to you which in fact was not there.

The facts stated herein above together with the facts stated in the charge sheets dt . 16-8-99 . Clearly establish that with the connivance and conspiracy of builder, you raised the loan from the Company for purchase ofthe property which was not in existence by submitting false documents and utilized the money for other purposes .

By your aforesaid acts , you failed to maintain absolute integrity , failed to serve the Company honestly and faithfully and have knowingly done acts detrimental to the interests of the Company and prejudicial to good conduct, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 read with Rule 20( 1 ) of the aforesaid LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (Employees Conduct. Discipline and Appeals) Rules , 1990 forwhich any one or more of the penalities specified under Rule 20 (1 ) (a) to ( g) can be imposed.

20. Now it is to be seen whether on the basis of evidence of the management witnesses viz Sh . Anoop Jindal , J.P. Tripathi & Abhay Shandilya & documentary evidence adduced by the management in the Tribunal under section 11A of the I.D. Act , the charges leveled against the workman stand proved.

On 17th June 1997 you approached the Area Office to release another instalment of loan and submitted a receipt of Rs . 1.30 lacs from the builder . In this receipt it is mentioned that amount is received on account of deal of house situated at Shammiksha Town, Jabalpur. You also submitted two Valuation Reports of Block No. 16 from Panel Valuer Sh . R. Tripathi, one is dated 25-8-97 showing the Value of property as Rs . 1.55 lacs and another dated 16-6-97 showing the property of value as Rs . 2.50 lacs . Alongwith Valuation Report dt . 16-6-97 you made a request to release the payment of 2nd instalment to you instead of builder . Because of contradiction in the particulars of property in the Valuation Reports referred here in above and the Sale Deed you were called upon to explain the reason for such contradiction. As Sale Deed dt. 13-6-97 executed in your favour was found to be invalid as it did not contain the exact particulars/description of property purchased, you were called upon to get Rectification Deed executed in your favour verbally by Area Manager. This was told to you verbally by the then Area Manager , Since the entire transaction for purchase of property was false and was based on fabricated documents arranged with the connivance ofbuilder Sh. Rajendra Kumar Verma you found it difficult to make such transaction legal by getting rectification deed as called for by Area Manager , and obtain further instalment from the Company. On your failure to obtain a rectification deed , you did not persue the release of subsequent instalment .

Facts stated here in above clearly establish that with the connivance and conspiracy of builder , you raised the loan from the Company for purchase of property which was not in existence by submitting false documents and utilised the money for other purposes .

19. Again vide supplementary charge sheetdt . 23-8-02 the following charges were leveled against the workman:

21. It is alleged in the charge that as per agreement dt . 7-5-97 (20/51 ) plot was situated in block no. 14 Shyama Prasad Mukherjee ward whereas workman in his application has mentioned block no . 16. Upon perusal of the photocopy of application form submitted by the workman it appears that there is over writing & the figure 14 seems to be corrected as 16. Original application form has not been produced. The workman has submitted photocopy of the agreement to sale dt . 7-5-97 (20/51 ) sale deed 4-6-97 (20/12 ) and site map annexed with the sale deed . The above documents are admitted documents wherein the description of the plot is clearly mentioned plot no. 3 block no. 14. The above documents have been submitted alongwith application form . None ofthe witness examined by the management has alleged that block number has been corrected subsequently as 14 after 5785 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

submission of the application form . Moreover, there is no allegation in the charge that workman has malafidely mentioned wrong block number . Thus it can be assumed that the workman had applied for Plot no.3 block no. 14 only.

although the boundaries of the plot are not mentioned in the sale deed but it is mentioned therein that site map is the part of sale deed and boundaries and details of the property have been mentioned in the site plan . If the documents were not complete it was the duty of the superior officer to ensure that relevant documents are complete in all respect before granting any loan to the workman . The decision making process for granting loan involves Sr. Officers, therefore, if there was inconsistency or documents were not complete , it was for them to get it completed before releasing the first installment ofthe loan tothe workman .

22. It is also alleged in the charge that workman prepared a office note dtd. 28-5-97 to get property title clear on the basis of non -encumbrance certificate for plot no.3 block no.14 and got it approved whereas he had applied for purchase of plot no . 3 block no . 16. This charge again refers to mentioning block no . 16 in the application form but as stated earlier the figure 16 seem to be corrected as14 in the application form and there is no allegation that he did it malafidely. Moreover , the officer note was prepared by the workman on the basis of lawyer report and was recommended by the Asstt . Manager and approved by the Area Manager .

26. It is alleged that on actual inspection of the property mentioned in the sale deed it was found that the alleged property does not exist as stated in the sale deed and annexed map . In supplementary charge sheet dtd. 22-8-02 it is also alleged that the workman got two different properties inspected on 30-5-97 and 13-10-01 and the property shown by him on 13-10-01 is different from the one shown and identified by him to Sh . S.K. Patra , Asstt . Manager on 30-5-97 and on the basis of above it is alleged that in connivance and conspiracy with the Builder the workman raised loan for purchase of property which was not in existence and he submitted false document for this purpose for raising loan.

27. Admittedly the first installment of the loan was released on the basis of following documents ;

1. Application of workman for loan dtd . 23-4-97 (20/20)

2.Agreement of sale dtd. 7-5-97 (27/3)

3.Sale deed dtd . 13-6-97 ( 20/12)

4.Loanoffer letter dtd. 23-5-97 (66/6)

5.Technical cum inspection report ofSh . R. Tripathi , PanelValuer of LICHF . (20/24)

23. It is further alleged in the charge that without arranging valuation report and without investing his own share and submitting proof thereof, he got the first installment of Rs . 50,000 from the company . It is not disputed that workman got first installment of loan and the amount of the first installment was given by cheque in favour of M /s . R. Construction through Sh . Rajendra Verma, Builder the power of attroney of Smt . Shankutala Yadav on execution of sale deed for Rs . 65,000 in his favour on 13-6-97 . The first installment of Rs.50,000 was released vide cheque dtd. 31-5-97 is not disputed and technical- cum- inspection report dtd . 28-5-97 (20/24) given by Sh . R.Tripathi , Panel Valuer of LICHF is also on the record which establish that valuation was done before releasing offirst installment and value was Rs . 1.55 lakhs as on date ofvaluation i.e. 28-5-97. The agreement of saledtd . 7-5-97 also reveals that workman had paid Rs . 10,000 therefore it can not be said that without arranging any valuation report and without investing his own share workman got the first installment from the company.

6. Inspection report given by Asstt . Manager A.K. Patradtd . 31-5-07 (20/26)

28. In loan application of the workman , the description of the property has been mentioned as plot No. 3 Block no . 14 (seems to be corrected) . In agreement ofsale dtd . 7-5-97 it has been mentioned as plot no.3 block no.14 whereas in sale deed dtd . 13-6-97 it is mentioned as under;

24. It isalso alleged that the workman signed a blank memorandum of deposit of title deed without completing the same and the schedule Ist and IInd schedule of the memorandum have not been submitted . A photocopy of the memorandum of title deed ( 16/60) dtd.31-5-97 is on the record, which is an admitted document. It is not completely blank only the space for description of the property has been left blank. The management witness which have been examined to prove the charges have not alleged that schedule Ist & IInd of the memorandum were not produced bytheworkman.

" नजूल ब्लॉक न. 13,14 नजूल लीज प्लाट न. 3 सिविल स्टेशन का रकबा 500 वर्ग फुट जिसमें से 110 वर्ग फुट आर.सी.सी. निर्माणाधीन मकान लेंटर तक बना है बगैर छपाई, फर्श, बिजली फिटिंग इत्यादि के जो कि मुख्य सड़क से हटकर अन्दर 15 फुट के मार्ग में स्थित है जैसा कि संलग्न नक्शे में लाल रंग से दर्शाया है श्यामा प्रसाद मुखर्जी, वार्ड तहसील जिला जबलपुर "

25. It is further alleged that the sale deed did not contain the full detail of the property like survey no . boundaries etc. moreover , in the sale deed it was stated that the seller transfer the rights of the property including possession of the property to the workman which infact was not there. As regards the possession of the property is concerned the workman has admitted in his reply dtd . 16-8-99 (16/44) which is an admitted document that physical possession is not with him but he has documentary rights . The sale deed dtd. 4-6-97 (20/12) is also admitted document

29. After submission of the above 3 documents pertaining to laon by the workman it was imperative on the part of the management to verify the existence of property & genuiness of the relevant documents of the property against which the workman wanted to raise loan . Inthis regard management has obtained non- encumbrance 5786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] certificate dtd . 28-5-97 given by Sh . R.S. Agarwal , Advocate wherein it is mentioned that plot no.3 block no.14was found to be free from any encumbrance . As per Technical cum Inspection report dtd. 25-5-97 (66/8 ) given by Sh . R. Tripathi Penal Valuer of LICHF the property which was inspected on 28-5-97 was plot no.3 block no.14, Shyama Prased Mukherjee , Jabalpur . it appears that figure 6has been corrected as 4 in the block number mentioned therein. Apart from this , inspection report (20/26) given byAsstt. Manager Sh. S.K. Patra also reveals that property situated at Samiksha Town was inspected by him on 31-5-97 and it was identified by the workman .

34.The management witness Sh . Abhay Shandilya , Govt. Valuer has stated that he had inspected the site for verification of the house on 3-7-07 but the house was not traceable and instead of A- 1 , house A -8 is situated at that location. He has not prepared any site map of the house inspected by him. He has also not prepared any report in thisregard, morerver, as per his version the property was inspected by him on 3-7-07 . Thus , subsequent to the charges levelled against the workman, he was inspected the alleged site to create evidence against the workman. Hisinspection of the site does not find any reference in the charge. There is no allegation in the charge sheet that instead of house A - 1 house A-8 was found to be situated at the location shown in the site map and boundaries of A- 1 and A-8 are different .

30. Thus , as per aforementioned Technical cum Inspection report given by panel valuer and Inspection Report of Asstt . Manager dtd . 31-5-97 and non-. encumbrance certificate dtd. 28-5-97 given by Sh . R.S. Agarwal , Advocate, the property against which the workman wanted to raise loan was in existence .

چیز

35. In rebuttal , the workman has stated that the property for which he has raised loan is in existence. He has further stated that Sri J.P. Tripathi and Sri V. Jha and Sri S.K. Patra inspected the property alongwith him .He has also stated that difference in boundary is due to subsequent construction in the vacant plots . In cross- examinationhe has stated that the property was aquired by the builder and site plan was approved by the Municipality . He did not take possession of the house at the time of sale deed and at present house is lying vacant .

36. It is allegedby the management that the property which was inspected by Sh . Patra on 30-5-97 and the property which was inspected on 13-10-01 by Sh. Patra , J.P. Tripathi and Sh . R. Tripathi alongwith workman were not the same and both the property have been idenfified by the workman but in the sketch map of site ( 16/62) following endorsement is therein.

"Preperty shown to Sh . S.K. Patra, Asstt . Manager on 30-5-97 as identified on 13-10-01 before Area Manager andDy. Manager alongwith Sh . S.K. Patra. " 31. In order to prove that the property against which the workman raised loan was not in existence , Sh. J.P. Tripathi , Area Manager, Sh . Anumap Jindal , Area Manager and Sh. Abhay Shandilya, Govt. Valuer have been examined by the management . Sh. J.P. Tripathi has stated that he alongwith Sri Suresh Chandra Asstt . Manager inspected the property on 21-8-2000 and thay were of opinion that as per the map and sale deed the property bear no . A- I does not exist at specified site and in this regard he had submitted a joint report dtd.25-8- 2000. Thejoint report has not been exhibited at the time of his evidence . It is not an admitted document by the workman therefore , signatures on the above joint report were to be proved, moreover , this alleged joint report dtd. 25-8-2000 finds no reference in the charge sheet dtd. 16-8- 99 in the supplementary charges sheetdtd . 23-8-2002 . Therefore, abovejoint report dtd. 25-8-2000 which has not been referred in the charge sheet, can not be considered against the workman .

32. In cross examination Sh . J.P. Tripahti has denied that he had inspected the property on 13-10-01 but when he was confronted with sketch map ofthe site dtd. 13-10-. 01 ( 16/63) he had to admit that the above site map bears hissignature . He has also admitted that the said site sketch mapdtd. 13-10-01 also bears the signature of the Area Manager Sh . P.K. Jha and S.K. Patra and the workman. He has further stated that he has signed the above document as witness. Thus, creditability of his testimony has been impeached in cross - examination and his evidence is not trustworthy. Further as per sketch map dtd. 13-10-01 , the propertywas in existence as shown in the sketch map . It is not mentioned in the said sketch map ofsite dtd. 13-10-01 thatthe propertybearing No.A- 1 does not exist at specified site.

37. It is not mentioned in the above endorsement that the property shown to Sh . S.K. Patra on 30-5-97 was different from the property inspected on 13-10-01 . The name of Sh . S.K. Patra , Asstt . Manager has not been mentioned as management witness in the list of witness C-71 but he has been examined as management witness in regard to preliminary issues . As per version of the management Sh . S.K. Patra has inspected the property on 30-5-97 and subsequently on 13-10-01 and he has signed both the inspection report . He has admitted that in subsequent sketch map dtd . 13-10-01 , it is not mentioned thatpropertywhich was inspected by him on 30-5-97 was different from the property inspected on 13-10-01 . He has further admitted that there was no marked number on the property inspected by him. Though a photocopy of the report said to be prepared on 13-10-01 ( 66/25) is on the record but the same is not an admitted document . None of management witness has referred this document in their statement . Facts admitted not to be proved but when facts are disputed the burden was on the management to prove the alleged facts . Mere filing photocopy of any document is noproof of the facts mentioned therein.

33. Sh . Anumap Jindal , Area Manager has also stated inhis cross examination that the house against which loan. was raised was verified by Sh . Patra the then Asstt. Manager and loan must have been sanctioned after physical verification of the plot.

5787

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

38. The management has not examined the builder from whom the disputed property is said to be purchased nor they have examined the person said to be in occupation of the house A-8 alleged tobe situated at the location where A- 1 house in the site plan is shown . Even the members of the staff of the Builder said to be available when site was inspected have not been examined nor their signatures have been obtained on any of the alleged inspection report of the site . The version of the workman thatproperty in dispute in existence finds support from theinspection report given by Sh . Patra dt . 30-5-97 and Technical cum Inspection Reportdt. 28-5-97 and 31-5-97 and even the site sketch prepared on 13-10-01 . It is not the case of the management that the inspection report given by Sh . Patra and Technical cum Inspection Report given by Panel Valuer and non- encumbrance certificate were bogus and not genuine and the workman has manipulated the same with connivance of the persons who have given such reports and the person who have granted him loan despite alleged irregularities and inconsistencies in the documents .

39. In view of the above discussions , the management has failed to establish all the charges levelled against the workman and the charges stand not proved and the workman is entitled for exoneration from the charges levelled against him . Moreover , the impugned order removing the workman from his services has been passed by the authority i.e. Regional Manager who was subordinate to the appointing authority of the workman i.e. Chief General Manager , therefore impugned order is null and void.

40. Now the question survives for consideration is whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits . In instant caseworkman services were terminated in the year 2003 there is neither pleadings nor evidence of the workman that during the period he remained out of job he did not remain gainfully employed. It is now well settled by catina ofdecisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the burdento prove to show that workman was not gainfully employed isnot on the employer , the employee has to show that he has not gainfully employed.

41. In recent decision (2009 ) 1 SCC ( L& S ) 595 Novartis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and another Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that :

"Backwages can not be granted almost automatically upon setting aside an order of termination inter alia on the premise that the burden to show that the workman was gainfully employed during the interregnum period was on the employer. The Supreme Court in number of cases decisions opined thatgrantofback wages is not automatic. The burden ofproofthat he remained unemployed wouldbe on the workman keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 . Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that as regards grant ofback wages or the quantum thereof, would, therefore , depend on the fact of each case.

Back wages are ordinarily to be granted , keeping in viewthe principles of grant of damages in mind. It can not be claimed as a matter of right . " 42. Having regards to facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view aforemention principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court the interest ofjustice would be subserved by reinstating the workman with continuity ofservice by awarding 50% back wages from the date of his removal from services by the impugned order.

43.Accordingly , the reference under adjudication is answered as under :

(1) The charges levelled against the workman vide charge sheetdt. 16-8-99 and supplementary charge sheet dt. 23-8-2002 stand not proved and the impugned order dt . 13-8-2003 is null and void and unjustified thus , the same is set aside and workman shall be entitled for his reinstatement with 50 % back wages and continuityofservice from the date ofhis removal from the service by the said impugned order to the date of his reinstatement.

(2) The management of LICHFL is directed to comply the above order within a period of 8 weeks from thedate ofpublication of this award. In case of non payment of back wages within said period it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum .

44. Award as above .

Lucknow

14-8-2009 N. K. PUROHIT, PresidingOfficer नईदिल्ली, 27 अगस्त , 2009

का.आ. 2660.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै.बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 248/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआं था ।

[सं. एल-20012/73/2000- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th August , 2009

S.O. 2660. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 248 / 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-8-2009 .

[No. L-20012/73/2000- IR(C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer 5788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

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

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1 ) DHANBAD

Inthe matter of a reference under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) ( 2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. 248/2000

S.O. 2661. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central: Government herby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-8-2009 .

Parties :-Employers in relation to the management of BCCL , Sijua Area.

[No.L-20012/392/2000- IR(C - 1 ) ] AND Theirworkman

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

Present:- Shri Hari Mangal Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . I) DHANBAD Sri D.K. Verma Advocate

For theManagement

Inthe matter ofa reference U/ S . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

For the Union

: None

Reference No. 11 of 2001

State: - Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated 7thAug . 2009

Parties: Employers in relation to the management Patherdih Colliery of M/ s . BCCL .

AWARD

AND

Theirworkmen

Present: Shri H. M. Prased , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

Shri B.M. Prased , Advocate

FortheEmployers :

Byorder No. L-20012/ 73/2000- (C-I)L- 20012/ 73 /2000-(C -I) dated 29-08-2000 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 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

For the Workman : Shri J.N. Das , Advocate SCHEDULE

State:- Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, 10th August, 2009

AWARD

"Whether the action of the management of Tetulmari Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL, in engaging Smt . Fulendri Devi as guard for continuous period from 8-6-90 without regularizing her in the service as Guard is justified? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date?"

Byorder No. L- 20012/392/2000-(C-I) dated 12-1-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and - sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

This Reference was received in this Tribunal on 18-9-2000 case . In spite ofnotice send by speed post none appeared on behalf of concerned workman to file written statement. It there for appears that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case.

"Whether the action of the management in determining the date ofbirth of Sri Shankar Modak as1-7-50 instead of 1-7-56 is justified, If not , to what relief is the workman entitled . "

In such circumstance , I pass a NO DISPUTE Award in present Reference case .

H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2661.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै.बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/392/2000- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The written statement has been filed on behalf ofthe workman stating that the concerned workman was givenemployment as land looser vide appointment letter No. W/PST/ 62 dated 9-7-1962 . He was working as such and was issued identity card in the year , 1977 showing dateofbirth as31 years as on 1-1-1977. The workman was medically examined before his employment in the Company in the year 1962. The management prepared service excerpt on 7-6-87 entering wrong date of birth as 1-7-1941. This was objected to by the workman in writing videhis representation dated 17-8-87 . When nothing was heard from the management the workman submitted a written reminder on 19-12-1990 with a copy to the General Manager (SA) for information and kind consideration . It has been stated that the workman had been running to the Personnel Department and pursuing the matter verbally 5789 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

6. The main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that his date of birth is 1-7-1956 and not 1-7-1950 . He was reading in 5th Class at the time ofleaving school and as per school leaving certificate his date ofbirth is 1-7-1956 which he produced at the time of hisappointment on 28-11-1974 to the management. The workman also argued that the management issued Identity Card and also Family Health Card . In I.D. card his date of birth is mentioned as 1-7-1956 and in Family Health card his date ofbirth is mentioned as 1956. Regarding Identity Card issuedby the Election Commission of India in which his age is mentioned as 39 years as on 1-1-95 which comes hisdate of birth as 1-7-56 and not 1-7-50.

but without any effect . In this connection reference has been made to the service excerpt duly signed by the Superintendent, Damodar Open Cast Project , Sudamdih and counter - signed by the Senior Personnel Officer on 30-8-1993 alongwith a photo copy of the S.L.C.issued by T.L. Madhay Vidayala, Mahulbani . It is very funny that the management accepted the recording as regards date ofbirth recorded as 1-7-56 as per school certificate which was produced at the time of his joining . This issue was taken up at level of the General Manager ( P & IR) , Koyla Bhawan on 28-6-1997 when it was agreed that on various dates and lastly on 18-3-98 in which also not even comments of the local Area was obtained. Inspite of our earnest desire to settle the matter , management has turned their deaf year to such a vital matter of interest of the workman . It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pass an award in favour of the workman by directing the management to accept the date of birth of the concerned workman as I - 7-1956 instead of 1-7-1950 .

3. The written statement has been filed on behalf of the management stating that the date of birth of the concerned workman as recorded in Form'B ' Register maintained under Sec . 48 of the Mines Act & Rules is 1-7-1950. This date of birth recorded in statutory register which is considered as service-sheet of the concerned workman . All the documents maintained by the management both statutory and non- staturtory in the usual course of business indicate that the date of birth of the concerned workman as 1-7-1950. There is no valid industrial dispute in the present case in the eye of law .

The reference is not only stale one but is over stale and is an effort to put the cart before the horse . The management is not required to take any action as envisaged in the reference order. On, its own showing the person concerned appears to have manufactured certain documents and have interpolated the same for his own personal use and benefit playing fraud upon the management. He was appointed on 28-11-74 . In the year 1987 the management issued service excerpts to all its employees including the concerned person giving them opportunity to submit their representation , if any, for reviewing any perticular recorded in the service record, if the same was according to that concerned person was incorrect .The person concerned was also served with service excerpt indicating his date of birth as 1-7-1950 but he did not raise any objection regarding recorded date of birth in the company's record . In view of the above , the management has prayed to answer the reference in favour of the management holding that the action of the management in determining the date of birth of the concerned person as 1-7-50 instead of 1-7-65 and the concerned person is not entitled to got any relief.

Inrejoinder the management has stated almost same thing as has been stated in its written statement.

Inthis respect learned counsel of the management argued that the concerned workman has not produced anyoriginal document and Identity Card Ext . W- 1 is photo copy in which his date of birth has been record and Ext. W-4 is also photo copy, the original has not been filed. Regarding Identity Card issued by the management has also not been filed by the concerned workman . WW- 1 has stated in cross - examination at page 2 that he was given appointment letter , but he has not produced the same. He has further said" I was appointed in the year 1974. I cannot say whether the union representative has written letter according to my instruction. I have Identity Card to prove that I was appointed in N.C.D.C. which I have filed. I cannot say the date of issue of Identity Card by N.C.D.C. It is not a fact that the Identity Card filed by me is a forged and fabricated. The mention of the age as 31 years in the year 1977 by the management in the Identity Card is incorrect. Before joining in N.C.D.C. there was medical examinationbythe mariagement of N.C.D.C. I have got no paper regarding the medical report of the doctor of the N.C.D.C. regarding my age . " It only shows that he has not filedthe medical report . Moreover , he has not filed original document i.e. original Identity Card issued by the management and original School Leaving Certificate issued by the School and original Family Health Card issuedby the management . Moreover, Form ' B ' Register which is maintained by the management shown his date ofbirth as 1-7-50 . Moreover , the concerned workman is literate and he has signed Form ' B ' Register as per Ext . M- 1 Which is maintained in course of business by the management. I cannot be ignored in any way and Ext . M- 2 is service excerpt has been signed by the concerned workman. So it cannot be disbelieved. He joined service on 28-11-74 and it is not possible just after attaining 18 years age he got employment because getting employment is not an essy job . Just after completion of 18 years of age it is not possible to get employment . Moreover, in Form ' B ' Register he has given the age ofhis wife, as per 'X ' for identification , 28 years on 28-11-1974 , whenhe joined service his date ofbirth cannot be in any way I-7-1956. So , it shows that the date ofbirth of the concerned as1-7-50 has been correctly recorded by the management.

4. Rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the workman stating almost same facts as has been state in written statement.

7. Accordingly, I render the following award . The action of the management in determining the date of birth ofSri Shankar Modak as 1-7-50 instead of I - 7-56 is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer 5. The management has produced MW-1 - S.P . Sharma who has proved Exts . M - I and M - 2 . The concerned workman has produced himself as WW - 1 and has proved Ext . W- I to W-4.

5790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASVINA 4 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2009

" क्या बी. सी. सी. एल . गोविन्दपुर कोलियरी के प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा श्री सुरेश भुइयां, माईनर लोडर को दि. 21-11-95 से बर्खास्त किया जाना विधिवत, न्याय संगत एवं उचित है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं ? "

का.आ. 2662.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी.सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 304/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

This reference was received in this Tribunal on 9-10-2000 Thereafter , notice was sent to both the parties for filing ofwritten statement . Sri S. C. Gour , appeared and filed Written statement on behalf of the workman. Notice was issued to the management or submission of the written statement as a last chance . But no written statement is filed till13-7-09.

[सं. एल-20012/ 84/2000- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

Hence, it appears that management and the sponsoring union is not interested in contesting the case .

Under the circumstances , I render No Dispute Award inthis case .

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2009

S.O. 2662. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.304/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No.1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s B. C. C. L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on27-8-2009 .

[No. L-20012/ 84/2000- IR(C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 2663.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोज़कों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं-1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 193/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1, DHANBAD

[सं. एल-20012/351/96- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी In the matter of a reference under Section 10( 1 ) (d) & (2A) ofIndustrial Disputes Act. , 1947

New Delhi , the 27th August, 2009

Reference No. 304 of 2000

PARTIES :Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur Area of M/s . BCCL

And Their Workman

PRESENT

: Sri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer APPEARANCES

S.O. 2663. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.193 / 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No.1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelationto the management of M/ s . B. C. C. L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on27-8-2009.

: None

Forthe Employers

Forthe workman : None

[No. L-20012/351 / 96- IR(C - 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. 1 AT DHANBAD Dated, 6th August, 2009 AWARD

Inthe matter ofa reference U/s 10( 1 ) ( d) & (2A) of Industrial Disputes Act. , 1947

Reference No. 193 of 1997

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Block - II Area of M/ s . BCCL

By Order No. L - 20012/ 84 / 2000 /IR( C - I ) , dated, 29-9-2000 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 Disputes Act , 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

5791

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

And

Their Workman

PRESENT

: Sri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

: Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate .

Forthe Emplyers

Forthe workman : Shri S. C. Gour, Advocate .

State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal

Dated, the 17th August, 2009

AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012/ 351 / 96-1R/ ( C - I ) , dated, 20-11-1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) and sub- sec . (2A) of Section 10 of thethe IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the demand of the union for the regularisation of the services of Shri RamagyaGour , General Mazdoor as Fitter is legal and justified ? If so, towhat relief is the concerned workman entitled?" 2. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the concerned workman stating that he is a permanent workman inBlock- II Area of M/ S. BCCL, who has been continuously and satisfactorily working as Fitter since 1988 which is revealed from perusal of the high recommendation of the concerned authority of Block -II Area O.C.P. on the application of the concerned workman containing his request therein for his regularisation as Fitter. He remains engaged in maintenance and repair works of Dozers , Dumpers and other heavy vehicles and that the documents ot the management received by the concerned workman beartestimonyto these effects . But the concernedworkman isbeing shown in papers working as Tugger Operator and otherwise , he is treated as General Mazdoor which is revealed from perusal of his application dated 22-5-91 made tothe Project Officer of Block- II Area O. C. P. which contains inter- alia his request for his regularisation on the post of Fitter. The concerned workman was issued letter ofwarning dated 23-1-96 by the management which discloses lapses on his part in course of his engagement as Fitter . The concerned workman as well as the sponsoring union represented before the management for regularisation of the concerned workman as Fitter but without any effect . Seeing no other alternative an industrial dispute was raised before the A.L.C. ( C) , Dhanbad, which ended in failure due to adamant attitude of the management . Thereafter the dispute has been referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication.

It has been prayed before this Tribunal to pass an award in favour of the workman by directing the management to regularise the concerned workman as Fitter since 1988 with all benefits .

3. The written statement has been filed on behalf of the management stating that the concerned workman was 3360 GI/09-23

holding the substantive post of general mazdoor in category- I and as per the Cadre Scheme , he is to be promoted to the post of helper in category- II and senior helper in category -III and then only can be promoted as Fitter in Category- IV. It has been stated that a general mazdoor in category- I cannot be promoted as fitter in category- IV superseding the worken senior to him in the category- I , category- II and category- III . There is no provision for regularisation of a general mazdoor as fitter from category- I to category- IV circumventing the provision of cadre schemeanddepriving the legitimate rights of other workman for their due promotion as per the cadre scheme . The management has not issued any circular or rule permitting the local management to put any person according to their own choice from the post of general mazdoor on the post ofa fitter from category- I to category- IV and take work fromthem and regularise them as category - IV. It has been stated that the concerned workman was/ is a general mazdoor and he has not yet been promoted to the post of a helper to work with a fitter , as such , the question of promotinghim to the post of a fitter by way ofregularisation did not and cannot arise . Therefore , the demand of the union is without any basis and the said demand has been propped up by some interested persons in an attempt to get promotion to higher category by jumping three promotions in the form of regularisation with the help of litigation.

Ithas been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statements .

5.The concerned workman has produced himselfas WW- 1 and has proved documents as Exts . W- 1 to W-4.

Themanagement has produced MW- 1 . N. L. Pandey , who has stated in examination - in- chief- "Presently I am posted as Sr. Personnel Officer at Block- II Open Cast Project ofM/s . BCCL. The concerned workman , Ramagya Gour, isworking over there as General Mazdoor which falls inCategory- I . Category- I workman is being promoted in Category- II and likewise the promotion is being granted upto Category- VI and then further the promotion is made astime- rated workman. It is the General Manager who is competent and is empowered to grant promotion . There is one cadre scheme also for such purpose . No workman can be promoted or placed directly in Category - IV from Category- I . Without the approval of General Manager none ofthe authorities posted at a particular place can place anyworkman in higher category . The concerned workman isworking as a Fitter Helper and it is not a fact that he has been working as a Fitter . The demand of the concerned workman that he should be regularised as Category- IV workman is notjustified. The concerned workman was never authorised to perform the job of a Fitter by any competent authority." 5792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 /ASVINA 4, 1931

[ PART II -SEC . 3 (ii)] 6. In this respect argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that the work of fitter is being taken from the concerned workman but he is not regula rised in the post of Fitter and not paid wages for the fitter .

8.Accordingly , I render the follwoing award . The demand of the union for the regularisation of the services ofShri Ramagya Gour , General Mazdoor as Fitter is legal and justified and the concerned workman is entitled for wages from the date of working as Fitter . The management isdirected to implernent the award within 30 days from the date ofpublication of the award.

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer .

नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2664.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार , इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन 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 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 87/01 , 69/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30012/ 131 / 97- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] [सं. एल-30012/132/97- आई. आर. ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th August , 2009

S.O. 2664. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.87/01 , 69/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-8-2009 .

[No. L - 30012/ 131/ 97 - IR(C - 1 ) ] [No. L- 30012/ 132/97- IR(C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. no . 97/2003 and 22 others

(asmentioned in the list below) Shri Anil Kumar & 22 Others (as mentioned in the list below)

Applicants

Versus

The Executive Director , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Panipat Refinery, Panipat- 132140.

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

For the Management

Shri Karan Singh , AR. Shri Vivek Kaushal , Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 11-8-09

This award shall dispose off 23 references of different workmen referred by the Central Government by different 7. The argument advanced on behalf of the rnanagement that he cannot be given pay of fitter and he cannot be regularised as the fitter is promotional post. In this respect document filed on behalf of the concerned workman, Ext. W- 1 shows that the concerned workman is working for doing thejob of repair of dozer due to shortage of fitter and later he was also asked to work . He is very sincers . Ext . W - 1 / 1 is also certificate issued by Engineer dated 30-10-90 regarding repairing of dozer to the satisfaction of the management and Ext . W- 1 /2 also shows thathe has been authorised to work as fitter from 28-3-91 . Ext. W- 2/ I is representation on behalf of the concerned workmandated 12-4-91 for naming his designation as fitter and also for his demand of wages . Ext . W - 2 also is representation dated 14-5-91 . In this respect report of Engineer (Exvn. ) has also been made on Ext . W- 2 stating that he is working as a good fitter and it has been recommended to promote him in higher grade . Ext. W- 3 shows that he has been named by the management as fitter on 13-3-93 and also as per other papers dated 14-12-934-2- 93 and 3-7-93 which show that he is working as fitter from 17-7-93 . He has moved number of applications to the management dated 28-11-91 , 8-12-91 , 22-5-91 but no action has been taken by the management. He also has given application on 22-1-2001 and as per management paper dated 22-2-2001 his designation was issued by the management as fitter and also as per management's paper dated 7-11-2000 he has been named as fitter and as per paper dated 28-1-2000 he has been designated by the management as fitter . Leave sanctioned by the management dated 26-2-2000 his designation has been mentioned as fitter. There are number of applications moved by the concerned workman which shows that he is working as fitter, but he has not been regularised and he has not been paid wages ofthe post of fitter . In this respect management's witness MW - 1 stated in cross - examination that he is working in the Open Cast Project since 5-4-2000 . He has got no personal knowledge about the developments made in the said project prior to the date of his joining. He has admitted that as per the Mines Act, Manager and Agent both are considered as Incharge of mines . For proper functioning of the mines it is the Manager who is responsible. Under the Cadre Scheme there is no provision for regularisation . The present case relates to the regularisation of the concerned workaman. He is not aware ofany Certified Standing Order which lays down the provision that in case a workman works continuously on a particular nature ofjob then he is to be regularised on the same.His duty in the said Project is always in office. So , it shows that the management is taking work of fitter from the concerned workman but not regularised and not giving the wages of fitter . So the action of the management is unjustified and the concerned workman is entitled for wages from the date of working as fitter.

5793 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Notifications . The references which are being disposed off bythis award are as follows: -

Parties Name

No I.D. No. Reference no .

97/03

Anil Kumar Vs. I.O.C.L.

L- 300 12/27/2002 IR (M)Dated 02-04-2003

2 103/03

TejbirVs. L.O.C.L.

L-300 12/28/2002 IR (M) Dated02-04-2003

3. 101/03

Rajbir Vs. LO.C.L.

L-30012/24/2002 IR (M) Dated 02-04-2003

Common questions of law and facts are involved in these references ; hence , all the references are hereby disposed of by this award . No doubt the nature of work of few set ofworkmen was different. Few workmen alleged that they worked as Sweepers , whereas , the others contended that they worked as Mechanic or other some types of similar work . But as stated earlier , the common question for adjudication is same and that is whether there existed any employer- employee relationship between the management of Indian Oil Corporation and the workmen? The relative issue is to what relief the workmen are entitled?

4. 99/03

Dilbag Vs. LO.C.L.

L-30012/ 19/2002 IR(M) Dated02-04-2003

21/05

L-30012/46/2002 IR (M) Dated 04-05-2005

Rajesh KumarVs. L.O.C.L.

6. 27/01 L-30012/ 105/2002IR(M) Dated 08-01-2001

Naresh Vs. I.O.C.L.

7. 28/01

Raj Pal Vs. I.O.C.L.

L-30012/104/2002 IR(M) Dated 24-01-2001

8. 87/01

Rohtas Vs. I.O.C.L.

L-30012/ 131 /97 IR(C-1) Dated04-03-1999

9. 30/2000

Onperusal of the pleadings of the parties , it is evidently clear that workmen have challenged their termination order being violative of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . It was contended by the workmen that they were engaged by the management of Indian Oil Corporation directly. They were under the administrative control ofthe management of the Indian Oil Corporation and they were paid wages by the Indian Oil Corporation . On the other hand, the management of Indian Oil Corporation has alleged that all the workmen were engaged oncontract and they were the employees of the contractor and not of the Indian Oil Corporation.

L- 30012/74/ 1999 IR(M) Dated 24-01-2000

Vishnu Dutt Vs. I.O.C.L.

10. 31/2000 L-30012/73/ 1999 IR(M) Dated24-01-2000

Sitender Vs. L.O.C.L.

11. 26/05 L-30012/ 10/2002 IR(M) Dated 08-06-2005

Karamvir Vs.I.O.C.L.

12. 46/04 L-30012/21/2004IR (M) Dated 02-11-2004

Randhir Singh Vs. L.O.C.L.

Opportunity for adducing evidence was given to the workmen and the management. Evidence was accordingly , recorded. Documentary evidence was also filed in some cases by the workmen and almost in all the cases by the management as well. No doubt, the contention in some of the references is different ; accordingly , the same shall be dealtwith in this award separately . At the cost of repetition, the main issue is the same , i.e. employer - employec relationship.

13. 568/05

Subhash Vs. I.O.C.L.

L-300 12/26/2002 IR (M)Dated02-04-2003

14. 56705 L-300 12/25/2002 IR (M) Dated02-04-2003

Sat Pal Vs. I.O.C.L.

15. 98/03

Krishan Vs. L.O.C.L.

L-30012/23/2002IR (M) Dated 02-04-2003

16. 566/05 L-300 12/20/2002 IR (M) Dated 02-04-2003

Suresh KumarVs. I.O.C.L.

17. 11/07

Sat Pal Vs.I.O.C.L.

L-300 12/40/2006 IR (M) Dated 15-01-2007

18. 14/07 L-30012/39/20061R (M) Dated 15-01-2007

The evidence of the workman was recorded and in different sets ofreferences , different officer of management was examined . I have gone through the pleadings and evidence of the parties in all the references . It is evidently clear that the matter involved in all the references is almost similar and the grievances can be redressed by a single award . No doubt , in few references there are some additional pleas taken by the workmen . The pleas so taken shall be discussed and dealt with separately in this very award. Thus , for the purpose of adjudication of all the references , considering similar nature of reference , I am consolidating the files and answering all the references by this award .

Surinder Singh Vs. I.O.C.L.

19. 1/03 L-300 12/2/2002 IR (M) Jaibir Dated 10-12-2002

20. 29/01

Vs. LO.C.L. Inder Vs. I.O.C.L.

L-30012/103/2000 IR(M) Dated24-01-2001

21. 27/05

Ishwar Singh Vs. I.O.C.L.

L-300 12/9/2002 IR(M) Dated08-06-2005

22. 28/05 L-300 12/8/2002 IR(M) Dated08-06-2005

JasbirSingh Vs. IO.CL.

23. 69/99 L- 30012/ 132/ 97- IR( C-I) Dated 23-02-1999

Joginder Singh Vs. I.O.C.L.

1haveheard theparties at length. The main arguments of the workmen and their learned legal representative/ counsel are that all the workmen were engaged/ appointed bythe management of Indian Oil Corporation directly and iftheir appointments have been shown through contractor bythe management, it is illegal being against the provisions of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970. It was further argued that all the workmen were directly under the administrative control of the management and they were paid wages by the management of Indian Oil Corporation and in fact, they were the employees of the IndianOil Corporation and not of the contractor .

5794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009 /ASVINA 4 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) )

Ifthe above mentioned ratio of GM ONGC, Silchur's case (supra) is applied in all the references , it is clear that workimen have failed to prove that they were appointed/ engaged by the management of Indian Oil Corporation. There is no iota of evidence on record to prove that they were directly under the administrative control of the management of Indian Oil Corporation. Nodoubt , it is contended by the workmen that their attendance were marked by the officers/officials of management of Indian Oil Corporation, but it will not be sufficient to prove the administrative control over them .

On the other hand , learned counsel for the management of Indian Oil Corporation submitted that there existed no relationship of employer-employee between the management of Indian Oil Corporation and the workmen. The services of the workmen were provided by the different contractors . The consolidated contracted amount was paid to the contractor by the management of Indian Oil Corporation , and thereafter , the wages of the workmen were paidby the contractor and not by the management of Indian Oil Corporation. It was further argued by the learned counsel of the management that there has been no violation of any provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970. If there is a violation ofany provisions of the said Act, the workmen were not to be treated as direct employee of the Indian Oil Corporation butitwill resulted into criminal action against the concerned authorities under the penal provisions of the said Act .

The Issue of employer - employee relationship between the management of Indian Oil Corporation and the workman is a mixed question of facts and law , and accordingly , shall be adjudicated on the basis of evidence and pleadings of the parties .

InI.D. Nos. 1/2003 , 97/2003 , 98/2003 , 99/2003 , 101 / 2003, 103/2003, 566/2005 , 567/2005 and 568 of2005 the workmen who alleged to work as the sweepers in the office ofmanagement of Indian Oil Corporation, contended that there is a difference in the nature of documents filed by them and provided by the management of Indian Oil Corporation. When I perused the documents in detail during the course of arguments , it came to my notice that at the top of the attendance sheet there is a sign of a small piece ofpaperand after getting the zeroex something was written on zeroex paperper and it was further zeroxed and filed by the workmen in these references . This event was accepted by the learned counsel for the workmen that it seems to be zeroxed by putting some small piece of paper at the space where the name of principal employer was written . Thus , under such circumstances this piece of paper ( attendance sheet) cannot be considered in creating the masterservant relationship between the workmen and the management of IndianOil Corporation .

In all the references , it is admitted fact that no appointment letter was issued by the management. It is denied by the workmen that the payment of wages were made good by the contractors but on perusal of the documents filed by the management, it is evidently clear that the payment to the workmen were made good by the respective contractors and not by the management of Indian OilCorporation. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008 LLR - 801 , GM ONGC Silchur Vs ONGC Contractual Workers Union had laid down the criteria to establish the direct employee- employer relationship between the workmen and the management of any organization . If we apply the ratio of GM ONGC Silchur's case (supra) , the workmen have to prove the following facts to establish the employee- employer relationship: -

1. That there exited a relationship of master and servant .

2. That there was no contractor appointed by the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

3. The management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , used to supervise the alleged work assigned to individual workers .

All the workmen were supposed to file/ adduce some cogent evidence like sanction of leave application , disciplinary action taken by the management of Indian Oil Corporation, if any, etc. Few instances have been shown by the workmen in their cross -examination. When they were examined by the Tribunal , they stated that they used to apply leave to the officer of Indian Oil Corporation. But there is no piece of document provided to this Tribunal to prove that leave were ever sanctioned to any workmen by the management of Indian Oil Corporation. Thus , the instances enumerated by the workmen in the references are not sufficient to constitute the administrative control by the management of Indian Oil Corporation over all the workmen. Accordingly , the workmen have failed to prove that they were under the administrative control of the management of Indian Oil Corporation.

4. That the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.. took disciplinary action and called for explanations from the workers .

5. That the workers were paid wages by the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , directly and not through the contractor .

6. At thecost ofrepetition, the wages were paid directly to the workers by the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , and the acquaintance roll were prepared by the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ,to make the payment totheworkers.

Onthepayment ofwages , the management of Indian OilCorporation has filed the documentary evidence, which proves that consolidated amount on the basis of number of days worked by the workmen were given to the contractor and the contractor on the other hand used to paywages to the workmen . The management has filed all the relevant documents , such as , attendance sheet signed by the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation , order of payment passed on attendance of the workmen to the contractor, and thereafter, the payment of wages by the contractor to the workmen . Moreover , the management has also filed the detailed description of pay rolls containing 5795

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

all the details of payment of wages made good to its workmen, employees and officers . The name of workmen did not findplace in these pay rolls .

The management of Indian Oil Corporation has also apprised this Tribunal that there is the procedure for recruitment ofworkmen for a particular work. No workman was recruited/appointed as per the rules of the department. Their services were provided by a contractor on outsourcing.

knowledge that their services are being taken through a contractor. On the basis of the documents, I am ofthe view that prior to raising the Industrial dispute; the workmen were having the knowledge and notice that their services were provided to the management of Indian Oil Corporation through contractor, but there is no mention of this fact in pleadings almost in all the references barring few. It is contended by the workmen that the contract is shame and camouflage and void being against the provisions of Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970. Unless and until the terms and conditions as laid down inGM ONGC's case (supra) are not fulfilled , no workman can be treated as the direct employee of Indian Oil Corporation.

On perusal ofall the evidence , oral and documentary, given by the workmen/officer of the management of the Indian Oil Corporation , I am of the view that payment of wages to all the workmen were made good by the contractor andnot by the management of Indian Oil Corporation .

The next issue for the disposal before this Tribunal is whether the workmen will be deemed to be in the services of the management of Indian Oil Corporation on account of violation of any of the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition), Act 1970. It is issue of law and has limited concern with the facts . On the issue of facts , I have already given my view that the workmen are not employees of the management of Indian Oil Corporation but their services were provided by the different contractors to the management. As this issue of law is also raised by the parties , it is the duty of this Tribunal to decide it as well . On this issue, I am of the view that there may be three circumstances :-

1. There may be a case where the practice of contract labour is prohibited by the appropriate Government under Section 10 ( 1 ) the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970.

2. There may be an issue regarding the registration of establishment of principal employer under Section 7ofthe Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 .

3. There may be an issue regarding the license by the contractor under Section 12 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970 .

The issue to be decided is whether in the case of violation ofany of the provisions mentioned under Section 10( 1 ), Section 7 and Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 , the contract labour shall be deemed to be an employee of the principal employer?

The above discussion proves that neither the workmen were appointed/ engaged by the management of the Indian Oil Corporation nor they were under the administrative control of the Indian Oil Corporation. They were also not paid the wages by Indian Oil Corporation. Hence , there existed no master- servant relationship between the management of Indian Oil Corporation and the workmen. In few of the references , it is contended.by the workmen that the contractor , if any , shown by the management of Indian Oil Corporation was camouflage and shame. In ONGC Silchur's case (supra) , the conditions under which a contractor can be treated as camouflage and shame are mentioned. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has relied upon the law laid down in Steel Authority ofIndia Ltd. and others Vs National Union Water workers and Others AIR 2001 SC3527 . The question before this Tribunal is under what circumstances the contract between management of Indian Oil Corporation and the workmen can be held to be shame and camouflage? In case the contract has been held to be shame and camouflage , the contract labour working under the management of principal employer are held to be the employees of the Indian Oil Corporation. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case , whether the contract executed in between management and the contractor is camouflage and shame? It is also an issue of facts and has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case . Whether there is a genuine contractor , and whether there is a proper master- servant relationship in between the management of the IndianOil Corporation and the workmen also depends on the facts and circumstances ofeach reference . The . Court/ Tribunal has to apprise whether these facts emerged in realty or there was some paper arrangement to make the payment good to the workmen through contractor .

This issue has been settled by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd.'s case , ( supra ) . Moreover, Punjab and Haryaria High Court in Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court- I, Chandigarh and others 2008 LLR 391 ; has decided this issue after relying the ratio of Steel Authority of India Ltd. , case (supra) . Without mentioning the relevant paras of Infew of the references , the nature of contractor is challenged by the workmen . No doubt, almost in all the references it is not mentioned in the pleadings that there was a contract between the contractor and the management of Indian Oil Corporation . But the documents provided and filed by the management of Indian Oil Corporation proved that the Workmen were having the notice and 5796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009 /ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT -2/93 of2002

Employers in relation to the management of Bank of India

TheGeneral Manager (Personnel) Bank of India,

Mumbai South Zone, Bol Building 70/80 , M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai -400023 .

And

Their Workman

SteelAuthority of India Ltd's case (supra) and of Food CorporationofIndia and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court- l's case (supra) , I am relying the ratio ofboth of the judgments and the ratio of both of the judgment is that if there is any violation of Section 7, Section 10 and Section 12 of The Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, then only penal provisions of Section 23 and Section 25 of the said Act are attracted . Hence , it is nowhere provided that such employees , employed through the contractor wouldbecome employees ofthe principal employer. I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Almost in all the , references the registration and the license have been producedby the management of Indian Oil Corporation. It may only resulted in penal actions under Section 23 ane Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, if there is any violation of any provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)Act.

TheGeneral Secretary Bank of India Staff Union Bol Building, Ground floor 70/80 , M. G. Road , Fort Mumbai-400023 .

APPEARANCES

FortheEmployer

: Ms. Nandini Menon Advocate

Forthe workmen

: Mr. P. D. Patel Advocate

Mumbai , Dated, 23rd July , 2009. AWARD Part - II

Accordingly , I am of the view that none of the workmenwas the employee of the management. There was no relationship of master - servant and employer and employee between the workmen and the management of IndianOil Corporation . Thus , no question for termination ofthe services of the workmen by Indian Oil Corporation arises . All the references are answered accordingly and the workmen are not entitled for any relief. Let the Central Government be informed , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2009

TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour by its OrderNo. L- 12011 / 160/2002/IR (B- II) , dated, 7-11-2002 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section. ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

"Whether the action of the management ofBank of India, Mumbai South Zone , Mumbai in dismissal of Shri Shasikant Orak from services w.e.f. 23-11-2000 is justified? If not , what relief the workman Shri Shasikant Orak is entitled to? "

का.आ. 2665.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं-2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/93/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/160/2002- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 31st August, 2009

2. Insupport of their demand , General Secretary of theBank of India Staff Union , Mumbai filed claim statement atEx -8 making out case that, concerned workman i.e. Orak is a member of their union and has served with first party Bank for 33 years . According to union , workman Shri Orak was dismissed without following due process of law . Ile worked as a Special Assistant at Mumbai Central Branch ofBank of India during the relevant period.

S.O. 2665.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/93/2002 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank ofIndia and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 28-8-2009.

[No. L- 12011/160/2002- IR(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

3. According to union , some fraud was detectedby Bankfor which complaint was lodged by Bank with Police. Police investigated the fraud but unable to nab any culprit and closed the case . Bank was not happy with the result of the Police investigation and decided to proceed independently against workman Orak by leveling charge of forging signature of Smt. Bhambhani , the customer of Bank and encashing cheque on her forged signature and 5797

भारत का सजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

withdrawing cash from the account of Smt . Bhambhani .

Opportunitywas not given to concerned workman by the Inquiry Officer. Enquiry was conducted biasly. Findings given by Inquiry Officer were not given on the basis of evidence recorded in the enquiry. All that happened by violating Principles of Natural Justice and finding given by Inquiry Officer is perverse . Even action taken by management of dismissal on the basis of said findings is not just and proper . The role played by Mrs. Zunjarao Mr. Kotian , Mrs. Vedpathak and other officers who were concerned with handling of Savings Bank Account was not considered by Inquiry Officer. Even admission given bywitness Manjrekar is not considered by Inquiry Officer. Management did not consider the result of investigation done by Police as Police unable to nab any of the culprits . Evenadmission ofMrs. Vedpathak that , she signed cheque while posting it on M.E. 9 was not considered. So it is submitted that enquiry conducted is not just and proper and findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse and prayed to set aside it with said dismissal .

that, during that period i.e. 8-9-97 to 29-10-97 an amount totaling to Rs . 1,52,000 was found fraudulently withdrawn from SB account No. 25253 of Smt . R. T. Bhambani and Smt. K. G. Bhambani who were having Savings Bank account at Mumbai Central Branch . Fraud was perpetrated by using four cheque leaves from the cheque book No. 524641-650 obtained in the account on 14-8-97 on the basis of a forged cheque requisition slips . The cheques used for defrauding bank and also the cheque book requisition slip and the acknowledgement slip were not traceable . The previous cheques series fed into the computer hadbeen deleted. The original specimen signature, cardwas replaced by fictitious specimen signature card in order to ensure that four cheques were duly passed by the official concerned . However said fictitious specimen signature card had also been removed after the perpetrations of the fraud to prevent detection . It was therefore evident that, frauds were perpetrated with the active involvement of a staff member who had access to theBank's records . During that period, concerned workman was functioning as a Special Assistant and he was having easy access to the record of specimen signature cards. preserved by the Bank. He also used intentionally different types ofinitials on withdrawal slips . Bank discovered during that investigation that concerned workman had interfered with computer SB - 1 and SB - 2 on the relevant dates and had also discovered during investigation that the turnover in the savings bank and over drafts were found to be beyond his net salary . The income of concerned workman was not propeortionate . So by serving chargesheet dated 8-12-99, concerned workman was charge sheeted. Enquiry was conducted. Evidence was recorded by Inquiry Officer in the presence of concerned workman and his representative. Full opportunity was given to concerned workman. Bank examined officers namely Mrs. Zanjarao , Shri Kotian, Shri Palekar Shri Engineer and Mrs. Ved Pathak all deposed in what way concerned workman had meddlcd with computer resulting in fraud affected on the Bank . In the deposition , these witnesses established that , concerned workman had access to two different machines and that he had accessed said in two different names and that he was also using two different initials . It was also detected that concerned workman deliberately and intentionally suppressed his identity in case of inquiry. After holding enquiry and after recording evidence by giving full opportunity to concerned workman , Inquiry Officer concluded concerned workman guilty of charges and accordingly findings were given . So it is submitted that, finding given by Inquiry Officer may be observed just and proper and be declared that enquiry was conducted by following principles ofnatural justice.

5.Rejoinder is filed by General Secretary of Union forsecondparty workman at Ext . 13 stating and contending that, it denies the contention taken by first party in Writtern Statement . It is also contended that prosecuting concerned workman by issuing charge sheet and conducting enquiry is nothing but highhandedness of the first party. General Secretary further contends that bank did not under standwhat is the meaning of circumstantial evidence and 4. This is disputed by first party Bank by filing WrittenStatement at Ex- 12 making out case that reference , is not maintainable as decision taken by Bank cannot be challengedbefore this Tribunal . It is stated that, very serious allegations are leveled against workman Shri Orak. Allegation of fraudulently withdrawing a huge sum of money from the bank account of a customer, by forged cheques which had been obtained on the basis of forged cheque reguisition slips . During the relevant period concerned workman was functioning as Special Assistant atMumbai Central branch and he was Incharge of cancellation ofcheques in Savings Bank Department. On the basis of admissions given by concerned workman and with the help of evidence of sub- staff, fraud was proved against concerned workman in the inquiry. In the Inquiry, Inquiry Officer discovered that , concerned workman acted prejudiciallyto the interest of the Bank. The charges were specifically set out in the chargesheet and Departmental Enquiry was conducted by giving full opportunity to the concerned workman and it was conducted by following Principles of Natural Justice . Concerned workman was allowed to take assistance of his representative and appear inthe enquiry proceedings. After holding enquiry , Inquiry Officer found concerned workman guilty of the charges . Copy of the inquiry report was supplied to concerned workman and showcause notice was given enquiring with him as to why serious decision of dismissal cannot be taken against him ? Even personal hearing was given with his representative on the punishment and then punishment was given. Hewas permitted to make Departmental Appeal and after hearing him with his representative , appeal was set aside . One has to note that, first party is a public financial institution dealing with public money. Accordingly, it has taken proper decision to proceed against concerned workman as the act of the concerned workman was against the interest of the Bank and against public interest. The enquiry conducted was just and proper and punishment awarded is proportionate to the charges leveled against and proved against concerned workman. It is further stated 5798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 /ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) |

her account is proved . The concerned workman challenged the enquiry saying that , no proper opportunity was given to him . He challenged the enquiry urging that , fair opportunity was not given to him . He also challenged enquiry saying that , Inquiry Officer was biased and finding givenby him is perverse . While deciding those points , this Trihunal observed full and proper opportunity was given to concerned workman and this Tribunal also observed , findings given by Inquiry Officer not perverse and it was givenon the evidence which was placed before him . It is pertinent to note that said decision is not challenged by concerned workman .

howto read it . He further contends that there are imaginary assumptions by the Bank and on the said basis , it observed concerned workman guilty of the charge of fraud . General Secretary further contended that, even Police unable to find out the fault of concerned workman and how he was related to the alleged incident for which he was punished bythe Bank. General Secretary further denies the contention taken by bank in para 3 to 7 as well as 8 of the written statement . Even General Secretary denies the stand taken by first party in further paras of the written statement. General Secretary further contended that, concerned workman did not meddle with the computer as alleged and took advantage of his sitting near the specimen signature box and having easy access to see such speciment signatures and take desadvantage of it. It is contended that, infact Bank want that concerned workman should accept charges and wanted that he should accept the guilt . It is contended that, by this policy against concerned workman . Bank want to show that it will take such actions to teach lessons to other employees. It is contended that , Bank has victimised the concerned workman for others and he alone cannot be held responsible . So it is prayed that, these charges were not proved and submit that concerned workman should be reinstated with benefits of backwages and continuity of service.

6. In view of the above pleadings , my Learned Predecessor framed issues at Ex . 20 which were then recasted on the strength of order passed on Ex . 27. Out of those issues , issues nos . 1 to 3 were tries as preliminary issues and while passing part - I award on 15-04-2008 , this Tribunal observed, enquiry fair and proper. This Tribunal also observed findings not perverse and directed both parties to appear to adjudicate the point of quanturn of punishment . Accordingly following issues i.e. issues no.4 to 6 are taken for discussions which are answered against it.

Issues

Findings

(iv) Whether first party justify the action of dismissal served on concerned workman Shahshikant S. Orak w.e.f 23-11-2000?

yes

No. relief

Whatrelief second party is entitled to get? (v)

Whatorder?

(vi)

asperorder below.

Reasons

Issues nos . 4 to 6 : -

7. Bypassing Part - I award on 15-4-2008 this Tribunal observed enquiry fair and proper. This Tribunal also observed findings not perverse . That means, charges leveled against concerned workman of forging signature ofSmt . Bhambani the customer of the bank and encashing cheque ofher forged signature and withdrawing cash from

8. Now evidence led by the concerned workman by filing affidavitin lieu of examination in chief at Ex . 37 where he again states that , there was no evidence against him to hold him guilty of the charges . He also referred his past service record claiming that it was unblemished , clean and itwas not considered while awarding punishment . Ile also alleged that , his case was not dealt as per Bi - partite settlement and Bank did not consider his past record while awarding punishment . He also alleges that Bank has taken lenient view while punishing Mrs. Ved Pathak, Mr. Kotian & Mrs. Zunjarao, but same benefit was not given to him and claim that , first party acted biasly . On that in the cross this concerned workman alleged that he was doing work of withdrawal/cancellation of slips . He also admits that he was having easy access of the specimen signature cards of the customers . He also admits that he was aware of cumputer operation and worked as Computer Operater. Ile admits that , as alleged because of misconduct which was leveled against him , bank suffered loss of Rs . 1.52 lakhs . Healso admits that , due to said alleged incident , Bank was defamed in the society . He admits that , Mrs. Ved Pathak was guarantor to his son's loan taken from the same bank . He admits that he preferred appeal on that punishment on which personal hearing was given . He also claimed that likehim , other staff members were also having casy access to the specimen signature cards of the customers . On that first party led evidence of Narayan Kedekar by filing his affidavitin lieu of examination in chief at Ext - 38 to show how punishment is just and proper . Said witness states that, concerned workman was working as a Special Assistant with Mumbai Central Branch and he was incharge of cancellation of cheques in Savings Bank Department . He alleged that , concerned workman was sitting close to the cabinet in which specimen signature cards were kept and was having easy access to the said speciment signature cards . He states that , concerned workman used to intentionally use different type of initials in token of cancellation of cheques/ withdrawal slips . He states that , in the preliminary investigation Bank discovered . thatconcerned workman had interfered with the computer SB - I and SB -2 on the relevant dates . He further contended that during the course of investigation , the turn over of savings bank and over draft accounts of concerned workman was found disproportionate and beyond his source of income . He alleged that , from that Bank prima facie concluded concerned workman is doing wrong things by which there were disproportionate entries in the SB 5799 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

whatis the difference between the charges leveled against himand the charges levelled against those four employees? Itwas not shown by the concerned workman, whether similar charges were levelled against those and are porved and still leniency is taken by first party and that benefit is not given to him . On all these counts , concerned workman is silent. Simply he allleges that, discrimination was made hyfirst partywhile awarding punishment.

account and over draft account facility. He further alleged that concerned workman had access to two different machines and was using the same in two different names and was using two different types of initials . He alleges that concerned workman knew the pass word of the other computer operators and he was meddling with machines and posting cheques some time before business hours and some time after business hours. In the enquiry concerned workman was held responsible for the alleged incident. In the cross no any reason is coming to disbelieve the witness regarding statements given by him about work of concerned workman since it appears that, it was given on thebasis ofpreliminary investigaion conducted by the bank.

9. Written arguments is submitted hy the advocate offirst party at Ex. 41 with some citations . Heard advocate for the second party.

10. Here, at this stage, we are on the point ofquantum ofpunishment. As stated above , in part- I award enquiry wasobserved fair and proper . While passing Part- I award , it was also observed that, findings are not perverse . Now point ofquantum ofpunishment arises and we have to see whether , punishment given ofdismissal is just and proper.

13. Besides he alleges that his past record is not considered. According to me , question of looking past record while passing punishment against the employee who faced such serious charges of misconduct of withdrawing amount with help of forged signature cannot help concerned workman to take benefit of it. Moreover it is not pointed out how his record was good and how he canclaim that his past record was clean and unblemished? Besides while awarding punishment on such type of charges ,which are proved and not challenged by concerned workman, how workman of this type can expect leniency? No reason is given by the concerned workman . Against that first party's advocate place reliance on the following citations to show how prayer of secont party at this stage is not legal and how he cannot get relief of past record or on his previous performance . Those citations are ; citation published in (2008) 8 SCC 92 SBI V/ s . S.N. Goyal , 2003 (3 ) SCC 605 UPSRTC V/ s . Hoti Lal, (2006) 3 SCC 150 Syndicate BankV/s . V.G.Kurati , (2005 ) 7 SCC 435 SBI V/s . Bela Bagchi , (2005) 6 SCC 321 Canara Bank V/s . V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 10 SCC 84 Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank V/ s , Munna Lal Jain, (2004) 13 SCC 681 K. Raveendran V/s . DeputyGeneral Manager, Canara Bank, (2003) 4 SCC 364 Chairman & MD United Commercial Bank V/ s . P.C. Kakkar , (2006) 1 SCC 430 Hombe Gowda Educational Trust V/s . State ofKarnataka , (2005 ) 3 SCC 254 Divisional Controller V/s . A.T. Mane , (2005 ) 2 SCC 481 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. V/s . M.C. Reddy, (2007) 1 SCC 222 APSRTC V / s . R.S. Sankar Prasad, (2006) 6 SCC 187 Divisional Engineer , NEKRTC V/ s . H. Amaresh, (2006) 10 SCC 572 S. Pathrella V/s . Oriental Bank ofCommerce, (2007 ) 9 SCC 15 Remesh Chandra Sharma V/s . Punjab National Bank and (2006) 1 SCC 479 UP State Brassware Corporation V/s . Uday N. Pandey and there is no question to raise quarrel on it .

11: Here charge of misconduct was leveled against concernedworkman alleging that , while he was working as Special Assistant with Mumbai Central branch he was incharge of cancellation of cheques in Savings Bank Department. It was also alleged that, they were serious charges , so charge of misconduct was leveled against concerned workman in which Bank suffered loss upto Rs . 1.52 lakhs and it was case of the bank that , concerned workman fraudulently withdraw said amount from Savings Bank Account no . 25253 standing in the names of Smt. R.T. Bhambani and Smt. K.G. Bhambani. It was also alleged that, by using four cheque leaves from the cheque book no . 524641-650 obtained in the account on 14-8-97 on the basis ofa forged cheque requisition slips . It is case of the Bank that , said cheques were used for defrauding the bank andby issuing requisition slips said amount was withdrawn by the concerned workman . It was also alleged that, concerned workman used initials oftwo different types intoken ofposting of cheques/withdrawal slips. Even Bank in the preliminary investigation found that, there was misappropriate entries in his savings account as well as in his overdraft account . It is alleged that concerned workman could not explain the disproportionate entries in his account. So charge of such nature was leveled against . concerned workman and in the preliminary investigation aswell as in the Departmental Enquiry, he found guilty of the charges . Relying on the findings given by the Inquiry Officer, punishment was awarded ofdismissal .

14. Ifwe consider all this , coupled with case madc out by hoth . I conclude that, punishment awarded to concerned workman in the set of circumstances of the charges leveled against him which were proved and which are not disturbed till this moment does not permit concerned workman to pray any other relief as prayed. So I observc that, punishment awarded ofdismissal does not require to interfere observing concerned workman is not entitled to any other benefit . So I answer above issues to that effect and passes the following order:

ORDER Reference is rejected.

Date: 23-7-2009

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer 12. The stand of concerned workman is that , others are let off by taking lenient view but he alone is punished. Inmy cosidered view, that discreation is with the employer and employee cannot demand equal punishment from the employer . Bisides it is not shown what were the charges levelled against other employees against whom First Party allleged to have taken lenient view. He has not shown

3360GI/09-24 5800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2009

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank in imposing the punishemnt of discharge from service upon Sri Munusamy an ex- messenger is legal and justified? Ifnot , to what relief the ex-workman is entitled to ? "

का.आ. 2666. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ओवरसीज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/126/2005- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. After the receipt of the Industrial Dispute , the referred ID was taken on file as ID 17/2006 . Pursuant to notice both the parties entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their Claim and Counter- Statement as the case may be .

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2009

3. In the Claim Statement, the petitioner briefly states asfollows:

S.O. 2666. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28-8-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 126/2005 - IR(B- II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 21st August, 2009

Present : A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrlal Dispute No. 17/2006

(Inthe matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management ofIndian Overseas Bank and their workmen)

BETWEEN

Sri C.Munusamy

Petitioner/ I Party

Vs.

: Respondent/II Party

The Regional Manager , Indian Overseas Bank , Regional Office, Chennai-636004

APPEARANCE

For the Petitioner : M/ s . Balan Haridas

M/ s . N. G. R. Prasad

For the Management :

AWARD

The CentralGovernment , Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L- 12012/ 126/ 2005 - IR( B - II) dated 24-2-2006

The petitioner who joined services under the Respondent/Bank as a temporary messenger in the year 1985, confirmed in 1989 while was at Fairlands Branch was on 11-4-2003 charge sheeted for misbehaviour towards superiors . He submitted reply on 20-4-2003 without considering which an enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry he was denied representation by a Union Representative and deprived him ofeffective defence . The enquiry was conducted unfairly. He was asked to sign on someprepared papers and he was thereafter being informed that the enquiry was over also after marking his presence inthe enquiry . He refused to sign since he had information that the officials conspiring with Union Office Bearer Kandasamy were out to dismiss him . Senior Regional Manager, Sri Ramarathnam also compelled and physically forced him to sign . So he felt signing the papers without knowing the contents for the fear that they would put him in further difficulties . So he refused to sign. Vide letter dated 13-8-2003 alleging misbehaviour with EnquiryOfficer on 25-7-2003 , he was suspended and chargesheeted on 8-11-2003 . No enquiry was conducted. Vide letter dated 28-2-2004 confirmed the original discharge. The allegations were ( i) refusal to bring the Jewel Loan Ledger before Dy . Manager of Odapatti Branch , ( ii ) abusing the Dy.Manager and throwing of Jewel Loan Card ( iii ) abusing theDy. Manager inside the dining hall, ( iv) Shouting and threatening the Chief Officer inside the Cabin ( v) Shouting at the Chief Officer ( vi ) Shouting gesticulating his hands . The other allegations are dragging outsiders in the Departmental enquiries , non- cooperation with the Enquiry Officer , on 25-7-2003 and leaving without signing the proceeding .Creating scene of abusing at the higher officials in the Bank Hall , rolling down in the steps by way of fresh allegations which is against the principles of natural justice. The finding is not based on the evidence but on extraneous related records . He hails from a poor Scheduled Caste community. Salem Regional Asstt. General Secretary of AIOBEU refused to assist him . So also the President. The enquiry procedure is arbitrary . He had no reasonable 5801 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

obey to bring Jewel Loan Ledger and for throwing Jewel Card and abusing Dy . Manager , Odapatti Branch and misbehaving with Chief Officer , the petitioner was . chargesheeted. On 11-4-2003 , after enquiry he was discharged. Except before this forum , petitioner had not whispered that the enquiry report was not given to him. He did not reply to the show - cause notice dated 30.01.2004 . No prejudice on account of the same has been shown by him. It is denied that the petitioner was victim of caste prejudice. The enquiry was proper and the punishment imposed is lenient. The claim is only to be dismissed.

5. Points for determination are :

opportunity todefend or ofbeing heard. The Management Witnesses were not effectively cross-examined . A pre- occupied conclusion was rendered awarding punishment. The enquiry was biased. Even if proved, punishment is disproportionate to the gravity. The enquiry is unfair, improper, irregular and contrary to the principles ofnatural justice. The enquiry procedure is ridiculous , fanciful and arbitrary. He was denied Tamil version ofcharge sheet and deniedopportunity to be represented by a representative . The enquiry is vitiated. The enquiry procedure of not adopting recording of evidence of management witnesses firstprejudicedhim , the enquiry is eyewash and farce . The conduct ofEnquiry Officer is unjust , biased, partisan and improper . The copy of enquiry report was not furnishedto enable him to give explanation to show -cause notice.Hence theclaim.

(1) Whether the action of the Management in discharging the petitioner from the service of the Respondent/Bank is legal and justified?

(ii) To what relief the concerned employee is entitled to?

4. In the Counter Statement , the Respondent raised the contentions which briefly stated are as follows:

Track record of petitioner was far from satisfactory.

6. Evidence in this Industrial Dispute consists of the oral evidence ofWW1 and exhibits Ex . Wl to Ex. W19 on the petitioner's side . On the side of the Respondent MWI was examined and Ex . Ml to Ex . M9 were marked .

PointNo. 1

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that 9-1-2003 on which day the petitioner allegedly disobeyed the direction of the Dy. Manager to bring the Jewel Loan Ledger being a non-business holiday for Odapatti Rural Branch , the said charge is incorrect . There is no willful insubordination/ disobedience of superiors . The manner of the enquiry conducted by the Managemient is also assailed by the learned counsel as not fair and proper. The punishment of discharge is assailed as being without analyzing the material on record but taking into account various extraneous materials not borne out by the records .He seeks to alter the punishment invoking Section- 11Aofthe ID Act for the reasons , such as finding is perverse and iswithout considering the evidence of the petitioner. It is also argued that the punishment imposed is excessive . As to the fairness and propriety of the enquiry the matter can be found settled in the light of the order dated 28-8-2007 on the preliminary issue "as to whether the enquiryconducted is in a fair and proper manner " rendered by my learned predecessor who held that the enquiry conducted is in a just and proper manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in spite of such a finding at this stage of final enquiry the same question can be reappraised especially when matters relevant under Section- 11A of the ID Act are under consideration .

On9-1-2003 he refused to take Jewel Loan Register to the Dy. Manager and abused him. He threw the Jewel Loan Card at him. He again abused the Dy. Manager at the Dining Hall.On 19-2-2003 , he abused the Chief Officer ofthe Bank. He submitted that he would defend himself and the contra allegation is denied . No exception to the procedure was taken . The petitioner examined his witnesses and some management witnesses later without any hesitation . He asked for Tamil version of the charge sheet only to delay the enquiry after having given explanation to the charge sheet in English. Only after examining MW5 , the petitioner wantedViduthalai Suruthai , Defence Representative which was declined not being provided under Bipartite Settlement . He abused the Officers and left for which on 8-11-2003 , he was issued another charge sheet . He did not reply to the show-cause notice for discharge from service and was therefore discharged on 28-2-2004. He is alleged of having deserted his wedded wife , Jyothi claiming dowry , alleged ofhaving not carried out Sale Agreement entered with one Muthusamy who also complained for criminal breach of trust against him , he was debarred from claiming Staff Housing Loan on 30-9-1996, claimed Leave Fare Concession claiming to have visited places without visiting , Salem Office, complaint against him about always sitting without doing work in the Computer Room. Complaint of his shouting at K. Ramasamy , Record Keeper of the Respondent/Bank on 19-6-2000 , complaint that cheque for Rs . 1,50,000 issued by the petitioner was returned dishonoured for want of funds of having pulled Ramasomasundaram , Husband of payee of the above cheque out of and of abusing with un- parliamentary words by threatening with cutting legs and hands . He was punished with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for outside borrowings . On 15-2-2002 there was a wordy duel between his creditors and himself as well as on 1-3-2000 . On 10-1-2003 for the refusal of the petitionerto

8. Another limb of argument of the learned counsel is that the Management had not considered the past record of service before ordering discharge and the same is contraryto Clause 12 (C) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 12-10-2002 which vouchsafes his blemishless past 5802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] record of service. On this ground also the punishment is sought to be interfered with. He placed reliance on the decision of theHigh Court of Madras reported in 1993-1- LLN- 785 which deprecates punishment without taking into account the past record of service . He has also contention a contention that materials extraneous to the enquiry and the records of the enquiry have been taken into consideration for the punishment which is also deprecated in another in decision 1992 ( 1 )-LLN -606 which goes to the extent ofeven nullifying the punishment . It is cumulatively argued that the finding of Enquiry Officer is without legal evidence. His further contentions are that the two alleged incidentsbasedhappenings on 9-1-2003 and on 19-2-2003 didnot have any adverse impact on the bank. To meet the ends ofjustice, the employee with not less than 15 years of blemishless service is to be given a lesser punishment invoking Section - 11A ofthe IDAct .

ofhissitting idle, complaint ofhis shouting at colleagues , complaint against him of being drawer of a dishonoured cheque for Rs . 1,50,000 , complaint of his pulling Ramasomasundaram , husband of payee ofthe said cheque, punishment of stoppage of increment for outside borrowings etc. which are not much related to his office which he holds but are matters extraneous to his official complexion tends to show that they have also influenced theManagement to stigmatize the petitioner as a person quite unbecoming of a Sub- staff under the Respondent andhasbeena driving force to send him out ofemployment. According to me , but for the added enumerated acts unbecoming ofthe petitioner as an individual not connected with his office the Management would not have been promptedto throw the petitioner out of service for ever. He is a person reported hailing from Scheduled Caste , a suppressed community. The enumerated circumstances touching uponhim tend to show that he is a man leading a life finding it difficult to meet his both ends meet with the income derived by him. His hard hit circumstances in his life mayhaveurged him to act like them, often much against hiswill, and to which no one necessarily adverts to so as to pierce the veil to comprehend the causative factors tempting such a person to be indulged in acts unbecoming of him, though substantially and basically he may be a person with impeccable character . Such could be reasons forhimtobe indulged in various acts unbecoming of him personally and so appearing to the view of the officials of the Management as well . However, those matters being extraneous to office discipline they are not to be given considerationwhen a disciplinary proceeding against him is onhand . It is pertinent to note that the Management has no case that it has lost confidence in him and he cannot be endured any longer.

10. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances , I am of the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconducts . So viewed , the punishment imposed on him calls for alteration and reduction suitably so that he can re - enter into service and continue to serve. He may also thereby have an opportunity of correcting himself. While there is a direction for reinstatement of the petitioner into service as to what shall bethe minor punishment to be imposed on him is left to the province ofthe Disciplinary Authority which he may carry out in proper exercise of discretion and in a just and fair manner . The said minor punishment to be imposed, for being Illustrative, can be ofwithholding of increments with or without cumulative effect or even of withholding of backwages . For the reasons aforesaid, I find the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate tothe gravityofthe offence . Therefore, it is 'liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with backwages ( subject to the punishment to be imposed by the Management) continuity of service and all other attendant benefits . It is so ordered.

9. Coming to the question of alteration of punishment with a view to reduce the same invoking Section- 11 A of the ID Act, the paramount considerations weighing with the Tribunal have to be directed in a quite balanced manner so that a misplaced sympathy on leniency, if at all shown towards the workman shall not leave the Management in a panic stricken state of affairs . That is to say on the ground that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and on that count when the same is sought to be and reduced to a less than proportionate ratio it shall not be shocking or embarrassing to the Management. In other words while from the point of view of the petitioner the punishment shall not be shockinlgy disproportionate to the gravity ofthe offence one should not lose sight of the fact that when the said punishment is reduced to such an extent as to be less than proportionate to the gravity ofthe offence it shall not be shocking to the Management. It is trite that normally the Tribunals are not to interfere with thequantum ofpunishment imposed except in proper cases made out on extraordinary circumstances as couldbe carved out for a suitable departure from the normal rule to which attention was adverted to by the learned counsel for the Respondent who pointed out that there is no scope for interference with the punishment imposed . In this case evidently the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the past record of service of the petitioner before imposing the punishment ofdischarge from service . Again extraneous matters seem to have been taken into account by the Disciplinary Authority. There are instances in which opportunity of being heard was not extended to the petitioner which is much against the principles of natural justice . The enumeration of a list of alleged instances touching upon the past track record of petitioner such as his having deserted his wedded wife , Jothi claiming dowry, alleged non-carrying out of Sale Agreement, his debarring from claiming Staff Housing Loan , claiming Leave Fare Concessionwithout visiting all the places ofvisit, complaint [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5803

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

PointNo. 2

"Towhat relief the concerned employee is entitled" 11. In the light of the above finding, the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated into service forthwith with backwages (subject to the punishment to be imposed by the Management) , continuity of service and all other attendant benefits . The Management is left with the option ofimposing minor punishment ofwithholding of increments with or without cumulative effects or even withholding of backwages as it deems just and proper. No orders as to costs .

12. The reference is answered as above .

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed and typed by him , correctedand pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 21st August, 2009)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

Forthe I Party/ Petitioner : WW1 , Sri C. Munusamy For the II Party/Management : MW1 , Sri R. Natesan Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Date

Ex. No.

Description

Ex.W1 6-12-1989 Confirmation of the petitioner in the Respondent Bank Service. 10-4-2002

Ex.W2

Memorandum of Settlement.

Ex.W3 14-1-2003 Letter ofthe petitioner to SRM, IOB , Salem-4.

Ex.W4 19-2-2003 Letter regarding stationery items .

Ex.W5 20-2-2003 Letter of petitioner to SRM , IOВ , Salem-4.

Ex.W6 22-3-2002 Advocate notice to SRM , IOB , Salem-4.

Ex.W7 11-4-2003 Charge Sheet against the petitioner.

Ex.W8 20-4-2003 Reply of the petitioner to the Charge Sheet.

Ex.W9 3-7-2003 to Enquiry-Minutes proceedings .

25-7-2003

Ex.W10 7-8-2003 Complaintofthe petitioner to C.J.M. Salem and Others .

Ex.W11 17-10-2003 Complaint of one Ravi to Inspector ofPolice , Suramangalam P.S. about the assault of the Petitioner .

Ex.W12 30-1-2004 Show Cause Notice .

Ex. W13 28-2-2004 Original order.

Ex.W14 13-3-2004 Appeal toAppellate Authority.

Ex.W15 29-4-2004 Memorandum of the petitioner at personal hearing . :

Ex.W16 3-5-2004 AppellateOrder.

Ex.W17 27-9-2005 Report on failure of conviction.

Ex.W18 24-2-2006 Reference order of Government .

CourtNotice .

Ex.W19 21-3-2006

On theManagement's side:

Date

Ex. No.

Description

4-12-2000

Ex.M1

Memo issued to the petitioner regarding Excessive Outside Borrowings.

Ex . M2 15-2-2002 Memo issued to the petitioner regarding Excessive Outside Borrowings .

Ex . M3 19-6-2003 Copy of the proceedings dated 19-6-2003.

Ex . M4 23-2-2004 Extract of the personal hearing 13 Ex . M5 20-6-2000 Complaint given by K. Ramasamy, Record Keeper against the petitioner.

Ex. M6 24-10-2000 Complaints given by R. Somasundaram against the petitioner.

Ex. M7 4-7-2002 Punishment order issued to the petitioner regarding charge sheet dated 26-08-2000 .

Ex. M8 25-7-2003 Letter of the Enquiry Officer to the Respondent Bank regarding the happenings on 25-07-2003 .

Ex. M9

EnquiryOfficer'sreport .

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2667.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22011/28/2008- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 31st August , 2009 S.O. 2667. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central 5804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/ 2008) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on28-8-2009 .

[No. L- 22011 /28/2008 - IR(B- II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW.

PRESENT

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 36/2008

Ref. No. L-22011/28/2008- IR (B- II) dated: 18-06-2008

BETWEEN

3. The case of the workman's union in brief is that the workman, Shri Virendera Kumar Srivastava applied against letter dated 29-6-2002 for consideration for the post of Special Assistant vide his application dated 5-7-2002 and submitted the same with the Bank management , but he was not considered for the said post even being senior most in the seniority list . It has been submitted by the workman's union that on inquiry the management ofBank informed the workman vide letter dated 05-09-2002 that it had not received any application from workman regarding consideration for the post ofSpecial Assistant , as such he wasconsidered. It has been allegedby the workman's union that although the workman made various represcatations to sort outthe lapse , at the end of the bank, which resulted into non - consideration of the workman; but the management did not respond positively and the workman concernedhas been deprived ofhis legitimate claim for the post ofSpecial Assistant ; and accordingly, the workman's union has prayed that the management of the bank be directedto draw a fresh seniority list ofSpecial Assistants , including workman , and on the basis of this seniority list treathim Special Assistant from 2002 with all consequential benefits.

TheGeneral Secretary Central Bank StaffAssociation

87 -H/1 , Kidwai Nagar Kanpur (U.P.)

(Espousing cause of Shri Virendera Kumar Srivastava)

And

The Assistant General Manager

Central Bank of India

73,Hazratganj Lucknow

AWARD

Dated: 11-08-2009

4. Per contra the management of FCI has disputed the claim of the workman's union by filing its written statementwherein it has submitted that since no application was received by the Regional Office of the Bank, from workman, within prescribed time limit, therefore, there arise no question of considering the workman in selection process whatsoever. Further the management ofBank has specifically denied the allegation of the workman's union that it did not respond towards representations of the workman and has submitted that relevant representations ofthe workman had properly been replied by the bank. It hasbeen submitted by the Bank that the selection process. ofthe post of Special Assistant in year 2002 was carried out from amongst the applicants and since the application of the workman was not received , as such , there was no question ofpromoting the workman to the post of Special Assistant and accordingly . the Bank's management has prayed that the claim of the workman's union is liable to be rejected without any relief to the workman concerned.

5. The workman's union declined to file rejoinder and since the union had already filed documents in support oftheir claim, therefore, the opposite party was directed to file list of documents in support of their version.

1. By order No. L- 22011 / 28 /2008 - IR( B - II) dated 18-06-2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause.. (d) ofsub section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the General Secretary , Central Bank StaffAssociation, 87-H/ 1 , Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.) (Espousing cause of Shri Virendera Kumar Srivastava) and the Assistant General Manager , Central Bank of India , 73 , Hazratganj , Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the Central Bank of India in Non-considering Shri Virendra Kumar Srivastava for appointment for the post of Special Assistant in the Bank during 2002 was legal and justified ? Ifnot, what relief the workman in entitled to?"

6. On the date fixed for submission of list of documents by the opposite party , the representative of theworkman'sunion filed an application dated 10-08-2009 (W- 11 ) wherein it has been submitted that the workman concerned had been promoted in JMG, as such , he does not want to pursue the case. Accordingly , it has been prayed that the present dispute be stood withdrawn , as not pressed and appropriate orders may be passed. The authorized representative of the Bank has also made its 5805

'भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

endorsement to the effect that the Bank has no objection regarding withdrawal ofthe case as the workman concerned has already been promoted.

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-8-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/302/2001 - IR(B- II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 193/2001

PresidingOfficer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

Shri Sharda Prasad Raikwar ,

Dy.General Secretary,

Workman/Union

State Bank of India Staff Congress , 5/235, Pragati StateBank of India Staff Colony, Vikasnagar, Jabalpur (MP)

7. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the action of the management and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail . In the instant case the burden was on the workman's union to prove that the action of the management of Bank of Central Bank of India in not considering the workman for appointment for the post of Special Assistant in the Bank during 2002 was , illegal and unjustified. The workman's union does not want to pursue the case any more . Moreover , the representative of the workman's union has requested for leave of the Tribunal to withdraw the case vide application dated 10-08-2009 (W- 11) , stating therein that the workman concerned had been promoted in JMG, as such , he does not want to pursue the case; and accordingly, there is no need to proceedwiththe present industrial dispute as grievances ofthe workman stands redressed; also , the Bank has no objection in withdrawal of the case . Thus , the representative of the workman's union has prayed to pass suitable orders .

Versus

TheBranch Manager,

StateBank of India, GraminBranch ,

Bargaon, Distt. Katni (MP)

Management

AWARD

8. Although provisions of withdrawal ofsuits under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC are not applicable in the matter of reference unde Section 10 of ID Act but, in view of the submission of the workman's union for withdrawal of the case, there is no grievance left with the workman and concerned Trade Union. Resultantly, no relief is required tobe given to the workman concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly .

9. Award as above .

Passed on this 13th day of August, 2009 Lucknow

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer

Dated: 11-8-2009

नई दिल्ली , 31 अगस्त, 2009

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 12012 /302/ 2001 - IR (B- II ) dated 11-12-2001 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the Branch Manager , State Bank, Bargaon Gramin Branch, Distt. Katni (MP)who inspite ofregularizing, terminated the service of Shri Sharda PrasadRaikwar w.e.f. 1-10-99 and who worked from 15-3-92 to 30-9-99 as temporary messenger/ watchman/Faras , is proper and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

का.आ. 2668. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 193/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/302/2001-आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The workman did not appear inspite of proper service of notice . It appears that sufficient opportunity was given to the workman to appear and file his statement ofclaim. Lastlythe predecessor's court proceeded exparte against him on 26-8-05 after about 5 years .

New Delhi , the 31st August, 2009

S.O. 2668. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 193/2001 )

3. The management appeared in the case but had not filed anyWritten Statement. The management filed an application dated 10-8-09 stating therein that the workman 5806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 /ASVINA 4 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

Versus

The Zonal Manager ,

IB, UpperGround Floor ,

has not filed any statement of claim and the case is fixed exparte against him . It is submitted that it shows that the workmanhas no dispute with the management as such, no dispute award be passed.

World Trade Centre , Baber Road,

NewDelhi .

Management

AWARD

4. Considering the above submission and on perusal of the record, it is clear that there is no evidence on the record against the management . As such, there is nodispute between the parties or the workman doesnot want tocontest the case.

Passed on this 11th day of August-2009

costs. 5. In the result, no dispute award is passed without

1.TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No.L- 12011 /102/99 /IR(B- II) dated 23-12-1999 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

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, 31 अगस्त, 2009

"Whether the management of Indian Bank is justified indenial of full time employment to Sh . Kamlesh Kalyane , and keeping him as a part time sweeper for the past 23 years? Ifnot, what relief is the aggrieved workman entitled to ?"

का.आ. 2669. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/ 102/99- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was working in the Bank of the management as part time employee for the last 23 years and also worked as full time employee on leave vacancy. It is stated that the management also gavebonus ofRs . 500/ - for the year 1975 to 1979 to the workman. The workman claims regularisation on the post ofpeon.

New Delhi , the 31st August, 2009

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement.

S.O. 2669.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 4/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-8-2009.

[No. L- 12011 /102/99- IR(B- II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Accordingto the management, the alleged Union is not aUnion of the Employers of the Bank and has no locus standi to raise the individual dispute . The workman was a member of Indian Bank Employees Union but he had not raised the dispute. It is stated that the workman is already apermanent part time employee of the Bank and all bencfits available to his category are being given to him . It is stated that there is no vacancy of full time sweeper in the branch office of Indore and the workman has no legal right to claim thepost ofpeon. It is submitted that there is no merit in the claim ofthe workman.

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 4/2000

4. During the course of proceeding , the workman filed application dated 4-8-2009 that he doesnot want to raise the dispute and the reference be accordingly ended. The management has also no objection .

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan

5. Considering the above facts , no dispute award is passed without costs .

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Bank Karmachari Sanghthan,

Karmbhomi , Tripti Vihar,

Near Engineering College ,

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

9, SanwerRoad, Hardev Niwas ,

Workman/Union

Ujjain(MP)

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer :

5807 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2009

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank Patna to re -designate Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta asAttender from Driver- cum-Attender with effect from 2-3-2000 and withdrew the special allowance applicable to him i.e. driver allowance from that date i.e. with retrospective effect vide order dated 16-3-2000 is justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

का.आ. 2670. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडीकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. -1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/169/2000- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 31st August , 2009

S.O. 2670.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Governmenton 28-8-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 169/2000- IR(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I DHANBAD

Inthe matter ofa reference under section 10( 1 ) (d) & (2A) ofIndustrial Disputes Act . , 1947

Reference No. 63 of 2001

Parties :Employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank, Patna. And

Their Workmen

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , PresidingOfficer APPEARANCES

For the Employers : Shri S. Sharma, Advocate.

For the Workman : Shri D. Mukherjee ,Advocate.

State: Bihar.

Industry:Bank.

Dated, the 11thAugust, 2009

AWARD

By Order No. L- 12012/ 169/ 2000/-IR-( B- II) , dated 19/22-2-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the followingdispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

2. The written statement has been filed on behalf of the concerned workman stating that he was appointed by letter dated 2-3-1983 on the post of Attender- cum - Driver with the stipulation to make him confirm in permanent service after completion of six months period of probation assuring protection of all conditions of service , privileges and benefit as per the provisions of law applicable to employees working in the Bank . It has been stated that the concerned workman is continuing as permanent workman holding the permanent status of Attender-cum- Driver from the year 1983 till the year 2000 and after holding the permanent status on such a post for a period of about 17 years , the management has changed his designation to that ofAttender only with reduction of wages which not only amounts to contravention of various provisions of law but amountsto unfair labour practice on the part of the management . It has been submitted that concerned workman was posted at the then branch office of the aforesaid bank at Patna from the very beginning of his service and with the increase ofbusiness , the management took decision to establish a regional office of the bank under the management , control and direction of the RegionalManager in the year 1987. One car remain attached to the branch office of the bank from the very inception and the concerned workman was working as Attender- cum-Driver to the Branch Manager . He was driving the vehicle whenever required for official use or used by the Branch Manager and he used to be the Attender of the Branch Manager all throughout his duty hours . In the year 1991, after posting of the permanent Regional Manager , the car was utilised both for regional office as well as branch office and the then Regional Manager became the Controlling Officer of the car. He preferred to appoint a man of his personal choice as casual driver and directed the concerned workman to work as Attender to theBranch Manager oftheBank. The concerned workman submitted his representionthrough the union and raised an industrial. dispute over the issue of change of his permanent status from Driver-cum-Attender to that ofAttender and reduction ofwages by way of withdrawal of special allowance and the management by letter dated 8-5-91.gave full assurance that in view of holding the substantive status ofpermanent Driver-cum-Attender, the concerned workman would continue toget all allowances including special allowance attached to that post even he would be redesignated as Attender. The previous order of the management was cancelled and the concerned workman continued to hold his substantive designation as Driver -cum -Attender and 3360 G1/09-25 5808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ] continued to get all benefits including special allowance and all service conditio .. remain protected in absolute terms with the future assurance that in no circumstances his wages will be reduced or allowance will be curtailed even he would be redesignated as Attender . It has been stated that as per the aforesaid assurance given by the management , the concerned work nan did not continue his dispute making claim for allowing him to drive the vehicle attached to the Regional Manager and the Regional Manager got the man of his choice engaged as casual driver performing the bank duties as well as his unofficial duties. It has been submitted that the management violated the terms and conditions of the employment embodied in the letter of employment of 1983, violated the assurance given in the year 1991 and violated clause 20.2 ofbi -partite settlement of 1966 and changed the designation of the concerned workman from the permanent and substantive designation ofDriver- cum -Attender to the new designation ofAttender with reduction of wages in violation of section 9A of the 1. D. Act, 1947. Thereafter the sponsoring union raised an industrial dispute before the A.L.C. (C) , Patnaby letter dated 8-3-2000 and the conciliation officer issued notice dated 10-3-2000 initiating conciliation proceedings and after receipt of the notice, the management issued a notice dated 16-3-2000 purported to be u/s . 9A of the I. D. Act, 1947 changing the condition of service retrospectively w.e.f. 2-3-2000 which is illegal , null and viod. During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings , the management was required to maintain to follow the provisions of section 33 of the I.D. Act and they cannot change the condition of service without obtaining due approval from the conciliation officer. It has been submitted that the management not only contravened the provision of section 9A ofthe I. D. Act, 1947 , but, also violated the provision of section 33 which is mandatory in nature and amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the management . It has been submitted that the entire action of the management is illegal and unjustified and the concerned workman is entitled to continue on his permanent and substantive post ofAttender-cum- Driver and to get all the benefits of pay protection irrespective of the fact whether he is given the chance to drive the vehicle of the management or not .

It has been prayed before this Hon'ble Tribunal to pass an award in favour of the coneerned workman .

SriGupta was also not willing to work as driver at any other placewhere his services as a driver could be utilised. The Bank cannot continue to pay the special allowance without actually getting such duties performed by Sri Gupta , the concerned workman and therefore the Bank has withdrawn the special allowance attached to the post of driver after due notice to him and the same cannot be termed as unfair labour practice by any stretch of imagination. The action ofthe management in redesignate the workman , Sri Ashok KumarGupta, as Attender from Driver-cum-Attender w.e.f. 2-3-2000andwithdraw the special allowance was not illegal and the same was not contrary to the provisions ofBipartite settlement or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the service conditions applicable to the concerned workman. In the year 1991 the Regional Office was established in Patna. In fact, the Regional Office was opened at Patna on 9-5-87 and Regional Manager in- charge of the Regional Office was given a car since the beginning . The car facility given to Patna Branch was withdrawn subsequently w.c.f. 1-1- 1991. There are two different aspects and it is not correct to say that the Regional Manager is employing a Driver on a casual basis to deprive the concerned workman of the Driver'sallowance. In fact, the Regional Manager in Patna was engaging a Driver even perior to 1991 when Sri Gupta was driving the vehicle provided to the Branch Manager , Patna Branch . As per clause 5.9 of the Bipartite settlement by which the employee is governed, a workman will be entitled to special allowance only so long as he is in charge ofsuch work or the performance of duties which attracts such allowance . Since Sri Gupta was not performing the duties of the driver, the action of the Bank in withdrawing special allowance after giving due notice is in accordance with the provisions of the Bipartite settlement and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not correct to say that the Branch has issued the Notice under sec.9A of the 1. D. Act subsequently to the raising of the dispute and violated sec. 33 ofthe I. D. Act . The Notice withdrawing the Driver's allowance was issued by the Branch prior to the receipt of theNotice ofthe conciliation procedings . In any case , there is no intention on the part of the Bank or any of its officials to contravene the provision of Sec.33 of I. D. Act . It has been further submitted that as regurds the Notice dated 16-3-2000 issued to Sri Gupta withdrawing the Driver's allowance from 2-3-2000 , the Barrk is willing to pay the Driver'sAllowance for the Notice period of21 days from the date of issuance of the said Notice . It has been submitted that the Bark has followed the law and withdraw the allowance by redesignating the employee as Attender in accordance with the provisions of I. D. Act and the provisions ofBipartite settlement .

It has been prayed that the claim of the concerned workman, Ashok Kumar Gupta , be rejected as devoid of merit.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statement.

5. None of the parties has adduced oral evidence in this case.

3. The management has filed written statement stating that Ashok Kumar Gupta was appointed as Attender- cum-Driver in the year 1983 at Patna Branch . At that time, PatnaBranch was provided with Bank's car . Subsequently the car facility attached to Patna Branch was withdrawn from 1-1-1991 and therefore there is no requirement of a driver at PatnaBranch. The Branch sought the willingness ofSri Gupta to work as a driver at any other place where the vacancy exists . Sri Gupta instead of giving his willingness or otherwise protested the Bank's offer . Since there was no car attached to Patna Branch , the branch could not utilise his services as a driver. Although Sri Gupta was not performing the duties of a driver, he was being paid the special allowance attached to the driver's post since 1991 .

5809 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

the concerned workman as Attender is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Bipartite settlement because as per Bipartite settlement Clause 20.2 dated 19-10-1966 which explains that an employee with combined designations will be entitled to the appropriate special allowance if an allowance is provided for in this settlement for either ofhis designations , which show that Attender - cum Driver and Drivers are entitled for special allowance and it does not change designation for getting special allowance . The concernedworkman has referred 1960( 1 ) LLJ - 580( SC ) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that workmen representatives on the works committee agreeing to the introdution of a scheme of rationalisation resulting in increased workload and which was likely to render some of the hands surplus - such agreements, if binding on the concerned workman . The workman also has referred Bi- partite settlement regarding combined designation dated 19-10-1966 clause 20.2 in which clause an employee will be entitled to theappropriate special allowance ifan allowance is provided for in this settlement for either of the designations. The learned counsel of the workman also referred 1986 Supreme Court Cases (L & S ) 278 in whích Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that under Sec . 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act , a benefit prevailing for long making it a condition of service should not be allowedto beinterferedwith lightly to the prejudice the workman in absence ofcompelling material and where reference is made at the instance of the employer pursuant to industria! dispute arising out ofnotice of change served by employer under Section 9-A to the detriment of workman, burden to justify the change lies on the employer . He has also referred S.C.L.J. (Vol-3 ) page 2183 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947-' Key allowance ' given to cashiers of Indian Overseas Bank-such allowance is not included in Desai Award-Key allowance being accepted by the Bank as a gesture of goodwill it became term and condition of the service of cashiers- stoppage of Key allowance - Notice of changeunder sec . 9-A ofthe Act necessary - Key allowance inthe instant case held to be payable till it was stopped in accordance with law. The learned counsel ofthe workman also referred 1999 Lab.I.C. 2826 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down- order of single judge. in writ petitionunder.Arts . 226, 227- Basic averments for invoking suchjurisdiction pleaded in petition-petition dismissedby observing that courts below had appreciated the contention and rejected petitioners complaint-cannot mean that single judge was not inclined to interfere under Art . 227 only- writ appeal would be maintainable.

6.Argument advanced onbehalf ofthe management is that Ashok Kumar Gupta has been redesignated as Attender from Driver -cum-Attender w.e.f. 2-3-2000 and withdrawn the special allowance because he is not entitled for special allowance, as he has not been performing the duties of a driver since 1991. It has been argued that Sri Gupta's desireness was sought by the Bank vide letter No.PIN/2000/1738 dated 16-3-2000 to work as Attender- cum-Driver in place where the vacancy exists . As there was no positive response from Sri Gupta there was no other way for the Bank but to redesignate him as Attender andwithdraw the special allowance which was being paid without performing such duties , Sri Gupta was driving the car attached to the Branch whenever required as a driver upto 1990 and also performing the duties as an attender. SriGuptawas not performing the duties ofdriver from 1991 since the car facilities to Patna Branch was withdrawn and he was performing the duties of an attender only since 1991. TheRegional Office was opened at Patna on 5-5-87 and the Regional Manager Incharge of the Regional Office was provided a car since the beginning and the car facility given to Patna Branch was withdrawn subsequently w.e.f. 1-1-1991 . It has been argued that regarding redesignation ofAttender- cum -Driver and the same is an All India policy matter. The matter was discussed in joint meeting held on 17-4-99 at Head Office at Manipal , between the representatives of the management of the Bank and the representatives of Syndicate Bank employees union. In the said meeting the representatives of the said union requested that whenever the driver is willing to work as driver, in the place where such work is available , he may be posted as a driver - cum - attender at that place and the representative ofthe management informed the union that the driver's allowance is being withdrawn only where they are not required to perform the driver's duties , and if the drivers are willing to work at a place where the vacancy exists , they will be allowed to continue as driver-cum- attender in such vacancies . While continuing to pay the allowances attached to the performance of driver's duties 1991, my such assurance of continuing the allowances was given to the workman. It has been argued that through the advice was given to the Branch to pay the special allowance eligible to the employees vide letter No. 20C/ RAC /W/ 1221/91 /375252 dated 8-5-1991 it will not bar the Banktoget right position subsequently including recovery of allowances wrongly paid . As per clause No. 5.9 of the Bipartite settlement by which the employee is governed a workmanwill be entitled to special allowance only, so long as he is in-charge ofsuch work or the performance ofduties which attracts such allowances . Since Sri Gupta was not performing the duties of the driver the action of the Bank withdrawing special allowance after the notice in accordancewith the provisions of the Bipartite settlement and I. D. Act , 1947 is legal and justified.

7. In this respect the concerned workman's representative argued that the action of the management in withdrawing the special allowance and re- designating

8. The management's representative argued that the concerned workman was given notice whether he is ready toperform the work as Attender- cum -Driver in placewhere the vacancy exists vide letter No. PIN/2000/ 1738 dated 16-3-2000 and since there was no positive response from Sri Gupta, the special allowance was withdrawn . But the above letter has not been filed by the management to show that any option has been given for performing duty as Driver, so that his designation may be changed as Attender 5810

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

New Delhi , the 1st September, 2009

S.Q. 2671-In pursuance of Section 17. of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 379/05, 44/98,49/98, 61/04, 49/04, 51/04, 95/97 ,50/04, 59/04, 57/04, 176/05, 42/98 , 40/98, 48/98 ) of the Central Government IndustrialTribunal-cum - Labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FoodCorporation of India and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 21-8-2009.

[No.L-22012/319/2004- IR(C-II) ,

L-22012/302/ 1997- IR( C -II) ,

L-22012/307/1997 -IR(C- II) , cum-Driver.Through the Bank's Divisional Manager had writtena letter dated 8-5-91 to the Manager Patna Branch , regarding special allowance tobe paid and continued to be paid eventhough he is redsignated as attender. But this is also not followed by the Manager , Patna Branch. This document has been filed by the management which means not following , though as per letter dated 16-3-2000which shows that the concerned workman has been redesignated asAttender and there is no letter which may show that any letter has writtenwhich has been recieved by the concerned workman where he wants to do the job, so that he may have exercised his option. By letter dated 16-3-2000 only designation has been changed from Driver- cum-Attender to Attender and withdrawal of allowance , but no option has been given .No paper has been filed by the management for doing the job of Attender. This burden lies on the management which they have failed to discharge.

L -22012/20/2004- IR(C- II) ,

L-22012/408/2003 - IR(C- II),

L-22012/406/2003-IR(C- II),

L-22012/ 585/ 1996-IR( C- II),

L-22012/407/2003 - IR( C- II),

L-22012/ 18/2004- IR(C- II),

L-22012/ 19/2004- IR(C- II) ,

L-22012/308/1997 - IR(C- II) , 9. In view of the discussions made above I come to the conclusion that the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Patna to re - designate Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta as Attender from Driver-cum-Attender w.e.f. 2-3-2000 andwithdraw the special allowance applicable to him i.e. driver allowance from that date i.e. with retrospective effect vide order dated 16-3-2000 is not justified. Accordingly, the concerned workman is entitled to continue onhis permanent and substantive post of Attender-cum- Driver and to get all the benefits with retrospective effect.

L-22012/300/1997 -IR(C- II) , This is may award.

L-22012/298/1997 - IR( C- II) , H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

L-22012/306/1997- IR( C- II )] नई दिल्ली, 1 सितम्बर , 2009

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

COURT-1, CHANDIGAR

CaseNo. L. D. no. 44/96 and 13 others (as mentioned in the listbelow)

का.आ. 2671.-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 केन्द्रीयः सरकार औद्योगिकः अधिकरण नं. - 1 / श्रम न्यायालय , चण्डीगढ़ को पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 379/05, 44/98 , 49/98 , 61/04, 49/04 , 51/04 , 95/97, 50/04 , 59/04 , 57/04 , 176/05 , 42/98 , 40/98 , 48/98. ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-9-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Shri Karan Singhak Others (as mentioned in the list below) [सं. एल-22012/319/2004- आईआर ( सी ) ,

.......Applicants एल-22012/302/ 1997-आई आर (सी-11 ) ,

Versus

एल-22012/307/1997 - आई आर. ( सी ) ,

বন্দে-22042/ 29/200- अ

1. The District Manager , Food Corporation of India, RohtakandKarn

एल -22242 /400/ 2000 - आईआर ( भीम ),

2. Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Punjab, Sector 34, Chandigarh:

पपता -22942 /406/ 2005 - आई ( 0)

पावस-2202/586/ 1996- आईजी ) ,

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

एस -22042 /18/ 2004- आईआर (बी ),

एन -220/12/ 19/2004 - आईआर ( 境) ,

एस- 220-2140772903 - आईआर (सी ),

Forthe workman

দরদ-22012/300/1997- आई ) ,

: Shri P. C. Gupta, O. P.Sharma, Kamini Bhanot & R.P. Rana, Advocates .

বন্দ -22012 / 308/ 1997- आईआरसी ),

एহন:-220/ 2/298 /1997- ) ,

FortheManagement

एल-22012/306/1997- आई आर( सी- II )

: Shri Pramod Jain , N. Κ . Zakhmni , Santokh Singh , Advocates.

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी 5811

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

AWARD

Passed on 6-8-2009

Thisaward shall dispose off 14 references ofdifferent workmen referred by the Central Government bydifferent orders.The references which are being disposed ofbythis award are as follows :-

workmenwereprovided through a contractor and there is no employer-employee relationship between them . It has been further alleged by the management of Food CorporationofIndia that payment ofwages was made good to the workmenby the contractor and the management of Food Corporation of India was not having any administrative control over the workers .

PartiesName

Reference No.

No. I. D. No.

Onthebasis ofpleadings ofparties, the main issues, inmy view, for the determination of this Tribunal are as follows:-

1. 379/05 L-22012/319/2004- IR(CM- Karan Singh Versus F.C.I.

III)dated 14-07-2005

2. 44/98 L- 22012/ 302/97 - IR(C- II). Anup Singh Versus

1.Whether there existed employer- employee relationship between the management of Food Corporation ofIndia and the workmen?

F.C.I.

dated 27-02-1998

2.Towhat relief, ifany, the workmen are entitled?

3. 49/98 L- 22012/307/ 97-1R(C- II) Ishwar Singh Versus

F.C.I.

dated 27-02-1998

4. 61/04 L-22012/ 20 /2004- IR( C- II ) dated 23-12-2004

Sanjay Kumar Versus F.C.I.

5. 49/04

JanakRem Versus F.C.I.

L- 22012/408 /2003 - IR (CM- II ) dated 04-10-2004

6. 51/04 L- 22012/406/ 2003 - IR

Parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence .Oral evidence was adduced by the workmen . In few cases, the management of Food Corporation of India alsoadduced the oral evidence. The management ofFood Corporation of India , also in all the cases preferred to file certaindocuments which were marked Exhibit accordingto the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act . Arguments were also heard.

Karam Chand Versus F.C.I.

(CM- II ) dated 04-10-2004

L-22012/585 /96- IR( C- II )

7. 95/97

Milkh Raj Versus F.C.I.

dated 21-01-1997

8. 50/04

Hardeep Singh Versus F.C.I.

L- 22012/407/2003 -IR (CM)dated 04-10-2004

9. 59/04 L-22012/ 18 / 2004 - IR(CM - II )

dated 23-12-2004

Rajesh Kumar Versus F.C.I.

10. 57/04 L- 22012/ 19/ 2004- IR(CM - II)

dated 23-12-2004

Mohinder Kumar VersusF.C.1 .

11. 176/05 L- 22012/308/ 97 - IR( C- II) dated 27-02-1998

Krishan Kumar Versus F.C.I.

12. 42/98 L-22012/300/ 97 - IR( C- II) dated 27-02-1998

RajeshKumar VersusF.C.I.

Itisherebymade clear that all these references were pending adjudication in CGIT- cum - Labour Court - II . The CGIT-cum-Labour Court - II was lying vacant and the Central Government vide an administrative arrangement transferred all the pending references to the Tribunal No.1 . Numbers of references relating to the references in question were pending adjudication before the Tribunal No. 1 in which evidence of the parties was recorded and arguments heard. Both of the parties contended that questions involved in all the reference in question are the same in which the arguments have already been heard. It was further contended and argued that the references in question must also be adjudicated along with other reference ofsimilar nature in which arguments have already been heard. The statement of such nature is on record .

13. 40/98

BijenderKumar Versus F.C.I.

L- 22012/298 /97 - IR( C- II ) dated 27-02-1998

14. 48/98 L- 22012/306 / 97 - IR( C- II ) dated 27-02-1998

VedParkash Versus F.C.I.

I have gone through all the files of reference in question. It is evidently clear that the matter involved in all the reference is almost similar and the grievances can be redressed by a single award. No doubt, in few references there are some additional pleas taken by the workmen . The pleas so taken shall be discussed and dealt with separately inthis award. Thus , for the purpose of adjudication ofall the references , considering the similar nature of references , Iam consolidating the files and answering all these reference bythis award.

As stated earlier that this award shall dispose of 14 references ofdifferent workmen preferred by Central Governmentby different notifications . Common questions oflaw and facts are involved in these references ; hence, all the references are hereby disposed of by this award. The workmen in all the references have alleged that theywere engaged by themanagement directly. In some references it is alleged by the workmen that previously they were engaged through a contractor but on expiry of the term of contract, theybecame the direct employee of the Food Corporation of India. Their services were terminated without notice , one month wages in lieu ofnotice orterminal dues against the provisions of the Industrial DisputsAct.

I have heard the parties in length . The main arguments of learned counsel/ representative of the workmen are that all the workmen were engaged by the management of Food Corporation of India directly and if there appointment has been shown through contractor by the management, it is illegal being against the provisions ofthe Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is further argued that all the workmen were directly under the administrative control of the management and On the other hand , the management of Food Corporation of India alleged that the services of the 5812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 /ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II SEC. 3( ii ) ]

preparedby the management of Food Corporation of India to make the payment to the workers .

they were paid the wages by the management of Food Corporation of India and in fact, they were the employees ofthe management and not of the contractor . On the other hand, learned counsel for the management of Food Corporation of India submitted that there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the management of Food Corporation of India and the workmen. The services ofthe workmen were providedby the contractors. The consolidated contracted amount was paid to the contractor by the management of Food Corporation of India, and thereafter , the wages of the workmen were paid by the contractors and not by the management of the Food CorporationofIndia. It is further arguedby the learned counsel ofthe management that there has been no violation of any provisions ofthe Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act1970. Ifthere is a violation of any provisions ofthe said Act, the workman was not to be treated as direct employee of themanagement of Food Corporation of India, but it will be resulted into the criminal action against the concerned authorities under the penal provisions ofthe said Act .

The issue of employer - employee relationship between the management of Food Corporation of India and the workmen is a mixed issue of facts and law , and accordingly, shall be adjudicated on the basis ofperusal of evidence,and pleadings of the parties .

Ifthe above mentioned ratio ofGM , ONGC , Shilcher's case is applied in all the references , it is clear that workmen have failed to prove that they were appointed/engaged by the management of Food Corporation of India . There is no iota of evidence on record to prove that they were directly under the administrative control of the management of lood Corporation of India . No doubt, it is contended by the workmen that their attendance were marked by the officers/ officials of themanagement of Food Corporation of India, but it will not be sufficient to prove the administrative control over them . They were supposed to file/ adduced some cogent evidence like sanction of leave disciplinary action taken by the management of Food Corporation of India, if any, etc. The instances enumerated by the workmen in all the references are not sufficient to constitute the administrative control of the management of Food Corporation of India over all the workmen . Thus, the workmen have failed to prove that they were under the administrative control of the management of Food Corporation of India . On the payment of wages the management of Food Corporation of India has filed the documentary evidence which proved that consolidated amount on the basis of number ofdays workedbythe workmen were given to the contractor, and contractor on the other hand,used topay the wages to the workmen. The management has filed all the relevant documents such as attendance sheet signedby the officers of the management of Food Corporation ofIndia, order of payment based on the attendance of the workmen to the contractor, and thereafter , the payment of wages by the contractor to the workmen. Moreover , in few references the contractors appeared as witnesses . They have categorically stated that the services of the workmen were provided by them to the management ofFood Corporation of India and the workmen were not the employee of the managementofFood Corporation ofIndia.

Almost in all the references , it is admitted that no appointment letter was issued by the management. It is denied by the workmen that the payments of wages were made good by the contractor . But on perusal of the documents filed by the management, it is evidently clear that the payment to the workmen were made good by the contractor and not by the management of Food Corporation of India. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008 LLR 801 ,GM , ONGC Shilcher Vs. ONGC Contractual Workers Union,. has laid down the criteria to establish the direct employee- employer relationship between the workman and the management of any organization . If we apply the ratio of GM, ONGC Shilcher case (supra) the workmen have to prove the following facts to establish the employee- employer relationship .

Onperusal ofall the evidence oral and documentary givenby the workmen, officer of the management ofFood Corporation of India and the contractor , I am of the view thatpayment of wages to all the workmen were made good by the contractor and not by the management of Food Corporation of India.

1. That there exited a relationship of master and servant ,

2. That there was no contractor appointed by the : management ofFood Corporation of India.

3. The management of Food Corporation of India used to supervise the alleged work assigned to individual workers .

The above discussion proved that neither the workmen were appointed/ engaged by the management of Food Corporation of India nor they were under the administrative control of the management of Food Corporation of India. They were also not paid the wages bythe Food Corporation of India . Hence , their existed no master- servant relationship between the management of Food Corporation of India and all the workmen .

4. That the management of Food Corporation of India took disciplinary action and called for explanations from the workers .

5. That the workers were paid wages by the management of Food Corporation of India directly and not through the contractor.

6. At the cost of repetition , the wages ere paid directlytothe workers by the management of Food Corporation of India and the acquaintance role were

It is also contended by the workmen that the contract, if any, shownby the management of the Food Corporation of India was camouflage and shame . In ONGC Silchur's case (supra) the conditions under which a Contract can be treated a camouffage and shame aré mentioned. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has relied uponthe law laid down in Steel Authority of India Ltd. , 5813

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

decide it as well . On this issue there may be three circumstances :-

1. There may be a case where the practice of contract labour is prohibited by the appropriate Government under Section 10( 1 ) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970.

2. There may be an issue regarding the registration of establishment of principal employer under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 .

3. There maybe an issue regarding the license by the Contractor under Section 12 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970.

The issue to be decided is whether in the case of violation of any of the provisions mentioned under Section 10( 1 ) ; Section 7 and Section 12 of The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970 , the contract labour shall be deemed to be an employee of the principal employer.

and others Vs. National Union Water Workers and others AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3527 ( 1) . The question before this Tribunal is under what circumstances a contract between the management of Food Corporation of India and the workmen can be held to be shame and camouflage? In case the contract has been held to be shame or camouflage , the contract labour working in the management ofthe principal employment are held to be employees of principal employer himself. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the each case whether the contract executed in between the management and the contractor is camouflage and shame . It is also a issue of facts and has to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case . Whether there is a genuine contractor , and whether there is a proper master - servant relationship in between the management of Food Corporation of India and the workmen also depends on the facts and circumstances of the case . Likewise , whether they were directly under the administrative control of the Food Corporationof India and were paid wages directly by the management of Food Corporation of India also depends on facts and circumstances of the case . The Court has to look into whether these facts emerged in reality or there was some paper arrangement to make the payment good to the workmen through contractor?

This issue has been settled by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Steel Authority if India Ltd.'s case (supra) . Moreover , Pb . and Har. High Court in Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court - 1 , Chandigarh and others 2008 LLR 391 , has decided this issue after relying the ratio of Steel Authority of India Ltd. , case ( supra) . Without mentioning the relevant paras of Steel Authority of India Ltd. , case (supra) and of Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court case ( supra) , I am relying the ratio of both of the judgements , and the ratio of both of the judgement is that if there is any violation of Section 7, Section 10 and Section 12 ofThe Contact Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , then only penal provisions of Section 23 and Section 25 of the said Act arc attracted . Hence , it is nowhere provided that such employees , employed through the contractor would become employees of the principal employer. I have gonc through the facts and circumstances of the case . Almost in all the references the registration and the license have been produced by the management of Food Corporation of India . It may only resulted in penal actions under Section 23 and Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 , if there is any violation of any provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act .

Inthese reference the nature of contract is challenged by the workmen. No doubt in few of references in the pleading it is not mentioned that there was a contract between the contractor and the management of the Food Corporation ofIndia but the documents provided and filedby themanagement of the Food Corporation of India that proved that in the Writ Petition filed by the workmen before theHigh Court ofPunjab and Haryana, contractor was made a party . In the Writ Petition the workmen requested the court for an order of payment of wages and directing the respondent including the contractor not to terminate their services . On the basis of this document, I am ofthe view that prior to raising the industrial dispute; the workmen admitted that their services were provided to the management ofFood Corporation of India through contractor Inthe references , it is not a turn by the workmen but they have stated that ifthere is any contract , it is camouflage and void being against the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970. Unless and until the terms and conditions as laid down in GM ONGC Silchur's case(supra) are not complied with no workmen can be treated asthe direct employee of Food Corporation of India.

Accordingly, I am of the view that none of the workman was the employee of the management . There was no relationship of master-servant and employer and employee between the workmen and the management of Food Corporation of India . Thus , no question for termination of the services of the workmen by Food Corporation of India arises . All the references are answered accordingly and the workmen are not entitled for any relief, Central Government be informed, and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA, Presding Officer The next issue for the disposal before this Tribunal iswhether the workmen will be deemed to be in the services ofthe management ofFood Corporation of India on account ofviolation of any of the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Aboolition), Act 1970 It is issue of law and has limited concern with the facts . On the issue of facts , I have already given my view that the workmen are not employees ofthe management ofFood Corporation of India but their services were provided by the different contractors to the management . As this issue of law is also raised by the parties, it is the duty of this Tribunal to 5814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] नई दिल्ली , 1 सितम्बर , 2009

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

"Whether the action of the management LIC of India interminating the services of Shri Bhaurao S/ o Laxmanrao Anatkar w.e.f. 6-6-2001 is justified? Ifnot, what reliefhe is entitled to ?"

का.. 2672. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्ल्यू.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 133/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-08-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/244/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

1. The petitioner approached with the contention that he was employed as Peon by the respondent Party No.1 as peon on 6-11-1998 and without any break continued up to 6-6-2001 beside it he has also performed over time duties for which he is paid . Thus according to him he has put more than 240 day's continuous service with out any break.

NewDelhi , the 1st September, 2009

2. He was reprehended without complying the provisions of the L.I.C. service rules or of the Section 25 (F) ofthe I. D. Act, 1947. He prayed to reinstate with full back wages .

S.O. 2672.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 133/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Neeljai Sub Area of WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27-08-2009.

3. The Management on service of notice initially appeared on 6-7-2005 and 14-9-2005 as per roznama ofthe case and letter on stopped and did not appear . The management has not resisted the claim of the petitioner by filling the W.S.Consequently the claim of the petitioner remained unchallenged and practically the case proceeded ex -parte against it.

[No. L- 22012/ 244/2001 -IR(CM-II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date : 24/8/2009

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 47/ 2005

Petitioner: Shri Bhaurao S / o Laxmanrao Anatkar , 2/11 Hudaco Colony LIG - I Behind Jaripataka Police Station, Nara Road, Nagpur PartyNo. 2

Versus

Respondent : (A) The Senior Branch Manager L.I.C. of India , City Branch , Kings Way ,

Nagpur-440006

(B) Union of India , Ministry of Finance, New Delhi-110001 .

PartyNo. 1

4.The crucial point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the reinstatement as claimed by him?Thepetitioner examined himselfby filling the affidavit themanagement being absent did not even cross - examine him. The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that he worked continuously from 6-11-98 to 6-6-2001 . Beside it he has also worked beyond duty hours for which he has been paid as over time allowance . He gave the exact number of over time hours . He also filed lists of the documents which he has handled . It contends even the maintenance of the registers . Those documents bear the signatures of the workman as well as of the officials of the management . This supports his evidence that he had worked in the office of the management L.I.C. during the period mentioned by him . It also supports his contentions regarding the working period as well as continuity in services . It clearly establishes that he worked for more than 240 days continuously without any break within a every year. Since the management L.I.C. has not filed any W.S. or its statement of claim denying his contentions they remained unchallenged .

AWARD

[Dated: 24th August , 2009]

5. The same thing in respect of the retrenchment as well as non payment of compensation for it . There is nothing to show that the provisions of Sections 25 F and Gwere complied . No notice was given to him before retrenchment . Nothing has been submitted as to how he was not entilted for the same . In fact his averments in the statement ofclaim remain undisputed due to non filling of the W.S. His evidence also remaimed unchallenged because ofnon cross examination . Consequently it has to be presumed as admitted . The provisions are obligatory and its non compliance renders the retrenchment illegal . In such circumstances as the retrenchment is illegal it will The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between Shri Bhaurao S/ o Laxmanrao Anatkar , 2/11 , Hudaco Colony, LIG- 1 , Behind Jaripataka Police Station, Nara Road , Nagpur Party No.2 , and The Senior Branch Manager , L.I.C. of India, City Branch, Kings Way Nagpur -440006 Party No. 1 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L - 17012/ 36/2001 - IR (B - I )dt. 26th May, 2005 under clause (d ) of sub- Section ( 1 ) and sub - Section (2A) of Section 10 of 5815 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

AWARD 26-8-2009

have to be treated that he was in service entitling him for backwages . Hence 1 hold that the workman is entitled for reinstatement as well as for back wages right from the date ofretrenchment i.e. from 6-6-2001 . 1 pass the award in the affirmative as follows .

6. The management is directed to reinstate the petitioner as a peon and pay the full back wages right from 6-6-2001 till the reinstatement within two months from the date of publication of this award in the Gazette.

Dated 24-8-2009.

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 1 सितम्बर , 2009

1. By order No. L -22012/ 10/2002 - IR(CM - 11 ) dated 24-2-2003 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour , New Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between The State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh , 5-6, Habibullah Estate , Hazaratganj , Lucknow (U.P. ) (Espousing cause of Shri Athar Sabri ) and the Sr. Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India , 5-6 , Habibullah Estate, Hazaratganj , Lucknow for adjudication.

2.The reference under adjudication is :

का.आ. 2673. 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, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को1-09-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/ 10/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA IN REDUCING SHRI ATHAR SABRI FROM THE POST OF AG - 11 TO AG - 111 AND RESTORE TO PRESENT PAY AFTER 5 YEARS W.E.F. 23 /26-2-2001 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED ? IF NOT , TO WHAT RELIEF THE CONCERNED WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO? " New Delhi , the Ist September , 2009

2. " WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA IN STOPPING ONE INCREMENT FOR ONE YEAR WITH CUMULATIVE EFFECT IN THE YEAR 1999 IN CASE OF SHRI ATHAR SABRI , AG - II ( M ) IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED ? IF NOT , TO WHAT RELIEF THE CONCERNED WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO ? " S.O. 2673. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Govemment on 1-09-2009.

[No. L-22012/10/2002-1R(CM - II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present : Shri N. K. Purohit , Presiding Officer

1. D. No. 31/2003

Ref . No. L - 22012 / 10/2002 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 24-2-2003

BETWEEN

The State Secretary,

3. Admittedly, the case of the parties is that the workman Athar Sabri , AG - 11 was served with two charge sheets dated 24-10-96 and 10-02-88 (23/2 ) for alleged misconduct mentioned therein . Shri Rahul Mishra and A.A. Kazmi were appointed as Inquiry Officers who submitted their inquiry reports dated 27-2-98 ( 11/14 ) and dated 14-1- 91 ( 11/56 ) respectively . The charges levelled against the worker were not found proved in both the inquiries . The Disciplinary Authority Disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officers issued show cause notices dated 27-2-98 ( 11/11 ) and dated 14-10-98 ( 11/73 ) . The replies to show cause notices were filed by the workman but the Disciplinary Authority not convinced with the same , imposed punishment vide impugned orders dated 4-9-98 (20/54) and dated 26-2-2001 (23/70 ) respectively.

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh ,

5-6, Habibullah Estate ,

Hazaratganj ,

Lucknow(U. P. )

(Espousing cause of Shri Athar Sabri )

And

The Sr. Regional Manager ,

Food Corporation of India , 5-6, Habibullah Estate,

4. The workman's union has alleged that the replies given by the workman have not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority and both the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and are illegal , arbitrary and bad in law as no reason has been indicated for disagreement with the replies of the workman and the said orders are non- speaking. It is alleged that charge sheets have been issued to harass and victimize the workman .

Hazaratganj, Lucknow ( U.P. )- 226001

3360G1 /09-26 5816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5. Whereas the management of FCI has denied the claim of the workman and has submitted that impugned orders have been issued after undergoing and considering all details and same are legal , just and passed on merit of the case and prior to passing of impugned orders , the workmanwas given opportunity ofhearing and impugned orders are speaking order . The FCI has also raised objection as regard maintainability of reference as the workman has failed toexhaust alternative remedies of appeal and review available under FCI ( Staff) Regulation, 1961. The appeal preferred against the impugned order dated 4-9-98 is still pending and no appeal has been preferred against the impugned orderdated 23/26-2-2001 . It is further submitted that action taken by Disciplinary Authority right from issuance ofcharge sheet under Regulation 58 FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1960 to imposing of the penalty, is as per Regulation and no infirmity or irregularity has been made by the DisciplinaryAuthority.

6. The parties have filed documents in support of their respective case . The workman has examined himself whereas the FCI has examined Shri C. M. Sharma, Smt . Santosh Bakshi and Shri B.D. Tyagi in support of their case.Both the sides have filed written arguments besides putting oral submissions .

7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

submitted on 14-1-91 i . e . after three years , show - cause noticewas issued on 14-10-98 i.e. after seven years from issuance of charge sheet and punishment was given on 26-2-2001 i.e. after thirteen years of issue of charge sheet . The continuance of disciplinary proceedings for such a long period has prejudiced the workman adversely. He has also contended that unauthorized absence from 11-2-88 to 13-9-90 and allegation of obtaining passport through unfair means by concealing the facts of being Govt. servant have been considered through impugned orderwhereas the above allegations were not in the charge sheet served upon the workman . The punishment based upon the charges which were not in charge sheet cannot be sustained. The Disciplinary Authority has not given reasons for not accepting the contentions made by the workman inhis reply. As such, the impugned order is in violation of Regulation 59(2 ) ofRegulations. He has further contendedthat it is evident from evidence of Shri Santosh Baskhi that a note for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer has been submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and he has agreed to it and the case was referred to the Zonal Office on 15-04-98 for imposing penalty and issue remained pending in processing between 16-1-91 to 15-4-98 for getting clarification. It is also evident that the Zonal Office could not made penalty and directed to impose penalty as perdirections, therefore, the same is not sustainable . He has further submitted that the penalty order is vague and ithas not specifically stated at which stage AG- III (D) has been given. It may be lowest stage of AG III (D) or maximum of stage of AG III (D) or in between maximum and minimum of time scales of AG- III (D ). The appeal of the workman has also been rejected by a non -speaking and non-reasoned order. In support of his conclusion he has placed reliance on following case laws ; however, has not submitted their copies:

8.Before embarking on merits of the case , it should be mentioned that, as regard impugned order dated 4-9-98, wherein punishment of stoppage of one increment was imposed on the workman , an appeal was preferred beforeZonal Manager on 27-11-98 (20/56) and during the pendency of reference under adjudication, the appeal of the workman has been accepted and the said impugned order has been set aside by the Appellate Authority, as such, no dispute left in respect of said penalty order.

India. (i) 2006 SCC (L& S ) 919 M. V. Bijlani vs. Union of

(ii) 2006 SCC (L& S) 312 Union of India vs. Flight Cadet Ashish Rai ,

9. The question, thus , remains for consideration is whether the action of the management of FCI in reducing the workman from post of AG - II to AG - III and to restore to present pay after five years vide order dated 22/26-2-01 is legalandjustified.

( iii ) 1986 SCC (L& S) 711 Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf vs. New Education Institute .

11. Per contra, the learned representative on behalf of the FCI has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the reference order on the ground that same matter is pending inWrit Petition No. 2103/07 ( S/S) 07beforeHonble Allabahad High Court, Lucknow Bench , Lucknow , wherein the workman has demanded parity with hisjuniors who were given promotion and the workman was not given the same due to penalty order . He has further urged that a perusal of inquiry report dated 14-1-91 clearly shows that Inquiry Officer failed to deal with first charge of the charge sheet and gave his findings that the charges were not proved . As regards delay in show - cause notice is concerned he has urged that 10. The learned representative on behalf of the union has contended that copy of inquiry report has been served upontheworkman vide memo dated 16-1-91 , without any mention that the Disciplinary Authority was going to disagree with the findings of Inquiry Officer. The show- causenoticedated 7-10-98 disagreeing with Inquiry Officer has been issued after lapse of about seven years . He has also submitted that show cause notice is prima facie illegal asabsence from 9-10-86 to 13-9-90 has been alleged inthe said notice while the charge sheet was issued on 10-2-88 . He has further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority id not consider the reply of the workman . The alleged incident is of the year 1986-87, the inquiry report was 5817

भारत का राजपत्र: सिवम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

month on Medical Ground was received in claim Cell , Gorakhpur without Medical Certificate . Thereafter he sent an application dated 3-8-1987 extending leave up to 30-8-1987 . On 10-9-87, out claim Cell , Office , Gorakhpur received an application dated-Nil- from him requesting for extension of his leave up to 7-10-1987. His last application dated 19-10-1987 for extension of leave up to 3-10-1987 for taking restwas submitted by him.

Disciplinary Authority is having work relating to administration, planning and enforcement and thus could not have time to look into the matter . He has further urged thatthe Disciplinary Authority has passed a well reasoned order and cause of disagreement has been specifically mentioned and he has passed a legal and just order after affording opportunity of hearing. He has further urged that duringleaveperiod, the workman failed to provide any leave address and address provided by him was incomplete as a result, thepolice was unable to serve non -bailable warrant onthe workman and the reference relating to obtaining of passport came during proceedings thus, same was referred butno cognizance was taken in this respect,

12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival submission of the parties .

The unfair tactice adopted by Sh. Athar Sabri , AG.II ( M) for sending leave application onMedical Ground from one place to another place without giving complete leave address clearly proves that he is not willing to join his duty in this organization.

Article- II: Shri Athar Sabri , G.II( M) while he was on unauthorized leave , was directed by this office to resume his duty , vide this office registered Memorandum No.Estt.36(95 )/RO/MCC/ 86 dated 18-9-1987, failing which it will be presumed that he isnot interested to serve in this organization and further course of action as per conduc rules as deem proper will be taken against him . Shri Sabri did not bother to comply the orders ofthe competent authority and utterly failedt joinduty.

13. The learned representative on behalf of the FCI has şubmitted an application dated 19-11-08 along with the copy ofWrit Petition No. 21 03/07 (S /S )/07 between Athar Sabri vs. FCI & others . In the said Writ Petition the workman has prayed for direction in the nature of Mandamus promote him from AG - II to AG- I with all consequential benefits from the date the junior to him have been promoted. Although in para 28 of the said Writ Petition impugned order dated 26-2-2001 has been referred but it is evident from para 30 that the workman has pleaded for his entitlement for all promotions due from 1973 to 10-2-1988 , which have been denied up to 1988. In view of the period for which relief of Promotion has been claimed by the workman in his Writ Petition, the contentions of the learned representative on behalf of the FCI regarding non-maintainability of the reference due to pendency of WritPetition is not tenable .

14.Vide charge sheet dated 10-2-88, the following charges were levelled against the workman:

"Article-I : Shri Athar Sabri , AG.II (M) is adopting a practice toabsent himself from duty w.e.f. 8-10-1986 to

Apart from this a non -bailable warrant fromAddl . Munsif Magistrate 1st Class , Court No. 7Meerut for producing him before the said court on7-9-1987 received by our Dy. Manager (Movt .) , FCI , Claim Cell , Gorakhpur could not be served upon to him due to his unauthorized prolong absence from duty and correct address known to us , which caused unwarranted displeasure by the said court against FC1 authorities .

The above facts clearly establish that the said Shri Athar Sabri , G.II ( M ) damaged the image of the corporation and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. He has utterly failedto serve the corporation interms of service conduct rules and thereby contravened regulation 31 , 32 , 32 -A of FCI Regulations, 1971. "

15. The Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report dated 14-1-98 did not find the above charges levelled against the workman to be proved. Disagreeing with the finding given in the said report, a show cause notice dated 7-10-98 was given wherein following observations have beenmade by the Disciplinary Authority:

"enqui report is limited to the point for not service of warrant to the CO instead of enquiring about till date without any prior intimation/sanction ofcompetent authority and also not intimating his actual leave address / whereabouts to his controlling authority Sh . Sabrí AG.II (M) had reported for duty to the Dy. Manager (Movt .) , FCI, Claim Cell, FCI , Gorakhpur on 7-10-1986 on transfer and relieved from Jhansi district and thereafter absented himself from duty . An application dated 7-10-1986 under Regd. cover was received by our Dy . Manager (Movt .) , Claim Cell , Gorakhpur from him asking 7 days Casual leave from 8-10-86 to 16-10-86. No leave address was intimated in that application. On the envelop ofthe leave application his address was given as Athar Sabri , Deoband which was not sufficient for office correspondence. His second leave application dated 24-10-1986 requesting therein for extension of leave for one 5818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

may feel to make, against the penalty, should be made in writing , so as to reach the undersigned not later than fifteen days from the receipt of his show cause notice " unauthorized absence of the official , who even did not intimate leave address before absconding from duty. Thus the charge of unauthorized absence is established. While Enquiry office has not given weight on the point and examined only point of not service of non -bailable warrant . The plea taken by the CO for his unauthorized absence w.e.f. 9-10-86 to 13-9-90 is not convincing .

It is evident from the impugned order dated 23-2-2001 that the representation against the said Show Cause Notice was submitted by the workman but the Disciplinary Authority has not discussed the contentions made by the workman in his reply . In the said impugned order as regard representation given by the workman he has observed as under:

Now therefore , Shri Athar Sabri ,. AG II ( M) is hereby given an opportunity of making representation against the penalty to be imposed. Any representation which he may feel to make , against the penalty, should be made in writing, so as to reach the undersigned not later than fifteen days from the receipt of his show cause notice"

"And whereas a copy of enquiry report dated 14-1-91 was served upon Shri Athar Sabri AG.II ( M ) vide memo no . Estt . 36 (95) /RO/MCC/ 86 dated 7 / 14-10-98 for hiscomments, if any, against the penalty under Rule 54 of FCI Staff Regulation 1971 taking into account the gravity of charges Shri Athar Sabari AG . II ( M) submitted his representation dated nil against enquiry report which were not found convincing .

16. It is evident from the impugned order dated 23-2-2001 that the representation against the said Show Cause Notice was submitted by the workman but the Disciplinary Authority has not discussed the contentions made by the workman in his reply. In the said impugned order as regard representation given by the workman he has observed as under:

"And whereas a copy of enquiry report dated 14-1-91 was served upon Shri Athar Sabri AG . II ( M) vide memo no . Estt.36 ( 95)/RO/ MCC /86 dated 7/14-10-98 for his comments , if any , against the penalty under Rule 54 of FCI Staff Regulation 1971 taking into account the gravity of charges Shri Athar Sabari AG . II ( M) submitted his representation dated nil against enquiry report which were not found convincing . "

17. Upon a perusal of the said impugned order, it is evident that a contention , which has been raised by the workman in his reply has been considered . The impugned orderhas been passed in a very casual manner . Regulation 59 is pertaining to procedure for imposing major penalty of which clause ( 2) envisages that the disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiry authority on any article of charge , record its reasons for such dis - agreement and record its own findings on such charge, if evidence on the finding given in the said report , a show cause notice dated 7-10-98 was given wherein following observations have been made by the Disciplinary Authority:

17. Upon a perusal of the said impugned order, it is evident that contention which has been raised by the workman in his reply have not been considered . The impugned order has been passed in a very casual manner . Regulation 59 is pertaining to procedure for imposing major penalty ofwhich clause ( 2) envisages that the disciplinary authority shall , if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiry authority on any article of charge , record its reasons for such dis -agreement and record its own findings on such charge , if evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. An order under said regulation need not contain an elaborate reason . But that does not mean that the order oftheDisciplinary Authority need not contain any reason at all . Whether there was application of mind or not can onlybe disclosed if reasons , which lead to the conclusions , are mentioned by such authority . Finding under said Regulation must contain some reason at least in brief, for hisdisagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and his own findings on alleged charges on the basis of evidence on record . The purpose of disclosures of reason isthat unless they are disclosed a workman cannot know whether the authority concerned has applied his mind. Also, giving reasons minimize chances of arbitrariness . It isalso essential of rule of law and principles of natural justice.

18. It is well settled legal position that Tribunal would not interfere the findings of inquiry officer or DisciplinaryAuthority as a matter of course . The Tribunal shall not sit as Appellate Authority over the orders of Disciplinary Authority and substitute its own conclusion in place ofthe conclusion by the Disciplinary Authority. But, this does not mean that in all circumstances the Tribunal cannot interfere .

"Enquiry report is limited to the point for not service of warrant to the CO instead of enquiring about unauthorized absence of the official , who even did not intimate leave address before absconding from duty . Thus the charge of unauthorized absence is established. While Enquiry office has not given weight on the point and examined only point of not service of non - bailable warrant. The plea taken by the CO for his unauthorized absence w.e.f. 9-10-86 to 13-9-90 is not convincing .

19. In the instant case , the Inquiry Officer has found charges levelled against the workman as not proved. Disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry report , show cause notice was issued and the workman submitted his Now therefore , Shri Attar Sabri , AG II/(M) is hereby given an opportunity of making representation against the penalty to be imposed. Any representation which he 5819

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

order and theworkman is not entitled to any relief in thisregard.

(ii). The action of the management of FCI in reducing the workman from the post of AG II to AG III and restoretopresent pay after five years vide impugned order dated 22/26-2-2001 is unjustified & illegal , therefore , the same is set aside . Resultantly, the workman will be entitled to consequential benefits , if any due to setting aside of said impugned order.

21. Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

Lucknow 26-8-2009

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2674.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. 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 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/96) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-9-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

reply to the said show cause notice but it is evident from the impugned order that no reasons have been mentioned. as to why he did not find the reply of the workman convincing . Further , there is no recording of his own finding under regulation 59 (2 ) of the FCI Regulation, 1971 on the alleged misconduct in the charge sheet after considering the evidence on record and contentions in the reply of the workman , wherein he has made contentions based on the findings of the Inquiry Officer that there appears no reason to treat a given address as incomplete even if it appears to be incomplete, communication should have been made as proofofeffort, which was not done further medical leave on medical ground supported on medical certificate cannot be turned unauthorized leave. Further, it is also evident from the impugned order that it has been alleged that the workman willfully and deliberately absconded himself from duty from 13-6-86 to 6-10-86 and thereafter w.e.f. 7-10-86 to 13-9-90. There is no allegation in the charge sheet regarding unauthorized absence from 9-10-86 to 13-9-90 and same was not possible because charge sheet was served on 10-2-88 . Besides this it is also alleged in the impugned order that charges sheet was served for unauthorized absence for said period and for obtaining the passport by unfair means by concealing the fact ofbeing Govt. servant but there is no such charge in the charge sheet .

[सं. एल-42012/214/94- आईआर( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 2nd September , 2009

S.O. 2674.-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 4/96) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of CPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on2-9-2009.

[No. L-42012/214/94- IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

20. It is alleged in the charge under Article - I that the workman adopted unfair tactice for sending leave application on medical ground from one place to another place without giving complete leave address clearly prove that he was not willing to join his duty and in charge under Article - II it is alleged that the workman did not bother to comply the orders of the competent authority andutterly failed to join duty . Further non bailable warrant could not be served upon him due to his unauthorized prolonged absence from duty and correct address was not known which caused unwarranted displease of the court concerned against FCI authorities . But the Disciplinary Authority has neither given any finding on the above charges on the basis of evidence on record nor has he given any reason for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer also as regard contention of the workman made in his reply to show cause notice .

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

Case No. L.D. 4/96

21. Thus , it is evident from impugned order itself that it is arbitrary , nonspeaking , non - reasoned, without application of mind and in violation of Regulation-59 (2) of Regulation , 1991. In view of discussions made above impugned order dated 26-2-2001 is liable to be set aside . Sh . Chandershwar S/o Shri Rajeshwar Thakur , H. No. 151 , GadariaMohalla , Ram Nagar, Karnal (Haryana)

.........Applicant 22. Accordingly, the reference under adjudication is answered as under:

Versus

The Assistant Engineer , CPWD, Central Sub Division , Karnal (Haryana)

(1) Since the impugned order dated 4-9-98 has already been set aside and relief claimed in this regard has already been granted by the Appellate Authority, as such no dispute left as regards said impugned.

Respondent 5820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman : Legal Representative of workman

For the management Shri G. C. Babbar

AWARD

Passed on. 25-8-09

CentralGovernment vide notification No.L-42012/ 214/94- IR (DU) , dated 27-12-95, has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of CPWD , Karnal in terminating the services of Shri Chandershwar ex -Beldarw.e.f. 20-12-91 is fair, just, and legal? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from what date?"

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] Postand theirworkman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-9-2009 .

[No. L-40012/201/2001 -IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CaseNo. I.D. 17/2002

Sh.Gurmeet Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, Vill . Kansal PO Nada,Distt.Ropar

..........Applicant

Versus

Superintendent ofPost Offices ,GPO, Sector - 17, Chandigarh -160017

Respondent APPEARANCES

For theworkman

Shri D. R. Sharma, Advocate .

Shri K. K. Thakur , Advocate .

FortheManagement

2.Case is taken up in Lok Adalat . Shri Aman who is the legal representative of the deceased workman is present. Management also present. Long discussion took place. It is settled that the prescribed authority will assist Shri Aman to get the work in his division near to the place of living of Shri Aman through contractor. On the basis of this settlement , the legal representative of Chandershawer deceased workman agreed to withdraw this industrial dispute . Accordingly, the reference is decided as settled in Lok Adalat between the parties . Central Government be informed and thereafter , file be consigned to record room .

Chandigarh.

25-8-09

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 2675.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. -1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-9-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/201/2001- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 2nd September, 2009 S.O. 2675. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial. Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarhas shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of

AWARD :

Passed on 27-8-09

Government of India vide Notification No. L-40012/ 201/2001-( IR(DU) ) Dated 27-12-2001 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act) , referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of management of Post Office inorderingdisengagement/termination of the services of Sh.Gurmeet Singh is just and legal and if not what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"..

I have gone through the pleadings of the parties . Theworkman has submitted in his statement of claim that he worked with the management of Post Office from 23-01-1990 to 12-01-1991 , when his services were terminated on 13-01-1991 by not permitting him to work . The workman has giventhe details of work done in different Post Offices in different capacities . It was further submitted by the / workmanthat no notice, one month wages in lieu ofnotice and retrenchment compensation was given to him before termination ofhis services .

Management contested the claim of the workman by filing written statement. Two preliminary objections were taken by the management , namely; the date of termination is differently mentioned by the workman in Demand Notice and statement ofclaim , and the Post Office is not an industry . On merits it was contended by the 5821

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

by it. There are several judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in which Post Office for the purpose of work done and functions discharged by the workman has beenheld to be an industry . Thus , I am of the view thatmanagement is an industry and this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to redress the grievances of the workman as referred by the Central Government .

management that workman worked as stated in statement of claim but has not completed 240 days in any of the calendar year. It was further contended by the management that the workman worked as substitute of a regular EDDA from 23-01-1990 to 12-01-1991 and not as Group D employee as claimed by him. There was no employer- employee relationship between them and workman is not entitled for any relief.

3. It is the contention of the management that workman worked throughout as substitute of regular EDDA . Certain orders have heen filed by the management . 1 have scrutinized and perused these documents in detail . I am of the view that these documents does not cover the entire period the workman has workedwith the management. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the management that the workman only worked as substitute of regular EDDA .

Bothofthe parties were afforded the opportunity of adducing the evidence . Workman filed his affidavit which, was considered as his examinationin - chief and was also cross-examined by the learned counsel ofthe management on 07-12-2005 . Likewise, Shri Nirmaljit Singh, Director Post Offices at Shimla filed his affidavit and was accordingly cross-examined hy learned counsel for the workman on 04-06-2007 . Certain documents were filed by the parties . Workman filed the photo copies of certain certificates and attendance sheets for the year 1994 to 1996 .

4. There are two documents filed by the management and several others filedby the workman, which proves thatworkman worked as Group D against the vacant post . I am quoting two letters of the department:

Management also preferred to file certain documents , which are certain certificates and details oforders bywhich workman was engaged in services by Postal Department . I have gone through the pleadings and evidence oral and doeumentary adduced/ filed by the parties.

(i) It is the letter No. 625 dated Secretariat Chandigarh , dated 18-071998, Department of Post, India, which reads as follows : -

" It is intimated that Sh . Gurmeet Singh joined duty as outsider Group D on 01-06-93 FN and relieved on 10-04-97 AN , vice vacant post . "

I am not inclined to accept the contention of the management that the workman worked with the management only as substitute of regular EDDA/R . I am mentioning the reasons for my conclusion as follows:-

( ii) It is the letter regarding drawing of pay and allowances, Department of Posts , India, writtento Senior Post Master , GP , Chandigarh by Sub Post Master, Manimajra bearing No. 778 dated Manimajra 31-10-97 . This Letter reads as follows: .....

"Certified that Sh . Gurdeep Singh outsider Grade D have worked in the office for the period 01-01-96 to 29-03-96 against vacant post ." 1. So far as the preliminary objections taken by the management are concerned, I am of the view that the facts of mentioning the different dates in Demand Notice and Statement of Claim will not affect the adjudication of this referenee , because in para No. 1 ofwritten statement ( in the column parawise reply), the management has itself admitted that workman . worked with the management as substitute of regular. EDDA from 23-01-1990 to 12-01-1991 . Thus , where the management is itself admitting that workman worked with it up to 12-01-1991 , there is no occasion to the management to challenge the different dates mentioned in the Demand Notice and Statement of Claim. The date of termination agreed to both of the parties shall be considered final , with a view that facts admitted are not required to be proved by any of the parties.

These two letters , which have been filed by the Management proves that Sh . Gurdeep Singh has not only worked as substitute of regular EDDA, but against the vacant post and he was lawfully engaged by the management of Post Office against this vacant post. It is not the contention of the management that the initial appointment/engagement of the workman was illegal and void . Thus , workman also worked against the vacant post as Group D employce on his lawful engagement / appointment .

2. The nature of any organization is to be seen by the activities carried on by it and the work done and functions discharged by the workman . The definition ofterm Industry given in Section 2(J ) of the Act has beenelaborately explained by Hon'ble the Apex Court inBangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Others Versus A. Rajappa & Others AIR, 1978 -SC-548 .

5. There are certain documents filed by the management which also proves that the workman worked as Group D against the vacant post in the year 1995 as well . ExhibitW-30 , which is a certificate provided by Sub Post Master also proves that the workman was engaged on different destinations as Group D. Likewise, Exhibit W -40 also proves that workman Sh . Gurmeet Singh worked with the Post Office in different In this judgment, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that Tribunal has to determine the nature of any organization on the basis of the activities carried on 5822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) | destinations as Group D. Thus , the documents filed by the workmen and by the management and discussed by this Tribunal in para no . 4 prove that workman had worked with the Management on Group D Post in independent capacity otherwise than substitute of a regular EDDA .

management as Group D employee , he had completed more than240 days of work in the preceding year from the date he was shifted to work as substitute of regular EDDA. Theworkman has served the management for 10 valuable years of his life . As stated earlier, at the cost of repetition that he had worked more than 240 days when he was working as Group D employee against vacant post and his services were terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation .

6. The workman has also filed few Photocopies of attendance register. Few photocopies of attendance register have also been filed by the management . On joint reading of these documents , I am of the view that the name of the workman was enrolled in attendance register and he marked his attendance in attendance register as Group D employee .

TheAct does not bar the termination of the services ofthe any workman , but regulates it . As per the provisions ofthe Act, the services can be terminated by giving one month notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation , which were not paid by the management to the workman . Accordingly, the termination of the workman is illegal and void being against the provisions of the Act.

I am also not inclined to accept the contention of the management that the services of the workman cannot be ordered tobe regularized in this reference . The question before this Tribunal is not regarding the regularization of his services but it is regarding the legality of termination order. Even if the termination is illegal , this Tribunal just on the basis of this illegality should not order for regularization of the services but it is the legislative mandate that management should be directed to reinstate the workman in the same position from which he was terminated .

On the basis of above discussion , I am of the view that workman had worked with the management of Post Office in both of the capacities . He had worked with the management as Group D employee against the vacant post and had also worked as substitute of regular EDDA in different periods . For the period the workman had worked as substitute of regular EDDA , the workman cannot claim a legal employer -employee relationship. But for the period he had worked with the management against the vacant post as Group D, there was an employer- employee relationship betweenmanagement of Post Office and the workman . The relationship between the workman and the management is also established by the facts that he was paid wages directly by the management of Post Office and management was having appropriate administrative control over it .

Itis admitted that no notice or retrenchment compensation was given to the workman prior to his termination. The statement of attendance as provided by theworkman prima- facie proves that from June 1996 to April 1997, the workman had worked more than 312 days directly with the management . It is the long period for which the workman has worked with the management and reasons known to the management, instead of availability ofwork with different branches, where the workman worked; he wasshifted to another branch as substitute for regular EDDA. If the work was available , workman was lawfully deputed to the work and his working was satisfactory, there was no occasion to prevent him from that work. Under such circumstances the workman can be shifted from the work subject to rules of the department. The management is unable to show, even prima-facie, the reasons for shifting theworkman from one Post Office to another Post Office , even if, the work was available in Post Office Manimajra and Post Office, Chandigarh (U.T. ), it is the unlawful labour practicejust to prevent the workman from any benefit under the provisions of the Act .

Whenever the termination order has been held to be void being against the provisions of the Act , there are two possible remedies available to the workman . The first remedy is , reinstatement on the same work from which he was terminated and the second remedy is a reasonable compensation . It is also a settled principle of service jurisprudence that Tribunal should prefer reinstatement of the workman into the service and in exceptional circumstances where the case before the Tribunal is that no work or vacancy is available ; a reasonable compensation should be ordered to be paid . In this reference, it is not the claim of the management that there is no work available or no post lies vacant . Accordingly, I am of the view that the work is still available and the workman deserves to be reinstated into the services on the same position from which he was terminated from the services. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I'am of the view that workman will not be entitled to the back wages but his seniority shall be protected. Thus , the management is directed to reinstate the services of the workman within one month from the date ofpublication of thisAward. The reference is answered accordingly. Lct the Central Government be approached for publication of Award, and thereafter , file be consigned to record room .

Asstated earlier , the workman has worked in both of the capacities directly as Group D employee and as substitute of regular employee. The workman has proved by cogent evidence that whenever he worked with the

G.. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer 5823 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर , 2009

(hereinafter referred to as the Act ) referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication : of this Tribunal:----

"Whether the action ofthe Regional Officer C.B.S.E. Chandigarh and the Assistant Secretary (Admn. II ), C.B.S.E. Delhi in terminating the services ofMrs. Dil Kumari W/ o Dev Kumar w.e.f. 1-4-99 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman , is entitled ?"

का.आ. 2676.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. बी. एस . ई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 152/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-9-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/292/99- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 2nd September, 2009

2. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties , it is evidently clear that the main issue for adjudication before thisTribunal is regarding the relationship between the management of C.B.S.E. and the workman . The workman , Mrs. Dil Kumari , has prayed for her reinstatement on the grounds that her services were terminated by the management without notice or retrenchment compensation against the provisions of the Act. On the other hand the management of C.B.S.E. has contended that it is not an industryand alternatively the services ofthe workman were taken purely on contract and there existed no employer- employee relationship between them .

S.O. 2676. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 152/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.B.S.E. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-9-2009.

[No. L-42012/292/99- IR (DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. 152/2000

The management has raised the issue regarding its , status by contending that C.B.S.E. is not an industry. The basis ofthis contention , as is apparent from the materials on record, has been that C.B.S.E. is not producing the goods but conducting examination . I am not inclined to acceptthis contention because in the definition of industry it is not only production of goods but also the services rendered by any organization are to be looked into . The services are rendered by the management of C.B.S.E. for publicat large and for rendering the services assistance of theworkman and other categories ofemployees/officers is taken. Thus , as per the definition of industries given in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs A. Rajappa & others AIR, 1978- SC- 548, the management of C.B.S.E. is an industry.

Mrs. Dil Kumari W/ o Sh . Dev Kumar House No. 826 , Sector- II , Panchkula - 134109

.....Applicant

Versus

Assistant Secretary (Admn.II ) , C. B.S.E Shiksha Kendra , 2 Community Center , Preet Vihar, Dehli 1.10092

The workman has contended that her services were terminated by the management of C.B.S.E. illegally without notice and retrenchment compensation against the provisions of the Act . I am not inclined to accept this contention of the workman on the following grounds:

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman Shri N. K. Nagar , Advocate.

For the management: Shri Harash Aggarwal Advocate.

1. Admittedly, theworkman was appointed on a contract for specific term and on fixed wages . She was to be paid Rs . 2000 per month without any allowances as the fixed wages . The appointment was for a fixed term and as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, it wasextendable.

AWARD

Passed on : 27-8-09

2. It was one of the terms and conditions of the contract providing the work to the workman , that the workman shall not be entitled for regularization of services and other such benefits on the basis of this contractual appointment.

Government of India vide Notification No. L -42012/ 292/99( IR) (DU )Dated 3-3-2000 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947

3360GI/09-27 5824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , DHANBAD 3. From the evidence on record , it is evidently clear that the workman worked exclusively on the basis of this contract . She was paid wages as per the terms and conditions of the contract and not otherwise .

Inthe matter of a reference U/s . 10 ( 1 ) (d) of I.D. Act .

Reference No. 45 of 1995

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Central Fule Research Institute (C.F.R.I. )

AND Theirworkmen .

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer .

4. Neither Mrs. Dil Kumari , the workman was appointed as per the procedure laid down in rules and regulations of the C.B.S.E. for regular appointment against any substantial vacancy , not was she paid wages as the regular employee . She rendered her services purely on contractual basis for a fixed term and on expiry of the term of the last contract her services were automatically terminated.

APPEARANCES

Forthe Employers : Shri B.K. Mukherjec, Adv .

Shri G.K. Mukherjee , Adv.

For the Workmen: Shri D. Mukherjee Advocate and Shri K. Chakravarty, Advocate .

Industry: Fuel. State Jharkhand.

Thus , under such circumstances the management of C.B.S.E. was not obliged for any notice or to pay retrenchment compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The services of the workman were rightly terminated on expiry of the term of last contract . The workman is accordingly , not entitled to any relief.Reference is accordingly answered . Let the Central Government be approached for publication of the award and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

Dated, the : 20-8-2009

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 2 सितम्बर , 2009

By Order No. L- 42012/ 198/94 - IR ( D.U. ) dated 5/9-5-1995 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to thisTribunal :

का.आ. 2677. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल फ्यूल रिसर्च इंस्टिट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/95/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-9-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of Central FuelResearch Institute , P.O. CFRI Digwadih , Dhanbad in denying regularization of Md . Riaz and 9 others as per the Annexure below is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ? "

[सं. एल-42012/198/94- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2009

S.O. 2677. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 45/95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer in relation to the management of Central Fuel Research Institute and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 2-9-2009 .

[No. L-42012/ 198/94/-IR ( DU) ]

2. Written statement has filed on behalf of the concerned workmen stating that they had been working as permanent workmen within the precinct and premises of the Central Fuel Research Institute since long as per direction ofthe management. The Concerned workmen were appointed by the management and they were discharging service for the benefit of the management . However ,to comoufiage the realize no for male appointment letter was issuedto them. They had been performing permanent nature of job as per direction , control and supervision of the management, and they had in more than 240 days attendance in each calendar year . All the implements necessary for execution for the job were being supplied by the management . They had been rendering services and producing goods for the benefit of the management .

SURENDRA SINGH, DeskOfficer 5825 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Name

AsContractor's Labour

On Daily Wage as DRW

1-7-84 to 25-1-85 29-1-85 to 15-5-85

1. Kashi Nath Yadav.

2. Rabindra Prased . 1-7-84 to31-2-84 1-1-85 to 15-5-85

3. Rabindra Rout 24-9-84 to 25-1-85 7-10-85 to 22-11-85

4. Sheojag Yadav 1-7-84 to 25-1-85 29-1-85 to 15-5-85 .

It has been submitted that there has been no illegal or arbitrary stoppage of work of the workman as falsely alleged. The workman have failed to furnish any particular or details as to how they say that have been illegally and arbitrarily asked to stop the work by the employers of C.F.R.I The grievance of the workmen , as such, is vague , motivated and deserves no consideration .

Ithas been submitted that the period of employment ofdaily rated worker working on daily wages automatically come to an end in completion of specified work or on completion of specified period as the case may be . Such daily rated workers cannot be treated as retrenched workmen for the purpose of the provisions of Sections 25-H and 25 -F. Such daily rated workers will not be entitled to any relief under the Act .

Ithas been prayed that the Tribunal be graciously pleased to pass an award holding that the action of the management in denying regularisation ofMd. Riaz and others isjustified and the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Inspite of the aforesaid facts the management with an ulterior motive to deprive the poor workmen and to camouflage the real issue disbursing the wages to the concerned workmen in the name of alleged intermediaries onlyto paythe concerned workmen below the rate ofwages prescribed for the Government employees and to deprive them other facilities as per law. The disbursement ofwages through alleged intermediaries was nothing but a legal camouflage. The concerned workmen represented before the management several times for their regularisation and for payment of wages as per law but without any effect. The management became very much annoyed with the concerned workmen for their repeated insistence for regularisation and for payment as per law and the annoyance caused to the extent of stopping the concerned workmen from service in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thereafter , the concerned workmen , seeing no other alternative , raised an industrial dispute beforethe Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , demanding regularisation on being reinstated . The management submitted its reply taking various legal pleas , such as the dispute is not an industrial dispute and the I.D. Act is not applicable to the Organization run by the management. The management further took a plea that Md. Riaz Ahmad , Jagdish Singh , A. K. Banerjee and Puran Ram had never worked . The management further took the plea that none ofthe workmen whose names mentioned in the petition had worked for few days under the Contractor . The union submitted its reply denying the allegations stated by the management in its petition and after seeing the merit in the case the Government referred the dispute for adjudication to this Hon'ble Tribunal . It has been prayed that an award be passed in favour of the workmen.

Inrejoinder to the written statement of the workmen, the management has admitted that some of the workmen approached the C.F.R.1. for employment viz. Rabindra Prasad, Shivjug Yadav and Rabindra Routh and they were duly informedthat their request cannot be acceded to since their cases were not recommended by the duly constituted Selection Committee to whom they appeared for interview.

3. Written statement has been filed by the management stating that the reference is not maintainable either in law or on facts . The C.F.R.I. is a Scientific and Research Institution under C.F.I.R. and the activities of C.F.R.I. are not carried on with a motive to make any gain and profit and , a such the C.F.R.I. is not an " Industry" as definedunder Sec. 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act .

4. Rejoinder to the written statement of the management has been filed by the workman stating almost same facts as stated in their written statement. It has been denied the statement of the management that Md. Raiz. Ahmad, Jagdish Singh , A.K. Banerjee , Puran Ram and J. Papaiya neverworked under C.F.R.I. as directly or indirectly through the alleged contractor.

5. The management has produced MW- 1 ---Jai Shankar Saran-who has proved documents , marked Exts . M-1 toM-3/3 .

The concerned workman has produced himself, as WW. - 1 , A. K. Banerjec who has proved Exts . W- land ' X ' foridentification .

It has been stated that some of the workmen whose name's appear in the reference under Sec . 10 are casual workers sometime engaged by the C.F.R.I. purely on temporary basis for a fixed period and some time engaged bythe contractors of the C.F.R.I. It has also been stated that out of the 9 workmen whose names appear in the reference , Md. Riaz Ahmad, Jagdish Singh , A. K. Banerjee and Puran Ram and J. Pappaya never worked under C.F.R.I. either under a contractor or as a D.R.W. It has been submitted that the following is the position of the remaining four workmen who worked under the C.F.R.I.

5826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER26, 2009 /ASVINA 4, 1931

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

ofthe candidates by the Selection Committee for selection though three persons as per written statement in para 22 appeared before Selection Committee but they have not beenconsidered , the reason of not consideration has not been filed by the management . It shows arbitrariness of the management.

6. The main argument advanced on behalf of the management is that CFRI is not an ' Industry' . In this respect the management has referred AIR 1997 SC 1855 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Research Laboratory is not as Industry when carrying on activity of reseorch not for benefit or use of others . They have also referred Civil Appeal Nas 1787-1992 of 1991 ( S.C. ) -CSIR Vs. Padma Rabindra Nath & others decided on 18-7-2000 by Hon'ble Supreme Court by which appeal was allowed in favour of CSIR-holding CSIR is not an ' Industry' .

8. The management has referred AIR 2007 SC 288 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that Court has to operate within four corners of questions referred --- Question about legality of termination of services of seasonal workers- Court cannot go into Question as to whether employer was bound to take service of respondent to the subsequent season or not . Management referred anotherjudgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 163 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that Labour Commissioner after examining cach workman and after considering documents produced by them recording finding that they were not regular employees ofthe concern but they were contract labourers employed by Contractor for emergency maintenance and shut down jobs-Finding of Labour Commissioner held, could not be said to be vitiated.

In this respect the statement of the management's witness is verymuch important in which MW- 1 -Jai Shanker Saranstated in cross - examination at page 4 that the coal of the private party is also analysed by CFRI and service. charge is realised for the same . Service charge is realised from the Government also . It only shows that the management is doing research work with business and charging fees from the private party also as well as Government . So, it shows that the management cannot be saidthat the management is not doing a profit making work . In the present case as per statement given by the management's witness the CFRI is doing business and taking fees for providing service , so it cannot be said that it is not ' Industry . '

9. Management's counsel referred Ext . M- 1 which isregarding destruction of office records connected with accounts, Ext. M-2 which circular regarding absorption of casual workers in CSIR, Ext M -3 to M - 3/ 3 which are applications of workmen for appointment dated 9-4-92 and 30-3-92 , Ext . M -4 is Memo ofGovt . of India No. 44012/ 12/ 1/ 93. ORM dated 24/30-9-93 , Ext . M5 is copy of Rules and Regulations and Bye Laws of CSIR, Ext . M6 is photo copy ofcertificate dated 1-1-88 given by Controller , to Rabindra Prasad and Ext. M -7 is copy of written statement filed by CFRI before ALC ( C) .

Management's counsel argued that record has been destroyed as per MW- 1 so the record could not be placed beforeCourt regarding work done . He has also argued that work done by the concerned workmen for the period and how many days worked no paper can be filed because they are destroyed as per rules ofCISF .

7. The learned counsel of the workmen argued that as per written statement filed by the management shows thattheyadmitted in their written statement in para 10 that four persons out of nine persons have worked with them , but they are casual workmen and they have been engaged only for temporary basis . The management's witness MW- 1 stated that the concerned workmen were not found fit by the Selection Committee , but the report of the Selection Committee has not been filed with the Tribunal, so that it may show that reasonable opportunity has been given to the concerned workmen by Selection Committee . MW- 1 hasstated in cross- examination at page 3. I have seen the notification by which a Selection Committee was constituted. I do not recall the names of those who were the members ofthe said Selection Committee . I cannot say about the criteria laid down under the said scheme for absorption of casual workmen. In this respect learned counsel ofthe worlonen also referred Ext. -2 in which it has been stated by Council ofScientific & Industrial Research dated4-10-90 for absorption of casual workers in CSIR its Laboratories/ Institutes . There laid down certain conditions though those opportunity should turve givan to the concerned worknea to whom the management has admitted in the written statomost at para 10 for working with them. In para 22 of the written statement it has boen stated that Rabindra Preasad, Shivjug Yadav and Rabindra Routh had been duly informed for not recommending their names by Selection Committee, who have appeared for interview. It only shows that the interview was held only arbitrariness, but the management has not filed mark-sheets

10. The management referred AIR1997 Supreme Court 2817 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that under Sec . 10 of the 1.D. Act employees of corporation have got protection against arbitrary action of employer . Remedy either under Art . 226 or of reference under Section 10 of 1.D. Act is available . The Hon'ble Court further held- "There have been two streams of thinking simultaneously in the process of development to give protection to the employees ofthe Corporation . Its actions are controlled as an instrumentality of the battle and the rules are madc amenable tojudicial review where there exists no statutory or analogous rules/ instructions , the provisions of the 1.D. Act get attracted . The employees are entitled to avail constitutional remedy under Article 226 or 32 or 136 , as the case maybe .The remedy ofjudicial review to every citizen or every person has expressly been provided in the Constitutions . It is a fundamental right of every citizen . In 5827

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

appointment containing no such stipulation - termination unfair and by way of victimisation . In this case the management has not filed attendance register of the workmen which shows which that they have worked for more than240 days and the management only admitted for short period of working of the concerned workmen . The management has not filed Selection Committee report before whom these four persons appeared for interview .In the circumstance it shows that the management has arbitrarily denied regularisation of four persons namely , Kashi Nath Yadav, Rabindra Prasad, Rabindra Rout and Sheojag Yadav . 'X' for identification which has been provedby WW- 1 shows that Sheojag Yadav was engaged in the water supply Sec. ofC.F.R.I. worked from July, 1984 to January, 1985 on contract basis and he also worked as daily wage worker from 28th January, 1985 till date , and ' X/2' certificate issued byC.F.R.I. for working regarding Jagdish Singh and 'X/3 ' issuedby C.F.R.I. for working regarding Kashi Nath Jadev shows that he has worked for more than 240 days . ' X/4 ' certificate issued by C.F.R.1 . to A.K. Banerjee shows for hisworking Ext. W- 1 shows , which has been issued bythe management's Administrative Officer (SG ), the work done byJ. Papaiya. It only shows that four workmen as mentioned in para 11 of the management written statement , namely; Kashi Nath Yadav Rabindra Prasad, Rabindra . Rout and Sheojag Yadav, had worked with management, but the management has not produce their register and payment registerand even not produced Selection Committee, report onwhich basis these persons were not found fit by the management'sSelection Committee.

11. In view ofthe discussions made above , I come to the conclusion that the action of the management of Central Fuel Research Institute , P.O. CFRI , Digwadih , Dhanbad in denying regularisation of four persons out of ten persons, namely, Kashi Nath Yadav . Rabindra Parsad, Rabindra Rout and Sheojag Yadav . is not justified , and he management is directed to reinstate the above said four persons from the date of stoppage from service and to rezularise then with 75% back wages , whitn 30 from the dated of Publication of the award.

Thisis my award.

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर , 2009

the absence of statuary administrative instruction in operation,the remedy ofreference under Section 10 ofthe I.D. Act is available. Therefore , two streeams , namely remedy ofjudicial redressal by way of proceeding under art. 226or a petition filed before the administrative Tribunal tothe aggrieved pares , are coexisting. It the doctrine laid in Bergałoro water Supply Board case . AIR 1978 SC 548 is strictly applied, the consequence is catastrophic and would givea carte launch power with laissez foire legitimacy which was buriedfathem deep under the lathal below ofarticle 14 ofthe constitution which assures to every person just, fair and reasonable procedure before terminating the services ofanemployee . Instead . gives the management /employer the power to dismiss the employee/workmen one month's notice or pay in licu thereof, and / or payment of retrenchment compensation under the Act. The security oftenure wouldbe in zreat jeopardy . The employee would be at the bock and call ofthere employers , always keeping his order ofemployment in a grave uncertainty and in fluid state like damocles's sword hengs over the neck. On the other hand , if the interpretation of providing officacious remedy under article 226 gives rotocction to the workmen/ employee the speedy remedy under article 226/Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act would protect the employee/workmen form arbitrary action of the employer subserving the constitutional scheme and philosophy . The Court would, therefore , strike a balance between the competing rights of the individual and the State/ agency or instrumentality and decide the validity of action taken by the Management . Necessarily if the service conditions stand attrracked , all the conditions laid therein would become applicable to the employees with a fixity oftenure and guarantee of service , subject to disciplinary action. Hisremoval should be in accordance with the just and fair procedure envisaged under the Rules or application ofthe principles of natural justice , as the case may be , in which event the security of the tenure of the employee is assured andthe whim and fancy and vagary of the employer would be deferred and if unfair and unjust action is found established it would be declared as an arbitrary, unjust and unfair procedure . On the other hand, if the finding is that there exist no statutory rules or certified Standing Orders exist or they are not either made or are inapplicable, the remedy of reference under Section 10 of the Act would always be available and availed of as it is an industry and indicia laid in Bangalore Water Supply Board case , AIR 1978 SC 548 gets attracted."

का.आ. 2678,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिकै अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-9-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011 /97/2007- आई. आर. ( बी-11 ) ]

राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी The concernedworkmen also referred 1985 SCC (I&S) 975 in which Hob'ble Supreme Court laid down that under Section 25 -B (2 ) (a) ( ii ) of the Industrial Disputes Act- Employer's failure to produce attendance register to controvert workman's claim -workman's claim acceptable . Termination of service of a day's wages labour by Reserve Bank of India on his passing matriculation examination sometime after his appointment - Terms and conditions of 5828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA4, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] New Delhi , the 2nd September, 2009

he was charge sheeted for stealthily removing currency of Rs . 850/- out of the soiled currency notes amounting to Rs . 1,40,000/- entrusted to him by Cashier to fix DP Code Seal ofthe Branch on the currency notes . An enquiry was ordered and he was found guilty of the charges . The Disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement . The enquiry and the punishment are under challenge .

S.O. 2678. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 34/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Canara Bank and their workmen which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 2-9-2009.

[No. L- 12011/97/2007 -IR (B- II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. L.L.B. , Presiding Officer

(Tuesday the 11th day ofAugust, 2009/20th Sravana, 1931)

3.According to the union no proper enquiry was conducted. The finding is not based on evidence . The charges are vague . The Enquiry Officer had a biased mind . Heisan officer inferior to the Investigating Officer whose reportwas relied on and who was examined in the enquiry. The enquiry is vitiated for serious infirmities and violation of the principles of natural justice . No reasonable opportunity of defence was given to the workman . The documentswere received in evidence without proper proof. The Enquiry Officer denied opportunity to cross examine management witnesses . No opportunity was given to adduce defence evidence : The punishment is illegal and harsh . Even if the charges are proved the misconduct is only a minor misconduct . No misappropriation is donc by theworkman . The disciplinary authority failed to take into consideration the mitigating circumstances of the workman .

LD.34/2007

Union :

4.According to the management the Enquiry Officer hasfollowed the procedure of enquiry and complied with the principles of natural justice . The findings are based on evidence on record . Five witnesses were examined and 19 documents were marked on the side of the management.

The Assistant Secretary, Canara Bank StaffUnion 41/2201 , Ernakulam North Ernakulam-682018 ByAdv. Ashok B. Shenoy.

Spencer Junction ,

Management: TheDeputyGeneral Manager, CanaraBank, Staff Section , CircleOffice, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram. ByAdv. R. S. Kalkura.

This case coming up for hearing on 05-08-2009, this Tribunal -cum -Labour Court on 11-08-2009 passed the following.

AWARD

Thisis a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is :

The workman was represented by a bank employce of his choice. All the witnesses on the management side were cross examined .Though opportunity was given no defence evidence was adduced . The documents were marked after proper proof. Even though the wrokman confessed the guilt the misconduct was proved through a proper enquiry and based on materials on record . The provision in the CanaraBank Service Code with regard to disciplinary action and gross misconduct are the same as the provisions in theBipartite Settlement . The amount misappropriated by the workman was made good on the same day . The punishment is no way disproportionate . The gravity ofthe misconduct is also to be taken into account whilc considering the mitigating circumstances . Hence the workman is not entitled for any relief.

5. In the light of the above contentions the points thatarise for consideration are :-

1. Are the findings sustainable ?

2. Is the punishment proper?

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in dismissing Shri . R.V. Balamukundan , Its former employee from services on the alleged misconduct of misappropriation of Bank's Fund is fair andjustifiable ? It not, what relief he is entitled for?"

6. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of MWI (Enquiry Officer) and the documentary evidence of theExts . MI (Enquiry File).

2. The facts ofthe case in brief are as follows :- Shri R. V. Balamukundan was working as Peon of Canara Bank at its Parappur branch in Malappuram District. While so , 5829

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

7. Point No. 1 : The allegation against the workman Sri R.V. Balamukundan (peon) is that on 03-03-2004 he had removed Rs . 850 out of the soiled currency notes entrusted to him for affixing DP Code seal of the branch on the currency notes by the Cashier. Though certain preliminary objections were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the union regarding improper conduct of enquiry no separate order on the question of validity was insisted. However I will consider the contentions of the learned counsel regarding validity of enquiry .

8. According to the learned counsel the charges are not clear and are vague . Ext . MEI is the charge sheet . I am not able to find anything , unclear from the allegation in the charge sheet . Other than raising an issue in the claim statement it is not attempted to be substantiated.

The next contention is that no opportunity was given to the defence to cross- examine management witnesses and the documents on management side were marked without proof this is incorrect . The enquiry proceedings show that all the 5 witnesses on the management side were cross -examined by the defence representative . Besides marking ofthe management documents without proofwas objected by the defence and hence they were marked through competent witnesses . That is also recorded in the proceedings .

The next allegation of the union that no opportunity was given to adduce defence evidence is patently wrong . The proceedings sheet of the enquiry shows that at the end of the management's evidence the defence was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence . But neither witnesses were examined not documents were produced. It was submitted by the defence had no evidence. After getting the argument notes the Enquiry Officer prepared the report.

10. Coming to the merits of the case it was contended. bythe learned counsel for the union that the findings are entered by the Enquiry Officer merely on the basis of confession statement of the workman and not on the strength if evidence . The submission is not correct. Five witnesses were examined and 19 documents were marked on the side of the management . MWI in the enquiry was the then Branch Manager . MW2 was a Cashier , who had entrusted the soiled currency notes to the workman for affixing the DP code seal on the currency notes MW5 was the supervising cashier . When shortage was found by MW2 , the matter was informed to MW5 who verified and confirmedthe shortage. MW5 then openly said that unless the concerned person come forward and admit the incident " police will be called . It was thereafter that the workman admitted his guilt . A staff meeting was convened in which the workman confessed his guilt MW4 (Clerk) and 5 have admitted fact Ext . M6 and M7. are cash registers of the branch of the dated 2-3-2004 and 3-3-2004 wherein the cash taken out of the chest is recorded . Exts . ME 15 , 18 and 19 are statements given by MW2 , MW4 and MW5 to the Investigating Officer (MW3 ) . They narrated the incident and said that the worker had admitted the guilt in the staff meeting convened shortly after the incident . MW4 in Ext . ME-18 state that he had entrusted soiled currency notes to theworkman for affixing DP code seal . around 12 O'clock the currencywere returned by the workman . MW4 counted the currency note and found that there was shortage. lle informed the matter to MW5 and MWI immediately. MWS thencounted the currency and confirmed a shortage of Rs . 850 MW5 then reported the matter to the manager who also counted the currency and confirmed the shortage . ThenMW5 openly announced that unless the culprit come forward and admit the guilt he would inform the police .On hearing this the workman called MW5 to the dining hall and discussed something with him . Thereafter a staff meetingwas held at 2-15 p.m and the workman admitted his guilt in the staff meeting . On the same day he remitted Rs . 850 to Bank's account . This evidences is not controverted. On the basis of these materials the Inquiry Officer could very well conclude that them is conduct was committed by workman himself. Besides there is the admission statement of the workman in Exts ME2 , 11 (A ) , 13 and 17. Ext . ME (2) is the reply to the charge sheet wherein he admits his guilt . Ext ME. - 11 ( a) is a letter of the workman to the Manager of the branch , wherein also he admits his guilt . Ext . ME- 13 is a letter addressed to the Assistant General Manager by the workman admitting his guilt . Ext. ME - 17 is another letter addressed to the Branch Manager by the workman admitting his guilt . The worker hasthus repeatedly admitted that the money was taken by 9. It was also contended by the union that the Enquiry Officer was inferior to the Investigating Officer, whose report was relied on by the management and who was examined as MW3 in the enquiry . Thus the Enquiry Officer was obliged to his superior officer and proceeded with a biased mind. However when the Enquiry Officer was examined in the court as MW1 he stated that both himself and the Investigating Officer (MW3 ) were Managers but he was senior to MW3 . Even ifone of the witnesses in the enquiry is a superior officer to the Enquiry Officer normally that can not influence the Enquiry Officer . It is for the union to prove instances of biased behaviour of Enquiry Officer. Since the very allegation that MW3 was superior to the Enquiry officer falls to the ground the question of bias also cannot stand. thus there is nothing to show that the enquiry is vitiated for any reason, 5830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Code are the same as Clause 19.5( d) and (J ) ofFirst Bipartite Settlement (gross misconduct) . The punishment for gross misconduct is enumerated in Clause 19.6 ofthe First Bipartite Settlement which was amended and substituted by 6th Bipartitie Settlement of 14-2-1995 . The removal of moncy and misappropriation of the same is definitely a gross misconduct and the acts amount to willful damage to the property of the bank and are prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Therefore there is no illegality in the order of punishment.

him while the soiled currency notes were entrusted to him for the purpose of affixing seal . It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the union that the confession statements were given by the worker under threat and coercion . It is submitted that since MW- 5 had threatened police action he was unable to resist the threat and had to admit the guilt . Assuming that at the nick of the moment he had given Ext . ME- 11 - A statement there is no satisfactory explanation as the admission made by him after five months in the reply, Ext. ME- 2 to the memo of charges . He had enough time to think and take advice. Yet he admitted the guilt in Ext . ME -2 reply . Besides nowhere he had made a complaint till the enquiry that he was compelled to given a confession statements to the management . Therefore the contention regarding the ratened or induced admission is without merits. The findings are supported by sufficient evidence on record .

13. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the union that the disciplinary authority had not taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances of the workman . Theworkman is stated to be a physically challenged person having a family consisting of aged and ailing mother , unemployed wife and two school going children . He has no other source of livelihood. There is no previous disciplinary action against him . The punishment imposed iscompulsory retirement with retiral benefits . Honesty is the hall mark of a bank employee as the public must have confidence in the institution where their money is deposited. It integrity and honesty of the employees is at stake the public will hesitate to approach the institution . The fact that the workman has a family to look after and he has no other source of income, did not deter him from committing the mischief. Considering the above circumstances the punishment of compulsory retirement with retirement benefits cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate . Hence I refrainfrom interfering with the punishment .

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the workman Shri . R. V. Balamukundan, is legal and justified and he is not entitled forany relief.

11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that no loss has been caused to the bank by the alleged conduct of the workman . Even if there was shortage itwas made good on the same day by the workman. Hence the bank has not suffered any loss at all . Similarly there is no misappropriation of money by the worker . It is admitted by the management that on the same day amount was remitted. Ext .ME -9 is the claque dated 3-3-2004 for Rs . 850 drawn on O.D. account of the workmen . Having fraudulently removed bank's money it is no answer to say that it was repaid on the same day and hence bank has not suffered any loss. But the repayment was made after detecting the shortage by the cashier and since the worker was the only person who had handled the soiled currency notes he had not other option then to admit the guilt. In the above circumstances he remitted the amount . The misconduct was already committed by him before remittance of the money .

The award will come into force one month after its publication in theOfficial Gazette.

In the light of the above circumstances and evidence I hold that there is no infirmity in the findings of Enquiry Officer.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 11th day ofAugust, 2009 .

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

Appendix

witness for the Union

witness for the managment

-Nazar K. A.

MW1 22-7-09 -Nil -Nil

Exhibit for the Union

Exhibit for the management

M1 -Enquiry File.

12. Point No. 2 :- It is submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that the misconduct , if proved would amount only to minor misconduct and hence imposition of a major punishment is illegal and disproportionate. Ext. ME- I is the charge sheet alleging misconduct of causing willfulldamage to the property of the bank which is a gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI , Regulation 3 , Clause (j ) of Canara Bank Service Code, failure to take steps to protect the interest of the bank and to discharge duties with utmost honesty, diligenceetc. , Regulation 2A Clause ( 1 ) of Service Code and an act prejudicial to the interest ofthe bank, Regulation 3 , Clause ( m) . The first and last provisions of the Service 5831 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन4, 1931

नई दिल्ली , 2 सितम्बर , 2009

conneeted papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Thiru A. T. Chandrasekaran , Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner and Thiru R. Arumugam , Advocate, for M/s Aiyar & Dolia , appearing for the Respondent/management in this Industrial Dispute and thisdispute having stood over till this day for consideration , this Tribunal made the following .

AWARD

का. आ. 2679.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/1991 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-9-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-12012/ 270/90- आई आर. ( बी- II ) ]

TheGovernment of India have referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal :

राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd September, 2009

Whether the action ofthe Management of UCO Bank in dismissing Shri A. Sappani , Watchman-cum- Peon from the services of the Bank is justified ? If not to what relief theworkman is entitled ?

2. The main averments found in the Claim statement of the Petitioner are as follows :

S. O. 2679. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 2 of 1991 ) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 1-9-2009.

[No. L- 12012/270/90- IR ( B-II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Thepetitionerjoined the services of the respondent bank as Peon-cum- Watchman on 27-2-1974 . He was posted to work at the Pettai branch , Tirunelveli. During the year 1986 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 4-4-86 for certain alleged misconduct committed between 1979-1983 while he was serving at the bank's branch at Pettai .

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL TAMILNADU, CHENNAI 600 104.

Friday the 26th day of June, 2009

Present : TMT. S. Vimala, B.Sc. , M.L. , Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal .

Industrial Dispute No. 2 of 1991

(Inthe matter of dispute for adjudication Under Sec . 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 between the workmen and the Management of United Commercial Bank, Madras - 1 ) .

Shri A. Sappani , No. 86 Kailasapuram , Tirunelveli Junction . Thirunelveli 627 001

...Petitioner/workman

3. With reference to the certain malpractices/ allegations the bank requested the CBI to investigate it . The C.B.I. which investigated the case did not find it fit to launch any prosecution against any official of the bank . It isunderstood that they had submitted a report to the respondent together with statements allegedly recorded from witnesses . Acting on the said report , the respondent has issued the charge sheet , to which the petitioner gave his explanation . Then a domestic enquiry was ordered and conducted. The petitioner has no knowledge of English, in which the Domestic Enquiry Proceedings were conducted. Hisrequest to engage a Lawyer was negatived . The Enquiry officer gave a report dt . 19-10-88 holding that the charges have been proved . To the second show cause notice the petitioner gave his replydt . 7-12-88 . The respondent passed anOrderdt. 13-12-88 , dismissing the petitioner from service. The Appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal . Hence the petitioner started the Conciliation Proceedings, which also failed.

And The General Manger , United Commercial Bank , Zonal Office, No. 169 , Thambi Chetti Street, Madras 600 001

...Respondent/Management

Reference: Order No. 12012/ 270/90-1R - B ( II ) Dated 26-12-90 , Ministry of Labour , Govt . of India, New Delhi .

This dispute coming on for final hearing on Wednesday, the 17th day of June , 2009 , upon perusing the reference , Claim statement , Counter statement and other

4. The petitioner was not given a copy of the C.B. 1. report. Hence he was not able to make effective cross -examination of Management witnesses . Refusal to engage a lawyer has also adversely affected his defence . Important documents have been admitted in the eviderice, without competent witnesses proving them . The enquiry officer acted in a biased manner. The fact that the petitioner having studied only upto 7th Standard could not have committed the serious acts without participation and connivance of other persons in the bank was not considered 3360 G1 /09-28 5832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER26 , 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

at all . The dismissal of the petitioner from service is totally unjustified . The findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. Hence an award may be passed , directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.

5. The main averments found in the Counter statement of the Respondent are as follows :

The petitionerjoined the services of the respondent bank at Pettai branch , Tirunelveli as a peon -cum- Watchman on27-2-1974.He was given a Tamil trnaslation ofthe charge sheet at his request. The four charges against him are as follows:

1. The Charge sheeted employee utilised one Athankaraiyan to forge withdrawal slips for a total amount of Rs . 3000 anddrew the amount from S.B. A/e No. 1952.

2. He pledged his jewels in the name of Thiru M. Subramaniam and obtained jewel loan and discharged the same by fraudulently withdrawing money from S.B. A/ c No.1952 .

3. He forged the signature ofThiru Balasubramanian and withdrew money from S. B. Account No. 1952 .

4. (i) He opened two fictitious S.B. A/c No. 1458 & 1952 respectively in the name of Ramachandran and Balasubramanian .

(ii) He deposited the proceeds of 22 instruments in the said fictitious accounts openedby him.

6. A representative of the union conducted the defence . 19 witnesses have been examined by the management . Oral and documentary evidences have established the charges against the petitioner except the Charge No. 4(1 ) . The Domestic enquiryOfficer has recorded his findings on sufficient evidence . The disciplinary authority has agreed with the report of the Domestie enquiry officer and gave a hearing to the petitioner regarding .punishment . After considering the materials , the disciplinary authority passed an orderdt . 13-12-88 dismissing the petitioner from service . The appellate authority rightly confirmed the order and dismissed the appeal . The respondent was justified in refusing engagement of a lawyer by the petitioner . His defence representative General Secretary of the union is a very competent person . Full opportunity was given to the petitioner . Report of the C.B.I. being a confidential documents , can not be furnished to the petitioner. The domestic enquiry officer had no bias against the petitioner . Thepetitioner has enough knowledge and ability to handle the work of clearing cheques and doing other clerical jobs which are generally performed by employees above the rank of a peon . The fairness of the domestic enquiry may be decided as a preliminary issue and if the same is found

[ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) | to be unfair, the respondent is willing to let in further evidence to prove the charges . The punishment ofdisınissal is not disproportionate . The respondent prays that this tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim of the petitioner holding that the action of the respondent in dismissing the petitioner from the service isjustified .

7. POINT : The Point for consideration is whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in dismissing Shri A. Sappani , Watchman -cum - peon from the services oftheBank isjustified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ?

8. After remand, on behalf of petitioner/ Workman , no witness was examined and no document was marked . On behalf of Respondent/ management , MWI one M. Bojaraj has been examined and Ex. M1 to M 16 were marked.

9. The path travelled by this case from 1991 to 2001 . The alleged misconduct is said to have taken place between 1977 to 1983. The Charge memo has been issued on 4-4-1986 and the employee has been dismissed on 13-11-1988 . The dismissal is challenged by the employee and the Industrial tribunal originally passed an award dated 30-3-1993 ordering reinstatement, continuity of service and 75% of back wages . This award was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court . The Hon'ble High court remandcd the matter with a direction to afford opportunity to lead evidence . There was a further direction that if no evidence isoffered within six months , the award would become final , Alleging that within six months no evidence was adduced , (therefore the award became final , the workmen filed Claim petition before the Labour Court for computation ofbenefits payableto him.

10. As against the Order passed in the Writ Petition , WritAppeal was preferred wherein it was ordered that the " six months" period would commence from the date as wouldbe fixedby the Industrial tribunal for the first hearing. Thedate of first hearing was fixed as 4-11-2008 . Within the time fixed , the management has chosen to adduce oral and documentary evidence . The management has produced 16documents and examined Mr. Bojaraja as a witness . As evidence had been adduced within six months the claim petition became infructuous . The workman did not adduce any evidence . At this stage, this tribunal is called upon to decide those issues .

11. In respect of materials to be considered , it is relevant to consider the direction given in the Writ petition (theOrder of remand passed in the Writ petition has been upheld in the Writ appeal ) , Writ petition No. 12337/94 dated 16-4-2001 .

"The matter is remanded back to first respondent for affording an opportunity to lead evidence of both sides to substantiate their contention . The Labour court is also directed to take into consideration the evidence to be [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5833 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

adduced and also the evidence already available on record and pass orders on merits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order . "

defective . Such record would also not constitute "material on record" , as contended by the learned counsel for respondent , within the meaning ofSection 11A as the enquiry proceedings , on being found to be bad, have to be ignored altogether . "

The power of the tribunal to reappreciate the evidence as adduced before the Inquiry Officer has been considered and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decision:

(b) It has also been held in Shambunath V. Bank of Baroda 1983 II LLJ 415 that once the domestic enquiry isfound to bedefective or unfair , it would amount to no enquiry at all .

(2008) 1 Supreme court Cases ( L & S) 1066 (Between Workmen of Balmadies Estates Vs. Management , Balmadies Estates and Others )

(c) The Apex Court in Mysore Steel Work Vs. Jitendra Chandra Kar 1971 (40) FJR 63 held that the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry cannot be looked into when the enquiry was found to be unfair and defective .

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S. 11A - Labour Court'spower ofreappreciation of evidence , considered- Held, Power of Labour Court under I. D. Act has expanded vastly after introduction of S.11.A - Hence , it can, in an appropriate case, consider the evidence which has been consideredby the domestic tribunal and in a given case on such consideration arrive at a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal .

12. The main contentions raised by the workman while challenging the Order of the dismissal are as follows:

(i) The Inquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in a fair and proper manner.

(ii) The Inquiry Officer acted in a biased manner and therefore the order is invalid .

These decisions will not apply to the facts of this casebecause thereis no finding by the Hon'ble High Court that the enquiry is defective or unfair . No doubt, once before in the order dated 30-3-1993 this tribunal has given afinding that the findings ofthe Inquiry Officer are perverse. But the matter was taken in appeal by way of Writ petition. While remanding the Hon'ble High Court has given a direction to this Court to consider the evidence to be adduced and the evidence which was already on record . Therewas also no finding that the enquiry was not fair and proper . Therefore , as the enquiry proceedings are not sei. aside , this court has to look into the documents relating to the enquiry proceedings also.

(iii) The right to legal representation was denied and therefore it amounted to denial of opportunity to defend.

The contentions regarding fairness of the enquiry is concerned it would be dealt with in the later portion. So far as right to legal representation is concerned it isenough if the management permits the services of a competent person . It is not mandatory for the management to permit the services of legal personality alone . Therefore the contention that there is a denial of opportunity as the lawyer is not permitted to assist the workman cannot be accepted.

13. The learned counsel for workman contended that it isnot permissible to look into the evidence relating to enquiry proceedings , as fresh evidence has been permitted to be let in .

14. The documents that are relied upon now in the fresh evidence had been relied upon earlier occasion also and those documents are Ex.M1 to M10. Ex.M11 is the Proceedings ofthe Inquiry Officer , which has also been considered on a prior occasion . Again the same set of documents have been filed . Apart from that , Ex.M14to M16 are documents filled which go to show that the workman is gainfully employed and he has been paid his wages as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court . The remaining documents are Ex.M12 & M13 . Ex.M12 & M13 are the Investigation report dated 26-4-84 and 24-8-84 . It is not known what happened to those documents when there had been proceedings from 6-2-86 ( date of Charge sheet ) to 13-12-88 ( date of dismissal order ) . Except the oral evidence ofBojaraj who was the presenting officer there is no other oral evidence . Now the Court has to find out whether the dismissal of the workman is justified .

In support of the contention the following decisions have been relied upon .

: 15. The sum and substance of the allegations against the workman are as follows :

(a) In the decision reported in 1999 1 CLR p . 219 (Neeta Kaplish Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another) . The Hon'ble Supreme court held as follows:

1. The Charge sheeted employce utilised one Athankaraiyan to forge withdrawal slips for a total amount of Rs . 3000 and drew the amount from S. B. A/ c No. 1952 .

"Therecord pertaining to the domestic enquiry would not constitute " fresh evidence" as those proceedings have alreadybeen found by the Labour Court to be

2. He pledged his jewels in the name of Thiru M. Subramaniam and obtainedjewel loan and discharged 5834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ ASVINA 4, 1931

the same by fraudulently withdrawing money from S. B. A/c No. 1952 .

3. He forged the signature of Thiru Balasubramanian and withdrew money from S. B. A/c No. 1952 .

4. ( i ) He opened two fictitious S. B. A/ c Nos . 1458 & 1952respectively in the name of Ramachandran and Balasubramanian.

(ii ) He deposited the proceeds of 22 instruments in the said fictitious accounts opened by him.

In this case originally this tribunal found that the enquiry was not fair and proper . On the orders of the Hon'ble High Court the management was given an opportunity to adduce evidence and the management has chosento examine Bojaraj ( the Presenting Officer during the domestic enquiry ) as MWI and Ex . Ml to M16 have beenmarked. M14 and M15 has been filed to show that the petitioner is employed as Security Guard in a hotel through SecurityHead Guard Contractor . Under Ex . M14 the State Bank of India has given the address of Sappani as a resident of Hotel Tamil Nadu Kodaikanal . Ex . M15 shows that as perCourtdirections a sum ofRs . 459492.30 has been paid to Sappani from 13-7-94 to 28-2-2006. They have also indicated that a sum of Rs . 73910 has been deposited with the tribunal on 15-9-94 . Ex: M12 relates to Investigation report of Asst . General Manager .

16. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the basic elementary procedure has not been followed in conducting the enquiry and the entire proceedings are vitiated by bias . The first submission in support of that contention is that the C.B.1 . report (the non production of which is commented upon by the industrial tribunal during the previous occasion ) is not produced before this tribunal. It is pointed out that even after getting the second opportunity to prove the charges , that report is not filed. The Charge memo issued by the bank is sought to be made on the basis of report by the C.B.I. During the evidence before the Court , it has been specifically suggested that in order to suppress the corrupt transactions done by the bank , the CBI report has been suppressed and that the last person (Sappani ) has been chosen as a scape-goat and the rest of them have been protected. Despite this specific objection taken by the workman that copy of C.B.I. report is not filed before this Court.

17. It is contended that because of the security issues involved CBI report is not produced . It is not as if the physical security of the State is involved. It is the matter relating to the internal transactions of a particular functioning of the branch . No prejudice will be caused to the bank if the report is produced . The non production of the report would cause prejudice to the petitioner in making up his defence because it is the basic documents upon

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] which the edifice the bank case has been built up . The management cannot seek protection on the ground that it is a confidential document . It can be a confidential document only till the investigation is over . The non- production of report coupled with non- explanation as to how the petitioner alone can do all these acts alleged, speaks volume about the unfairness of the enquiry.

18. At one point of time , the management alleges that the petitioner is the guilty of opening fictitious account by creating a fictitious person by name Balasubramanian . At the same time in the course of evidence , the management witness says that only at the request of the account holder accounts would be closed and that the account of Balasubramanian was closed after getting the signaturcs. Thisimplies that Balasubramanian is not fictitious person and he is the real person . It is not the case of the management that Balasubramanian has given any complaint . There is also no explanation as to why Balasubramanian has not been examined before the court .

19. It is not as ifthe incident relating to four charges took place over - night and it is not as if it was a only a single transaction which took place on any particula /single day alone . It is said to be transactions spreading over years together. Not only several transactions are involved but several branches of different banks are aslo involved . Beforemaking allegation the bank ought to have took into consideration as to the persons on whom the responsibility had been fixed by the rules and Regulations covering the alleged act . The bank ought to have endeavoured to find out whether there are any latches- commission- omission on the part of those officers responsible for it . The whole system of banking adopt the procedure of check and counter - check and check and balances . Even if there is a omission on the part of one official , it couldbe easily identified by another officer in respect of a single transaction . In other words , the nature of work in a banking institution is a team work .

20. From the very nature of the allegations it would be evident that the alleged activities could not have been done without the connivance and the participation by the superior officers. The enquiry which is one sided and which proceeded only against this workman alone go to show that the Enquiry is a biased one .

21. It is the case of the management that there had been alterations in the cheques and conscquent misappropriation . It is not as if it is a single transaction in the sense that cheque was altered on only one occasion and it was detected in one cheque . In that case , there is a possibility that it would have escaped the attention of the bank official . But in this case it is alleged that there was manipulations , alterations and forgeries in respect of several cheques on several days , spreading over several years . In 5835 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

(iii) The cheque presented is from the cheque book issued to the account holder.

(iv)There is sufficient balance in the account to pay the cheque and there is clear balance in the account.

(v) No stop payment instructions have been received.

that case it is a wonder that it is escaped the attention of several bank officials on several days . There are several instructions andthe several procedures for identifying the correctness of the signature in the cheque and also to find out the manipulations. Manual on deposits published by Tamil Nadu State Apex Coop . Bank Ltd. Points out, the precaution to be taken when the cheques have to be encashed and when there is payment of cheque through, clearing, payment of cheque through transfer, and use of ultra violet lamps etc.

(vi) There is no legal bar such as garnishee order or other validorder restraining the constituent from operating the account.

Scrutiny of cheque presented for Payment are as follows:

(vii) They are not post-dated or stale ( dated more than six months back) . ::

(1) Form of the cheque

( ii) Whether drawn on us ;

(viii) Amount in words and figures agrees . Ifthere is difference, the amount in words must be taken as correct.

(iii) Date of cheque;

(iv) Payee;

(v) Amount (both in words and figures);

(vi) Whether order cheque or bearer one;

(vii) Crossing, if any ;

(ix) No notice of death , insanity or insolvency of the constituent has been received . He should obtain the signature of the presentor with date and address , wherever needed , on the reverse of the cheque , issue a token to the presentor andwrite the token number on the top left hand side ofthe cheque .

(viii) Signature of the drawer (whether property marked, where '& Co.' applicable );

Change in the specimen signature of the Account holder:

(ix) Endorsements, if any ;

(x) Mutilation, if any;

(xi) Alterations , if any;

(xii) Stop payment instructions , if any ;

(xiii) Whether the cheque relates to that account.

(a) Old specimens are replaced by fresh Specimen Signatures:When specimen signatures on record are very old and there is material change in the style of signature , fresh specimen signatures should be obtained from the constituents concerned in a new- account opening form . TheOfficer concerned must sign the new account opening form recording the date on which it is obtained and file it along with the old specimen signature card -cum - opening form . The old specimen signature card cum - opening form should be marked ' Replaced by fresh signature ' without damaging or obscuring in any way the old specimen signature in it .

From this Check - list it is clear that bank has several internal control mechanism to check and find out any discrepancy or any fraud or any alterations even in a single cheque. The cash payment of cheque is done by ledger assistant and by the passing officer and scrutinised by Cash Assistant .

(b) Account holder can change the mode of his signature:

Points to be observed by Ledger Assistant when cheque is received for payment:

When the Ledger Assistant receives a cheque for payment, he should carefully examine that the cheque is prima facie in order . Inter alia , he should satisfy himself that:

(i) The cheque is a bearer cheque . If it is an order cheque , the same should not be posted for payment without prior approval of the Passing Officer.

The Account holder may, in certain circumstances , desire to change the mode of his signature in which case hc should personally cali on the Bank . He should be properly identified and then a fresh specimen signature should be obtained in a new account opening form . The old account opening form should be cancelled as above and filed with the new account opening form . Specimen signature cards should not be sent through messenger or by post . Specimen signature cards , after being filled up , should not be sent by the customer through messenger or by post .

(ii) The cheque is not crossed and that it is drawn on the same branch . It is not endorsed or crossed to another bank .

Change in address of Account holder : Change address of the Account holder should be noted only on 5836

[ PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

his written authority . The signature of addressee should be verified by the Officer concerned.

was the destruction of the records came to the knowledge ofthe higher officers . What was the action taken by them for causing destruction of the documents ? Why no action was taken so far? Are some ofthe questions which remain silent but speaking volume about the conduct of the management . When it is evident that some material ducuments have been destroyed and when it is not known atwhose instance and for whose benefit those documents are destroyed it is highly unsafe to rely upon a finding which is based on available documents .

The original address in the account opening form, the ledger page and pass book (where applicable ) should be neatly scored through and the new address written immediately below in the relative column , giving reference to date of customer's letter , under the initial ofthe Officer . It should be ensured that change in the address of the Account holder is made only in such accounts indicated by the customer specifically but not in all accounts as a matter of routine. In case of any doubt the intention of the Account holder regarding the change of address in some or all accounts , a reference should be made to him . "

22. These procedures , rules and regulations go to show that the responsibility to handle the cheque is not exculsively in the hands ofthe Watchman . It appears tobe inthe hands of several Officers. The management has not explained howthe petitioner alone could be responsible for doing several jobs at the same time . Under such cireumstances, this Tribunal comes to conclusion that the findings are not based on acceptable evidence.

26. The Enquiry Officer has relied upon the cvidence of the handwriting expert of the CBI Department . The evidence appears to be that the disputed signature was compared with the signature of the petitioner herein and there was similarity between them . The basic question is who disputed the signature of whom, and upon which document ? And was there any positive material to show that excepting the petitioner nobody else could have done the fabrication . Was there any complaint that the disputed signature was not that of the disputant? Thesedoubts present unpleasant questions and there is no convincing answer . Under such circumstances the non - production of CBI report assumes much importance .

23. It is the duty and responsibility of bank higher official (Manager) to open the account . Even assuming that the present employee took a major role in opening such a account, even then it is the duty of the bank official to counter- check it .That is not done . No action seems to have been taken against those officials. The non-taking of any action against other official would not justify the mistake committed by the present employee . But what exactly is the role played by this employee and what was the role played by his higher official is not made clear before this Tribunal . Therefore , without clear and acceptable evidence the petitioner cannot be made guilty.

In the result, this Tribunal hold that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. Therefore , the order ofdismissal is set aside . Now the next question is whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement , back wages and other attendant benefits or payment of compensation would be an adequate relief. In this case, though the management expresses ' no confidence ' on the employee still there are no acceptable material to show that the suspicion is well founded. Eventhough the dismissal order is set aside , it is done after 18 years . Even though there is proof to show thatthe petitioner is employed in a hotel , it would not be compensatory in terms of income, the social security and the status . Therefore , the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in sevice with continuity of service . Back wagcs already ordered and deposited into court would enure for the benefit of the workman . No costs .

Dated at Chennai , this 26th day of June, 2009 . TMT. S. VIMALA, Presiding Officer 24. It is the case of the management that the petitioner utilised the services of one Athankaraiyan for the purpose of forging the account. But he has not been examined neither before the Enquiry Officer nor before the Court . When the main witness who could unfold several things before the Court has not been examined , the inference is that there is fundamental unfairness and bias in conducting the enquiry.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITS

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON THE SIDE OF PETITIONER/WORKMEN:

-None-

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON THE SIDE OF RESPONDENT/MANAGEMENT:

M. W. 1 : Thiru . K. Bojaraj

EXHIBITS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF PETITIONER/ WORKMAN:

-NIL-

25. It is not the case of the Investigating Officers that they have gone through all documents . The answer of MW 14 during the domestic enquiry (Rajagopalan ) is very strange . He has stated that he did not go through all the papers but only available papers. He has specifically stated thatclearing register , inward schedule, some of the days disputant cheques, outward clearing schedule were not available . He has further stated that there had been ample opportunity to destroy the record, (by the fraudulent person) . Who really destroyed the records ? What was the opportunity for the sub staff to destroy it ? What the other staff were doing when he destroyed the records . When

401 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5837

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

ExhibitsMarked on the Side of Respondent/ Management:

Sl .No. Date

Description ofDocument 1 06/02/86 Ex.M01 Charge Memo issuedto Thiru. A. Sappani 2

Tamil Translation of Ex.M01 Ex.M02

3 21/04/86 Ex.M03 Explanation of the workman to the charge memo 4 Ex.M04 Memo of Written arguments ofthe management re- presentative in the matter of the enquiry conducted against Thiru.A . Sappani 19/10/88 Ex.M05 Findings of the Enquiry Officer 5

30/11/88 Ex.M06 Show cause notice issued to theworkman 6

Ex.M07 Proceedings of the hearing 7/12/88

Dismissal Order

8 13/12/88 Ex.M 08

12/01/89 Ex.M09

9 Appeal preferred by the workman against his dismi- ssal order

10 21/22/03 Ex.M 10 Order ofAppellate Authority 89

11 Ex.M11 Proceedings of the Enquiry Officer

12 26/04/84 Ex.M 12 Copy of the Investigation Report

Ex.M 13 -do-

24/08/84

21/08/00 Ex.M 14

14 Copy of the letter received from Hotel Carlton , Kodaikanal .

15 28/07/00 Ex.M 15 Copy of the letter received from S.B.L. , Kodaikanal 16 20/04/06 Ex.M 16 Details of payment made to thePetitioner.

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 2680.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कनारा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय -1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-9-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल-12012/136/2005- आई आर. ( बी -11 ) ]

राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2009 S. O. 2680.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.23 of 2006)ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court-1 Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman , which wasreceived by the Central Government on 1-9-2009.

[No.1-12012/ 136/2005- IR( 13-11 ) | RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. No. 23/2006

Smt. Maya Devi alias Mamta No. 2074, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

...Applicant

Versus

TheGeneral Manager , Canara Bank, Plot No. 1 , Sector 34-A, Chandigarh .

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman

For the Management

AWARD

Passed on 27-8-09

Government of India vide Notification No. L- 12012/136/2005-1R ( B - II ) Dated 15-05-2006 by exercising itspowers under Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication of this. Tribunal: -

"Whether the action of the Management of Canara Bank, Chandigarh in terminating the services of Smt. Maya Devi alias Mamta , Ex - sweeper without complying with the provisions of Section 25F, G &H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is illegal and unjustified if so to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

After receiving the reference, both ofthe partics were informed to file their respective pleadings . From perusal of statement of claim of the workman , it is evident that the case of the workman in short is that she was appointed as P.T.E. against leave vacancy and has performed duty in different branches at Chandigarh since 8 years . She has completed 240days of work in every calendar year . Shc hasworked in Sector 36/, Sector 32 - D , Sector 47C and Sector 35-B. Herjuniors were retained in services and their services were regularized by the management of the Bank, whereas , her services were terminated against the provisions of the Act. On the basis of above facts , the workman has prayed for an order for setting aside her terminatin and direction to management to reinstate her services with full back wages along with consequential benefits including regularization ofher services .

The management of the bank opposed the statement ofclaimby filing written statement. It was contended in the 5838

[ PART 11 -SEC . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009 /ASVINA 4, 1931

(iv) A statement regarding duties of part time employees .

(v) The copy of Demand Notice given by the workman to the Chief Labour Commissioner , Chandigarh.

Parties were heard at length . The main contention of the learned counsel for the workman is that the services of theworkman were terminated against the provisions of the Act . Juniors were not only retained in service but their services were regularized , whereas , the services of the workman were terminated without notice or retrenchments compensation . It was further argued by learned counsel for the workman that workman had completed 240 days ofwork in every calendar year and the statement of working days shown by the management is incorrect . Incomplete records have been filed . The copies of all the vouchers have not been provided to this Tribunal and adverse inference , accordingly, should be taken against the management.

written statement that she was appointed as a daily wager which is a purely temporary in nature and the contract of engagement comes to an end on the same day. It is also contended that a daily wager is not an employee of the bank and she cannot claim any relief of regularization /Pay Scalewages etc. It is accepted by the management that the petitioner worked on daily wages in different branches of the bank on various days intermittently during 1996 to 2002. It was further contented that she had not completed 240days ofwork with the Bank in any ofthe calendar year. Hence, she is not entitled for any relief under the provisions ofthe Act . Details of working days of the workmanwere also mentioned by the management in written statement. Regarding the appointment of the juniors of workers, it was further more contended by the management of the bank that their recruitments and appointments were made asperthe procedure laid down in the rules ofthe bank. The workman cannot claim a parity with their recruitment . The procedure of appointment of all the three employees was given in written statement.

Both of the parties were afforded the opportunity of being heard. The opportunity for adducing evidence was also afforded to the parties . Smt . Maya Devi filed the affidavitin support of her claim and was cross - examined bythe leamed counsel for the management on 13-04-2009. The chief-examination of Smt . Shyama Devi as WW2 was also recorded for the workman and she was also cross- examined by the learned counsel for the management on 23-04-2009 . Shri Anant Jatana filed his affidavit for the bank and he was cross - examined as MW- 1 by the learned counsel for the workman .

Learned counsel for the management argued that it isthe admitted claim ofthe workman that she was appointed as P.T.E. against leave vacancy . She has not completed 240 days in any of the calendar year , and accordingto the learned counsel for the management, she is not entitled for any relief. Duty of the Tribunal is to separate grains from the chaff. The workman might has contended otherwise regarding the nature of her appointment/ engagement, but the Tribunal has to answer the reference on the basis of the real facts on the nature of appointment/engagement thatworkman worked as Daily Wager in different Branches of the Bank . The copies of the vouchers filed by the Management also prove that she worked as a daily wager indifferent branches of the bank. But the application moved by Smt . Maya Devi to the Senior Manager , Canara Bank , Staff Section Circle Office , Chandigarh which was properly forwarded by Shri V.R. Walia , Chief Manager to the DivisionalManager, Canara Bank, Circle Office , Chandigarh prove that intermittently she also worked as P.T.E. The documents filed by the workman have not been denied by the witness of the management , but it is contended that the documents are of the bank . The evidence of WW- 2 also proves that workman for sometime worked as daily wager and sometime as P.T.E. against the leave vacancy. Two certificates of work experience issued by the bank shows that the workman was working with the bank in its different branches from 1996 to 2005 .

Withher statement ofclaim, petitioner filed letter bearing reference No. 8/HO/2527/2001 /P&T dated 01-08-2001 , written by Shri V.R. Waloor , Chief Manager to the Divisional Manager , CanaraBank on application of Smt . Maya Devi for the post of P.T.E. The application on which the said letter dated 08-01- 2001 was written has also been filed. The workman has also filed the Certificate bearing reference No. 8 /HO/STF / 12/97 DRC dated 10-05-97 and another Certificate bearing reference No. 8/HO/STF/3 13/96/DRC Dated 19-02-97 . The workman also preferred to file minutes ofthe joint Conference held between therepresentatives ofthe Canara Bank and the representatives ofthe CanaraBank Employees Union at Head Office , Bangalore on 4th and 5th August 2006. The management has filed all the photo copies ofthe vouchers Exhibit, WW- 2 to WW69 .

The management of the bank has also filed the following documents: -

(i ) A letter regarding Smt . Maya Devi bearing reference No. CHSW/2984/ 2k4 /PKK Dated 05-08- 2004 written by Shri K. Bhaskar, Assistant Genera¹ Manager to the Chief General Manager.-

(ii ) Letter written by Shri K. Bhaskar to the Senior Manager Canara Bank Sector 47 regarding Smt . Maya Devi bearing referenc No. CHSW/2984/ 2k4/PKK

Dated 05-08-2004.

It isthe duty ofthe workman to prove that she worked with the management for 240 days even as daily wagers to claim the protection of the provisions of the Act . It is the oral contention of the workman only that she worked continuously with the management of the bank and had completed 240 days of work in every calendar year . The documents provided by both of the parties are unable to prove that workman worked for 240 days in the previous calendar year preceding to the date of her termination . But this issue will not make any difference in this reference because the workman has specifically contended and argued that her juniors were retained in the services , whereas , her services were terminated . She has also indicated the names of the persons who are still working (iii) Copy ofthe letter written by (not clear) to Senior Manager , Canara Bank , Circle Office , Chandigarh bearing No. Misc./254/09 Dated09-04-2009.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5839

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

with the Bank . It has been the contention of the workman that Sh . Ashok Kumar , Smt. Sunita and Shri Rishi Pal were retained in service and their services were regularized thereafter , whereas , her services were terminated.

legislative mandate to honour her seniority by the management . In this case , this seniority has been violated bythe management by providing the work and regularizing the services of three workmen by three different modes without affording the proper opportunity to the workman . Hence, the termination of the workman is illegal and void being against the provisions of the Act .

Whenever, the termination of the workman is declared by the Tribunal void and illlegal being against the provisions of the Act, there are two possible remedies available . The workman can be reinstated into the services with or without back wages as per the recently settled normms of the servicejurisprudence , and the other remedy available is a reasonable compensation .

In written statement, the management of the bank has submitted that Shri Ashok Kumar was selected through Employment Exchange with effect from 05-05-2001 , Smt Sunita has worked at Sector 8 -C , Chandigarh Branch and while working there from 01-07-1996 to 08-04-1997 she has completed 240 days, and thereafter, she was recruited as P.T.E, with effect from 31-07-2000. Regarding the services of Shri Kesh Pal , it was mentioned by the management of the bank that he was engaged by the bank against the leave vacancy of P.E.T. and on demise of Shri Rishi Pal, P.T.E. he was engaged continuously in the said vacancy , and thereafter, he was absorded as P.T.E. on 29-10-1999 .

It is one of the fundamental principles of the service jurisprudence that if the work is available the preference should be given for reinstatement of services to the workman and it should be in exceptional cases that reasonable compensation should ordered to be given to the workman . There is nowhere in the pleadings and evidence of the management of the bank that similar nature of work is not available with the management . Accordingly , I am of the view that reinstatement of workman into the services in the same capacity as she was working at the time of her retrenchment is the appropriate remedy without back wagcs but the seniority of the workman shall be protected.

Learned counsel for the management has very strongly contended that the service of the workman was not recruited through the Employment Exchange . She was not law- fully appointed. But the method and the manner of the appointment ofthree workmen is different in three cases . As per the contention of the management Shri Ashok Kumar was selected through Employment Exchange , Smt. Sunitawas appointed as she had completed 240 days of work, whereas, Shri Kesh Pal was absorbed in the service on the demise of Shri Rishi Pal P.T.E. It is not the contention of the management of the bank that apointment of Shri Kesh Pal has any nexus with the demise of Shri Rishi Pal , P.T. E. and such appointment was made in dying in harness on compassionatry grounds . Thus, for three different workmen different procedure was adopted by the bank . The relevant record recording the appointment and recruitment of Shri Ashok Kumar, Smt . Sunita and Shri Kesh Pal has not been provided to this Tribunal to know that they werejuniors to the workman and theywere provided with thejob against permanent vacancy. The best evidence regarding this is lying in the custody of the bank and reasons known to the bank, the same was not filed.

Learned counsel for the management has also argued that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Versus Uma Devi & Others J.T. 2006( 4) -SC-420 , the workman cannot claim the regularization of the services . The issue before this Tribunal isotherwise. The issue is whether the workman who was working as daily waged worker with the management ofthe bank was denied the opportunity for regularization , whereas similarly placed workman were considered for absorption and regularization . The law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case ( supra) does not prevent to remedy the violation ofthe right of any workman who has been subject to the violation of principle of natural justice .As stated earlier, the three persons were recruited and absorbed in the serviccs bythe bankby different modes. It is not the claim of the bank aswell as that initial appointment/ engagement of the workman was illegal .Moreover, the management has filed a list to prove the duties of a workman who has been engaged as a' daily wager. It proves that the initial engagement of the workman was perfectly lawful and it was not open to the management ofthe bank to violate the seniority of the workman.

It has been the specific contention of the workman that juniors to him were retained in service and their services were regularized, whereas , services of the workman were terminated. It was orally denied by the management by giving the procedure of appointment ofthe three workmen against which the workman claimed her seniority. No documents were provided with to this Tribunal to prove that all the three persons were senior to the workman. Accordingly, adverse inference shall be taken by this Tribunal . Nature of this adverse inference shall be that workman shall be considered to be senior to all the three persons appointed by the management while the services ofthe workman were terminated .

Accordingly, the termination of the workman is illegal . The management of the bank is directed to reinstated the services of the workman within one month from the date ofpublication of this award. The management of the bank is further directed to extend the same Icgal protection regarding the regularization and absorption of the services of the workman in the same way as is given to three person juniors to the workman . It is hereby made clear that the workman will not be entitled for the back wages but her seniority will be protected . Let Central Governmentbe approached for publication of Award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

May be workman had worked even for a day, it gives the legislative protection under the umbrella of the Act to protect her seniority. If any person is recruited after the termination ofthe services of the workman for similar nature of work, the termination shall be void being against the provisions of the Act . The nature of work of all the three persons namely ; Shri Ashok Kumar, Smt. Sunita and Shri Kesh Pal is same . As stated earlier , that the wokman Smt . Maya Devi worked sometime on the daily wages and sometimes against the leave vacancy as P.T.E. It was the

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 3360G1 /09-29 5840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASVINA 4, 1931

नई दिल्ली , 2 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2681.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडीकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 81/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-9-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/25/97-आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd September , 2009 S.O. 2681.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.81 /98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the managernent of Syndicate Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-9-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/25/97-1R (B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. 81/98

The Chairman, Syndicate Bank Employees Union , C/ o Syndicate Bank, Bank Square , Sector- 17 - B , Chandigarh - 160017.

... Applicant

Versus

The Deputy General Manager , Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office , Sarojini House , 6 , Bhagwan Dass Road , New Delhi - 110001 .

Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the Workman

: Shri Dharam Singh

: None

For the Management

AWARD

Passed on 25-8-2009

Central Government vide notification No. L - 12012/ 25/97 - IR ( B - II ) dated 21-4-98 has referred the following disputetothis Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the demands of the Union not to pass the cheque/ instruments more than the limit

[ PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii) ] prescribed in the settlement to the Special Assistant is justified or not? If not, to what relief the concerned workman entitled and from what date ? " 2. Case is taken up in Lok Adalat . On behalf of the workman/union Shri Dharam Singh , Chairman , Syndicate Bank Employees Union is present . He filed a letter that the union does not intend to pursue the case further & withdraw the same . In view , of the letter filed by the union , the present refeence is returned to Central Government as settled in Lok Adalat . Central Government be informed, and thereafter file be consigned to record room . Chandigarh

25-8-2009

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2682.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्टं औद्योगिकं विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण असनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-9-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/204/2004-आई.आर. ( सीएम--II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 3rd September , 2009 S.O. 2682.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 54/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Disputebetween the management of C.L. Jambad Colliery, Kenda Area of M /s . ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-9-2009 .

[No. L-22012/204/2004- IR ( CM- 11 ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Sri Manoranjan Pattnaik, Presiding Officer Reference No. 54 of 2006

Parties : The Industrial Dispute between the management Khas Kajora Colliery, Kenda Area

Vrs . Their workman

REPRESENTATIVES

: P. K. Das , Advocate For the management 5841 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] -

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

Forthe union (Workman ) : Sri S. K. Pandey , General Secretary, K.M.C.

Industry: Coal

State:West Bengal

Dated the 16-7-2009

AWARD

Inexercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/204/2004 -IR ( CM - II ) dated 11-8-2006 has been pleasedto refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of C.L. Jambad Colliery under Kenda Area of M /s ECL in dismissing Sri Sunil Dome , Fitter , from service w.e.f. 13-9-2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief isthe workman concerned entitled?"

2.Onreceipt ofthe Order No. L -22012/204/2004- IR (CM- II) dated 11-8-2006 of the above mentioned reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference caseNo. 54 of2006 was registered on 18-9-2006 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through theregistered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance ofthe said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .

5. On perusing the assertion of the parties in their avernment, the evidence both documentary and oral and havingheardboth the sides it is found that the main plank ofdismissal of the workman from service resolves around the complaint made by Dhoni Dome . In the domestic enquiry statement of material witness including the workman, Dhoni Dome , have been taken and documents like the voter Card , Ration Card etc. have been examined. Dhoni Dome has explained the circumstance and reason of filing of the complaint and by resiling from her stand later on supported the claim of the workman by declaring that workman infact is the son of Mochiram . Her husband too has affirmed the same . She has admitted that being ill advised she filed the complaint. Admittedly, neither hereself not the management has lodged FIR at the police station for prosecution of the workman nor the claim of the workman has been falsified in any declaratory suit in the civil court . Ithas simply been referred on the enquiry report about a compromise of a civil suit between the workman andDhoni Dome without the terms of compromise being established nor showing anything contrary to the claim of the workman . The Voter I. D. Card and other documents on record like from overwhelmingly established the fact that the workman is the son of Mochiram . The witness like the personal manager Sri A. N. Petere admits that he has never received any complaint against the workman in this regard . It is established law that rigorous and thread bear examination or evaluation of evidence on record is not warranted nor high standard of evidence is required to establish a fact in such case . But taking into consideration some contradiction and on surmisation of facts in the domestic enquiry and ignoring the face value of documentary evidence and above all without giving weight to the admission of fact by the complainant Dhoni Domc herself and without seeing the facts in prepondcrance to the probabilities the Enquiry Officer handed in erroneous conclusion that the workman was not the son of Mochiram . Evidence of the witness in the enquiry proceeding and that of the workman in the court have not been demolished . Assuch it can safely be concluded that dismissal of Sri Sunil Domefrom service by the Employer w.c.f. 13-9-2000 is not legal andjustified. In absence of proof of his lispendis gainful employment elsewhere , the workman entitles himself reinstatement in service with all benefit and back wages . A award needs to be passed accordingly in his favour. It is ordered.

ORDER

3. The case of the workman in short is that he (the workman) worked as a Fitter of C.L. Jambad Colliery in Kenda Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited being appointed on 1-1-1980 in place of his father who took voluntary retirement. On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Smt . Dhani Dome against the workman that he is not the son of Mochiram Dome , the management charge sheeted the workman and without affording proper opportunity to defend dismissed him from service by order dated 13 / 14-9-2000 . An enquiry was subsequently held pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta but ignoring the statement of even the complaint Smt . Dhoni Dome in support of the workman , the Enquiry Officer found the misconduct of the workman who was consequently dismissed .

Let an award be and same is passed as per abovc . Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, NewDelhi .

MANORANJAN PATINAIK, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर, 2009

4. Without refuting the fact relating to the circumstance of appointment of the workman the management has banked on the complaint Dhoni Dome claiming herself as the only issue of Mochiram and disowning the workman as her brother .

का.आ. 2683.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक 3360G1/09-30 5842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASVINA 4 , 1931

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | 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 37/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-9-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/67/2004- आईआर ( बी -11 ) ]

राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd September , 2009

bank . He was appointed for the first time as a temporary attender on 25-8-87, to work at Jarcha branch ofthe bank . Thereafter he was appointed time and again at various branches ofthe bank in Ghaziabad Region, where he worked till 15-5-2002 . Services rendered by Tilak Ram from 25-8-87 till 15-5-2002 were treated as temporary by the bank, without any benefit of seniority or scale of pay etc. Aggrieved by the said action , Tilak Ram raised a demand, which was declined. He raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed , appropriatc Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal , vide order No. L - 12011/67/2004- IR (B - II ) dated 19-7-04 with following terms:

S.O. 2683.- In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 37/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court No. I , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-9-2009 .

"Whether the action of the management in treating the service rendered by Shri Tilak Ram during the period from 25-8-1987 to 15-5-2002 as temporary and denying him the benefits of regular service for the said period is just, fair and legal? if not , what relicfis the concerned workman entitled to? "

[No. L- 12011 /67/2004- IR (B- II )] RAJINDER KUMAR, 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. 37/2004

Inthe matter of dispute between:

Shri Tilak Ram through ,

The Organizing Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association , B- 1, BareillyOfficers Colony Sarvodaya Nagar , Kanpur (U.P . ) - 208025

Workman

Versus

The Deputy General Manager ,

Syndicate Bank,

Zonal Office , Skylark, Building, Naval Kishore Marg , Lucknow -226001 .

.....Management

AWARD

2. The workman filed claim statement , pleading therein that he is permanent employee of the Management Bank vide order of appointment dated 16-5-2002 . Prior to that he was appointed in temporary capacity w.e. f. 25-8-87 , at various branches of the bank . The Divisional Office of the bank at Ghaziabad ( U.P. ) sent requisition to the Employment Exchange, Ghaziabad, for appointment to the post of Attender /Peon . In response to the said communication , the Ernployment Exchange sponsored name of the workman for the said post in 1987. Vide letter dated 28-2-87 , he was required to appear for interview/test on 17-3-87 , for appointment in permanent/temporary vacancies of Attender/ Peon. He appeared at the aforesaid interview/ selection test held at the management's Divisional Office at Ghaziabad . On the basis of the said interview/ selection test, a list of 10 candidates including the workman was published by the Zonal Office , Lucknow, for appointment as " Attender " . The appointments were to be made on leave vacancies . However the workman was appointed by the bank against permanent requirement of the Attender in various branches of the Bank from time to time since 25-8-87. He was appointed at Jarcha branch of the bank on 25-8-87 for the first time . From that date he worked continuously till he was appointed on regular / permanent service . The management, during the alleged period of temporary service ofthe workman , issued various letters of appointment from time to time , purporting to appoint him in service of the bank as temporary Attender at a particular branch for a particular period against permanent vacancies . At no point of time the Bank specified in whose leave vacancy the workman was appointed.

3. Workman presents that the bank used to terminate his services illegally, only with a view to show discontinuity in his service . It was so done with a view to Regional Office Ghaziabad was in need of a few temporary attenders, to perform intermittent duties arising on leave vacancies . A letter was written to Ernployment Exchange, Ghaziabad, seeking names of eligible candidates , whose services could be utilized as temporary attender , as and when required by various branches of the bank in Ghaziabad Region . Name of Tilak Ram , alongwith a few others , was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Tilak Ram'snamewas empanelled by the Regional Office ofthe 5843 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

deprive him from availing benefits attached to his service , asper the rules, Bipartite Agreements and Awards . During the alleged period of temporary service , the bank only paid him at lump sum rates , though he was entitled to wages and allowances , as prescribed for the members of the Subordinate Staff, as per Bipartite Settlement enforced from timeto time. From 25-8-87 to 15-5-2002 there were permanent vacancies of Attender in various branches of the Bank, in which heworked as temporary employee . Letters addressed by various branches of the bank to the Zonal Offices as well as the Divisional Offices give confirmation to this fact. The workman wrote to the bank for regularization of his services by way of various representations . However , the management bank failed to elicit any reply or response to the genuine and lawful demand of the workman . He was constrained to file a writ petition , wherein an order was passed in his favour on 21-2-97 .

Employment Exchange, Ghaziabad , for preparing a panel of candidates , whose services could be utilized as temporary attenders , as and when required by the branches of the bank in Ghaziabad Region . In the list supplied by the Employment Exchange , Shri Tilak Ram's name was appearing . He was called for the interview on 17-3-87 and his name was included in the panel of candidates , who were selected for appointment as temporary attenders. Workman was not appointed to fill up the permanent vacancies , arising in various branches of the bank . He was appointed temporarily for specific periods and his services werediscontinued as per those orders . Management presents that the letters of appointment issued to the workman clearly specifies the nature of his services and such his claim for regularization could not be considered , being violative of the rules and procedure of the bank . In pursuance of order dated 21-2-1997 of the Hon'ble ligh Court of Judicature at Allahabad , the bank has entrusted him temporary attender duties at various branches as and when temporary vacancy arose , till his final absorption into the cadre of attender in the Bank on 16-5-2002 . Taking into consideration the service rendered by him on temporary basis for more than three months , his probation was kept only for 3 months instead of six months as per clause 20.8 of the Bipartite Settlement . This was informed in the appointment letter dated 8-5-02 . In view of the above, the contention of petitioner is totally wrong and hence denied.

7.Management opted to abandon the proceedings w.e.f. 8-3-2007 . Consequently management was proceeded exparte vide order dated 4-10-2007 .

4. Thereafter , the workman was appointed at Ravli Branch of the bank . He was arbitrarily relieved from the Branch on 26-2-1997 and directed to report at Zonal Office ofthe bank at Lucknow . The Divisional Office of the bank at Ghaziabad U.P. , sought clarification in view of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court and thereafter the workman was finally given appointment as a probationer Attender at Raj Nagar Branch of the bank on 16-5-2002 . He was confirmed in the Post of Attender vide letter dated 22-8-2002 . But he was totally deprived from the service benefits for the period of the temporary service . Thereafter the Syndicate Bank Staff Association sent a detailed demand notice dated 22-10-2003 on the management, calling upon them to give all service benefits to the workman for alleged temporary service. He pleads that services benefits for service rendered during the period 25-8-87 to 15-5-2002 maybe awarded to him specifically, (a) sick leave (b) earned- leaves ( c) leave for concession (d) Promotion(e) rotation allowance ( f) uniform (including washing allowance) ( g) cycle allowance ( h) annual increment benefits ( i) medical benefits (j ) seniority ( k) EPF deductions and the bank Contribution , ( 1) demand consumer loans and other benefits as available to permanent employees of the staff Cadre .

5. Contest was given by the management , pleading therein that the dispute raised is not maintainable as it relates to dispute other than dismissal , discharge , retrenchment or termination . It has been projected that theworkmanwas appointed w.e.f. 16-5-2002 as an attender . Prior to that appointment , he worked as temprory attender intermittently during 1987 to 1992. The documents filed by the workman elucidates the nature of vacancies on which he was appointed. Since he was appointed on temporary vacancies caused by leave/absence of regular attenders and not in any permanent vacancy, hence his claim for regularization from the back date is void ab initio.

6.Management presented that the bank had called for the names of the eligible candidates from the

8. Workman tendered his aff davit in his evidence wherein he swears that he was appointed as temporary attendar vide letter dated 21-9-87.1 le took over the charge ofthe said post at Jarcha branch of the bank on 22-9-87 . He projects that for appointment to the said post Regional Office of the bank had sent request to the Employment Exchange , Ghaziabad , and as such his name was sent to the bank . He was called for interview vide letter dated 28-2-87 and interview was held on 17-3-87.11e was selected for the said post . He was appointed from time to time at various branches of the bank till he was finally appointed as regular attendant with all service benefits . During the period ofhis temporary service, various appointment letters were issued from time to time, to work as temporary attender at a particular branch for a particular period . Though it was mentioned that he was appointed against Icave vacancy, buthe was never in formed that against whose ( name of the employee) leave vacancy he was appointed . His services were terminated illegally and malafidely only with a view to discontinue his service . He wrote Ictter dated 28-12-96 claiming permanent appointment . Letter dated 20-10-2003 was sent by the Union to the bank authorities . During the period of his temporary service he was paid only wages and allowance prescribed for sub - staff. He worked at Raj 5844

[PART 11SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASVINA 4 , 1931

nature and includes an employee other than permanent employee who is appointed in a temporary vacancy caused by the absence of a particular permanent employee ."

11. Clause 20.8 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 17-10-66 makes provision for appointment in temporary capacity against a permanent post . The provisions are quoted as below:

"Atemporary workman may also be appointed to fill a permanent vacancy provided that such temporary appointment shall not exceed a period of three months during which the Bank shall make arrangements for filling up the vacancy permanently. Ifsuch a workman is eventually selected for filling up vacancy , the period of such temporary employment will be taken into account as part of his probationary period . "

12. Out of proposition laid above it is evident that a temporary employee is to be appointed for a limited period ofworkwhich is essentially of a temporary nature . Such a person can be employed as an additional hand in connection withtemporary increase of a work of a permanent nature or to fill up the leave vacancy caused by the absence of a particular permanent employee . In case a temporary employee is appointed to fill a permanent vacancy, in that situation his appointment shall not exceed a period ofthree months and bank shall make arrangement to fill up that vacancy permanently. In the event of his selection for that post, the period of his temporary employment will betaken into account as a part of his probationery period . Therefore , it isemerging over the record that in case an employee is appointed temporarily against a permanent vacancy, his term of employment shall not exceed three months and during that period bank shall make efforts to fill up the vacancy permanently and on his selection for that post, histemporary appointment will be taken into account as a part of his probationary period .

Nagar branch ofthe bank from 22-6-92 to 18-8-92, at Ravli branch from 7-4-93 to 24-8-93 , at Noida branch from 20-5-95 to 28-5-95 again at Ravli branch from 11-4-96 to 21-8-96. During the temporary service from 25-8-87 to 15-5-2002 permanent vacancies of attender were in existence at various branches of the bank. He was not regularized in services , which act is against the terms of Bipartite Settlements and awards . Since the management had not regularized his services , he filed a writ petition before the High Court ofjudicature at Allahabad, which wasdisposed ofon 21-2-97 , with the directions that in case any casual or regular vacancy is available in any branch of the bank at Ghaziabad , within control of Divisional Office , he may be continued as Attender on the same pay and allowances which he was getting at present till the continuance of the vacancy . Thereafter he was appointed at Ravli branch of the bank , from where he was relieved on 26-2-97 . He was directed to report at Zonal Office of the bank at Lucknow . However, the Divisional office sought clarification of the order and he was finally given an appointment as probationery attender at Raj Nagar branch ofthe bank on 16-5-2002 . He was confirmed in service as attender vide letter dated 22-8-2002, but was deprived from the service benefits of past service rendered by him . At no pointoftime he was appointed for work of any essentially temporary in nature or employed as an additional hand in connection with any increase in the work of permanent nature. As per the provisions of Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66 he was appointed to fill a permanent vacancy. However, his period of employment was not allowed to exceed three months with a view to deprive him with benefit of continuity of service . He claims service benefits of service rendered by him during 25-8-87 to 15-5-2002 viz . sick leave, earned leave , leave for concession , promotion , rotation allowance , uniform including washing allowance, cycle allowance , mutual increment benefits , medical facilities , seniority, E.P.F. deductions alongwith banks contribution and facility of consumer loan etc. , as available to permanent employee of the staff cadre .

9.Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Authorised Representative advanced arguments onbehalfofthe workman . None came forward on behalfof the management to present their point of view. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows :

10. Para 20.7 of Bipartite Settlement dated 17-10-66 defines a temporary employee . For sake of convenience the said definition is extracted thus :

"Temporary Employee means an employee who has beenappointed for a limited period for work which is essentially ofa temporary nature or who is employed temporarily as an additional workman in connection with a temporary increase in work of a permanent

13. As borne out of the record , Tilak Ram was appointed for the first time at Jarcha brauch of the Bank on 25-8-97, for a period of 15 days . He worked there upto 8thof September , 87. He was again appointed in the said branch on 22-9-87 and at that juncture he worked for 15 days only . He was appointed as Divisional Office Jarcha on9-11-87 and at that juncture he worked for 6 days only. Hewas appointed at Moma (Noida) branch of the bank on 16-11-87 and in that stint he worked for 30 days . In the likc manner he was appointed at Jarcha branch , Divisional Branch , Khilora branch , Jarcha branch , Khilora branch , Sonds branch and Hapur branch of the bank with a specific period for which he was to serve against a leave vacancy . Likewise he was appointed time and again at various branches of the bank in 1988 , in 1989, 1990 , 1991 , 1992 , 1993 , 1994 , 1995 , 1996, 1997, 1998 , 1999, 2000 and 2001.At no point of time his appointment letter indicated that he [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4, 1931

5845

merelybecausehe is employee in a permanent department orgiven somebenefit ordinarily enjoyedby the permanent workman. Such proposition was laid in Rohtas Industires Linited Vs. Brijnandan Pandey [ 1956 (2) LLJ 444] .

wasappointed against a permanent vacancy in a temporary nature. Always an appointment letter was issuedto him specifying the period for which he was appointed in a particular branch of the bank . It is emerging out of the record that Shri Tilak Ram was appointed against leave vacancy, in various branches of the bank time and again . He was never appointed against a permanent vacancy in temporary manner.

17. Some casual workmen employed in a canteen, raised demand of permanency in service . The Tribunal directed that from particular date they should be treated'as probationer and appointed in permanent vacancy without going intothe question as to whether more than permanent workmen were necessary to be appointed in the canteen , over and above the existing permanent strength tojustify the making of the casual workman as permanent, where. they were working. Neither there was any permanent vacancy in existence nor the Tribunal directed for creation of new posts . When the matter reached the Apex Court , it was announced that the Tribunal was not justified in making these directions . The workman maybe made permanent only against permanent vacancies and not otherwise announced the Apex Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. their workmen [ 1975 (II) LLJ 336] .

14. Tilak Ram claims that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange , Ghaziabad and he was interviewed for the post of temporary Attender. He nowhere establishes that the Selection Committee , who conducted hisinterview was properly constituted under the rules . It is not his case that permanent vacancies were available when his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange , Ghaziabad and thereafter prescribed procedure for recruitment for the post of Attendar was followed . It has not been projected by him that at the time of his selection norms ofreservation policies were followed . It has also not been shown that candidates of minor communities were also considered and appointed , when his name was selected for appointment as temporary Attendar in the bank . Therefore, out of the facts projected by Tilak Ram , it nowhere comes over the record that procedure prescribed for appointment to the post of a regular Attendar was followed:

18. In Uma Devi [2006 (4 ) SCC I ] the Apex Court considered the proposition as to whether the persons whogot employment, without following ofa regular procedure or evenfrom the back door or on daily wages can be ordered to be made permanent in their posts , to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned . Catena of decisions over the subject were considered and the court declined the submissions of the workmen to be made permanent on the postwhich was held by them in temporary or ad hoc capacity for a fairly long spell . The Court ruled thus:

15.A" seasonal workman " is engaged in ajob which lasts during a particular season only, while a temporary workman may be engaged either for a work of temporary or casual nature or temporarily for work of a permanent nature , but a permanent workman is one who is engaged in awork ofpermanent nature only . The distinction between permanent workman engaged on a work of permanent nature and a temporary workman engaged on a work of permanent nature is , in fact , that a temporary workman is engaged to fill in a temporary need of extra hands of permanent Jobs . Thus when a workman is engaged on a work of permanent nature which lasts throughout, the year , it is expected that he would continue there permanently unless he is engaged to fill in a temporary need. In other words a workman is entitled to expect permanency of his service . Law to this effect was laid by theApex Court in Jaswant Sugar Mills [ 1961 ( 1 ) LLJ 649 ] .

16. As per the case of the workman his name was called from the Employment Exchange to appoint him as temporary attender against a leave vacancy. Record tells that time and again he was appointed against a leave vacancy by the management bank in its various branches under Divisional Office , Ghaziabad . It has not been shown bytheworkmanthat he was appointed against a permanent vacancy or against a work of permanent nature . Consequently, it is evident that the workman was appointed against a work of temporary nature only . A temporary workman would not acquire permanency of tenure

"With respect, why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts ? This Court , in our view, is bound to insist on the State making regular and proper recruitments , and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment . The direction to make permanent - the distinction between regularization and making permanent , was not emphasized here-can only encourage the State, themodal employer , to flout its own rules and would confer unduebenefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete. With respect the directions made in Piara Singh [ 1992 (4) SCC 118 ] is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 of the said judgment therein . With great respect , it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the carlier part of the decision . Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad - hoc , temporary or casual employees engaged without following a regilar recruitment procedure should be made permanent ." 5846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ ASVINA 4 , 1931 [PART II--SEC. 3( ii) ] 19. Taking note of some of recent deeisions the Apex Court held that the State does not enjoy a power to make appointments in terms ofarticle 162 of the Constitution. The Court quoted its deeision in Girish Jyanti Lal Vaghela [2006 (2) SCC 482 ] with approval, wherein it was ruled thus :

उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77ए 78 ए 79 और 81 ] के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी हैं ) के उपबंध गुजरात राज्य के अलग की सम्पूर्ण राजस्व व पंचायत सीमाएं एवं सोसिया गांव, गुजरात मेरीटाईम बोर्ड शिप रािसइकलिंग यार्ड द्वारा शामिल अधिगृहीत प्लाट्स क्षेत्र में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अथत्:ि-

[सं. एस -38013/39/2009- एस . एस. 1 ] एस . डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th September , 2009

S.O. 2684. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st October , 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapters- Vand VI [ Except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ] of the said Act, shall eome into force within the Revenue & Panchayat limits of Alang & Sosiya villages ineluding the plots acquired by Gujarat Meritime Board Ship Recycling yard in the State of Gujarat .

"The appointment to any post under the State can onlybemade after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding ofa selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made. A regular appointment to the post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange , where eligible eandidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under article 16 of the Constitution . "

[No. S-38013 /39/2009- S.S- 11

S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर , 2009

20. In P. Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others [2006 (7) SCC488 ] the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's Case ( Supra) with approval . It also relied the decision in a Uma Rani [2004 (7 ) SCC 112] and ruled that no regularization is permissible in exercise of statutory powers conferred in Article 162 of the Constitution , if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules . In Somveer Singh [ 2006 (5 ) SCC 493 ] the Apex Court ruled that appointment made without following due procedure cannot be regularized .

का.आ. 2685.- जबकि मैसर्स विज्ञान इंडस्ट्रीज लि. [ कर्नाटक (उत्तर ) क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या के. एन./4995 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 खंड ( क) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

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 । 21. Here in the case workman was appointed against. leave vacancies for specific periods . His appointment was not inconsonance with the prescribed procedure, followed by the Bank in recruitment of regular posts . In such a situation he is not entitled for regularization on the post from 25-8-87 to 15-5-2002, when he worked as a temporary Attender at different branches of the bank for specified periods . Action of the management is not according benefits of regular service in fair , just and legal . The workman is not entitled to any relief on that count . An Award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

DR. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 सितम्बर , 2009

3. केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 कीउप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान में रखते हुए , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-4-2000 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

का.आ. 2684.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा । की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतदूद्वारा 1 अक्टूबर , 2009 को

[सं. एस-35015 /35/2000--एस. एस. 11. एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव 5847

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 26, 2009/आश्विन 4 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 15th September, 2009 S.O. 2685.- Whereas M/s . Vignyan Industries Ltd. [under Code No. KN /4995 in Karnataka (North ) Region ] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) ofsub- 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 ofthe powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said Actand subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time, the Central Government, hereby , exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-4-2000 until further notification .

[No. S-35015/35/2000- S.S.II ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 2686.- जबकि मैसर्स अशोक लेलैंड लि. ( राजस्थान क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या आर. जे./4100 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 खंड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

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 योजना के रूप में संदर्भित) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं । 3. केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को घ्यान में रखते हुए , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-11-1986 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/89/2009 - एस. एस . II ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th September , 2009 S.O. 2686. Whereas M/s . Ashok Leyland Ltd. (under Code No. RJ/4100 in Rajasthan Region ) (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption 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 the Act). 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 ofthe 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 time to time, the Central Government, hereby , exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-11-1986 until further notification .

[No. S-35015/89/2009 -S.S.II |

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 2687.- जबकि मैसर्स नेशनल बिल्डिग्स कॉन्स्ट्रक्शन कार्पोरेशन लि. [दिल्ली ( उत्तरी ) क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डीएल/5563 के अंतर्गत ] ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधिऔर प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) (एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है । 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 योजना के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं । 3. केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शंतों को ध्यान में रखते हुए, उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-4-1983 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. ऐस-35015/12/2008 एस. एस. II | एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव 5848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2009/ASVINA 4 , 1931 [PART II SEC . 3 (ii ) | New Delhi , the 15th September , 2009

प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त योजना के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं । S.O. 2687. Whereas M/ s . National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. , [ under Code No.DL/5563 in Delhi (North) Region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause ( a) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees ' ProvidentFunds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) ( hereinafter referred to as theAct).

3. केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान में रखते हुए , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 22-1-1987 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस--35015/38 /2009--एस. एस. ।। । एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th September , 2009

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 .

S.O. 2688 Whereas M/ s . Hindustan Copper itd . (under Code No. RJ /2482 in Rajasthan Region ) (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption 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).

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 time to time, the Central Government , hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-4-1983 until further notification.

[No. S-35015/ 12/2008- S.S.II ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर , 2009

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Govemment, 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 .

का.आ. 2688. - जबकि मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान कॉपर लि. ( राजस्थान क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या आर. जे./2482 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 खंड ( क) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।.

3.Now, therefore , in exercise ofthe 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 time to time, the Central Govemment, hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 22-1-1987 until further notification .

No. S- 35015/38/2009 - S.S.III S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .