This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्रीसं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

46] नई दिल्ली, नवम्बर 8 नवम्बर 14, 2009, शनिवार/कार्तिक 17- कार्तिक 23 , 1931 No. 46 ] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 8- NOVEMBER 14, 2009 , SATURDAY/KARTIKA 17- KARTIKA 23 , 1931 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

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

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालयों 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 , 3 नवम्बर, 2009

मृत्यु हो गई थी, की जांच/अन्वेषण के लिए और जो कुरनूल जिले के अटमाकुर ( सर्किल ) के अधीन अटमाकुर पुलिस स्टेशन में अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता 1973 ( 1974 के अधिनियम सं. 2 ) धारा 174 के अधीन दिनांक 3-9-2009 को अपराध सं. 132/2009 पंजीकृत है , उक्त अपराध से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षड्यंत्रों और उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उदृत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ले विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य पर करती है ।

का. आ. 3069.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य सरकार, गृह विभाग (एस.सी.ए. ) की अधिसूचना जी.ओ.एम.एस. सं . 398 दिनांक 8 सितंबर, 2009 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से डा. वाई. एस. राजशेखर रेड्डी, माननीय मुख्यमंत्री, आंध्र प्रदेश और चार अन्य की 2-9-2009 को हेलीकाप्टर दुर्घटना में

[सं. 228 /44/2009 - ए.वी.डी.- II ] चंद्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव 3957 GI/2009

(7055) 7056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 3rd November , 2009 S.O. 3069. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 of1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Govenument ofAndhra Pradesh, Home ( SC. A) Department vide Notification G.O. Ms. No. 398 dated 8th September, 2009 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the member of the Delhi Special Police Establishmentto the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh for inquiry/ investigation of Crime No. 132/2009 dated 3-9-2009 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) registered at Police Station Atmakur under Atmakur ( Circle) of Kurnool District relating to death of Dr. Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and four others in a helicopter crash. occurred on 2-9-2009 and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned above and any other offence (s ) , committed in the course of the same transaction of arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/44/2009 -AVD - II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

जोधपुर, 21 अक्तूबर, 2009

[ सं. 11 /2009-10 ]

का.आ. 3070. आयकर अधिनियम 1961 ( 1961 का 43वां) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 ग ) के उपखण्ड ( V ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 ग ए द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जोधपुर एतद्वारा श्री सच्चियाय माताजी ट्रस्ट, ओसियां को उक्त धारा के प्रयोजनार्थ वित्तीय वर्ष 2007-08 से 2010-11 ( 31 मार्च 2011 की समाप्ति तक) निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित करते हैं :-

1. कर निर्धारिती उसकी आय का प्रयोग अथवा उसकी आय का प्रयोग करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतः तथा अनन्यतः उन उद्देश्योंके लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई । 2. कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि (जेवर- जेवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न ) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा ।

3. यह आदेश किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगा, जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक ऐसाकारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंग्रिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हो । 4. कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 के प्राबधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगा ।

5. विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियां और परिसंपत्तियां समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएगी और उसका कोई भी भाग संस्थान के किसी सदस्य को नहीं दिया जाएगा ।

6. आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 10 ( 23ग ) के साथ पठित 115 खखग में परन्तुक 15 की शर्तों में अनाम दानों के सम्बन्धमें यह अनुमोदन लागू नहीं होगा ।

[संदर्भ सं. मु.आ.आ./आ.अ. ( तक. )/जोध ./2009-10/2059 ] सुरेन्द्र मिश्र, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX

Jodhpur, the 21st October , 2009

[No. 11/2009-10]

S.O. 3070 .-- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause ( v) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2 CA of the Income Tax Rules , 1962 , I, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur hereby approve " Sri Sachiyay Mataji Trust, Osian, for the purpose of the said Section for the Financial Year 2007-08 to 2010-11 ( ending on 31-3-2011 ) subject to the following conditions:

1. the assessee will apply its income , or accumulate forapplicationwholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

2. the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contribution received and maintained in the form ofjewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant tothe assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub - section (5) of Section 11;

3. this order will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gain of business , unless the [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business;

4. the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the income-tax authority in accordance with the provisions of Income- tax Act, 1961 ;

5. that in the event of dissolution, its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organization with similar objectives and no part of the same will go to any of the members of the Institution.

6. The approval will not apply in relation to anonymous donations in terms of the fifteenth proviso to Section 10(23C) r.w.s. 115 BBC of the Act.

[Ref. No. CCIT/ITO( Tech. )/ Jodh/2009-10/2059 ] S. K. MISHRA, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 21 अक्तूबर, 2009

का. आ. 3071.- राजनयिक और कोंसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 41 ) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री एस. राजन, पी. ए. और श्री हरि प्रकाश, उच्च श्रेणी लिपिक को 21-10-2009 से भारत के राजदूतावास , बामाको ( माली ) में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्त्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं . टी. 4330/1/2006 ] आर. के. पेरिनडिया, अवर सचिव ( कोंसुलर ) MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (C.P.V. Division)

New Delhi , the 21st October , 2009 S.O. 3071.- In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officer ( Oaths and fees) Act , 1948 (41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorise Shri S. Rajan, PA and Shri Hari Parkash , UDC in the Embassy of India , Bamako (Mali ) to perform their duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 21stOctober , 2009.

[No. T-4330/1 / 2006] R. K. PERINDIA, Under Secy . (Consular)

7057

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/ कार्तिक 23 , 1931

स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण विभाग )..

नई दिल्ली , 7 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3072.- केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 (1948का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एतदद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है ; अर्थात्:

2. दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में गुवाहाटी विश्वविद्यालय, गुवाहाटी द्वारा प्रदत्त डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के संबंध में क्रम संख्या 28 के सामने स्तंभ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में क्षेत्रीय दंत चिकित्या महाविद्यालय, गुवाहाटी के बारे में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी :

" क्षेत्रीय दंत चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय , गुवाहाटी

( ii ) मास्टर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी

एम डी एस ( ओरल सर्जरी ) , गुवाहाटी विश्वविद्यालय,

गुवाहाटी

ओरल सर्जरी (जब 19-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

आर्थोडोन्टिक्स

एम डी एस (आर्थोडोन्टिक्स ) , गुवाहाटी विश्वविद्यालय,

गुवाहाटी

(जब 19-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान गई हो)

प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स

एम डी एस ( प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स ) , गुवाहाटी विश्वविद्यालय, गुवाहाटी "

(जब 19-5-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

[सं. वी. - 12017/31 /2002 - डी ई ] आर. शंकरन, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health & Family Welfare) New Delhi , the 7th September, 2009 S.O. 3072.- 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 Dental Council of India, hereby , makes the following 7058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 [ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 7th September, 2009

amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:

S.O. 3073 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 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 and 3 against Serial No. 28, in part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by Guwahati University, Guwahati , the following entries inrespectofRegional Dental College, Guwahati shall be inserted thereunder :--

"Regional Dental College,Guwahati

(ii) Master ofDental Surgery

2. In the existing entries of column 2 and 3 against Serial No. 34, in part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University , Chennai, the following entries in respect of Ragas Dental College and Hospital , Chennai shall be inserted thereunder :-

MDS(Oral Surgery) , Guwahati University, Guwahati

OralSurgery (if granted on or after 19-5-2009)

'TV Ragas Dental College and Hospital, Chennai .

MDS(Orthodontics), Guwahati University, Guwahati

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

Master of Dental Surgery

MDS (Prosthodontics) , Guwahati University, Guwahati ."

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

Community Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 25-3-2009)

MDS ( Community Dentistry) , The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. MedicalUniversity , Chennai"

[No. V- 12017/31/2002 -DE] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 सितम्बर, 2009

[No. V- 12017/10/2006-DE] R. SANKARAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 7 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3073.- केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 (1948का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है ; अर्थात्:

का. आ. 3074.- 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. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में दी तमिलनाडु डॉ. एम. जी. आर. मेडिकल यूनिवर्सिटी, चेन्नई द्वारा प्रदत्त डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के संबंध में क्रम संख्या 34 के सामने स्तंभ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में रागस डेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल, चेन्नई के बारे में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी :

2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में छत्रपति साहूजी महाराज चिकित्सा विश्वविद्यालय , लखनऊ द्वारा प्रदत्त डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता दिए जाने के संबंध में क्रम संख्या 81 के सामने स्तंभ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी :

"IV रागस डेंटल कॉलेज एंड हास्पिटल, चेन्नई दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णात कम्युनिटी डेंटिस्ट्री एम डीएस (कम्युनिटी

"81 छत्रपति साहूजी महाराज चिकित्साविश्वविद्यालय, लखनऊ

डेंटिस्ट्री

(जब 25-3-2009 को या उसके बाद प्रदान गई हो) दी तमिलनाडु डॉ. एस. जी. आर. मेडिकल युनिवर्सिटी, चेन्नई

बीडीएस , छत्रपति साहूजी महाराज चिकित्सा विश्व- विद्यालय, लखनऊ

( i ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा स्नातक (यदि यह 6-9-02 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

[सं . वी . 12017/10/2006 - डी ई ] आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव 7059 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

( ii ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णात

"81. Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow

एमडीएस, ( ओरल एंड मेक्सिलोफेशियल सर्जरी )

छत्रपति साहूजी महाराज चिकित्सा विश्वविद्यालय, लखनऊ

ओरल एंड मेक्सिलोफेशियल सर्जरी) (यदि यह 6-9-2002 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

BDS, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow

(i) Bachelor ofDental Surgery (ifgranted on or after 6-9-2002)

(ii) Master ofDental Surgery

एमडीएस, ( पेरिओडॉटिक्स ) छत्रपति साहूजी महाराज चिकित्सा विश्वविद्यालय, लखनऊ

पेरिओडॉटिक्स (यदि यह 6-9-2002 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (ifgranted on or after 6-9-2002)

MDS , ( Oral & Maxillo- facial Surgery) Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow एमडीएस, ( प्रोस्थोडोंटिक्स छत्रपति साहूजी महाराज चिकित्सा विश्वविद्यालय, लखनऊ

प्रोस्थोडोंटिक्स (यदि यह 6-9-2002 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

Periodontics (ifgranted on of after 6-9-2002)

MDS, (Periodontics), Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow एमडीएस, ( आर्थोडोंटिक्स) छत्रपति साहूजी महाराज चिकित्सा विश्वविद्यालय , लखनऊ

आर्थोडोंटिक्स (यदि यह 6-9-2002 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गईहो)

Prosthodontics (ifgranted on or after 6-9-2002)

MDS , (Prosthodontics) , Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow

Orthodontics (ifgrantedon or after 6-9-2002)

कन्जरवेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री (यदि यह 6-9-2002 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

MDS, (Orthodontics) Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow एमडीएस, (कन्जरवेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री) छत्रपति साहूजी महाराज चिकित्सा विश्वविद्यालय, लखनऊ

ConservativeDentistry (ifgranted on or after 6-9-2002)

MDS , (Conservative Dentistry) Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow एमडीएस, (पेडोडोंटिक्स ) छत्रपति साहूजी महाराज चिकित्सा विश्वविद्यालय, लखनऊ"

पेडोडोंटिक्स (यदि यह 6-9-2002 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

[फा. सं. वी.-12017/40/2009- डी ई ] आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव

Pedodontics (ifgrantedon or after 6-9-2002)

MDS, (Pedodontics ) , Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow " New Delhi , the 7th September, 2009

[F. No. V- 12017/40/2009 -DE ] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 सितम्बर , 2009

S.O. 3074. 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:

का. आ. 3075.- 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. In the existing entries of column 2 and 3 against Serial No. 81 , in Part- I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow, the following entries shall be inserted. thereunder:-

2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में किंग जार्ज मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय, लखनऊ 7060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

द्वारा प्रदत्त डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता दिए जाने के संबंध में क्रम संख्या 82के सामने स्तंभ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी :

"82किंग जार्ज मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय, लखनऊ

( i ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा स्नातक बीडीएस, किंग जार्ज मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय , ( यदि यह 16-12-03 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की लखनऊ गई हो)

( ii) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णात

ओरल एंड मेक्सिलोफेशियल एमडीएस, ( ओरल एंड सर्जरी) मेक्सिलोफेशियल सर्जरी ) ( यदि यह 16-12-2003 को किंग जार्ज मेडिकल अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की विश्वविद्यालय, लखनऊ गई हो)

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) New Delhi , the 7th September , 2009

S.O. 3075. 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 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 and 3 against Serial No. 82 , in Part- I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by King George's Medical University , Lucknow , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:--

"82. King George's Medical University, Lucknow

BDS, King George's Medical University, Lucknow

( i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (ifgranted on or after 16-12-2003)

( ii) Master of Dental

Surgery

पेरिओडोंटिक्स एमडीएस, ( पेरिओडोंटिक्स) ( यदि यह 16-12-2003 को किंग जार्ज मेडिकल अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की विश्वविद्यालय, लखनऊ गई हो)

प्रोस्थोडोंटिक्स एमडीएस, (प्रोस्थोडोंटिक्स ) ( यदि यह 16-12-2003 को किंग जार्ज मेडिकल अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की विश्वविद्यालय , लखनऊ गई हो)

आर्थोडोंटिक्स ( यदि यह 16-9-2003 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) एमडीएस, ( आर्थोडोंटिक्स ) किंग जार्ज मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय, लखनऊ कन्जरवेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री ( यदि यह 16-9-2003 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) एमडीएस, ( कन्जरवेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री ) किंग जार्ज मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय , लखनऊ पेडोडोंटिक्स

एमडीएस, ( पेडोडोंटिक्स) (यदि यह 16-12-2003 को किंग जार्ज मेडीकल अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की विश्वविद्यालय , लखनऊ " गई हो)

[फा. सं . वी. -12017/40/2009 -डीई ] आर. शंकरन, अवर सचिव Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (ifgranted on or after 16-12-2003)

MDS , ( Oral & Maxillo- facial Surgery) , King George'sMedical University, Lucknow Periodontics (ifgranted on or after 16-12-2003)

MDS, (Periodontics ), KingGeorge'sMedical University, Lucknow Prosthodontics (ifgranted on or after 16-12-2003)

MDS , (Prosthodontics ) , King George's Medical University, Lucknow Orthodontics (ifgranted on or after 16-12-2003)

MDS, ( Orthodontics) King George's Medical University , Lucknow Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on of after 16-12-2003)

MDS, ( Conservative Dentistry) King George's Medical University, Lucknow Pedodontics (ifgranted on or after 16-12-2003)

MDS, (Pedodontics) , King George'sMedical University , Lucknow"

[F. No. V- 12017 /40/2009 -DE R. SANKARAN , Under Sccy .

ra [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

7061

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 7 सितम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3076.- दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 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 यू. पी . किंग जार्ज यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ डेंटल साइंसिज, लखनऊ द्वारा प्रदत्त डेंटल डिग्रियों को मान्यता दिए जाने के संबंध में क्रमांक 83 के सामने स्तंभ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत रखी जाएंगी:

" 83 यू.पी. किंग जार्ज यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ डेंटल साइंसिज , लखनऊ ( i ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा स्नातक बी डी एस, किंग जार्ज यूनिवर्सिटी ( यदि 14-5-04 को अथवा ऑफ डेंटल साइंग्मिज , लखनऊ उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

( ii ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णात

एम डी एस, ( ओरल एंड मेक्सिलो- फेशियल ) यू.पी. किंग जार्ज यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ डेंटल साइंसिज, लखनऊ

ओरल एंड मेक्सिलोफेशियल सर्जरी ( यदि 14-5-04 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

पेरिओडोंटिक्स

(यदि 14-5-04 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

एम डी एस ( पेरिओडोंटिक्स ) यू.पी. किंग जार्ज यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ डेंटल साइंसिज, लखनऊ प्रोस्थोडोंटिक्स

एम डी एस, ( प्रोस्थोडोंटिक्स) यू.पी. किंग जार्ज यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ डेंटल साइंसिज, लखनऊ ( यदि 14-5-04 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

आर्थोडोंटिक्स

(यदि 14-5-04 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

एम डी एस, ( आर्थोडोंटिक्स ) यू.पी. किंग जार्ज यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ डेंटल साइंसिज, लखनऊ कन्जरवेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री

(यदि 14-5-04 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

एम डी एस, ( कन्जरवेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री) यू.पी. किंग जार्ज यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ डेंटल साइंसिज , लखनऊ पेडोडोंटिक्स

(यदि 14-5-04 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

एम डी एस, ( पेडोडोंटिक्स) यू.पी. किंग जार्ज यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ डेंटल साइंसिज, लखनऊ

आर. शंकरन, अवर सचिव [फा.सं.वी. -12017/40/2009 -डीई ] New Delhi , the 7th September, 2009 S.O. 3076.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2 ) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of 1948) , the Central Government ; after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby , makes the following amendments in Part- I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 and 3 against Serial No. 83 , in Part- I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by U.P. King George's University of Dental Sciences , Lucknow, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

"83. U.P. King George's University of Dental Sciences , Lucknow

BDS , U.P. King George's University of Dental Sciences , Lucknow ( 1) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (ifgranted on or after 14-5-2004)

( ii) Master of Dental Surgery

MDS, (Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery)

Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery) (ifgranted on or after 14-5-2004)

U.P. King George's University ofDental Sciences , Lucknow

MDS, (Periodontics), Periodontics (ifgranted on or after 14-5-2004)

U.P. King George's University ofDental Sciences , Lucknow Prosthodontics (ifgranted on or after 14-5-2004)

MDS, (Prosthodontics) , U.P. King George's University ofDental Sciences , Lucknow Orthodontics (ifgranted on or after 14-5-2004)

MDS, (Orthodontics) , U.P. KingGeorge's University ofDental Sciences , Lucknow Conservative Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 14-5-2004)

MDS , (Conservative Dentistry), U.P. King George's University ofDental Sciences , Lucknow Pedodontics (ifgranted on or after 14-5-2004)

MDS, (Pedodontics), U.P. King George's University ofDental Sciences , Lucknow

[F.No. V-12017/40/ 2009 -DE ] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy.

स्वास्थ्यसेवा महानिदेशालय

केन्द्रीय औषध मानक नियंत्रण संगठन ( मुख्यालय ) नई दिल्ली , 29 अक्तूबर , 2009

का. आ. 3077.- औषध एवं प्रसाधन सामग्री अधिनियम, 1940 (1940 का 23 ) की धारा 21 में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते 7062

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKΚΑ 23 , 1931

हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित को अखिल भारत के लिए उल्लिखित अधिनियम के प्रयोजन हेतु निरीक्षक के पद पर नियुक्त करती है:-

नाम

क्रम संख्या

1. श्री अंकित शर्मा

2. श्री सुशांत शर्मा

3. श्री राहुल शिवपुत्र शाखापुरे

4. श्री नवनीत प्रताप सिंह

5. श्रीमती इन्दिरा पलानियंडी

6. श्री गौरी शंकर

7. श्री गणेश रामचन्द्र रोकड़े

8. श्री शिव कुमार

9 . श्री के. नरेन्द्रन

10. सुश्री बी. एम. भारती

11. श्री राजशेखर

[फा. संख्या ए-12025/4/2008 -डी ] प्रेम प्रकाश, उपनिदेशक प्रशा. ( औषध/सामान्य ) DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES

CDSCO (HQ)

New Delhi , the 29th October, 2009 S.O. 3077. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 21 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) , the Central Government hereby appoints :-

Name

S.No.

1 2

1. Shri Ankit Sharma

2. Shri Sushant Sharma

3. Shri Rahul Shivaputhra Shakhapure 4. Shri Navneet Pratap Singh

5. Smt. Indira Palaniyandi

6. Shri Gouri Shankar

1 2

7 . Shri Ganesh Ramachandra Rokade 8. Shri Shiv Kumar

9 . Shri K. Narendran

10. Ms. V. M. Bharathi

11. Shri Rajshekhar

asInspectors for the purpose of the said Act for the whole of India .

[F.No. A-12025/4/2008 - D ] PREM PRAKASH , Dy. Director Admn . (Drugs/General) नई दिल्ली, 29 अक्तूबर , 2009

का. आ. 3078.- संघ लोक सेवा आयोग की अनुशंसक पर स्वास्थ्यसेवा महानिदेशक निम्नांकित को पी.बी.- II के वेतनमान 9300-34800 रु. + 4800 रु. ग्रेड पे- में अस्थायी आधार पर उनके नाम केसामने उल्लिखित तिथियों से औषधि निरीक्षक के पद पर सहर्ष नियुक्त करते हैं :

नाम

क्रम संख्या

नियुक्तिकी तिथि

28-01-2009 1. श्री अंकित शर्मा

28-01-2009 2. श्री सुशांत शर्मा

13-02-2009 3. श्री राहुल शिवपुत्र शाखापुरे

20-03-2009 4. श्री नवनीत प्रताप सिंह

13-04-2009 5. श्रीमती इन्दिरा पलानियंडी

17-04-2009 6. श्री गौरी शंकर

08-05-2009 7. श्री गणेश रामचन्द्र रोकड़े

07-07-2009 8. श्रीशिव कुमार

01-09-2009 9. श्री के. नरेन्द्रन

10-09-2009 10. सुश्रीवी. एम. भारती

24-09-2009 11. श्री राजशेखर

2. वे कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तिथि से दो वर्ष की अवधि तक परिवीक्षाधीन रहेंगे और नियुक्ति प्रस्ताव में उल्लिखित शर्तों के अधीन कार्य करेंगे ।

[फा. संख्या ए-12025/4/2008-डी ] प्रेम प्रकाश , उपनिदेशक प्रशा. ( औषध/सामान्य ) 7063 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 29th October , 2009

का प्रयोग करेगा और उक्त सारणी के कॉलम 2 में विनिर्दिष्ट सार्वजनिक परिसरों के लिए अपने क्षेत्राधिकार की सम्पदा से संबंधित निर्धारित कार्य करेगा ।

सारणी

अधिकारी का पदनाम

S.O. 3078. On the recommendations of UPSC the DirectorGeneral of Health Services is pleased to appoint the following to the post of Drugs Inspector in the scale ofpay of PB - 2 Rs . 9300-34800 + Grade Pay Rs . 4800 on temporary basis w.e.f. the dates indicated against their names :

सार्वजनिक परिसरों की श्रेणी और क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमा Name

S.No.

Date of appointment

हिन्दुस्तान केबल्स लि. , 1.

28-01-2009

Shri Ankit Sharma

श्री हरिशंकर चट्टोपाध्याय, कार्मिक और टाउनशिप अधिकारी ,

स्टॉफ नं . 5566,

28-01-2009

Shri Sushant Sharma

रूपनरायणपुर इकाई टाउनशिप और एच सी एल, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, कोलकाता का परिसरः। 3.

13-02-2009

रूपनरायणपुर इकाई, हिन्दुस्तान केबल्स लि. , कोलकाता

Shri Rahul Shivaputhra Shakhapure

20-03-2009

[सं.1 ( 12) /2008-पीई- II ] Shri Navneet Pratap Singh

एम. आर. बाली, अवर सचिव 5.

13-04-2009

Smt. Indira Palaniyandi

17-04-2009

6. Shri Gouri Shankar

MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

08-05-2009

(Department of Heavy Industry) Shri Ganesh Ramchandra Rokade

New Delhi , the 30th October, 2009 8.

07-07-2009

Shri Shiy Kumar

Shri K. Narendran

01-09-2009

9 .

10.

10-09-2009

Ms. V. M. Bharathi

11.

24-09-2009

Shri Rajshekhar

2. They willbe on probation for a period of two years from the date ofjoining and will be governed by the terms and conditions indicated in the offer ofappointment .

S.O. 3079.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column 1 of the Table below, being officer , equivalent to the rank of gazetted officer of Government , to be an Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estates of his jurisdiction in respect ofthe public premises specified in column 2 of the said Table.

[ F.No. A- 12025 /4/2008 - D ]

TABLE

PREM PRAKASH , Dy. Director Admn. (Drugs/General)

Name & Designation of

भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय

theOfficer

Categories of public premises and local limits ofjurisdiction (भारी उद्योग विभाग )

Sh . Hari Shankar

नई दिल्ली, 30 अक्तूबर , 2009

Premises belonging to the undertaking of Hindustan Cables Ltd. , Rupnarainpur Unit Township as well as Premises of HCL , Regional Office, Kolkata.

Chattopadhyay, Personnel & Township Officer, StaffNo. 5566, Rupnarainpur Únit, Hindustan Cables Limited, Kolkata .

[No. 1 ( 12)/2008 - PE - II ]

M. R. BALI , Under Secy.

का. आ. 3079.- सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अनाधिकृत दखलीकार की बेदखली ) अधिनियम, 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा नीचे दी गई सारणी के कॉलम 1 में उल्लिखित अधिकारी को, जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी की श्रेणी के समकक्ष है , उक्त अधिनियम के उद्देश्योंके लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है , जो प्रदत्त शक्तियों

3967G1/09-2 7064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/ KARTIKA 23 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] उपभोक्तामामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 27 अक्तूबर, 2009

का.आ. 3080.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

क्रम लाइसेंस संख्या संख्या

भामा भाग अनु. वर्ष संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि वर्ष/माह

9 1 2

1993 903

1. 7952696 01-07-2009

फायर हॉस डिलीवरी कपलिंग , ब्रांच पाईप, नोजल तथा नोजल स्पैनर

मैसर्स उदय इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट नंबर 834, शैड नंबर 5, प्रीमियर सिथैटिक के पास , रकनपुर (सांतेज) , गांधीनगर-382 721

1993

लैंडिंग वाल्व

5290

2. 7952797 02-07-2009 मैसर्स उदय इंडस्ट्रीज, प्लाट नंबर 834, शैड नंबर 5 , प्रीमियर सिंथैटिक के पास , रकनपुर ( सांतेज) , गांधीनगर-382 721

4984 1995 3. 7953193 02-07-2009

हाई डैसिटी पालिथीलिन पाईप फार पोटेबल वाटर

सप्लाईस

मैसर्स विशाखा इरीगेशन प्रा. लि. , ब्लाक नंबर 792/4 बी, मोनिक इंडस्ट्रीज के पास , सबसपुर रोड, गांव मोती बोयन, तह. कलोल, गांधीनगर -382 721

मैसर्स बापा सीताराम ज्वैलरी ,

4. 7953294 04-07-2009

1417 1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

09/886, पहली मंजिल, फ्लैट नंबर ए/ 1 , रुचि काम्पलैक्स, चौरासी डेरी के पास, अंबाजी रोड, सूरत -395 003

5. 7953395 04-07-2009

2112 2003

चांदी तथा चांदी मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स बापा सीताराम ज्वैलरी , 09/886, पहली मंजिल, फ्लैट नंबर ए/ 1 , रुचि काम्पलैक्स, चौरासी डेरी के पास , अंबाजी रोड, सूरत -395 003 7065 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[भाग II- खंड 3(ii) ]

9 1 2

1999 6. 7953496 04-07-2009

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों , शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स सी.जे. चोकसी तथा सन्स, 1675, नाटपुर बैंक, भावसारवाड , नडियाड, खेडा-387 001

14543

2004 7. 7954906 04-07-2009

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

मैसर्स कासमिक फूड तथा बिवरेज, पी नंबर सी-1/3603, सचिन जी आई डी सी, पलीवल चोकडी, सूरत

1999 09-07-2009

8. 7955201

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स पूजा डायमंड, 1 तथा 2, वैशाली काम्पलैक्स, जाडे ब्लूके सामने, लाल बंगला क्रॉस रोड, सी जी रोड, अहमदाबाद

9.7953803

694

1990 10-07-2009

केबल लिमिटेड, पी वी इंसूलेटिड केबल

मैसर्स एकांक 15, जी आई डी सी, मंजूसर, बडोदा-391775

10. 7954401

1999 11-07-2009

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं 1417 के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स रिलायेंस रिटेल लिमिटेड , ग्राउंड फ्लोर तथा पहली मंजिल , प्रेरणा आरबर, समुद्रा अनैक्स के सामने, गिरिश कोल्ड ड्रिंक क्रॉसिंग , सी. जी. रोड, अहमदाबाद

11. 7954502 13-07-2009

1417 1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों , शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स के एम चोकसी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, 7, धवजी शॉपिंग सेंटर, मोटा मंदिर रोड, टारसाडी कासंबा, सूरत-394 120

12. 7954397

चांदी तथा चांदी मिश्र धातुओं 2112 2003 14-07-2009

के आभूषणों , शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स रिलायेंस रिटेल लिमिटेड, ग्राउंड फ्लोर तथा पहली मंजिल , प्रेरणा आरबर, समुद्रा अनैक्स के सामने, गिरिश कोल्ड ड्रिंक क्रॉसिंग, सी. जी. रोड, अहमदाबाद

13. 7955197 14-07-2009

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं 1417 के आभूषणों , शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 1999 मैसर्स मोती भाई ज्वैलर्स, कारोलिया पोल , एम जी रोड, वडोदरा

एवं मुहरांकन

14. 7955096 15-07-2009

चांदी तथा चांदी मिश्र धातुओं 2112 2003

के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स ओम सांई ज्वैलर्स, 17 बी, 639 पैकी शॉप नंबर 60-61 , श्रीजी आरकडे , आनंद महल रोड, अडाजन, सूरत 7066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) )

1 2

7 8

9 15. 7955302

1999

1417

15-07-2009

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स तुलजा भवानी ज्वैलर्स प्रा.लि. , 3/324, 325, भागल मेन रोड, चोकसी बाजार, सूरत

16. 7954805

14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

16-07-2009 मैसर्स निधि सेल्स, एट तथा पी ओ जगना गांव, तह. पालनपुर, बनसकांटा

17. 7955807

2003 16-07-2009

2112

चांदी तथा चांदी मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स जलाराम गोल्ड पैलेस, प्लाट नंबर 5/1 , सैक्टर 3 ए , सैक्टर 6 , अहमदाबाद -382 006

18. 7955908

2003 16-07-2009

2112

चांदी तथा चांदी मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स एन एस ज्वैलर्स, 5, 6 कमल काम्पलैक्स, सरदार स्टेडियम के पास सर्कल , सी जी रोड, नवरंगपुरा, अहमदाबाद

19. 7956809

14543

2004 16-07-2009

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

मैसर्स एकयूल पैकेजड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर, प्लाट नंबर 1-2-3, जैन देरासर के सामने, मेहता ब्रदर्स पैट्रोल पंप के पास, वास्ता देवडी रोड, सूरत

20. 7957003

12701 1996 17-07-2009

रोटेशनल मोलडिड

पालिथीलिन वाटर स्टोरेज टैंक

मैसर्स नेशनल प्लास्टिक, प्लाट नंबर 84, जी आई डी सी, अंबिका नगर रोड, ओढव, अहमदाबाद

21. 7956910

1417 1999 17-07-2009

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स फारएवर प्रिशियस ज्वैलरी तथा डायमंड लिमिटेड, फारएवर हाउस , होटल नैस्ट के पास, आफ सी जी रोड, नवरंगपुरा , अहमदाबाद

22. 7958106 20-07-2009

पी वी सी इंसूलेटिड केबल 694 1990 मैसर्स केली प्लास्ट प्रोसैसर, 47, नारायण एस्टेट, रायपुर मिल के पास, सरसपुर, अहमदाबाद-380 018

23. 7958207

7098 1 1988 21-07-2009

क्रॉसलिंक्ड पालिथीलिन

इंसूलेटिड पी वी सी शीथड

केबल

मैसर्स योगीकैब इंसूलेशन प्रा. लिमिटेड, प्लाट नंबर 548, रकनपुर क्रास रोड, रकनपुर गांव, ता. कलोल, अहमदाबाद-382 721

24. 7958409

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

14543

2004 21-07-2009 मैसर्स आई क्यू हैल्थ केयर, प्लाट नंबर 168 ए, जी आई डी सी एस्टेट, वडोदरा 7067 [भाग II- खंड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

9 3

6 7 8 1 2

1990

694

25.7958510 23-07-2009

पी वी सी इंसुलेटिड केबल

मैसर्स मोदीकैब इंडस्ट्रीज , 61, महावीर एस्टेट, अनुपम सिनेमाके पास,. खोखरा, अहमदाबाद

14543

2004 26.7958712

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

22-07-2009 मैसर्स पाटीडार हैल्थ केयर, जे बी पटेल कंपाउंड , पटेलवासके सामने , मकरबा गाम अहमदाबाद

8034

2002 27.7958611

सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट

23-07-2009 मैसर्स डेनिम पम्प, 9, नौलकंठ एस्टेट, मधुसूदन टैक्सटाईल मिल के सामने , बापूनगर रोड, अहमदाबाद

28. 7958914

2003 24-07-2009

2112

चांदी तथा चांदी मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स अरिहंत गोल्ड तथा सिल्वर प्रा. लि. , 13 - शॉप नंबर 211-212, टर्निंग प्वाइंट काम्पलैक्स, गोड डोडरोड, सूरत

29. 7959007

1999

1417

24-07-2009

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

अमीधारा ज्वैलर्स, जी 8 , नयन कुंज सोसाइटी, सत्यम काम्पलैक्स के पास, बालाजी गार्डन रैस्टॉरेंट के सामने, आर प्रेरणातीर्थ देरासर, जोधपुर गाम, सैटेलाईट, अहमदाबाद-380 015

सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट

2002 30. 7958813

8034

24-07-2009 मैसर्स रूशभ इंडस्ट्रीज, 14. से 18, सूटैक्स इंडस्ट्रीज एस्टेट, जगननाथ एस्टेट के सामने, गुजरात बाटलिंग के पास, रखियाल, अहमदाबाद

31.7959108

1998

पम्प रीजैनरेटिव और क्लीयर, 8472

23-07-2009

कोल्ड वाटर ...

मैसर्स श्री राम इलैक्ट्रिकल, 6, विष्णु एस्टेट, रघुनाथ हिन्दी हाई स्कूल के सामने , बापूनगर, अहमदाबाद

32.7959310

2003 24-07-2009

चांदी तथा चांदी मिश्र धातुओं 2112 के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

श्री राम आर्ट, जावेरचंद चैम्बर, जावेरचंद लक्ष्मीचंद लेन, शामल बेचार पोल, एम जी रोड, वडोदरा

33. 7959209

1994

ओपनवैल सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 14220 -

24-07-2009 मैसर्स श्री राम इलैक्ट्रिकल, 6, विष्णु एस्टेट, रघुनाथ हिन्दी हाई स्कूल के सामने , बापूनगर, अहमदाबाद 7068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 3

1 2

8034

2002 34.7960089 29-07-2009 मैसर्स विश्वकर्मा इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स, सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 168, शंकर एस्टेट, रेवाभाई एस्टेट के पास, अमराईवाडी, अहमदाबाद

35.7962093

14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

28-07-2009 पार्वती फूड तथा बिवरेज , पी टी सी कालेज के पास, बोरलाई ता. अंबरगाम डिस्ट्रिक्ट वलसाद

36. 7961495

1999 30-07-2009

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों, शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स हरिसिद्ध जवैलर्स, 50, 51 अंकुर काम्पलैक्स , अंकुर चार रस्ता, अंकुर नारायणपुरा, अहमदाबाद

37.7960493

13422

1992

डिसपोसेबल सर्जिकल रबर

31-07-2009

गल्वस

मैसर्स विजय लेटेक्स प्रोडक्ट प्रा. लि. , 231 , जी आई डी सी अंबरगांव , यूनियन बैंक के पास, वलसाद गुजरात

38.7940184

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

14543

2004 29-04-2009 मैसर्स गणेश एंटरप्राईस , बी-1 , गणपति प्लाजा, कटरगाम दरवाजा , सूरत

14543

39. 7945396

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

25-05-2009 मैसर्स चामुंडा मैन्यूफैक्चरिंग, प्लाट नंबर एल 114-17-18, जी आई डी सी, एट पोस्ट चांदीसर, ता. पालनपुर, बनसकांटा-385 510

40. 7945497

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

14543

2004 25-05-2009 मैसर्स के. एस. बिवरेज, 36/3/7, मातृकृपा पार्टी प्लाटके पास, रगसागर फ्लैट के पास, पालडी, अहमदाबाद

41.7945501

5470

2002 25-05-2009

डायकैलसियम फासफेट,

एनिमल फीड ग्रेड

मैसर्स स्पा वैट मिन प्रा लिमिटेड, 158/बी, जी आई डी सी एस्टेट , नंदेसरी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, ता. तथा डिस्ट्रिक्ट वडोदरा -391340

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 11 ]

पी. के. गम्भीर, उप-महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 7069

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 27th October, 2009

S.O.3080.-In pursuance ofsub- regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

ISNo. Part Sec. Year

Title of the Standard

Grant Date

Sl. Licences No. No.

Name &Address oftheParty

1993 1. 7952696 01-07-2009

903

Firehose delivery coupl- ings, branchpipe , nozzles and nozzle spanner

Uday Industries, Plot No. 834, Shed No. 5, Near Premier Synthetics, Rakanpur (Santej) , Gandhinagar-382721

5290

1993 2. 7952797 02-07-2009

LandingValves

Uday Industries, PlotNo.834, Shed No. 5, NearPremier Synthetics, Rakanpur (Santej) Gandhinagar -382721

4984

1995 3.7953193 02-07-2009

High DensityPoly- ethylene Pipes for Potable Water Supplies

Vishakha Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. , BlockNo. 792/4B, Near Monic Industry, Sabaspur Road, Village Moti Bhoyan, Taluka Kalol, Gandhinagar- 382721

1999

1417

04-07-2009

4.7953294

GoldandGold Alloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

Bapa Sitaram Jewellery, 09/886, First Floor, Flat No. A/ I , Ruchi Complex, NearChoryasi Dairy, Ambaji Road, Surat-395003

2003 5. 7953395 04-07-2009

2112

Silver and Silver Alloys Jewellery/artifacts

Bapa Sitaram Jewellery, 09/886, First Floor, Flat No. A/ 1 , Ruchi Complex , NearChoryasiDairy, Ambaji Road, Surat-395003

1417

1999 6. 7953496 04-07-2009

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

C.J. Choksi & Sons , 1675, NatpurBank, Bhavsarwad, Nadiad, Kheda-387001

2004 7. 7954906 04-07-2009

Packaged Drinking Water 14543

CosmicFoodand Beverages , P. No. C- 1/3603, Sachin, G.I.D.C., Paliwal Chokdi, Surat

1417

1999 8.7955201 09-07-2009

Gold andGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

PoojaDiamond, 1 & 2, Vaishli Complex, Opp. JadeBlue, Lal BunglowCross Road, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad 7070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

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

9 12

9. 7953803 10-07-2009

PVC Insulated Cables

694

1990 Ekank Cables Limited, 15, GIDC, Manjusar, Vadodara-391775

10. 7954401 11-07-2009

1417

1999

Gold andGold Alloys ,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness and Marking

Reliance Retail Ltd. , Ground Floor & First Floor, Prerna Arbour , Opp. Samudra Annex, Near GirishColdDrink Crossing C.G. Road, Ahmedabad

13-07-2009

11. 7954502

1417 1999

Gold and Gold Alloys ,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness and Marking

K.M. Choksi Private Limited, 7-DawjeeShopping Centre , MotaMandir Road, Tarsadi -Kosamba, Surat-394120

12.7954397 14-07-2009

2112 2003

Silverand Silver Alloys

Jewellery/Artifacts

Reliance Retail Ltd. , Ground Floor& First Floor , PrernaArbour, Opp. Samudra Annex, Near Girish Cold Drink Crossing C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

13. 7955197 14-07-2009

1417

1999 Motibhai Jewellers , Karoliya Pole , M.G. Road, Vadodara

Gold and Gold Alloys ,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness and Marking

14. 7955096 15-07-2009

2003

2112

Silverand Silver Alloys

Jewellery/Artifacts

OM Sai Jewellers , 17B, 639 Paiki Shop No. 60-61 , Shreeji Aecade, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat

15. 7955302 15-07-2009

1417 1999

Gold andGold Alloys ,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness andMarking

TuljaBhavani Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. , 3/324, 325, Bhagal Main Road, Choksi Bazar, Surat

16.7954805

2004 16-07-2009

14543

Packaged Drinking Water

Nidhi Sales, AT& PO Jagana Village , TAPalanpur, Distt. Banaskantha

17. 7955807 16-07-2009

2112 2003

Silver and Silver Alloys

Jewellery/Artifacts

JalaramGold Palace , Plot No. 5/1 , Sector-3 A, Sector-6, Gandhinagar- 382006

16-07-2009

18. 7955908

2112 2003

Silverand Silver Alloys

Jewellery/Artifacts

N.S. Jewels , 5,6Kamal Complex, Near Sardar Stadium Circle , C.G. Road, Navrangpura , Ahmedabad

16-07-2009

19. 7956809

Packaged Drinking Water

14543 2004 Aqueel Packaged Drinking Water, Plot No. 1-2-3 , Opp . JainDerasar, Near Mehta BrotherPetrol Pump , Vasta Devdi Road, Surat 7071 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, -1931

[भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

1996 17-07-2009

20. 7957003

12701 -

Rotational Moulded Polyethylene Water Storage Tanks

National Plastics Plot No. 84 , G.I.D.C. , Ambicanagar , Road, Odhav, Ahmedabad

1417 1999 17-07-2009

21. 7956910

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

Forever Precious Jewellery andDiamonds Ltd. , ForeverHouse , Opp . Hotel Nest, Off. C.G. Road, Navarangpura , Ahmedabad

694 1990 22. 7958106 20-07-2009

PVC Insulated Cables

Cali Plast Processors 47-NarayanEstate ,Near RaipurMills , Saraspur , Ahmedabad-380018

1988 23. 7958207 21-07-2009

7098 I

Crosslinked Polyethylene Insulated PVC Sheathed Cables

Yogicab Insulation Pvt. Ltd. , Plot No. 548 , Rakanpur Cross Road, RakanpurVillage, TA. Kalol, Ahmedabad-382721

2004 24. 7958409 21-07-2009

14543

Packaged Drinking Water

IQHealth Care, Plot No. 168 , G.I.D.C. Estate, Vadodara

PVC Insulated Cables 694 1990 25. 7958510 23-07-2009 Modicab Industries , 61, Mahaveer Estate , Near Anupam Cinema, Khokhra, Ahmedabad

2004 22-07-2009

26. 7958712

14543

PackagedDrinking Water

PatidarHealth Care, J.B. Patel Compound, Opp. Patel Vas, Makarba Gam, Ahmedabad

8034

2002 27. 7958611 23-07-2009

Submersible Pump sets

DenimPumps , 9, Nilkanth Estate , Opp . Madhusudan Textiles Mill, Bapunagar Road, Ahmedabad

2003 24-07-2009

2112

28. 7958914

Silverand Silver Alloys Jewellery/Artifacts

ArihantGold & Silver Pvt . Ltd. , 13 -C/Shop No. 211- 212, Turning Point Complex , Ghod-DodRoad, Surat

1417 1999 24-07-2009

29.7959007

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

Amidhara Jewellers , G/8 , Nayan Kunj Society, Near Satyam Complex, Opp.BalajiGarden Restaurant, R. Prernatirath Derasar, Jodhpur Gam, Satellite , Ahmedabad- 380015

8034

2002 30. 7958813 24-07-2009

Submersible Pumpsets

Rushabh Industires , 14 to 18 , Sutex Ind . Estate , Opp. Jagnnath Estate , NearGujaratBotling, Rakhial , Ahmedabad

3957 G1/09-3 7072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

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

1 2

8 23-07-2009

31. 7959108

8472

1998

Pumps - Regenerative or

Clear, Cold Water

M/ s . Shree Ram Electricals , 6, Vishnu Estate, Opp. Raghunath Hindi High School , Bapunagar , Ahmedabad

24-07-2009

32.7959310

2003

Silverand Silver Alloys 2112 Jewellery/Artifacts

Shree Ram Art; Zaverchand Chamber , Zaverchand Laxmichand Lane , Shamal Bechars Pole,M.G. Road , Vadodara

24-07-2009

33. 7959209

14220

1994

Openwell Submersible

Pumpsets

M/s . Shree Ram Electricals , Vishnu Estate , Opp. Raghunath Hindi High School , Bapunagar , Ahmedabad

29-07-2009

34. 7960089

8034

2002

Submersible Pumpsets

Vishwakarma Engineering Works 168 , Shankar Estate, NR. Revabhai Estate , Amraiwadi , Ahmedabad

35. 7962093 28-07-2009

2004

Packaged Drinking Water

14543

Parvati Food & Beverages , NearP.T.C. College ,Borlai , TalUmbergam, Distt. Valsad

30-07-2009.

36.7961495

1417 1999

Gold andGold Alloys ,

Jewellery/Artifacts-

Fineness and Marking

Harisiddh Jewellers , 50,51 Ankur Complex, Ankur Char Rasta , AnkurNaranpura, Ahmedabad

37. 7960493

13422

31-07-2009

1992

Disposable Surgical

RubberGloves

Vijay Latex Products Pvt . Ltd. 231-GIDC Umbergaon , NearUnion Bank, Valsad (Distt.) Gujarat

29-04-2009

2004 38.7940184

14543

Packaged Drinking Water

Ganesh Enterprises , B- 1 , Ganpati Plaza , Katargam Darwaja , Surat

39. 7945396 25-05-2009

2004

Packaged Drinking Water 14543

ChamundaManufacturing , Plot No. L/ 114-17-18 , GIDC , At- Post Chandisar , Tal: Palanpur, Distt . Banaskantha- 385510

25-05-2009

40. 7945497

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water

KS Beverages , 36/3/7 Near Matrukrupa Party Plot , Near Rangsagar Flat, Paldi Ahmedabad

25-05-2009

41. 7945501

5470 2002

Dicalcium Phosphate ,

Animal Feed Grade

SPA Vet Min Pvt . Ltd. 158/B , GIDC Estate , Nandesari Industrial Area , TA & Distt . Vadodara- 391340

[No.CMD/ 13 : 11] .

P.K. GAMBHIR, Dy. Director General (Marks) 7073 [भाग II- खंड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 28 अक्तूबर, 2009

का. आ. 3081.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

भाग

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

अनु वर्ष

भा.मा. संख्या

क्रम लाइसेंस सं. संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथिवर्ष/ माह

8 1 2

IS : 1417 1999 08-06-2009

1. सीएम/एल- 6944086

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

कंकरियाज्वेलर्स, नं. 145, दुकान नं. 20, पहली मंजिल, रंगनाथा मेनशन अवन्यु रोड क्रॉस, बंगलौर-560002 बंगलौर अरबन , कर्नाटक

IS: 1417

1999 08-06-2009

2. सीएम/एल- 6940886

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

नवरत्न ज्वेलर्स, # 2380/2 , न्यूकान्ताराज उर्स रोड, के.जी. कोप्पल, मैसूर 570009, कर्नाटक

1999

IS: 1417

सूरज ज्वेलर्स,

15-06-2009

3. सीएम/एल- 6943892

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

रन्का पार्क , VI ब्लॉक , दुकान नं. 3 और 4, नं. 4, 5 और 6 लालबाग रोड, नियर रिचमंड सर्कल, बंगलौर -560027 बंगलौर अरबन, कर्नाटक

IS: 13849 1993 15-06-209

4. सीएम/एल- 6942890

पॉर्टेबल फायर एक्टिंग्यूशर ड्राई पाउडर टाईप, (कॉन्स्टैन्ट प्रेशर )

एसीई इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स पुराना नं. 34, नया नं. 18 , अरिकेमपनाहल्ली, बंगलौर-560027 , बंगलौर अरबन कर्नाटक

IS: 1417

1999 18-06-2009

5. सीएम/एल- 6944490

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

वेंकटेश जेवेलरी वर्क्स, अपोजिट अम्बिका ट्रान्सपोर्ट गाउली गली, सीबीटी, होब्ली-580020, धारवाड कर्नाटक

1999

IS: 1417

18-06-2009

6. सीएम/एल- 6944591

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

रिलाइंस रिटेल लिमिटेड नं. 18/35, बीएमपी पीआईडी नं. 60-135-35, 11 वां मेन , जयानगर, चौथा ब्लॉक, बंगलौर-560011 , बंगलौर अरबन कर्नाटक 7074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

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

9 7.सीएम/एल-

IS: 1417

1999 18-06-2009

6944793

श्री महालक्ष्मी ऑरनामेंट्स नं. 94 एवं 95 अशोका रोड, मैसूर-570001 कर्नाटक

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

1999 8.सीएम/एल-

IS: 1417

22-06-2009

6945795

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

मनमोहन ज्वेलर्स ए-2, पहली मंजिल, साकालाजी मार्केट , अवन्युरोड, बंगलौर बंगलौर अरबन कर्नाटक-560002

22-06-2009

9.सीएम/एल-

IS : 1417

1999 6945896

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

श्री हरिज्वेलर्स नं. 2 एवं 3 , अश्वथाप्पा बिल्डिंग , डोड्डा बोम्मासन्द्रा मेन रोड, विद्यारण्यापुरा पोस्ट, बंगलौर, बंगलौर अरबन कर्नाटक-560097

1999 10. सीएम/एल- 22-06-2009

IS: 1417

ओम शक्ति एंटरप्राइजस

6945997

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

# 100/2, मंजुनाथा कॉम्प्लेक्स, 8वां क्रॉस, मलेश्वरम्, बंगलौर-560003 , बंगलौर अरबन , कर्नाटक

2004 26-06-2009

11. सीएम/एल-

IS: 14543

6946696

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा )

शिवगंगे ड्रिंकिंगवाटर, नं. 85, साहूकार चेन्नाय्या रोड, टी.के. लेआउट, चौथी स्टेज, कुवम्पु नगर, मैसूर-570009 , कर्नाटक

[सं. सीएमडी/13: 11 ]

पी.के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 28th October, 2009

S.O. 3081.-In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence particular of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Title of the Standard

ISNo. Part. Sec . Year Sl. Licence No. No.

Grant Date

Name & Address ofthe Party

78 9 1. CM/L- 6944086 08-06-2009

IS: 1417

1999 Kankariya Jewellers , No. 145 , Shop No. 20,

1stFloor, Ranganatha

Gold and gold alloys , Jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking

Mansion Avenue Road Cross, Bangalore-560002 Bangalore Urban ,

Karnataka 7075

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II-खंड 3(ii ) ]

7 8 9

1999

IS: 1417

2. CM/L-6940886 08-06-2009

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

Navarathna Jewellers , #, 2380/2 , New Kantharaj UrsRoad, K.G. Koppal, Mysore-570009, Karnataka

IS: 1417

1999 3. CM/L-6943892 15-06-2009

Goldand gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

Sooraj Jewellers , Ranka Park , VI Block, Shop No. 3 &4, No. 5 & 6 Lalbagh Road, Near Richmond Circle, Bangalore-560027 Bangalore Urban Karnataka

1993 4. CM/L-6942890 15-06-2009

: 13849

Portable fire extinguisher IS dry powder type (constant pressure)

ACE Engineering Works , OldNo. 34, New No. 18 , Arekempanahalli , Bangalore-560027 BangaloreUrban Karnataka

1999

IS: 1417

18-06-2009 .

5. CM/L-6944490

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

Venkatesh Jewellery Works , Opp. Ambika Transport Gauli Gali , CBT, Hubli- 580020 , Dharwad, Karnataka

IS: 1417 1999 6. CM/L-6944591 18-06-2009

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

Reliance Retail Limited, No. 18/35 , BMP PID No. 60-135-35, 11th Main, Jayanagar, 4thBlock, Bangalore-560011 Bangalore Urban , Karnataka

IS: 1417

1999 7. CM/L-6944793 18-06-2009

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

Sri Mahalakshmi Ornaments, No. 94 & 95 Ashoka Road , Mysore- 570001 , Karnataka

IS: 1417 1999 8. CM/L-6945795 22-06-2009

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

Manmohan Jewels , A-2, 1st Floor , Sakalajee Market, Avenue Road, Bangalore, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka- 560002

1999 22-06-2009

IS: 1417

9. CM/L-6945896

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

Sri Hari Jewellers , No. 2 & 3 , Aswathappa Building,Dodda. Bommasandra Main Road, Vidyaranyapura Post, Bangalore , Bangalore Urban, Karnataka- 560097 7076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

10. CM/L- 6945997 22-06-2009 Om Shakthi Enterprises

# 100/2, Manjunatha Complex, 8th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore- 560003. Bangalore Urban, Karnataka

26-06-2009

11. CM/L- 6946696

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 5

IS: 1417

1999

Gold and gold alloys ,

jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

IS: 14543

2004

ShivagangeDrinking Water Packaged drinking water

No. 85, Sahukar Chennaiah ( other than packaged Road, T.K. Layout, 4th natural mineral water) Stage, Kuvempu Nagar , Mysore-570009, Karnataka

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ] P.K. GAMBHIR , Director General ( Marks )

नई दिल्ली, 1 नवम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 3082.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :

अनुसूची क्रम सं. लाइसेंस संख्या लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता 2

1. सीएम/एल-

9699825

मै. आनन्द एल्युमीनियम इण्डस्ट्रीज, मलोट रोड, मुक्तसर -152 026 पंजाब

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक काशीर्षक

16-07-2009 घरेलूप्रैशर कुकर

[संख्या सी एम डी/ 13 : 13]

पी.के. गम्भीर, उपमहानिदेशक, ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 1st November , 2009

S.O. 3082. In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Name & Address of the Licensee Sl . No. Licence No.

1. CM/L- 9699825 M/ s . Anand Aluminium Industries , Malout Road, Muktsar - 152 026 (Pb . )

Date of Cancellation Article/Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled/ suspension

5 4

16-07-2009 Domestic Pressure Cookers

[No. CMD/ 13 : 13] P.K. GAMBHIR, Dy . Director General (Marks ) 7077

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 1 नवम्बर, 2009

कर्का. आ. 3083.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

अनु. वर्ष लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व

पता

भा. मा. भाग संख्या

क्रमलाइसेंस सं. संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथिवर्ष/ माह

9 1 2

1998

14552

1. 9736296 18-06-2009

थियोफेनेट मिथाइल 70 % डब्ल्यूपी

सुमिल कैमीकल इण्डस्ट्रीज़ प्रा. लिमिटेड, इण्डस्ट्रीयल ग्रोथ सैन्टर , फेज़-2, सिडको, साम्बा, जम्मू-184121 (ज. एण्डके. )

1786 2008 2.9741794

कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्च सामर्थ्य की विरूपित इस्पात छड़ें और तारें

23-07-2009 जी ओ स्टील प्रा. लिमिटेड रोलिंगमिल्स, बदीनपुर रोड, काहनपुरा (मण्डीगोबिन्दगढ़ ) तहसील अमलोह, जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब (पंजाब ) ।

[संख्या सी एम डी/13 : 11 ]

पी.के. गम्भीर, उपमहानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 1st November, 2009

S.O. 3083.-In pursuance of sub -regulation ( 5) of the regulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Title of the Standard

ISNo. Part Sec . Year Sl . Licence

Grant Date

No. No.

Name & Address ofthe Party

8 9 12

14552

1998 1.9736296

18-06-2009

Thiophanate Methyl- 70% WP

M/ s . Sumil Chemical Indst. Pvt. Ltd. , Industrial Growth Centre, Phase II , SIDCO, Samba, Jammu- 184 121 ( J&K)

1786

2008 23-07-2009

2.9741794

HSD Steel Bars & Wires for Concrete Reinforce- ment

M/ s. G.O. Steel Private Ltd. , Rolling Mills , Badinpur Road , Kahanpura, Mandi Gobindgarh , Teh. Amloh, Distt . Fatehgarh Sahib (Pb.)

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

P.K. GAMBHIR, Dy. Director General (Marks) 7078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 / KARTIΚΑ 23 , 1931 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 4 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3084.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :

अनुसूची

स्थापित 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

आई एस 1577 : 1989

30नवम्बर, 2008 आई एस 1577 : 2008 तम्बाकू और तम्बाकू उत्पाद- सिगरेट- विशिष्टि ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 1908 : 1993

30नवम्बर , 2008 आई एस 1908 : 2008 मसाले एवं मसाले - अदरक, साबुत और पिसा हुआ-विशिष्टि ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 2443 : 1994

30 नवम्बर , 2008 आई एस 2443 : 2008 मसाले एवं मसाले- धनिया , साबुत और पिसा हुआ- विशिष्टि ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 2688 : 1964

31मई, 2009

आई एस 2688 : 2009 ऊष्मारोधित स्टेनलेस स्टील क्षैतिज दुग्ध भंडारण टैंक- विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 4452 : 1967

31जनवरी , 2009 आई एस 4452 : 2009 निर्जलीकृत प्याज-विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 5452: 1994

30 नवम्बर , 2008 आई एस 5452 : 2008 निर्जलीकृत लहसन की विशिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

आई एस 5719 : 1970

31जनवरी, 2008 आई एस 5719 : 2005 जिलेटिन, फूड ग्रेड - विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

31अक्तूबर, 2007 आई एस/ आई एस ओ 6866 1985 पशु आहार सामग्री -मुक्त एवं सम्पूर्ण गौसीपोल की मात्रा का निर्धारण

आई एस 8600 : 1988

31जुलाई, 2008 आई एस 8600 : 2008/आई एस ओ 4874 : 2000 तम्बाकू- कच्चे माल के बैच के नमूने - सामान्य नियम (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

आई एस 9379 : 1999

31जुलाई, 2008 10. आई एस 9379 2008/ आई एस ओ 6488 : 2004 तम्बाकू एवं तम्बाकू उत्पाद - पानी की मात्रा ज्ञात करना -कार्ल फिशर पद्धति ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 10508 : 1983

15फरवरी , 2009 11. आई एस 10508 2007 फॉस्फॉरिक अम्ल, खाद्य ग्रेड -विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 12207 : 1999

30सितंबर, 2008 12. आई एस 12207 2008 कृषि ट्रैक्टर- चुने हुए कार्यकारिता मापदण्डों की सिफारिशें ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 12942 : 1996

31जुलाई , 2008 13. आई एस 12942 : 2008/ आई एस ओ 8243 : 2006 सिगरेट - नमूनें ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 13539 : 1992

31अक्तूबर, 2008 14. आई एस 13539 2008 पावर टिलर्स- चुने हुए कार्यकारिता लक्षण की अनुशंसाएं ( पहला पुनरीक्षण ) 7079 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

4 1

आई एस 13816 : 1993

31मार्च , 2009 15. आई एस 13816 2009/आई एस ओ 762 : 2003 फल और सब्जी उत्पाद- खनिज अशुद्धता का अंश ज्ञात करना

31 अक्तूबर, 2007 16. आई एस/आई एस ओ 13903 2005 पशु आहार सामग्री- एमीनो अम्ल की मात्रा का निर्धारण

आई एस 14151 ( भाग 2) : 1999 15जून, 2009 17. आई एस 14151 ( भाग 2 ) : 2008 सिंचाई उपस्कर- स्प्रिंकलर पाईप-विशिष्टि भाग 2 सहज संयोजी पालीएथिलीन पाईप तथा फिटिंग्स ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

30 अप्रैल, 2008 18. आई एस 15805 ( भाग 1 ) : 2008 तृण कटाई- कम्बाईन -परीक्षण संहिता : भाग 1 पारिभाषिक शब्दावली

30 अप्रैल , 2008 19. आई एस 15805 ( भाग 2 ): 2008 तृण कटाई- कम्बाईन- परीक्षण संहिता भाग 2 कार्यकारिता परीक्षण

31 जुलाई , 2009 20. आई एस 15806 2008 कम्बाईन- हारवेस्टर- गहाई मशीन-चुनिंदा कार्यकारिताएं एवं अन्य मापदण्ड- अनुशंसाएं

28फरवरी , 2009.

21. आई एस 15827 2009 ग्रीनहाउस के लिए प्लास्टिक फिल्म-विशिष्टि

31जनवरी, 2009 22. आई एस 15829 2009 कैसेवा कटाई मशीन- हस्त- चालित-विशिष्टि

31जनवरी , 2009 23. आई एस 15830 : 2009 सतक आच्छादित कृषि मल्च विन्यास मशीन-कार्यात्मक अपेक्षाएं

28फरवरी, 2009 24. आई एस 15831 : 2009 ग्रेडर नींबूप्रजाति- आकार आधारित

31जनवरी , 2009 25. आई एस 15848 2009 जिंक सल्फेट, मोनोहाईडैट, कृषिग्रेड-विशिष्टि

31जनवरी, 2009 26. आई एस 15849: 2009 फोस्फेट सोल्युबिलाइजिंग फंगल इनोकुलेन्ट्स- एस्पेरजीलस एवामोरी -विशिष्टि

इन भारतीय मानक (कों) की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, १, बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता, चैन्नई, मुम्बई, चण्डीगढ तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: एफएडी/जी-128 ]

एस. सौ. खोसला, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि)

New Delhi , the 4th November, 2009

S.O. 3084. In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule ( 1 ) of Rules 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:

3957G1/09-4 7080

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of the Indian Standards Established

Date of Established Sl. No.

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

IS 1577 : 1989

30November, 2008 1. IS 1577 : 2008 Tobacco and tobacco products Cigarettes Specification (Third Revision)

IS 1908 : 1993

30 November, 2008 2. IS 1908 : 2008 Spices and condiments Ginger, whole and ground-Specification (Third Revision)

IS 2443 : 1994

30November, 2008 3. IS 2443 : 2008 Spices and condiments- Coriander, whole and ground-Specification (Third Revision)

IS 2688 : 1964

31May,2009 4. IS 2688 : 2009 Insulated stainless steel horizontal milk storage tank-Specification (First Révision)

IS 4452 : 1967

31 January, 2009 5. IS 4452 : 2009 Dehydrated onion- Specification ( First Revision)

IS 5452 : 1994

30November, 2008 6. IS 5452 : 2008 Dehydrated garlic- Specification (Second Revision)

IS 5719 : 1970

31January, 2008 7. IS 5719 : 2005 Gelatin, food grade Specification ( First Revision)

31 October , 2007 8. IS/ISO 6866 : 1985 Animal feeding.stuffs- Determination offree and total gossypol

IS 8600 : 1988

31 July, 2008 9. IS 8600 : 2008 /ISO 4874 : 2000 Tobaccp Sampling of batches of raw material General principles (Second Revision)

IS 9379 : 1999

31 July, 2008 10. IS 9379 : 2008 /ISO 6488 : 2004 Tobacco and tobacco products-Determination ofwater content-Karl Fischer method (Third Revision)

IS 10508 : 1983

15 February, 2009 11. IS 10508 2007 Phosphoric acid, food grade Specification (First Revision)

IS 12207 : 1999

30 September, 2008 12. IS 12207 : 2008 Agricultural tractors- Recommendations on selected performance characteristics ( Second Revision)

IS 12942 : 1996

31 July, 2008 .

13. IS 12942 : 2008/ISO 8243 : 2006 Cigarettes- Sampling (Second Revision)

IS 13539 : 1992

31October , 2008 14. IS 13539 : 2008 Power tillers- Recommendations on selected performance characteristics (First Revision)

IS 13816 : 1993

31 March, 2009 15. IS 13816 : 2009 /ISO 762 : 2003 Fruit and Vegetable products-Determination of mineral impurities contents (First Revision)

31 October , 2007 16. IS/ISO 13903 : 2005 Animal feeding stuffs- Determination of amino acids content 7081 [भाग II-खंड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/फार्तिक 23 , 1931

4 2

15 June, 2009

IS 14151 (Part 2) : 1999

17. IS 14151 (Part 2) : 2008 Irrigation equipment- Sprinkler pipes-Specification : Part 2 Quick coupled polyethylene pipes and fittings (SecondRevision)

30 April , 2008 18. IS 15805 (Part 1) : 2008 Straw reaper- combine -Test code: Part 1 Terminology

30April, 2008 19. IS 15805 (Part 1) : 2008 Straw reaper- combine -Test cod: Part 2 Performance tests

31July, 2008 20. IS 15806 : 2008 Combine-harvester - thresher- Selected performance and other characteristics -Recommendations

28 February, 2009 21. IS 15827 : 2009 Plastic film for greenhouses -Specification

31 January, 2009 22. IS 15829 : 2009 Cassava chipping machine- Hand-operated-Specification

31 January, 2009 23. IS 15830 : 2009 Surface covered cultivation- Plastics mulching laying machine- Functional requirements

24. IS 15831 : 2009 Grader-Citrus Size based

28 February, 2009

31 January, 2009 25. IS 15848 : 2009 Zinc sulphate , monohydrate, agricultural grade-Specification

31 January, 2009 26. IS 15849 : 2009 Phosphate Solubilizing fungal inoculants-Aspergillus Awamori- Specification

Copyofthese 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. FAD/G - 128 ]

S.C. KHOSLA, Scientist F and Head (Food & Agri . )

नई दिल्ली, 4 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3085.- 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 संशोधन के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक संख्या

4 2

संशोधन संख्या 1 वर्ष 2009

15सितंबर 2009 1. आई एस 899 ,1971 ढांपिओका सागो ( साबुदाना) क्री विशिष्टि

संशोधन संख्या 1 वर्ष 2007

01 अक्तूबर 2008 2. आई एस 1656: 2007 दुग्ध-अनाज आधारित अनुपूरक आहार- विशिष्टि( चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

30 सितंबर 2008

संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2008

3. आई एस 3882 1966 टमाटर कैचप की विशिष्टि 7082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1

संशोधन संख्या 5 वर्ष 2008

31 अगस्त 2008 4. आई एस 5549 : 1970 वारफरिन बेट सान्द्र की विशिष्टि

संशोधन संख्या 3 वर्ष 2009

15सितंबर 2009 5. आई एस 10243 19932, 4-डी इथाईल इस्टर ईसी- विशिष्टि( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

संशोधन संख्या 1 वर्ष 2009

30 अप्रैल 2009 6. आई एस 10335: 2006 तम्बाकू और तम्बाकू उत्पाद की शब्दावली ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

संशोधन संख्या 4 वर्ष 2008

15 अगस्त 2009 7. आई एस 11010 1984 जिराम कोलाईडल निस्पंदन की विशिष्टि

संशोधन. संख्या 2 वर्ष 2008

30सितंबर 2008 8. आई एस 11380 ( भाग 1 ) : 1985 कीटनाशक अवशेष ज्ञात करने के लिए नमुने लेने की विधि: भाग 1 कृषि एवं खाद्य पदार्थ के लिए

30सितंबर 2008

संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2008

9. आई एस 12005 : 1987 डेल्टामेथरिन , तकनीकी की विशिष्टि

संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2008

30सितंबर 2008 10. आई एस 12914: 1990 ब्रोमाडायोलोन, तकनीकी- विशिष्टि

30सितंबर 2008

संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2008

11. आई एस 12945: 1990 डाईथायानोन डब्लूपी विशिष्टि

संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2009

30सितंबर 2009 12. आई एस 15271 2003 नमकीन-विशिष्टि

संशोधन संख्या 1 वर्ष 2008

10 दिसंबर 2008 13. आई एस 15335 2003 इमीडाक्लोप्रिड एस एल- विशिष्टि

संशोधन संख्या 1 वर्ष 2009

30जून 2009 14. आई एस 15642 ( भाग 1 और 2 ) : 2006 सामान्य खाद्य उत्पादों में अपमिश्रिकों/संदूषकों की पहचान की द्रुत निधियाँ

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

[संदर्भ: एफएडी/जी-128 ]

एस. सी. खोसला, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि)

New Delhi , the 4th November , 2009

S.O. 3085. -In pursuance of Clause ( b) of sub- rule (1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendment to the Indian Standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

No. & Year of the Amendment

Sl . No.

Date of which the Amendment shall have effect 1

Amendment No. 1 Year 2009 15 September , 2009 1. IS 899 : 1971 Specification for tapioca sago (saboodana)

01 October , 2008

Amendment No. 1 Year 2007

IS 1656 : 2007 Milk- cereal based complementary foods-Specification (Fourth Revision) 7083 [भाग II- खंड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

4 2

Amendment No. 2 Year 2008 30 September, 2008 3. IS 3882 : 1966 Specification for tomato ketchup

Amendment No. 5 Year 2008 31 August, 2008 4. IS 5549 ; 1970 Specification for warfarin bait concentrates

Amendment No. 3 Year 2009 15 September , 2009 5. IS 10243 : 1993 2, 4-D ethyl ester EC- Specification(First Revision)

Amendment No. 1 Year 2009 30April, 2009 6. IS 10335 : 2006 Glossary of terms for tabacco and tobacco products (Second Revision)

Amendment No. 4.Year 2008 15 August, 2009 7. IS 11010 : 1984 Specification for ziram colloidal suspension

Amendment No. 2 Year 2008 30 September , 2008 8. IS 11380 (Part 1) : 1985 Methods of sampling for the determination of pesticide residues : Part 1Agricultural and food commodities

Amendment No. 2Year 2008 30 September , 2008 9. IS 12005 : 1987 Specification for deltamethrin , technical

Amendment No. 2 Year 2008 30 September , 2008 10. IS 12914 : 1990 Bromadiolone , technical- Specification

Amendment No. 2 Year 2008

11. IS 12945 : 1990 Dithianon, WP-Specification

30 September , 2008.

Amendment No. 2 Year 2009

12. IS 15271 : 2003 Namkeen-Specification

30 September, 2009

Amendment No. 1 Year 2008 10 December, 2008 13. IS 15335 : 2003 Imidacloprid SL-Specification

Amendment No. 1 Year 2009 30 Jume, 2009 14. IS 15642 (Parts 1 and 2) : 2006 Specification forquick methods for detection of adulterants/ contaminants in common food products

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. FAD/G- 128 ]

S.C. KHOSLA , Scientist F. and Head (Food & Agri . )

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 3086.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :

: अनुसूची

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित स्थापित तिथि क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक(कों ) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक संख्या

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

4 1

30-06-2009 1. आई एस 15823 : 2009 हाइड्रोमेट्री- अस्थिर प्रवाह मॉडल प्रयुक्त करते हुए सरिता प्रवाह का अभिकलन

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

[संदर्भ: डब्लू आर डी 1 /T -72 ]

जे. सी. अरोड़ा,अरोड़ा, पैक्षा एवं प्रमुख ( जलप्रमुख ( जल संसाधन विभाग ) 7084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 223 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 6th November, 2009

S.O. 3086. In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standartis particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Date of Establishment No. Title and Year of the Indian Standards Established

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

30-06-09

1. IS 15823 : 2009 Hydrometry-Computing Stream Flow Using an Unsteady Flow Model

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Staridards , 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. WRD 1 /T- 72 ]

J. C. ARORA , Sc . E and Head (Water Resources Deptt. )

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 3087.- 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 दिार 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 मी नक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई है ।, की संख्या और वर्ष

30-06-2009

आई. एस 4453 : 1980 गढ्‌ढों,

;

आई. एस 4453 : 2009 गढ्‌ढों, खेदकों, उपसुरंगों तथा शेफ्ट द्वारा उपसतह का अन्वेषण- रीति संहिता

(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

खंदकों , उपसुरंगों तथा शैफ्ट द्वारा उपसतह का अन्वेषण-सैति संहिता

(पहरना चुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , १२ ग्रहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नईदिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चैन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरुवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : डब्ल्यू आर डी 5/T- 2 ]

जे. सी. अरोड़ा, वैज्ञा. ई एवं प्रमुख (जल संसाधन विभाग ) New Delhi , the 6th Nove mber , 2009

S.O. 3087. In pursuance of Clause (b) of su'o - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Inc lian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indici ated against each:

[भाक -खंड 3(ii ) ]

7085

भारत का राजमन : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. Title and Year of the Inelian Standards

No.

Established

Date of Establishment

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

4 1

30-06-09 1. IS4453 : 2009 Sub- surface Exploration byPits, Trenches, Drifts and Shafts- Code ofPractice (SecondRevision)

IS4453 : 1980 Sub -surface Explorationby Pits, Trenches, Drift and Shaft-Code of Practice (First Revsion)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and ' egional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangal ore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananti apuram.

[Ref. WRD 5/T -2]

J.C. ARORA, Sc . E and Head ( Water Resources Deptt . )

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 3088.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :

अनुसूची

स्थापित 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.......

30-06-2009 1. आई. एस 11772 2009 स्पिलवेज से ऊर्जा अवशोषकों एवं ट्रेनिंग वॉल को निकास व्यवस्थाओं के डिजाइन के मार्ग निर्देश ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

आई. एस. 11772 : 1986 स्पिलवेज से ऊर्जा अवशोषकों एवं ट्रेनिंग वॉल को निकास व्यवस्थाओं के डिजाइन के मार्ग निर्देश

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

[संदर्भ: डब्ल्यूआर डी 9 /T - 21 ]

जे. सी. अरोड़ा, वैज्ञा. ई एवं प्रमुख (जल संसाधन विभाग)

New Delhi , the 6th November , 2009

S.O. 3088.-In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules,- 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

7086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/ KARTIKA 23 , 1931 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

No. , Title and Year of the Indian Standards

Sl . No.

Established

Date of Establishment

No. and Year ofthe Indian Standards , if any, superseded by the New Indian Standard

30-06-09

1.15 11772 : 2009 Design of drainage arrange- ments of Energy Dissipators and Training Walls of Spillways (First Revision)

IS 11772 : 1986 Design of drainage arrangements of Energy Dissipators and Training Walls of Spillways

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

[Ref. WRD 9/T-21 ]

J. C. ARORA, Sc . E and Head (Water Resources Deptt . )

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 3089.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

रद्द किये गये मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

टिप्पणी

क्रम संख्या

भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में का. आ. संख्या और तिथि प्रकाशित

1. आई एस 2298 : 1977

का. आ. संख्या 2239 दिनांक 05-08-1978

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ]

ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

New Delhi , the 6th November, 2009

S.O. 3089.- In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , it is hereby notified that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule given hereafter , have beencancelled and stand withdrawn .

SCHEDULE

Remarks

Sl . No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standards Cancelled

S.O. No. & Date published in the Gazette of India. Part - II , Section-3 , Sub -section ( ii)

IS 2298-1977

S.O. 2239 Dated 05-08-1978

[Ref. CED/Gazette ]

A.K. SAINI , Sc . ' F' and Head ( Civil Engg .) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7087 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 30 अक्तूबर, 2009

का.. 3090 - भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि, मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड की काकीनाडा- हैदराबाद - उरान- अहमदाबाद ट्रंक गैस पाइपलाईन के आंध्र प्रदेश में विजयवाडा स्थित टैप ऑफ प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा विजयवाडा- नैल्लूर - चैन्नई गैसं 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 एम. ए. गफ्फार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , नं. 59-1-18/3 , मैरिस स्टेला कॉलेज के सामने की रोड में , बस रूट नं. 5 , रामचन्द्रा नगर , विजयवाडा-520008 , कृष्णा जिला , आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

3957GI/09-5 7088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/ KARTIKA 23. 1931

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

अनुसूची

जिला: प्रकाशम मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:नागुलुप्पालपाडु

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं. / सब डिविजन सं.

1 ) मटटीगुन्टा

100

101

102

140

141

144

145

153

154

227

228

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

एयर सि एयर हेक्टेयर

09 00

94 00

10 00

55 00 03

59 00 51

87 00 00

66 00

79 00

68 00 41

34 00 02

99 00 01

35 00 01

43 00 36

50 00

15 00

78 00

51 00

62 00 20

30 00

गट नंवर 228 में सलाबत्तुला टैंक

229

230

238

239

240

241

252

2) उप्पुगुन्दूर

254

265

266

267

272

283

284

00 54

94 00

00 48

09 00

72 00 57

74 00 46

70 01 57

00 00

22 00 01

94 00 12

90 00

08 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

285

2) उप्पुगुन्हूर (निरंतर)

286

287

288

291

307

.7089

5 00

74 00 04

80 00 09

55 00 59

44 00

00 06

36 02

गट नंबर 307 में नाला

312

317

01 05

36 00. 84

55 07

गट नंबर 320 में रास्ता

322

323

324

325

326

327

331

332

335

369

372

373

378

379

395

397

414

425

34 00 10

88 00 27

24 00 06

26 00

44 48

23 00

00 03

00 00 13

05 00 27

31 00 00

48 00

85 04

15 00

00 59

09 00

38 00

42 07

48 00

21 00

61 00

36 00 05

गट नंबर 425 में नाला

426

427

428

429

444

446

448

452

453

454

281

3) कन्डलागुन्टा वेम्मावरम

00 00

69 00 16

88 00 17

01 00 55

11 00 52

57 61

53 02

20 00

67 00 19

14 03

48 00 05

48 7090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

285

3) कन्डलागुन्टा वेम्मावरम (निरंतर)

286

287

349

353

354

355

357

4) माचवरम

128

145

147

148

149

150

151

403

230

5) नागुलुप्पालपाडु

231

6) रापरला

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

5 01

63 00

82 00 20

92 00

60 00 33

06 00 04

88 00 49

28 00

20 00 00

10 00

54 00

94 00 04

45 00

46 00

32 00 24

50 00

88 00

50 00

21 00

53 00 42

72 00

92 00

27 00 47

35 00

58 00

34 00

58 00

83 00

41 00

02 00

86 00

62 38

11 00

08 00 21

84 00

09 00

89 00

25 00

52 7091

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

74.

6) रापरला (निरंतर)

7) अम्मनब्रोलु

378

382

383

384

386

388

389

397

398

399

400

402

403

404

405

422

425

426

450

451

452

453

455

5 3

44 00

79 00

67 16

00 43

88 00 28

12 44

38 00

75 00 66

99 00

51 00 54

00 00 05

40 01 43

16 01

65 00 00

77 01

73 00 27

28 00 37

10 00 . 00

84 00 48

00 11

45 00 80

30 01

48 00

67 00

2.2

50 00 13

28. 24 00

71 00 37

63 00 39

00 26

94 00

41 01

57 00

00 7092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIΚΑ 23 , 1931

456

7) अम्मनबोलु (निरंतर)

459

460

461

1039

182

8 ) चिरूवनुप्पालपाड

198

199

200

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )|

5 00

41 00 59

85 00 09

55 00

08 00 00

64 00 48

13 00

90 00 27

जिला:प्रकाशम

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: ओन्गोल

119

1) करवदि

120

126

128

129

प्रदेश

राज्य:आन्ध्र

00 07

60 00

82 00

74 00

58 00

गट नंबर 130 में रास्ता

131

132

134

135

137

140

145

14 00

97 00 88

08 00 09

30 00

36 00

67 00

गट नंवर 184 में रास्ता

185

189

190

196

197

199

200

438

439

440

441

456/ए

32 00 06

26 00 05

51 00

00 99

80 00

29 00

37 00 26

75 00

00 46

45 00

62 00 16

गट नं 456/ वी में रेलवे ट्रैक

456/मी

461

462

463

20 00

93 00

17 00

78 [भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

7093

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

466

1) करवदि (निरंतर)

467

468

490

491

496

623

5 00

00 83

90 00

01 16

89 00

00 25

92 00

गट नं 624/वी में रेलवे ट्रैक

624/सी

630/वी

632

635

00 40

15 00 19

30 00

04 00 07

गट नंवर 639 में रास्ता

641

642

00 49

87 00 42

79 00

गट नं 737 में गुंडलाकम्मा नदी

751

2) कोप्पोलु

98 00

00 29

24 00 21

17 00 26

26 00 21

88 00 18

80 00 36

65 00 02

29 27

39 00 03

11 00

57 00 00

30 00 54

00 55

77 00 50

00 06

42 02

15 00

गट नंबर 84 में रास्ता

61 00

67 00 14

30 00 03

गट नंवर 69 में रास्ता

00 30

15 7094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/ΚΑΚΓΙΚΑ 23 , 1931

2) कोप्पोलु (निरंतर)

गट नंबर 106 में रास्ता

107

108

109

110

गट नंबर 111 में रास्ता

112

113

गट नंबर 113 में मुदीगेंडा एडु

416

गट नंवर 416 में नाला

417

गट नंवर 417 में नाला

418

419.

423

424

425

432

434

437

438

439

454

459

460

461

462

गट नंबर 462 में रोड

463

471

475

476

477

478

479

480

गट नंबर 480 में तलाब

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | 3

07 01 25

18 00

93 00

62 00

53 00 09

56 00

88 00

31 00 23

18 00 21

81 00

86 00

39 00

82 00 05

40 00

91 00 19

58 00 02

91 00 09

39 00

45 00 09

22 00

08 00

65 00 20

20 00

42 01

97 00

29 00 07

41 00

11 50

29 00

88 00

90 00

19 00 14

05 00 92

57 00 26

72 00

95 00

10 00 26

28 00 20

60 00

91 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7095

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

2 1

481

2) कोप्पोलु (निरंतर)

482

75 00 29

गट नंबर 482 में तलाव

679

00 10

76 00

गट नंबर 679 में नाला

680

684

20 00

81 00 17

गट नंबर 690 में रास्ता

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:प्रकाशम

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:कोत्तपटनम

1) अल्लुरू कोत्तपटनम

42 00 65

13. 00 17

70 01 40

57 00

92 00 07

39 00 68

00 34

64 00 70

68 00 24

26 00 35

30 01

58 01 85

10 00 00

74 01 30

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: प्रकाशम

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक टन्गुदूर

1) वासेपल्लिपाडु

161

162

170

171

191

3957 G1/09-ه

08 00 01

00 28

00 00 05

80 00 46

45 00 29

45 00

65 00

01 18

70 00 69

17 00

66 00 7096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

192

1) वासेपल्लिपाडु (निरंतर)

201

गट नंबर 202 में रास्ता

203

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

266

599

2) वल्लूरू

गट नंबर 599 में नाला

603

605

गट नंबर 605 में नाला

606

613

616

गट नंबर 616 में नाला

619

गट नंवर 619 में तलाव

620

626

गट नंबर 626 में तलाब

628

गट नंबर 628 में नाला

629

641

643

648

649

650

651

652

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

5 00

37 00

2.2 00 07

4.2 00 20

36 00 20

65 00 19

61 00 20 19 00 20

26 00 24

77 25

25 00

14 38

00 21

65 00 52

78 00 03

31 00 04

25 00 19

93 00 09

63 00

87 51

00 00

88 21

84 00 04

58 00 47

03 00

82 00 62

32 00 26

85 00 05

86 00 04

14 00 07

00 62

68 00 49

99 00

03 00 27

47 55

77 00 27

26 00

69 00 12

47 7097 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

719

2) वल्लूरू (निरंतर)

गट नंबर 719 में रोड

726

00 25

727

7-29

737

00 03

738

00 38

739

745

746

00 26

747

751

00 09 45

761

00 00

गट नंबर 761 में रोड

763

764

767

|फा. सं. एल 14014/31/2009 जी. पी. ।

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

New Delhi , the 30th October , 2009

S. O. 3090.-Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from tap off point ofKakinada -Hyderabad - Uran - Ahmedabad trunk gas pipeline at Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh of M/ s . Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited to consumers in various parts of the country , Vijayawada -Nellore -Chennai 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 ofRight ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), Government of India hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right ofuser therein;

Anyperson interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date ofwhich 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 M.A. Gaffar, Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, House No. 59-1-18/3 , Opp Road to Maries Stella college , Bus route No. 5, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520008 , Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State .

7098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23. 1931

[Part II Sec . 3 (ii ) |

Schedule

District: Prakasam Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk : Naguluppalapadu

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

2 1

1) Mattigunta

100

101

102

140

141

144

145

153

154

227

228

State: Andhra Pradesh

Area tobe acquired for Rou Hec

Are

C-Are 3

5 00

94 00

10 00

59 00

87 00

68 00

34 00

99 00

35 00

50 00

15 00

70 00

51 00

30 00

Salabattula Tank in Gat No.228

229

230

238

239

240

241

252

2) Uppugundur

254

265

266

267

272

283

284

37 00

94 00

99 00

72 00

07 00

70 01

22 00

94 00

08 00 7099

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

| भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

285

2) Uppugundur (Contd)

286

287

288

291

307

Nala in Gat No.307

312

317

Cart Track in Gat No.320

322

323

324

325

326

327

331

332

335

369

372

373

378

379

395

397

414

425

Nala in Gat No.425

426

427

428

429

444

446

448

452

453

454

281

3) Kandlagunta Vemmevaram

-02

06.

48 7100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/ΚΑΚΤΙΚΑ 23. 1931

2 3) Kandlagunta Vemmevaram ( Contd)

285

286

287

349

353

354

355

357

1 4) Machavaram

128

145

1:47

148

149

150

151

403

230 5) Naguluppalapadu

231

2 6) Raparla

[Part 11 -Sec . 3 ( ii )| 3

52 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

6) Raparla ( Contti)

7) Ammanabrolu

378

382

383

384

386

388

389

397

398

399

400

402

403

404

405

422

425

426

450.

451

452

453

455

7101

12 00

00 44

06 00

23 00

99 00.

00 00

40 01

16 01

65 00

77 01

73 00

44 00

84 00

30 01

67 00

04 00

24 00

23 00

71 00

63 00

94 00

41 01

57 00

43 7102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

2 7) Ammanabrolu( Contd)

456

459

460

461

1039

182

8) Chiruvanuppalapad

198

199

200

Mandal/ Tehsil /Taluk: Ongole

District: Prakasam

119

1) Karavadi

১৯

120

126

128

129

Cart Track in Gat No.130

131

132

134

135

137

140

145

Cart Track in Gat No.184

185

189

190

196

197

199

200

438

439

440

441

456/A

Railway Track in Gat No.456/B

456/ C

461

462

463

[Part 11 -Sec . 3 (ii ) | 3

State: Andhra Pradesh 00

76.

78 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/ कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

466 1) Karavadi (Contd)

467

468

490

491

496

623

7103

Railway Track in Gat No.624/B

624/C

630/B

632

635

Cart Track in Gat No.639.

641

642

07.

Gundlakamma River in Gat No.737

751

32 2) Koppolu

CartTrack in Gat No.84

Cart Track in Gat No.69

90 3957GI/09-7

00 7104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

2 1

2) Koppolu ( Contd)

Cart Track in Gat No.106

107

108

109

110

Cart Track in Gat No.111

112

113

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 4

Mudigonda Yeru in Gat No.113

416

Nal in Gat No.416

indiFi

NalainGat No.417

418

419

423

424

425

432

434

437

438

439

454

459

460

461

462

Road in Gat No.462

463

471

475

476

477

478

479

480

Pond in Gat No.480 00

91 7105

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

481

2) Koppolu (Contd)

482

Pond in Gat No.482

679

Nala in Gat No.679

680

684

Cart Track in Gat No.690

District: Prakasam Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk: Kothapatnam

1) Alluru Kottapatnam

District: Prakasam Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Tangutur

1) Vasepallipadu

161

162

170

171

191

State:Andhra Pradesh 65

State :Andhra Pradesh 00

00 7106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKΑ 23 , 1931

2 1) Vasepallipadu ( Contd)

192

201

Cart Track in Gat No.202

203

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

266

599

2) Valluru

Nala in Gat No.599

603

605

Nala in Gat No.605

606

613

616

Nala in Gat No.616

619

Pond in GatNo.619

620

626

Pond in Gat No.626

628

Nala in Gat No.628

629

641

643

648

649

650

651

652

(Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | 3

47 7107 | भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

5 2) Valluru (Contd)

719

Road in Gat No.719

726

727

729

737

738

739

745

746

747

751

761

Road in Gat No.761

763

764

767

[F. No. L-14014/31/2009-G.P. ] K.K.SHARMA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 30 अक्तूबर , 2009

का.आ. 3091.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि , मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड की काकीनाडा- हैदराबाद - उरान - अहमदाबाद ट्रंक गैस पाइपलाईन के आंध्र प्रदेश में विजयवाडा स्थित टैप ऑफ प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा विजयवाडा - नैल्लूर - चैन्नई 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 एम. ए. गफ्फार , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , नं. 59-1-18 /3 , मैरिस स्टेला कॉलेज के सामने की रोड में, बस रूट नं. 5 , रामचन्द्रा नगर, विजयवाडा-520008 , कृष्णा जिला , आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 7108

[Part 11--Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETFE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

अनुसूची

जिला:प्रकाशम मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: टन्गुंटूर

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं. / सब डिविजन सं.

1 ) वल्लूरू कावलिमान्यम

गट नंबर 11 में रोड

गट नं 32 में रेलवे ट्रैक

2) तूरूपुनायुडुपालेम

383

3) टन्गुटूर

384

385

386

387

389

390

394

395

397

399

402

403

404

406

407

412

414

415

416

417

418

519

520

542

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि. एयर 3

5 00

28 00

09 00

54 00 25

24 00

42 00

75 00

16 0.0 85

15 00

85 00

34 00

39 00 35

99 00

99 00 25

18 00 24

11 00 09

89 00

02 00 31

18 00 27

88 00 03

26 00 2.1

06 00

45 00

62 00

08 00 03

56 00

36 01

96 0.0

8.2.

2.0

0.6

10 7109

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खष्ड3 ( ii) ]

2. 1

552

3) टन्नगुदूर (निरंतर)

553

555

556

557

558

559

562

577

578

581

58-2

583

584

585

1363

1373

1374

5 00

21 00

82 00 17

00 71

23 00

58 00

46 00

25 02

36 00

13 01

73 19

05 00 08

85 00

01 08

00 00

99 00 00

32 00 28

94 50

15 31

गट नंबर 1374 में तलाव

1378

1380

1381

1383

1387

1388

1389

1390

1408

1409

1410

1416

1417

1418

1425

1447

1449

1450

1465

1484

72 00

76 14

00 59

16 00 19

57 00 22

91 00

14 13

71 00 12

84 00

99 00 01

94 00

00 00

85 00

65 00

39 0.0 38

04 00 66

25 00 05

88 23

60 00

21 00

11 08

95 03 7110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

2 3) टन्गुटूर (निरंतर)

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

5 01

गट नंबर 1487 और 354 में नदी

जिला: प्रकाशम मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:जरूगुमल्लि

1 ) वाविलेटिपाडु

100

254

256

257

258

269

360

2) के. बिटागुन्टा

361

362

363

364

372

374

375

381

385

387

389

645

647

648

650

651

652

653

68:2

458

3 ) जरूगुमल्लि

473

474

475

476

राज्य:आंन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 26

39 00 40

51 00 43

59 00 43

09 00

52 00

98 00 32

97 00 09

67 00 39

13 01

23 00

03 00

69 00 48

23 00

59 00 42

21 00

45 00

84 00 20

53 00 16

42 00

99 00

20 00

03 00

00 00

50 00

62 01

33 00

23 01

29 00 05

65 00

34 00

36 00

47 00

13 | भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7111

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

477

3) जरुरूगुमल्लि (निरंतर )

483

24 00 28

17 00

गट नं 339 और 487 में पालरू नदी

276

4) नन्दनवनम

279

354

362

364

365

366

367

369

372

373

374

390

393

397

00 38

84 00 08

20 00

88 00

93 00

08 00 35

89 00

92 00

62 00 32

53 00 65

01 00

42 01

69 राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:प्रकाशम

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक सिंगरायकोन्डा

293

1 ) कलिकिवाया

294

375

379

381

382

383

384

2) कनुमल्ला

00 27

77 00

43 00

64 00

55 00

20 00

85 राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:प्रकाशम

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:कन्दुकूर

727

1 ) पलुकूर

728

729

759

760

762

764

766

767

768

779

3957 GI/09-8

64 00

40 00

19 00

25 01

37 00

86 00 26

25 00

54 00

60 7112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/ KARTIKA 23 , 1931

2 1

1) पलुकूर (निरंतर )

[Part II-Scc . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 3

80 09

गट नं 779 में कोमती गुंटा

780

781

782

783

20 09

24 00 53

28 00

86 04

गट नंबर 783 में तलाव

786

787

788

790

791

792

1057

1058

1061

1063

2) ओगूरू

100

105

111

112

113

30 00 46

04 88

43 00

16 09

00 06

88 00 08

26 00 99

58 00

70 03

84 01

10 00 00

00 30

42 00 02

53 00 74

89 00

80 00 21

1.6 00

13 00

34 00 26

19 00

00 55

18 00

10 00

82 0.0

75 00 44

13 00

78 00 35

00 48

31 7113

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[.भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 1

114

2 ) ओगूरू (निरंतर )

115

116

127

128

129

-135

162

163

173

174

421

422

1536

3 ) कन्दुकूर

1537

1538

1572

1573

1574

1579

1580

1582

1587

1595

1597

1598

1739

4) दोन्डपाडु

15 00 29

55 00

10 00 00

10 0.0.

28 67

04 54

89 00

71 00

00 01

71 00

38 00

69 48

17 00 01

29 00

33 24

71 00

13 00 21

52 00

00 75

55 02

08 00

73 01

43 00 29

93 02

59 00 24

31 00

01 07

75 00 00

97 00 32

66 00

59 00

56 00 05

गट नंबर 131 में रास्ता

5) पालूर

132

133

163

10 00 00

99 00

15 7114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

164

5) पालूर (निरंतर)

169

173

180

182

185

187

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) |

75 00 89

73 00 32

15 00 17

32 00

00 06

59 00 34

जिला: प्रकाशम

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: उलवपाडु

1 ) आत्माकूरू

377

378

381

428

431

2) भीमवरम

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

71 01 26

27 00 46

73 00

26 00

00 40

80 00

88 00 78

02 00 00

18 00

45 00

61 00

78 01

48 00 58

74 00

गट नंबर 267 में मन्नेर नदी

271

272

273

276

277

284

285

286

303

304

305

85 00

14 00

28 00

30 00 76

60 00

00 78

91 00 72

96 00

86 00

गट नं 305 में लच्छी गुंटा

306

308

309

73 00 80

82 7115

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

3) डी

358

359

360

361

367

368

369

374

375

376

392

396

397

398

400

401

404

406

5 3.

65 00

85 00

36 00

63 00

41 00

89 04

59 00 49

84 32

83 00

12 00

06 00

83 00

75 00

1-3 09

64 00

57 00 36

10 00 00

75 00 24

80 00 09

00 06

85 00

96 00 42

70 00

37 00

23 00

95 00 00

85 00

91 00

90 00

35 7116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKΑ 23 , 1931

407

3) बददेपूडी (निरंतर)

411

412

590

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

5. 00

35 00

05 00

47 00

जिला:प्रकाशम

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:गुडलूर

252

1 ) कोत्तपेटा

253

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 18

33 00

61 00 02

गट नंवर 253 में नाला

254

255

256

276

277

278

279

694

2) गुडलूर

695

719

724

725

729

834

837

839

840

842

855

866

867

868

873

895

896.

897

909

914

915

918

926

3) अम्मवारी पालेम

80 01

12 00

10 00 03

03 00

91 00

60 00

51 00

86 00

53 05

40 00

00 93

34 00 45

11 00

17 00

58 00

10 00

12 00

19 00

82 00

00 00 02

59 00

81 00 09

84 00

45 00 58

44 00 59

65 00 45

52 00

27 00

33 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/ कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

3) अम्मवारी पालेम (निरंतर)

100

101

102

104

105

106

107

131

133

136

137

13.8

147

228

229

230

231

233

7117 4

5 3

00 61

37 34

91 42

28 00

20 00

99 00

04 00

25 00 08

24 00

09 00 06

25 00 46

78 00

48 00

16 01

64 00

21 00

29 00

85 00

25 00

99 00 00

14 00

01 7118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

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

235

86 3) अम्मवारी पालेम (निरंतर)

243

244

[फा. सं. एल-14014/31/2009 जी.पी. ।

के.के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th October , 2009

S. O. 3091.- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from tap off point of Kakinada- Hyderabad - Uran - Ahmedabad trunk gas pipeline at Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh of M/ s . Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited to consumers in various parts ofthe country , Vijayawada - Nellore- Chennai 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 is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date of which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri M.A. Gaffar , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastrue- ture Limited , House No. 59-1-18 /3 , Opp Road to Maries Stella college , Bus route No. 5, Ramachandra Nagar , Vijayawada - 520008 , Krishna District , Andhra Pradesh State .

7119

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Schedule

District : Prakasam Mandal/Tehsii / Taluk: Tangutur

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Viliage

2 1

1) Valluru Kavalimaniyam

Road in Gat No.11

State:Andhra Pradesh

Area to be acquired for RoU

C-Are Hec

Are

5 3

28 00

54 00

42 00

88 00

Railway Track in Gat No.32

2) Turupu Nayudupalem

383

3) Tangutur

384

385

386

387

389

390

394

395

397

399

402

403

404

406

407

412

414

415

416

417

418

519

520

542

3957G1/09-9

85 00

72 00

39 00

18 00

26 00

62 00

36 00

21 01

65 00

96 00

82 00

44 00

10 00 7120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/ΚΑΚΓΙΚΑ 23 , 1931

2 3) Tangutur (Contd)

552

553

555

556

557

558

559

562

577

578

581

582

583

584

585

1363

1373

1374

Pond In Gat No. 1374

1378

1380

1381

1383

1387

1388

1389

1390

1408

1409

1410

1416

1417

1418

1425

1447

1449

1450

1465

1484

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) | 3

.00

95 7121

भारत का रामपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्षिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 3) angster(Contd)

5 3

River InGat NO.1487 & 354

District: Prakasem Mandal /Tehell/Taluk: Zarugumalli

1).Vaviletipadu

100

254

256

257

258

269

360

2) K. Bitragunta

361

362

363

364

372

374

375

381

385

387

389

645

647

648

650

651

652

653

682

458

3) Zarugumalli

473

474

475

476

State: Andhra Pradesh 00

62- 00

22 7122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKΑ 23 , 1931

477

3) Zarugumalli (Contd)

483

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

Palaru River in Gat No. 339 and 487

276

4) Nandanavanam

279

354

362

364

365

366

367

369

372

373

374

390

393

397

District: Prakasam Mandal/ Tehsil/ Taluk : Singarayakonda.

293

1 ) Kalikivaya

294

375

379

381

382

383

384

2) Kanumalla

District: Prakasam Mandai /Tehsii /Taluk: Kandukur

727

1) Palukur

728

729

759

760

762

764

766

767

768

779

ΟΙ

State: Andhra Pradesh 00

State:Andhra Pradesh 00

60 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/ कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

7123 3

Komati Gunta in Gat No.779

1) Palukur(Contd)

780

781

782

783

Pond in Gat No.783

786

787

788

790

791

792

1057

1058

1061

1063

2) Oguru

100

105

111

112

113

31 7124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIK.A 23, 1931

2 2) Oguru (Contd)

114

115

116

127

1-28

129

135

162

163

173

174

421

422

1536 3) Kandukur

1537

1538

1572

1573

1574

1579

1580

1582

1587

1595

1597

1598

1739

2 4) Dondapadu

Cart Track in Gat No.131

5) Palur

132

133

163

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

00 7125

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 1

164

5) Palur(Contd)

169

173

180

182

185

187

District: Prakasam Mandal/Teheil/Taluk :Ulawapadu

1) Atmakuru

377

378

381

428

431

Manneru River inGat No.267 2) Bhimavaram

271

272

273

276

277

284

285

286

303

304

305

Lachi Gunta in Gat No.305

306

308

309

State:Andhra Pradesh 01

78 .

00 7126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

2 3) Baddepudi

358

359

360

361

367

368

369

374

375

376

392

396

397

398

400

401

404

406

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

90 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931.

| भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

407 3) Baddepudi ( Contd)

411

412

590

District: Prakasam

Mandal/Tehsii /Taluk :Gudiur

252 1).Kothapeta

253

Nala in Gat No.253

254

255

256

276

277

278

279

694 2) Gudlur

695

719

724

725

729

834

837

839

840

842

855

866

867

868

873

895

896

897

909

914

915

918

926

1 3) Ammavari Palem

3957Gl/09-10

7127 4

State: Andhra Pradesh 00

12. 00

00 7128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23. 1931

3) Ammavari Palem ( Contd)

100

101

102

104

105

106

107

131

133

136

137

138

147

228

229

230

231

233

235

243

244

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

[ F. No. L- 14014/31/2009-G.P. ] K.K.SHARMA , Under Secy.

7129

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3092.- भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या एल-14014/19/2006- जी०पी० तारीख 27 जून, 2008 जो कि भारत के राजपुत्र में दिनांक 01 जुलाई, 2006 को का० आ० संख्या 2506 द्वारा प्रकाशित हुई थी. उसमें आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए श्री विद्या शंकर सिंह, पी.सी.एस. को श्री बीरेन्द्र कुमार गुप्ता, पी.सी.एस. के स्थान पर दिनांक 06 अक्टूबर, 2009 (पूर्वान्ह) से सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया जाता है ।

[फा. सं. एल 14014/19/2006- जी.पी . | स्नेह पी. मदान, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th November, 2009

S. O. 3092. In partial modification of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas NO , L- 14014/19/2006-G.P . dated the 27th June , 2006, published in the Gazette of India on 01st July, 2006 , vide S.O. No. 2506 , Shri Vidya Shankar Singh , PCS is hereby appointed as Competent Authority , in place of Shri Birender Kumar Gupta, PCS, w.e.f 06-10-2009 ( FN) .

[F. No. L -14014/19/2006-G.P. ] S.P.MADAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3093.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1715 दिनांक 19.06.09, 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 सलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील बरवाला जिला हिसार राज्य हरियाणा की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी,

और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 28.08.2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी,

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

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

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

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा । 7130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/ KARTIΚΑ 23 , 1931

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

तहसील : बरवाला

जिला : हिसार

राज्य: हरियाणा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

वर्गमीटर

एयर

संख्या

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6)

(7)

194

1. पाबड़ा

195

196

197

9/1

198

18/1

18/2

23/1

23/2

237

19.

7131

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

238

239

246

5/1

5/2

6/2

247

14/1

14/2/2

248

283

(7) (6)

65 12

01 01

25 00

62 10

15 13

54 03

66 13

31 05

25 00

62 10

75 00

66 13

25 01

08 07

27 02.

25 00

85 08

91 13

02 02

14 12

55 04

84 07

77 01

14 12

01 01

80 04

66 13

25 00

60 08

16 14

80 07

31 05

16 7132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(5)

283

00 .

284

10/1

285

298

299

14/1

14/2

16/2

300

325

21/2

326

13/1

Sec . 3 ( ii ) | [Part II

(6)

(7) 05

81 08

85 12

90 00

75 11

63 00

75 02

78 12

90 12

65 02

02 00

25 10

37 12

90 03

03 12

39 00

75 12

14 08

60 05

06 13

91 05

31 10

12 05

81 02

78 09

86 05

81 07

59 06

57 00

25 09

86 05

81 04

04 11

38 02

53 7133

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(2) (3)

(4) (1)

13/2

326

24/2

25/1

25/2

343

344

368

19/1

23.

5/1

369

5/2

387

5/1.

6/1

6/2

7 (6)

(7) 10

03 03

50 00

18 15

50 00

61 01

27 02

91 13

63 02

07 06

86 09

84 07

62 10

56 05

02 01

39 12

25 00

12 10

03 03

61 09

54 03

31 05

25 00

86 09

27 02 7134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23. 1931 (1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(5)

387

15/1

15/2

388

21/2

411

22/1

23/1

23/2

412

8/1

8/2

17/1

17/2

432

456

रास्ता [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (6)

(7) 00

25 08

09 05

56 00

25 13

66 11

89 01

51 09

36 12

39 10

62 00

25 02

27 00

50 06

57 07

08 01

01 06

07 04

30 00

75 13

66 12

39 03

28 02

53 00

25 13

91 00

25 10

12 03

54 10

37 03

03 10

75 00

13 09

10 01

01 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

(2)

(4)

(5)

21/1

456

21/2

457

476

1/1

1/2

7135 (6)

(7)

09 08

03 03

78 02

13 11

85 08

51 05

06 06

10/1/1

00 03.

10/1/2

11/2

500

501

502

523

00 3967G1/09-11

81 05

77 01

55 04

18 01

01 10

61 09

26 01

80 04

91 13

60 08

50 00

90 06

26 01

42 14

50 00

87 10

10 09 7136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(5)

523

15/1

15/2

524

20/1

20/2

20/3

22/1

22/3

23/1

543

23/1

544

3/1

3/2

14/2/1

15/1

1.5/2

15/3

572

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

(7) 00

75 13

66 05

81 00

25 12

39 04

80 00

$75 09

86 00

25 000

75 09

36 05

06 02

27 03

79 06

57 00

25 02

27 03

79 13

91 00

$25 12

14 04

27 02

04 09

86 00

25 01

01 15

18 01

77 01

01 12

14 01

01 01

77 00

25 10

37 07

59 09

10 7137

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

572

15/1

15/2

11/2

573

रास्ता

22/1

587

588

621

1/1

622

(7) (6)

60 08

50 00

13 11

25 00

63 11

31 05

26 01

25 00

08 07

57 06

16 07

16 14

28 03

14 12

75 00

86 09.

75 00

60 08

31. 05

25 00

12 10

14 00

25 01

25 00

87 10

39 12

26 01

40 13

33 07

90 12

57 06 7138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

623

631

3/2

4/1

4/2

7/2

632

810

833

846

859

862

864/2

876

1166

1168

1171

1175

1176

1177

1190

1218

1224

1230

1238

1254

3467

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

(7) 03

28 10

37 12

90 01

01 00

75 13

15 03

28 06

83 00

25 13

66 03

28 06

83 07

33 13

91 03

03 06

32 00

25 01

77 01

51 03

03 01

77 01

77 02

02 02

02 00

75 01

51 00

75 00

75 03

79 03

03 01

01 01

01 00

75 00

75 02

78 7139

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14 , 2009/ कार्तिक 23, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(2) (3)

(1)

(4)

3468

3484

3522

3573

3575

3631

3643

3673

3674

21/1

126

2. ईश्रहेडी

17/1

17/2

24/1

24/2

1/1

1/2

9/1

नाला

9/2

10/1

16/1

16/2

21/1

21/2

00 (6)

53 02

53 01

26 01

51 01

77 01

25 00

85 08

03 03

01 01

80 13

27 02

04 04

01 03

33 07

26 05

31 01

63 11

34 08

65 01

32 06

50 00

30 04

60 08 7140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23. 1931

(1)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

18/1

18/2

23/2

23/3

007

2/1

19:

7/1

7/2

00.

2/1

8/2

9/1/2

9/2

9/3

10:

17"

00 00

317

00% 00

00 [Part 11---Scc, 3 ( ii ) | (6) (7) 00

25 13

91 03:

79 00:

25 00

25 10

87 10

62 00

03 03

16 14

04 02

53 14

16 02

27 10

12 10:0 62 01

26 00

25 04

04 00

25 10

12 09

61 00

25 03

79 12

90 00

25 00

50 02

36 09

90 00

50 13

91 01

51 07

08 07

39 12 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(4) (1)

(2) (3)

3/1

125

3. भैप्पी पावशाहपुर

3/2

4/1

4/2

5/2

7/1

7/2

16/2

17/1

17/2

11/2

20/1

20/2

7141

(7)

(6)

(5)

78 00

25 00

888

91 00

51 00

26 00

63 00

28 00

03 00

04 7142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4) تو

7/1

7/2

4/1

4/2

5/1

5/2

6/1

6/2

12/1

12/2

नाला

260

275

128

4. बरवाला

147

रास्ता

[Part 11 -Sec . 3 ( ii ) f (5)

(7)

(6)

26 00

62 00

25 00

54 00

16 00

25 00

84 00

27 00

62 00

27 00

25 00

80.

90 00

57 00

54 00

30 00

09 00

04 00

77 00

51 00

77 00

30 00

04 7143

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

22/1

147

148

2/1.

रास्ता

8/1

रास्ता

2/1

152

2/2

4/1

7/1

7/2

153

190

191

00 3957G1/09-12

(6)

(7)

53 02

61 09

30 04

12 10

34 08

25 00

31 05

75 00

44 04

13 11

25 00

30 04

66 13

25 00

75 00

61 09

31 05

53 02

01 01

42 14

25 00

79 03

16 14

25 00

90 12

31 05

08 07

33 07 7144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :'NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(4)

(5)

12/1

10:1

12/2

13/1

19/1

192

6/1

6/2

204

6/3

204

14/1

205

12/1

.00

18/2

20/11

20/2

25/2

238

00.

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

85 04

80 01

51 00

25 10

87 12

65 00

75 02

78 12

12 10

12 00

75 00

66 03

79 07

08 13

66 03

28 00

50 12

00 10

12 00

25 01

01 11

13 10

12 00

25 06

57 13

391 02

53 000

75 107

50 13 40 01

01 12

39 11

02 02 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23; -1931:

1719

122

CET

CHAL

CHOD

25/1

00:

सस्ता

24年

100

रेलवे लाइन

7/1

712

9/2

00:

283

CHO

2345

8/2

9/2

7145 122

14 122

59 12

30 1

39 12

30 10

038

500

25 08

255 10

755 13

13 12

07 07

40 14 7146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/ΚΑΚΤΙΚΑ 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

264

12/2

13/1

13/2

265

24/1

24/2

291

रास्ता

23/1

23/2

292

रास्ता

293

4/1

4/2

00 [ Part 11 Sec . 3 ( ii )| (6)

(7) 01

77 00

50 11

38 12

90 04

55 08

09 00

25 00

25 09

61 12

14 03

79 12

90 12

14 12

50 02

78 13

40 01

77 03

03 03

79 12

39 08

85 04

55 02

53 13

40 07

33 03

03 14

42 06

83 05

81 00

25 09

61 00

75 00

12 00

13 10

12 7147

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 193.1

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(2) (3)

(1)

324

15/1

रास्ता

325

11/2

18/2

रास्ता

347

10/1

रास्ता

348

5/1

5/2

7/1

7/2

15/1

384

00.

(7) (6)

25 00

42 14

01 01

67 00

75 00

01 01

75 00

03 03

25 00

90 01

26 01

01 01

25 00

78 02

92 14

25 00

42 14

75 00

50 00

34 08

61 09

09 08

63 11.

7148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(5)

(4)

402

9/1

12/1

12/2

17/2

19 00

25/2

403

4/2

437

438

रास्ता

19/1

24/1

24/2

24/3/2

25/1

25/2

00 [Part11-Sec .3 ( ii ) ] (6)

25 11

63 03

54 03

79 06

57 00

25 00

25 13

91 03

03 02.

78 14

42 00

25 05

56 12

14 03

03 02

27 14

16 01

01 00

25 00

25 13

66 01

26 01:

51 14

92 00

75 01

01 14

92 01

26 00

75 03

03 11

38:

50. 00

25 00

75 [ भाग II-खष्ठ 3(ii)]

7149

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009 /कार्तिक 23 , 1931

(1)

(4)

(5)

451

12/1

12/2

17/1

17/2

23/2

रास्ता

452

5/1

5/2

6/1

2487

रास्ता

488

9/2

17/2/1

17/2/2

18/1

18/2

5/1 01

77 01

42 14

25 00

86 00

77 01

51 01

40 13

25 00

15 13

77 01

26 00

63 11

02 00

25 00

63 11

26 03

79 03

54 12

85 04

55 D4

25 00

38 11

07 06

-00

75 401

44 12 7150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14. 2009 / KARTIΚΑ 23. 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

5/2

496

6/1

6/2

495

10/2

19/1

19/2

23/1

538

8/1

8/2

8/3

539

951

963

982

989

1012

1014

1029

1031

1032

1109

1121

1123

1134

2704

2728

2730

2791 Part 11 See Sin

(7) (6)

50 00

25 08

60 03

79 12

65 00

50 06

57 05

81 13

25 00

53 02

62 04

04 01

07 06

25 00

36 09

90 06

83 05

31 01

01 05

31 01

26 01

01 01

01 00

75 01

26 01

01 01

01 04

80 03

03 04

04 02

27 01

01 01

01 04

04 00

75 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

2792

2799

2808

5. बधावड़

16/1

11/2

20/1

20/2

23 3957G1/09-13

7151

(7)

(6)

(5)

81 00

84 00

28 00

36 4

25 00

53 00

10-

00 7152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23. 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

24/1

24/2

88 00

8080

00 88

7/1

00 [Part 11 Scc . 3 ( ii ) | (6)

(7) 00

75 10

12 00

25 12

39 01

01 00

75 12

14 12

39 01

01 01

26 12

65 11

63 01

77 00

25 08

09 03

03 13

15 10

37 00

25 00

25 09

36 13

40 02

78 03

03 13

66 08

60 03

79 08

09 13

66 09

61 05

81 11

13 12

90 00

75 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/ कार्तिक 23, 1931 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(4)

(0)

(2) (3)

(1)

8/1

9/1

9/2

17/2

23/2

24/1

24/2

11/2

19/2

20/1

21/2

22/1

3/1

3/2

4/1/1

4/1/2

4/2

7/1

7/2/1

7.153

(7)

14 12

33 07

07 08

15 13

26 01

33 07

81 05

01 01

13 11

76 01

77 01

39 12

58 05

60 08

25 00

36 09

77 01

25 00

91 13

28 03

12 10

25 00

85 08

51 01

77 01

08 07

06 05

27 02

38 11

25 00

01 01 7154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

103

रास्ता

23/2

104

128

129

10/2

00.

209

210

220

230/1

232

233

235/1

240

243

00 [Part II Sec . 3 ( ii )| (6) (7) 09

86 04

30 00

50 13

66 01

77 12

65 07

08 07

33 12

65 13

40 60

10 00

25 04

80 09

36 04

30 01

77 00

25 01

01 13

40 00

25 04

55 08

85 08

85 90

07 12

14 04

04 04

30 05

06 01

77 01

77 04

30 02

02 02

27 00

75 01

26 7455

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931 '

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

6. ढाड

7/1

15/1

1/1

1/2

19/1

7/1

रास्ता

(7) (6)

02 02

30 04

37 10

57 06

60 08

40 13

25 00

87 10

02 02

87 10

57 06

06 05

09 08

85 08.

55 04

39 12

75 00

25 00

26 01

67 14

40 13

03 03

28 03

26 01

63 11

30 04

56 05

86 09

36 09

25 00 7156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14. 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

17/1

17/2

25/1

रास्ता

21/1

21/2

22/1

23/2

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

(7) 04

80 14

16 04

30 08

85 13

15 01

01 07

08 09

10 07

84 08

09 09

36 01

26 12

65 09

61 03

54 13

40 04

55 00

25 11

89 06

57 09

36 06

32 02

78 04

30 01

51 11

63 00

50 00

25 09

36 05

81 11

89 00

25 00

25 7157

भास्त का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

2/1

2/2

सड़क

14/1

6/2

रास्ता

(7) (6)

01 01

81 05

59 07

78 02

26 01

79 03

67 14

75 00

25 00

14 12

84 07

85 08

03 03

67 14

75 00

54 03

67 14

01 01

87 10

26 01

57 06

86 09

60 08

31 05

65 12

15 13

77 01

32 06

66 13

56 05

54 03

40 13

09 08

25 00 7158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23. 1931

(1)

(2) (3)

(4)

रास्ता

6/1

नहर

6/2

15 7. ब्याना खेड़ा

रास्ता

117

20/1

20/2

23/1

23/2

24/1

24/2

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

36 00

75 00

78 00

67 00

01 00

79 00

04 00

07 00

75 00

50 00

89 00

65 00

01 00

90 00

26 00

02 00

25 00

36 00

33 00

66 00

55 00

56 00

01 00

40 00

27 00

02 00

04 00

86 00

75 00

08 00

81 00

83 00

51 00

25 7159 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(7)

(5) (6)

(2) (3)

(4)

118

नाला

119

4/1

00.

122.

123

14.

124

135

001416

0000

0016

3957G1/09-14 7160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 / ΚΑΚΤΙΚΑ 23 , 1931 [ Part II Sec .3 ( ii) |

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

(7)

(5)

135

172

174

197

199

[ फा. सं. आर. 31015/16/2009 ओ.आर. ।।

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 12th November, 2009

S. O. 3093.-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. 1715 dated the 10 June 2009 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum andMinerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Rightof 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 Barwelts, District Hisar, in Haryana State;

Andwhereas, copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on26.08.09.

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

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right ofuser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification shouldbe acquined;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby 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 vasting in the Central Government, vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

7361 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

SCHEDALLE

District : HISAR

Tehsil : BARWALA

Hadbest

Name of Village

No.

Khasra 1 Killa No. Hocton Are

(1)

1.PABRA

8184853

195

04 2

196

8 08

197

288 09

88888 25

123-

9/1

03 03

13 40

196

18/1

18/2

5 31

23/1

23/2

281

00 7162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 23. 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

238

239

246

5/1

5/2

6/2

247

14/1

14/2/2

248

283

00 [Part 11- Sec . 3 (ii ) ] (6) (7) 12

65 01

01 00

25 10

62 13

15 01

26 03

54 13

66 07

33 .05

31 00

25 10

62 00

66 13

25 07

08 02

27 00

75 00

25 08

85 13

91 02

02 12

14 04

55 07

84 01

77 12

14 01

01 04

80 13

66 00

25 08

60 14

16 04

80 07

59 05

16 14 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(4)

(5)

(2) (3)

(1)

283

284

10/1

285

298

299

14/1

14/2

16/2

300

21/2

325

326

13/1

7163

(7) (6)

81 05

85 08

90 00

63 11

75 00

90 12

02 02

25 00

37 10

03 03

39 12

14 12

60 08

06 05

91 13

31 05

12 10

81 05

86 09

81 05

59 06

25 00

86 09

81 05

04.

38 11

53 02 7164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14. 2009 /KARTIKA 23. 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(5)

(4)

326

13/2

24/2

25/1

25/2

343

344

368

19/1

369

5/1

5/2

387

5/1

6/1

6/2

00 [Part II-Scc . 3 ( ii ) | (6)

(2) 10

03 03

50 15

18 00

25 00

50 09

61 01

26 02

27 13

91 11

63 02

78 06

86 09

84 07

62 10

56 02

02 01

26 12

39 00

25 13

40 00

25 10

12 03

03 09

54 03

31 05

42 00

25 01

26 09

86 02

27 7165

भारतःका राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग [I- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

(5)

(3)

15/1

387

15/2

388

21/2

411

22/1

23/1

23/2

412

8/1

8/2

17/1

17/2

432

456

Cart track (6)

(7)

25 00

09 08

25 00

66 13

89 01

36 09

39 12

62 10

25 00

27 02

50 00

57 06

08 07

01 01

07 06

30 04

75 00

66 13

28 03

53 02

25 00

12 10

37 10

03 10

75 00

13 11

10 09

01 01 7166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14. 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

456

21/1

21/2

457

476

1/1

1/2

10/1/1

10/1/2

11/2

500

501

502

523

00 [Part 11 Scc . 3 ( ii ) | (6)

(7) 08

09 03

03 02

78 11

13 11

13 08

85 01

51 05

06 06

07 03

28 03

03 05

81 01

77 00

25 04

55 15

18 01

12 10

61 04

30 01

26 04

80 13

91 08

60 08

85 00

50 12

90 06

32 01

26 14

42 14

42 05

31 00

50 10

87 09

10 7167

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

(5)

(3)

(1)

(2)

523

15/1

15/2

20/1

524

20/2

20/3

22/1

22/3

23/1

543

23/1

544

3/1

3/2

14/2/1

15/1

15/2

15/3

16.

572

6 3957G1/09-15

(7) (6)

75 13

66 05

81 00

25 12

39 04

75 00

86 09

25 00

36 09

06 05

27 02

79 03

57 06

25 00

27 02

91 13

25 00

30 04

27 02

04. 04

86 00

01 01

18 15

77 01

01 01

77 01

37 10

59 07

10 09 7168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

572

15/1

15/2

11/2

573

20 [Part 11 -Sec . 3( ii ) | (6)

(7) 08

60 00

50 04

13 11

25 00

63 05

Carttrack

22/1

587

588

621

1/1

622

26 01

04 04

25 100

08 06

57 14

16 07

59 14

16 03

28 12

14 00

75 09

75 00

60 08

31 00

25 10

12 12

14 00

25 01

26 00

25 10

87 12

39 01

26 13

40 07

90 12

57 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

623

631

3/2

4/1

4/2

7/2

632

18.

810

833

846

859

862

864/2

876

1166

1168

1171

1175

1176

1177

1190

1218

1224

1230

1238

1254

3467

7169

(7) (6)

28 03

90 12

01 01

75 00

15 13

28 03

83 06

25 00

66 13

28 03

83 06

33 07

91 13

03 03

32 06

25 00

77 01

51 01.

77 01

02 02

75 00

51 01

75 00

79 03

03 03

01 01

75 00

78 02 717 )

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14. 2009 / KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(2) (3)

(4)

3468

3484

3522

3573

3575

3631

3643

3673

3674 2. ISERHERI

126

21/1

17/1

17/2

24/1

24/2

1/1

1/2

9/1

Nala

9/2

10/1

16/1

16/2

21/1

21/2

Part II See S (5) (6)

(7) 00

53 00

26 00

51 00

02 00

77 00

51 00

25 00

01 00

85 00

03 00

01 00

80 00

15 00

27 00

13 00

04 00

01 00

54 00

26 00

31 00

63 00

34 00

65 00

51 00

32 00

50 00

77 00

30 00

84 00

60 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931 | भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(2) (3)

(1)

18/1

18/2

23/2

23/3

2/1

7/1

7/2

2/1

8/2

9/1/2

9/2

9/3

7171 (6)

(7)

25 00

91 13.

25 00

87 -10

62 10

25 00

03 03

16 14

04 04

53 14

16 02

27 10

12 10

26 01

25 00

12 09

25 00

79 12

90 00

50 00

78 02

36 09

90 00

91 13

51 01

59 07

39.

7172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(3)

(2)

14)

125

3/1

3. BHAINI BADSHAHPUR

3/2

4/1

4/2

5/2

7/1

7/2

16/2

17/1

17/2

11/2

20/1

20/2

[Part II Sec . 3(ii ) | (5)

(7)

01 00

77 00

78 00

28 00

66 00

25 00

02 00

08 00

07 00

91 00

28 00

75 00

50 00

25 00

84 00

26 00

25 00

83 00

28 00

91 00

30 00

91 00

04 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/ कार्तिक 23 , 1931 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

(2)

(3)

(5)

7/1

7/2

4/1

4/2

5/1

5/2

6/1

6/2

12/1

12/2

Nala

260

275

147

128

4. BARWALA

7173 (0)

(7)

26 01

09 08

62 00

25 03

54 14

25 00

27 02

75 00

62 02

27 00

25 00

80 12

90 06

57 02

39 12

50 03

30 04

66 13

77 01

09 08

04 04

77 01

61 08

77 01

CartTrack

30 04 7174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

147

22/1

148

2/1

CartTrack 00

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

(7) (6)

53 09

61 04

30 10

12 01

CartTrack

8/1

00 08

25 00

55 05

CartTrack

2/1

152

2/2

4/1

7/1

7/2

153

190

191

00 00

75 16

44 04

30 11

13 00

30 04

25 00

75 09

61 05

53 02

01 14

42 00

25 01

77 03

79 14

16 00

25 12

90 05

31 07

30 04

33 [ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

12/1

191

12/2

13/1

19/1

192

6/1

6/2

204

6/3

204

14/1

205

12/1

18/2

20/1/1

20/2

25/2

239

23 3957G1/09-16

7175 (6) (7) 08

80 04

51 00

25 10

87 12

65 00

75 02

78 12

90 10

12 10

25 00

66 13

08 07

66 13

28 00

50 12

90 10

12 00

01 01

13 10

12 00

25 06

91 13

53 02

75 00

40 13

01 12

89 11

02 7176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIΚΑ 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

240

CartTrack 00

25/1

CartTrack 00

241

Railway Line 00

7/1

7/2

9/1

9/2

CartTrack 00

242

263

264

8/2

9/1

9/2

00 [Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] (6)

(7) 12

14 01

01 12

14 02

02 07

59 12

90 11

38 01

26 04

55 01

01 12

39 00

25 15

18 04

30 04

30 10

37 02

02 03

54 00

50 01

77 00

25 08

60 00

25 10

87 00

75 11

13 12

90 06

07 07

08 00

75 00

25 11

13 13

40 7177

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(1)

(3)

(2)

(5)

(4)

264

12/2

13/1

13/2

265

24/1

24/2

291

CartTrack 00

23/1

23/2

292

CartTrack

4/1

293

4/2

00 (6)

(7) 01

77 00

50 11

38 12

90 04

09 08

25 00

61 12

14 03

90 12

14 12

50 02

78 13

40 01

77 03

03 03

79 12

39 08

55 04

40 13

33 07

03 03

42 14

81 05

61 09

12 00

13 00

12 10 7178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

324

15/1

CartTrack 00

325

11/2

18/2

CartTrack 00

CartTrack

347

10/1

CartTrack 00

348

5/1

5/2

7/1

7/2

15/1

384

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

(7) 00

25 14

42 01

01 14

67 00

75 00

75 01

01 00

75 11

89 03

03 00

25 00

25 12

90 01

26 01

01 15

18 01

01 00

25 02

78 01

01 14

92 00

25 00

25 14

42 00

75 00

50 08

34 09

61 08

09 07

08 11

63 7179

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

9/1

402

12/1

12/2

17/2

25/2

4/2

403

437

438

CartTrack

19/1

24/1

24/2

24/3/2

25/1

25/2

(7) (6)

25 00

63 11

54 03

79 03

57 06

25 00

91 13

03 03

78 02

42 14

25 00

56 05

14 12

03 03

27 02

16 14

01 01

25 00

66 13

26 01

51 01

92 14

75 00

01 01

92 14

26 01

75 00

03 03

38 11

50 00

25 00

75 00 7180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/ KARTIKA 23. 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

451

12/1

12/2

17/1

17/2

23/2

CartTrack 00

452

5/1

5/2

6/1

487

5 Part 11 Scc . 3 ( ii ) |

(7) (6)

77 01

77 14

25 00

66 00

25 01

26 01

40 13

25 00

15 13

77 01

26 00

63 11

02 02

25 00

63 11

CartTrack

488

9/2

17/2/1

17/2/2

18/1

18/2

4/1

496

5/1

00 01

79 03

90 12

65 04

30 04

50 00

07 06

26 01

14 7181

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[भाम II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(5)

(2) (3)

(4) (1)

5/2

496

6/1

6/2

10/2

495

19/1

19/2

23/1

538

8/1

8/2

8/3

539

951

963

982

989

1012

1014

1029

1031

1032

1109

1121

1123

1134

2704

2728

2730

2791 (6)

(7)

50 00

25 00

60 08

79 03

65 12

50 00

81 05

15 13

25 00

53 02

62 10

04 04

51 01

07 06

28 03

25 00

36 09

90 12

83 06

01 01

31 05

26 01

01 01

75 00

26 01

01 01

03 03

27 02

01 01

04 04

75 00:

7182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23. 1931

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

2792

2799

2808 5. BADHAWAR

16/1

11/2

20/1

20/2

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

(6)

(5)

(7) 00

26 00

01 00

33 00

57 00

66 00

84 00

65 00

30 00

25 00

28 00

40 00

36 00

25 00

12 00

66 00

25 00

53 00

40 00

37 00

25 00

62 00

77 00

90 00

90 7183

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(5)

(2)

(4) (1)

(3)

24/1

24/2

7/1

00 3957GI/09-17

(7) (6)

75 10

25 00

39 12

75 00

14 12

01 01.

26 12

63 11

77 01

25 00

09 08

03 03

37 10

25 00

36 09

40 02

78 03

66 13

60 08

79 08

66 13

61 09

81 05

13 11

90 12

75 00 7184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

8/1

9/1

9/2

17/2

23/2

24/1

24/2

11/2

19/2

20/1

21/2

22/1

3/1

3/2

4/1/1

4/1/2

4/2

7/1

7/2/1

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

(7) 12

14 01

33 07

07 13

15 01

26 07

33 05

81 01

01 11

13 01

76 01

77 12

39 05

56 08

25 00

36 01

77 01

77 00

25 00

25 13

91 03

28 10

12 00

50 00

25 00

85 01

51 01

77 07

08 05

06 02

27 11

38 00

25 01

01 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/ कार्तिक 23 , 1931 [भाग - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

103

CartTrack

23/2

00 00 88

104

128

10/2

129

209

210

220

230/1

232

233

235/1

240

243

7185 09

30 04

66 13

77 01

65 12

08 07

33 07

65 12

40 13

10 09

80 04

36 09

30. 04

77 01

25 00

01 01

40 13

555 06

0148 04

308

06 05

77 01

30 04

02 02

75 00

26 01 7186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(2) (3)

(4) 6.DHAD

7/1

15/1

1/1

1/2

103

18:

19/1

345

7/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)

(6)

(5)

(7) 00

02 00

30 00

37 00

57 00

60 00

40 00

02 00

57 00

06 00

39 00

85 00

39 00

75 00

26 00

25 00

40 00

03 00

CartTrack

12 00

26 00

63 00

30 00

56 00

36 00

25 7187 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

(7)

(6)

(3)

(4)

(2)

(5)

(1)

25.

17/1

17/2

25/1

CartTrack 00

21/1

21/2

22/1

23/2 7188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

2/1

2/2

Road

14/1

6/2

3 ( ii ) | [Part II-Sec .

(6)

(7) 01

01 05

81 07

59 02

78 01

26 03

79 14

67 00

75 00

25 12

14 07

84 08

85 03

03 14

67 00

75 03

54 14

67 01

01 10

CartTrack

24 01

26 06

57 09

86 08

60 05

31 12

65 00

25 13

15 01

77 07

08 06

32 13

56 05

54 13

40 08

09 00

25 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

7189

भारत का राजषत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

(2)

(4) (1)

(5)

(3)

CartTrack 00

6/1

Canal

6/2

00 7. BIYANA KHERA

CartTrack 00

CartTrack

117

20/1

20/2

23/1

23/2

24/1

24/2

00 (5)

(7) 09

36 00

75 02

78 14

67 01

01 03

79 04

04 06

07 00

75 00

50 11

89 12

65 01

01. 12

90 01

26 02

02 00

36 09

33 07

66 04

55 05

56 01

01 13

40 02

27 02

02 04

86 09

75 07

08 05

81 06

51 01

25 7190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

118

Nala

119

4/1

122

123

124

135

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

(7) 13

15 02

27 00

50 11

89 11

63 00

50 02

02 13

15 09

61 03

03 01

01 00

25 09

36 00

25 10

37 12

14 00

50 01

51 00

25 10

90 12

27 13

66 08

85 14

42 04

80 03

54 12

90 03

03 12

39 01

77 02

27 14

16 00

25 00

25 16

19 7191

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/ कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5) (6)

(7)

135

172

174

197

199

[F. No. R- 31015/16/2009-O.R. - II ] A.GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3094.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में रमन मंडी से हरियाणा राज्य में बहादुरगढ़ तक, पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा 'जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्कमण परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

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

3957Gl/09-18 7192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

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

अनुसूची

तहसील : फतेहाबाद

जिला: फतेहाबाद

राज्य: हरियाणा

खसरा/ किला

गाँवका नाम

वक्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

मुस्ततिल संखमा

संख्या

एयर

संख्या

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5) (6) (7) 1...नामपुर

107

5/3

03 2. नाोडी

180

18/1

18/2

262

21/1

877

3. भुमा

3832

186

578

65 4. बैजलपुर

581

629

6/1

6/2

15/1

15/2

16/1

[ फा. सं. आर. 31015/39/2009 ओ.आर. ।।

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 13th November, 2009

S. O. 3094. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh", should be laid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

7193 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

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

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

SCHEDULE

District : FATEHABAD

Tehsil : FATEHABAD

Halsast

Name of Village

No.

Killa No. Hectare

(1)

5/3

03 107

1. NAGPUR

2. NADHAURI

18/1

18/2

262

00 00

21/1

03.

877

3. BHUNA

OD 00

3832

570

4. BALALPUR

21 22

00 00

09 7194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )|

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

629

6/1

6/2

15/1

15/2

16/1

[F. No. R-31015/39/2009- O.R. - II ] A.GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3095.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1944 दिनांक 13.07.09, 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 फतेहाबाद जिला फतेहाबाद 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 02.09.2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी,

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

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

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

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

अनुसूची

तहसील : फतेहाबाद

जिला: फतेहाबाद

राज्य: हरियाणा गाँव कानाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

क्षेत्रफल एयर

हदबस्त संख्या

खसरा/ किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(7)

(6)

107

81 1. नागपुर

10/1

10/2

2/1

3/1

-3/2

4/2

63 7196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIΚΑ 23 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

15/1

16/2

21/1

9/1

9/2

18/1

18/2

रास्ता

7/2/2

00 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) | (6) (7) 02

53 13

15 00

25 05

56 07

84 11

89 01

01 12

14 00

50 01

01 07

59 05

56 00

25 06

07 00

50 05

06 10

62 00

75 09

61 03

28 13

15 00

25 05

60 08

75 12

90 01

51 12

39 08

85 04

80 00

25 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

(4)

(5)

(2)

(3)

(1)

8/1

8/2

5/2

12/1

12/2

00.

23/1

23/2

24/2

11/2

22/1

100

15/1

15/2

7197

(7) (6)

50 00

65 12

86 09

78 02

62 10

25 00

26 01

81 01

01 12

01 01

03 03

60 08

85 08

25 00

15 00

31 05

83 10

87 05

51 01.

34 02

13 11

04 04

12 10

07 06

07 06 7198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

122

3/1

3/2

6/1

6/2

123

10/2

128

12/1

12/2

129

153

4/1

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

32 00

25 00

86 00

04 00

59 00

07 00

28 00

25 00

91 00

25 00

75 00

67 00

27 00

01 00

66 00

77 00

31 00

62 00

50 00

57 00

85 00

83 00

13 00

25 00

90 00

28 00

65 00

25 00

30 00

15 00

27 199

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(2)

(3)

(4)

154

11/2

269

273

305

353

366

773

102

134

2. फूल

135

12/2

24/1

25/1

25/2

136

22/1

142

10 3957 GI/09-19

(6) (7) (5)

25 00

50 00

92 00

42 00

75 00

51 00

02 00

55 00

75 00

01.

30 00

13 00

07 00

14. 00

27 00

57 00

89 00

51 00

25 00

00 7200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

142

11/2

1/2

143

176

561

562

564

103

21 3. अलीपुर बरोटा

7/1

9/2

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

01 00

59 00

50 00

38 00

14 00

66 00

33 00

51 00

27 00

01 00

66 00

57 00

85 00

57 00

40 00

57 00

31 00

66 00

62 00

50 00

38 00

53 00

28 00

90 00

25 00

59 7201

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(6) (7)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

16.

21/1

24/1/1

20/1

20/2

00 ,

21/1

21/2

22/1

8/2

16 7202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

18/1

18/2

18/3

103

187

10/2 4. मूथन कलां

2/1

2/2

9/1

9/2

15/1

15/2

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

63 00

83 00

03 00

75 00

او

06 00

75 00

27 00

53 00

02 00

79 00

61 00

53 00

75 $ 00

65 00

10 00

77 00

91 00

09 00

14 00

77 00

75 00

63 00

65 00

08 00

50 00

25 00

7.5 | भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7203

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1/1

1/2

2/1

2/2

10/1

15/1

15/2

16/1

16/2

790/1

1115

3278/1

3286

3288

180

23 5. भूथन खुर्द

4 (5) (6) (7) 00

81 00

65 00

31 00

87 00

28 00

26 00

78 00

75 00

39 00

37 00

25 00

91 00

59 00

00 .

25 00

79 00

28 00

25 00

62 00

56 00

78 00

75 00

25 00

91 00

13 7204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

2/1

2/2

2/3

4/1

00 [Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) | (6) (7) 07

08 06

57 02

53 14

16 00

25 11

38 11

25 07

53 05

31 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

13/2

7205

(7) (6)

56 05

91 13

54 03

57 06

60 08

87 10

25 00

61 09

81 05

10 09

02 02

65 12

06 05

01 01

38 11

65 12

06 00

84 07

90 12

65 12

77 01

75 00

16 14

53 02 7206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

10/2

16/1/2

16/2

20/2

20/3

21/1

21/2

14/1

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

08 00

90 00

25 00

84 00

61 00

25 00

01 00

65 00

03 00

25 00

77 00

50 00

25 00

15 00

57 00

13 00

60 00

28 00

69 00

60 00

38 00

25 00

02 00

16 00

03 00

25 00

90 00

25 60 13 66 00

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

7207

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

(2)

(4)

(3)

108

109

112

114

114/1

121

122

462

6. खेडेवाला

149

7. नाढोडी

150

18 3957G1/09-20

(7) (5) (6)

75 00

26 00

25 00

78 00

62 00

77 00

16 00

25 00

36 00

59 00

03 00

01 00

00 7208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

150

180

181

4/2

184

4/3

185

13/1

13/2

18/1

18/2

213

214

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

7 14

67 00

75 00

25 13

40 04

55 12

25 00

12 72 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/ काशिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

の

(3)

(2)

(1)

214

215

224

888 00

225

13/1

13/2 00

25/4

00 8

226

00 8

246

23 7210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

246

25/1

25/2/1

247

4/2

8/1

8/2

260

261

9/1

9/2

16/1

16/2/1

16/2/2

17/1

262

273

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

42 00

77 00

25 00

33 00

15 00

51 00

09 00

15 00

50 00

32 00

25 00

13 00

12 00

25 00

30 00

03 00

13 00

03 00

86 00

90 00

25 00

10 00

50 00

78 00

02 00

39 00

75 00

79 00

87 7211

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

273

274

14/2

289

290

19/1

19/2

20/1

20/2

294

11/2

295

(7) (6)

61 09

33 07

26 01

67 14

77 01

03 03

25 00

40 13

36 09

09 08

60 08

85 08

34 08

10 09

50 00

01 01

57 06

86 09

04 04

39 12

30 04

39 12

07 06

13 11 7212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

295

308

331

335

344

364

365

366

373

1108

1193

1197/1

1198

229

8. भुना

230

275

276

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

56 00

33 00

03 00

79 00

26 00

01 00

77 00

26 00

51 00

56 00

65 00

79 00

55 00

87 00

56 00

85 00

79 00

28 00

15 00

39 00

51 00

84 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/ कार्तिक 23 , 1931 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(5)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

276

282

4/1

8/1

283

320

321

331

12 00

7213

(7) (6)

10 09

87 10

25 00

26 01

14 12

33 07

34 08

61 06

54 03

87 10

02 02

77 01

91 13

01 01

25 80

13 11

60 08

16 14

33 07

66 13

27 02 7214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

331

रास्ता

367

368

14/1/1

14/1/2

14/2

रास्ता

378

379

रास्ता

417

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

86 00

75 00

25 00

14 00

50 00

87 00

51 00

99 00

50 00

03 00

07 00

01 00

38 00

26 00

90 00

77 00

87 00

25 00

15 00

27 00

86 00

02 00

39 00

28 00

55 00

02 00

63 00

06 00

90 00

25 7215

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

(3)

(1)

418

7/1

7/2

430

4/1

7/1

7/2

16.

431

11/2

470

22/1

471

3 3957G1/09-21

(7) (5) (6)

78 00

80 00

57 00

84 00

81 00

03 00

25 00

01 00

08 00

77 00

01 00

50 00

77 00

92. 00

01 00

26 00

50 00

51 00

25 00

75 00

92 00 7216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

471

487

15/1

15/2

488

11/2

13/2

16/1

नहर

16/2

17/1

18/1

25/2

489

525

21/1

526

2/1/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )|

(6)

(5)

(7) 00

77 00

01 00

92 00

26 00

50 00

92 00

51 00

77 00

42 00

25 00

15 00

78 00

28 00

53 00

36 00

63 00

01 00

65 00

31 00

25 00

50 00

53 00

55 00

14 00

25 00

09 00

33 00

50 00

10 00

81 7217

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

2/1/2

526

8/2

9/1

9/2

14/1

14/2

16/1

25/1

25/2

545

5/1

5/2

1/1

546

1/2

17/2

605

(7) (6)

25 04

55 00

36 09

89 00

25 02

53 01

51 13

15 00

66 13

50 00

50 07

84 06

25 00

90 01

77 04

12 10

34 07

08 08

33 07

25 10

12 02

78 13

15 10

87 00

75 12

39 12

39 7218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 / KARTIKA 23. 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

605

18/1

18/2

606

20/2

21/1

21/2

23/1

628

11/2

00.

नहर

654

8/1

8/2

16/2

25/1

25/2/1

25/2/2

672

12/1

12/2

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

65 00

10 00

50 01

77 07

84 03

03 13

15 03

28 07

08 27

83 07

84 01

01 02

53 10

12 01

01 08

09 04

55 00

75 13

66 02

02 05

56 04

80 01

77 04

30 00

25 13

40 03

54 04

55 06

07 02

78 11

13 00

25 12

90 7219

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(3)

(2)

(5) (1)

(4)

673

5/1

5/2

880

896

1234

3684

3688

3759

3761/1

3774

3800

3805

3831

579

186

9. बैजलपुर

19/1

रास्ता

19/2

1/1

580

1/2

14/1

00 (6) (7)

10 09

50 03

03 02

27 00

75 01

26 01

01 03

03 12

65 05

56 00

50 10

62 11

89 04

55 01

26 00

25 02

02 12

39 02

57 06

36 09

25 01

77 11

13 12

65 03

54 00

38 11 7220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

604

रास्ता

689

6/1/2

6/2

15/1

15/2

16/1/1

690

1/1

705

1/2

2/1

2/2

रास्ता

18/1

18/2

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

25 10

12 12

65 06

07 10

62 07

08 02

53 05

56 08

60 00

25 01

26 12

65 00

75 06

32 06

83. 08

09 05

06 13

15 00

25 01

26 00

75 11

89 00

25 04

04 10

12 00

25 13

91 00

14 12

77 02

53 01

26 06

57 02

02 7221

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

728

729

739

21/1

21/2

740

रास्ता

नहर..

764

14/1/2

10. नहला

14/2

(6) (7) (5)

25 00

38 00

40 00

78 00

53 00

08 00

31 00

79 00

00 7222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23. 1931

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

16/1

16/2

22/1

रास्ता

23/1

00.

23/2

3/1

00 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] (6) (7) 06

57 06

32 03

79. 06

57 10

12 02

78 00

25. 03

80 02

78 00

25 05

81 12

90 12

90 00

25 07

59 13

40 12

65 02

62 10

65 02

53 05

66 08

60 04

55 07

84 13

40 10

75 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

7223 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

रास्ता

12-

16/1

17/1

1492

2113

2115

[ फा. सं. आर. 31015/39/2009 ओ.आर. ।।

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th November, 2009

S. O. 3095.-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. 1944 dated the 13th July 2009, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum andMinerals 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 Rarnan 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 Fatehabad , District Fatehabad, in Haryana State;

Andwhereas, coples of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 02.09.09.

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

3967G1/00-22 7224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[Part 11 -Sec . 3 (ii) | And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied thatthe right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declare 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 .

SCHEDULE

State: HARYANA Tehsil : FATEHABAD

District : FATEHABAD

Area

Nameof Village.

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Hectare Are

Khasra/ Killa No.

Square Metre (1)

(7)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6)

107

81 1. NAGPUR

10/1

10/2

6 7225

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

2/1

3/1

3/2

4/2

15/1

16/2

21/1

9/1

9/2

18/1

18/2

Carttrack

7/2/2 (6) (7)

25 00

50 00

90 12

25 00

36 09

54 03

63 11

53 13

25 00

56 05

84 07

89 11

01 01

14 12

50 00

01 01

59 07

56 05

25 00

07 06

50 00

06 05

62 10

75 00

61 09

28 03

15 13

06 05

60 08

75 00

90 12

51 01

39 12

85 08

80 04

25 00 7226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(19)

(5)

8/1

8/2

5/2

12/1

12/2

23/1

23/2

24/2

11/2

22/1

100

15/1

15/2

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

(7)

50 00

65 03

28 60

86 02

78 10

62 00

25 12

90 01

26 05

81 01

01 12

90 01

01 03

03 08

60 05

06 08

85 00

25 13

15 00

25 05

83 90

87 05

31 01

51 08

34 02

78 11

04 10

12 00

07 7227

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1 )

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3/1

122

3/2

6/1

6/2

10/2

123

128

12/1

12/2

129

4/1

153

(7) (6)

32 06

86 09

04 04

07 06

28 03

25 13

91 00

25 00

75 14

27 02

66 13

31 05

62 10

57 06

85 08

83 11

13 00

25 12

90 03

28 12

25 00

30 13

27 02 7228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

154

11/2

269

273

305

353

366

773

102

134

2. PHOOL

135

12/2

24/1

25/1

25/2

136

22/1

142

[Part 11 -Sec . 3 ( ii ) | (5) (6) (7) 00

25 00

50 00

51 00

92 00

01 00

42 00

75 00

25 00

51 00

02 00

27 00

55 00

75 00

51 00

30 00

25 00

13 00

90 00

07 00

25 00

14 00

08 00

27 00

83 00

57 00

89 00

51 00

33 7229

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

142

11/2

143

1/2

176

561

562

564

103

21 3. ALIPUR BAROTA

7/1

9/2

(6)

(5)

(7)

01 00

59 00

14 00

07 00

66 00

33 00

01 00

27 00

01 00

66 00

57 00

40 00

57 00

31 00

66 00

62 00

50 00

53 00

90 00

59 00

07 7230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

21/1

23.

24/1/1

20/1

20/2

21/1

21/2

22/1

8/2

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

(7) 12

90 08

60 00

25 12

90 04

55 04

04 05

06 06

34 08

65 00

75 04

04 05

56 07

34 08

25 01

77 01

01 02

53 06

07 03

28 05

56 01

77 10

62 12

36 09

63 11

25 11

63 03

54 02

53 07

33 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

18/1

18/2

18/3

103

187

10/2

4. BHUTHAN KALAN

2/1

2/2

9/1

9/2

15/1

15/2 3957G1/09-23

7231 (5) (6) (7)

03 00

83 00

75 00

50 00

06 00

75 00

53 00

79 00

53 00

75 00

65 00

77 00

09 00

14 00

77 00

75 00.

63 00

65. 00

25 00

00 7232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

1/1

1/2

2/1

2/2

10/1

15/1

15/2

16/1

16/2

790/1

1115

3278/1

3286

3288

180

23 5. BHUTHAN KHURD

[Part 11-Scc . 3 (ii ) |

(6)

(7) (5)

65 00

31 00

87 00

28 00

26 00

75 00

12.

39. 00

37 00

79 00

28 00

15 00

62 00

07 00

27 00

50 00

07 00

91 7233

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2/1

2/2

2/3

4/1

(7) (6)

57 06

53 02

16 14

25 00

38 11

25 00

08 07

53 02

81 05

91 13

27 02

66 13

03 03

75 00

89 11

62 10

25 00

77 01

84 07

50 00

01 01

54 03

33 07

25 00

08 07

66 13

27 02

31 05 7234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(6)

(4)

13/2

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

56 13

54 06

57 08

60 10

87 00

25 00

25 09

th 7235

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14 , 2009/ कार्तिक 23, 1931

[भाग II- खष्ठ 3( ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(2)

(1)

10/2

16/1/2

16/2

20/2

20/3

21/1

21/2

14/1

6 (6)

25 00

01 01

65 12

03 03

25 00

77 01

50 00

25 00

15 13

57 06

13 11

60 08

26 03

69 16

60 08

38 11

25 00

02 02

16 14

25 00

90 12

25 00

66 13

77 01 7236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(4)

108

109

112

114

114/1

121

122

462

6. KHERWALA

149

7. NADHAURI

150

[Part II-Sec .3 ( ii )]

(6)

25 00

75 00

26 00

77 00

26 00

51 00

02 00

03 00

78 00

75 00

16 00

25 00

87 00

54 00

01 00

03 00 7237

भारत काराजपत्र: नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II खष्ठ 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

150

180

181

4/2

184

4/3

185

13/1

13/2

18/1

18/2

213

214

(6)

(5)

(2)

55 00

39 00

77 00

00 7238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIΚΑ 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

214

215

224

225

13/1

13/2

25/4

226

246

[Part II -Sec. 3 ( ii )]

(6)

(5)

(7) 00

33 00

81 00

65 00

42 00

28 00

77 00

92 00

61 00

01 00

16 00

53 00

40 00

25 00

83 00

08 00

15 00

50 00

40 00

83 00

91 00

78 00

25 00

12 00

04 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

7239

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

(3)

(2)

(1)

(4)

246

25/1

25/2/1

247

4/2

8/1

8/2

260

261

9/1

9/2

16/1

16/2/1

16/2/2

17/1

262

273

20 3957 G /09-24

(5) (6) (7)

42 00

33 00

15 00

51 00

09 00

15 00

50 00

32 00

25 00

13 00

12 00

25 00

30 00

13 00

03 00

90 00

25 00

78 00

02 00

75 00

79 00

87 00 7240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

273

274

14/2

289

290

19/1

19/2

20/1

20/2

294

11/2

295

00 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) | (6) (7) 09

61 07

33 01

26 14

67 01

77 03

03 13

25 00

25 13

13 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7241

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

295

308

331

335

344

364

365

366

373

1108

1193

1197/1

1198

229

8. BHUNA

230

275

276

(7) (6)

(5)

56 00

33 00

03 00

79 00

26 00

77 00

27 00

26 00

51 00

56 00

65 00

55 00

87 00

56 00

15 00

39 00

51 00

64 00

84 7242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23. 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

276

282

4/1

8/1

283

320

321

331

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

83 00

10 00

87 00

25 00

92 00

25 00

91 00

26 00

27 00

14 00

33 00

34 00

61 00

07 00

54 00

87 00

02 00

77 00

91 00

25 00

01 00

43 00

25 00

13 00

54 00

60 00

16 00

80 00

33 00

66 00

27 7243

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड -खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(6)

(2)

(7) (1)

(4)

(3)

331

Carttrack

367

368

14/1/1

14/1/2

14/2

Carttrack 00

378

379

Carttrack

$00

417

23 7244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

418

7/1

7/2

430

4/1

7/1

7/2

431

470

11/2

22/1

471

00 [Part II- Scc . 3 (ii ) ] (6) (7) 06

92 7245

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

471

487

15/1

15/2

488

11/2

13/2

16/1

Canal

16/2

17/1

18/1

25/2

489

21/1

525

526

2/1/1

00 (6) (7) 01

01 01

92 01

26 00

50 14

92 01

51 01

42 14

25 00

25 13

15 02

78 03

28 02

53 09

36 11

01 01

31 05

25 00

50 02

53 04

55 12

83 06

25 08

33 07

10 09

81 7246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

526

2/1/2

8/2

9/1

9/2

14/1

14/2

16/1

25/1

25/2

545

5/1

5/2

546

1/1

1/2

17/2

605

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

25 04

55 00

75 09

36 11

89 00

25 02

53 01

51 13

15 00

25 13

66 00

50 00

50 07

84 06

07 00

25 12

90 01

77 04

55 10

12 08

34 07

60 08

33 00

25 10

12 02

78 13

15 10

87 00

75 12

39 12

39 7247

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

(2)

(1)

(5)

(3)

(4)

18/1

605

18/2

606

20/2

21/1

21/2

23/1

628

11/2

Canal

654

8/1

8/2

16/2

25/1

25/2/1

25/2/2

672

11.

12/1

12/2

23 3957G1/09-25

(6)

(7) 00

65 00

10 00

50 01

77 07

84 03

03 13

15 03

28 07

08 27

83 07

84 01

01 02

53 10

12 01

01 08

55 04

75 13

66 02

56 05

80 04

30 04

40 13

54 03

55 04

07 06

78 02

13 11

25 12

90 7248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

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

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5) (6) (7)

5/1

673

5/2

880

896

1234

3684

3688

3759

3761/1

3774

3800

3805

3831

186

9. BAIJALPUR

579

19/1

Carttrack 00

19/2

1/1

580

1/2

14/1

38 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7249

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/ कार्तिक 23, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

604

Carttrack 00

689

6/1/2

6/2

15/1

15/2

16/1/1

690

705

1/1

1/2

2/1

2/2

Carttrack 00

18/1

18/2

25 (6) (7) 00

25 10

12 12

08 02

02 7250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

728

729

739

21/1

21/2

740

Carttrack

Canal

764

9 10. NAHLA

14/1/2

14/2 441

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

25 00

66 00

07 00

84 00

15 00

01 00

38 00

01 00

60 00

55 00

01 00

26 00

40 00

51 00

40 00

10 00

78 00

77 00

38 00

53 00

08 00

31 00

25 00

79 00

75 00

18 00

51 00

07 00

25 00

59 00

02 7251

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

16/1

16/2

22/1

CartTrack

23/1

23/2

3/1

(7) (5) (6)

32 00

79 00

78 00

80 00

78 00

90 00

40 00

65 00

53 00

55 00

51 00

00 7252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Carttrack 00

16/1

17/1

1492

2113

2115

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

86 00

90 00

37 00

50 00

39 00

87 00

26 00

25 00

39 00

30 00

90 00

39 00

07 00

25 00

57 00

32 00

30 00

01 00

75 [F. No. R- 31015/39/2009- O.R. -II ] A.GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3096.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1780 दिनांक 19.06.09, 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 बहादुरगढ जिला झज्जर 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 08.09.2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ,

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 । 7253

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

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

अनुसूची

राज्य: हरियाणा

जिला: झज्जर

तहसील : बहादुरगढ़

क्षेत्रफल गाँव कानाम

खसरा/ किला संख्या

हेक्टेयर

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

एयर वर्गमीटर (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(7)

(5) (6)

50 1. लोहारहेडी

रास्ता

12/1

19/2

23/1

24/1

24/2

25/1 2/1

4/1

7/1

7/2

8/1

14/1

14/2

15/1/1

15/1/2

15/2/2

16/1

16/2

4/2

6/1/1

6/1/2

50 7254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKΑ 23 , 1931

(1)

(2) (3)

(4)

19/1

19/2

19/3

22/1

24/1

4/1/1

4/1/2

4/2/1

4/2/2

7/1

117

119

128

343

345

880

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

84 00

36 00

04 00

07 00

03 00

78 00

25 00

42 00

25 00

86 00

13 00

02 00

77 00

32 00

25 00

31 00

84 00

56 00

90 00

53 00

50 00

65 00

28 00

34 00

25 00

81 00

51 00

50 00

77 00

01 00

27 7255

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(4) (1)

(2) (3)

2. दहकोरा

22/1

25/1

25/2

6/1

6/2/1

1/1

1/2/1

1/4

10/1 3957G1/09-26

(7)

(6)

(5)

25 00

39 00

28 00

39 00

10 00

75 00

66 00

27 00

60 00

08 00

30 00

33 00

12 39

78 00

25 00

31 00

05 7256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

(3)

(2)

(4)

10/2

14/1

14/2

1/1

1/2

9/1

9/2

10/1

3/2

6/2/2

15/1/1

15/1/2

15/2

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

83 00

85 00

03 28 00

90 00

56 00

01 00

25 00

37 00

78 00

89 00

50 00

01 00

39 00

01 00

85 00

81 00

53 00

81 00

25 00

36 00

14 00

01 00

63 00

25 00

79 00

80 00

53 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7257

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

(1)

(2) (3)

(4)

146

147

153

166/2

174

178

179

330

331

332

344

347

361

430 3. आसौदा सिवान

6/1

9/1

9/2

22/1

2/1

2/2

3/1

3/2 (5)

(7)

(6)

77 00

50 00

53 00

75 00

77 00

75 00

01 00

75 00

87 00

38 00

62 00

78 00

57 00

78 00

38 00

01 00

37 00

08 85

75 00

01 00

02 7258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIΚΑ 23 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

24/2/1

24/2/2

126

279

280

281

282 4. आसौदा टोडरान

240/1-2

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | (5)

(7)

(6)

90 00

25 00

90 00

25 00

80 00

07 00

25 00

26 00

50 00

01 00

241/1-2-3

242

243

244

247

248

249

250

318

रास्ता

338/1

340

2991-2992/348 00

2993-2994/351 00

3144-3145/352 00

16 00

54 00

43 00

62 00

70 00

35 00

27 00

27 00 . 03

3146-3147/353

356

360 00

32 7259

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(6)

(1)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

(7)

362

363/1-2

3462/367

377

2982-2983/378 00

3236-3237/408 00

3238-3239/409 00

410

5-1

3008-3009/411 00

412

3150-3151/417 00

418

426

427

428

3643-3644/429 00

432

3240-3241/572 00

588

589

590

591

592/1

593/1

641/1-2

642/1

| फा. सं. आर. 31015/13/2009 .आर. ।।

. ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th November , 2009

S. O. 31096.-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. 1780 dated the 19th June 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 Bahadurgarh , District Jhajjar , in Haryana State;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 08.09.09 .

7260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/ KARTIKA 23 , 1931 [Part II--Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 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 saidAct, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest from the date of publication of this declaration , in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : BAHADURGARH

District : JHAJJAR

Nameof Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No. (1)

(2) (3)

(4) 1. LOHARHERI

State : HARYANA

Area.

Are

Hectare

Square Metre (5) (6) (7)

CartTrack

12/1

19/2

23/1

24/1

24/2

25/1

2/1

4/1

7/1

7/2

8/1

14/1

14/2

15/1/1

15/1/2 00

77 00

60 00

03 00

39 00

55 00

25 00 00

67 00

01 00

39 00

25 00

50 00

25 00

63 00

11 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7261

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

15/2/2

16/1

16/2

4/2

6/1/1

6/1/2

19/1

19/2

19/3

22/1

24/1

4/1/1

4/1/2

4/2/1

4/2/2

7/1

117

119

128

343

345

880 (5) (6)

01 00

28 00

26 00

14 00

00 00 00

36 00

07 00

04 00

07 00

78 00

25 00

86 00

13 00

02 00

32 00

90 00

65 00

34 00

81 00

50 00

53 00

27 00

02 7262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 23. 1931

(2)

(1)

(4)

(3)

2. DHAKAURA

22/1

25/1

25/2

6/1

6/2/1

1/1

1/2/1

1/4

10/1

Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

(6) (7) (5)

50 00

25 00

39 00

25 00

27 00

09.

75 00

66 00

60 00

39 00

08 00

90 00

30 00

50 00

39 00

27 00

33 00

25 00

01 00

31 00

05 7263

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(2) (3)

(4)

10/2

14/1

14/2

1/1

1/2

9/1

9/2

10/1

3/2

6/2/2

15/1/1

15/1/2

15/2

146

147

153

166/2

174

178

179

330

331

332 3957G1/09-27

(5) (6) (7) 00

06 83 00

85 00

90 00

05 556 00

09 00

01 00

37 00

39 00

81 00

36 00

79 00

25 00

01 00

63 00

02 00

63 00

80 00

53 00

27 00

50 00

01 26 00

50 00

75 00

53 00

75 00

77 7264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009 / KARTIKA 23, 1931

(1)

(2) (3)

(4)

344

347

361

430 3. ASAUDA SEWAN

4 1

6/1

9/1

9/2

22/1

2/1

2/2

3/1

3/2 8 312

24/2/1

24/2/2

126

279

280

281

282

240/1-2

4. ASAUDHA TODRAN

241/1-2-3

242

243

244

247

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

75 00

01 00

75 00

08 09

30 00

87 00

38 00

62 00

56 00

25 00

33 00

78 00

57 00

78 00

38 00

01 00

37 00

08 85 00

01 00

53 00

12 92

25 00

83 00

25 00

80 00

02 00

26 00

50 00

01 27

62 00 07. 62

43 00

27 00 7265 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(2)

(6)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(7)

248

249

250

0050635

318

CartTrack

338/1

340

2991-2992/348

01.

2993-2994/351 00

3144-3145/352 00

3146-3147/353 00

356

360

362

03 63 20

00 00

363/1-2

3462/367

377

13 97

2982-2983/378

13 97

3236-3237/408 00

3238-3239/409 00

410

3008-3009/411 00

412

3150-3151/417 00

418

62 :

426

427

428

3643-3644/429 00

432

3240-3241/572

27.

588

589

590

591

592/1

593/1

641/1-2

642/1

70 7266

[PARTII-SEC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 16 अक्तूबर, 2009

sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute foradjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Mudidih Colliery of M/s . B.C.C.L. in not referring Sri Kanhaiya Yadav to Apex Medical Board as per 1.1. No 76 of JBCCI for assessment ofhis age is proper and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

का. आ. 3097.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार 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 74/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/339/99-आई आर ( सी- I ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2009

S.O. 3097. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/ 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 the management of M/s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-10-2009 .

[No. L-20012/339/99 - IR (C -I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD

Inthe matter of a reference U/ s . 10( 1) (d) ( 2A) of I.D. Act

Reference No. 74 of 2000

2. Written statementhas been filed on behalf ofthe concerned workman stating that the concerned workman, Kanhaiya Yadav, Night Guard of Mudidih Colliery is a permanent employee of the management . Prior to his posting at Mudidih Colliery of Katras Area of BCCL . Upon his transferred from Gazlitand Colliery of Katras Area to Mididih Colliery of Sijua Area the management had rewritten his service records and have caused difference inhis date ofbirth . The said matter was pointed out to the management and when the issue could not be solved regarding the correct date of birth of the concerned workman the union suggested that in terms ofprovisions of 1. I. No. 76 of JBCCI the concerned workman should be referred to Apex Medical Board of BCCL for assessment ofhisapproximate age /date of birth . Since the aforesaid demandoftheunion was not accepted by the management the Union raised an industrial dispute before the A.L.C. ( C) . Dhanbad on 13-4-98 . But due to adamant attitude of the management the dispute ended in failure and hence the present reference has been made by the Ministry of Labour to this Tribunal for adjudication. In view of the aforesaid facts the action of the management ofMudidih Colliery ofM/s. BCCL in not referring Kanhaiya Yadav to Apex Medical Board as per I. 1. No. 76 JBCCI for assessment of his age is neither proper nor justified.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Mudidih Colliery ofM/s . BCCL.

Ithas been prayed that an award be passed in favour ofthe workman by directing the management to refer the concernedworkman to Apex Medical Board to determine hisapproximate age/date ofbirth .

AND

TheirWorkmen

Present:

Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers :Shri D.K. Verma , Advocate

For the Workman : Shri S.N. Goswami , Advocate

State: Jharkhand . Industry: Coal

Dated, the 30th September , 2009

AWARD

3. Written statement has been filed by the management stating that the concerned workman joined Mudidih Colliery on transfer from Loyabad Colliery and as perthe Last Pay Certificate granted by Loyabad Colliery, his name and other particulars were recorded in Form ' B ' RegisterofMudidih Colliery. As per Form 'B ' Register of Mudidih Colliery , the date of birth of the workman concerned is 12-3-1940 . The management also issued service excerpt to the concerned workman and as per the said service excerpt , his date of birth is recorded as 12-3-1940 . The management also examined the Form ' B ' Register ofGazlitand Colliery and found that the date of birth of the concerned workman has been recorded as 32 years as on 25-9-71 at the time of appointment of the concerned workman . After considering the date of birth ofthe concerned workman as 25-9-1939 as per Form ' B ' By Order No. L - 20012/ 339/99 - IR ( C - I ) dated 28-1-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of 7267 [भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

justified. Hence , the management is directed to refer the concerned workman to Apex Medical Board for determination of his age , within thirty days from the date ofpublication of the award.

Thisis my award.

Register of Gazlitand Colliery , the management superannuated the concerned workman. The concerned workman has not claimed anywhere either before the Conciliationor before this Hon'ble Court, what is his actual date of birth . Since the concerned workman has not disputed his date ofbirth recorded in Form -B Register of Gazlitand Colliery, the question of sending him toApex Medical Board for assessment of his age does not arise.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 अक्तूबर, 2009

Ithas been prayed that an award be passed in favour ofthe management by holding that the action of the management in not referring the workman concerned for assessment of his age is legal and justified.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinder admitting and denying the contents of some of the paras of each other's written statement .

का. आ. 3098.- 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 45/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/63/1988 -डी-4] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी 5. The workman has produced himself as WW - 1 who has proved documents Exts . W- 1 to W-6 . The management has produced MW- 1-Rakesh Ranjan who has provedExt . M- 1 .

NewDelhi, the 20th October, 2009

S.O. 3098.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/89 ) ofthe 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, which was receivedbythe Central Government on 20-10-2009.

[No. L-22012/63/1988-D-4] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT /LC/45/89

Mohd. Shakir Hasan , Presiding Officer

TheGeneral Secretary, Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC) , DumanHill Branch , Post Sonawani Colliery,

.Workman/Union

Distt. Surguja (MP)

Versus

Dy. CME/Sub Area Manager , DumanHillGroup ofMines , Post Sonawani Colliery, Distt. Surguja (MP)

Management 6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concernedworkman is that there is variation ofage by the management so he has demanded for reference for determination of age . The document filed by the concerned workman, Ext. W- 1 shown his date of birth in Identity Cardwhich has been mentioned as 12-3-1940. As per his service excerpt Ext . W- 2 it shows that his date ofbirth has beenmentionedas 12-3-1940. Paper Ext. M- 1 photocopy ofForm ' B ' Register, in that paper the date of birth ofthe concerned workman has been mentioned as 25-9-1939 . It shows variation in the record of the management. In this respect his date ofbirth in Form-B Ext. M- 1 has been shown as 32 years . When there is difference of date ofbirth the matter should be referred to Apex Medical Board as per Implement Instruction No. 76 of JBCCI . In this respect MW- 1 in his cross- examination at page 2 has stated that there is variation between the date of birth of Gazlitand Colliery andMudidih Colliery of the concerned workman. There is provision in the I.I. No. 76 that in case ofvariation in recording of date of birth the concerned workman should be sent to the Medical Board for determination of age. I have not sent him to the Medical Board. It has also been stated that in Mudidih Colliery the date of birth of the concerned workman is recorded as 12-3-1940. Ext. M- 1 does not bear the signature/LTI of the concerned workman. Signature is necessary in the form 'B ' Register. Ifthere is variation in the date ofbirth in the company's record, as per I.I. No. 76 of JBCCI , the matter should be referred to Apex Medical Board for determination ofage . In the case of the concerned workman that has not been done.

AWARD

Passed on this . 1st day of October, 2009

1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide itsNotification No. L-22012 (63)/88 -D-4 dated 15-2-89 has 7. In the result, the action of the management of Mudidih Colliery of M/s . S.B.C.C. Ltd. in not referring Shri Kanhaiya Yadav to Apex Medical Board as per I.I. No. 76 of JBCCI for assessment of his age is not proper and 7268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of DumanHill Colliery of M/ s . S.E.C. Ltd. , PO Sonawani Colliery, Distt. Surguja in dismissing their workman Shri Ram Gopal , Conveyor Khalasi vide their letter No. SECL/ DCME/ Dh - NCC/Disp/6-14 dated 13-1-1986 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman Shri Ram Gopal was employed as Conveyor Khalasi in the Duman Hills Colliery .He was chargesheeted onthe complaint from one Shri P.K. Kewat for assaulting, abusing and threatening him with dire consequences . The workman submitted explanation which was found unsatisfactory. The departmental enquiry is said to have been started against him and Shri K.I.S. Rathore , Deputy Personnel Manager , Duman Hill Group Colliery was appointed as Enquiry Officer in short is referred as E.O. After enquiry, the E.O. found him guilty of the charges leveled against him and submitted his report before the disciplinary authority . On the basis of the Enquiry report, the Deputy C.M.E. passed an order of dismissal vide order No. SECL/D. CME/DN /NCC/dispute/6-14 dated 13-1-88 . It is stated that punishment imposed on him is severe and uncalled for . It is submitted that the dispute be answered against the management.

3. The management/ non - applicant appeared and filed written statement. The case of the management , inter alia, is that admittedly the workman was surveyor Khalasi atDumanHill Colliery. On 11-4-1985 he assaulted Shri P.L. Kewat , overman who was shift incharge on that date . On receipt of the complaint of Shri Kewat, the chargesheet was issued against the workman . His explanation was found unsatisfactory and a departmental enquiry was conductedby Shri K.I.S. Rathore, Deputy P.M. The Enquiry Officer submitted his finding on 23-9-1985 before the Dy. ChiefMining engineer recommended for dismissal from service. The General Manager , who was competent authority, approved the recommendation passed the order of dismissal from the service on 13-1-1986 . The charge against the workman was of serious misconduct of assaulting to the superior and the same was proved . The order of dismissal from service is just and proper . It is submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. The preliminary issue was first taken up as to whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman by the management was just and proper. It is held by the Tribunal on 29-1-96 that the domestic enquiry is held fair and proper. The case thereafter was posted for arguments on the perversity of findings and quantum of punishment.

5. Now the question is as to whether the action of themanagement in dismissing the workman on 13-1-1986 is legal and justified.

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 6. None ofthe parties have adduced any evidence . The finding of the enquiry officer appears to be not perversed. It appears that the charge of assault to the superior officer was proved by the evidence of five witnesses . The assault to the superior at the work place appears to be serious and grave misconduct and the punishment appears to be just and proper. There is no need to interfere in the order of punishment imposed by the management . Accordingly the reference is answered.

7. In the result, the award is passed without any orderof costs.

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 अक्तूबर, 2009

का. आ. 3099.-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 160/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/163/ 1996 आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 20th October, 2009

S.O. 3099.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 160/ 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, which was received by the Central Government on 20-10-2009 .

[No. L- 22012/ 163/ 1996- IR(C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR No. CGIT/LC/ R/ 160/ 97

Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan, Presiding Officer The General Secretary, Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Majdoor Sangh, Johilla Area , Near Bus Stand , PostNowrozabad Colliery , Distt. Shahdol (MP) Workman/Union

Versus 7269

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

The Sub AreaManager ,

Pinoura Sub Area,

SECL, Post Pinoura Colliery,

Management

India, Norwozabad Branch . The certificate is marked as Exhibit M/ 18 . It is submitted that on basis of above circumstances, no dispute exists between the workman Shri Bhaddelal and the management.

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day ofOctober , 2009

1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No. L- 22012/ 163/96- IR (C- II) dated 5-6-97 has referredthe following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Pinoura Sub Area of SECL , Johilla Area in terminating the services ofSh. Bheddelal , Trammer , and Shri Chandramauli Mishra , General Mazdoor is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled and from which date ? "

2. The workmen/Union did not appear inspite of notice by registered post and therefore the reference proceeded ex parte against the workmen/Union on 23-3-06.

4. This reference is also with respect to another workman namely Shri Chandra Mauli Mishra. The case of the management is that the workman Sri Chandra Mauli Mishra was initially appointed as General Mazdoor and was posted at Pinoura Project , Johilla Area of SECL . He was also habitual absentee without any intimation/ permission. The charge sheet dated 9-11-94 was issued against him for remaining absent from 23-8-94 . The departmental Enquiry was conducted against him and the charge was proved . He was terminated from service vide order dated 13-4-1995 . The workman as well as the Union approached the management to consider his case sympathetically. The management agreed and accordingly Form-Hsettlement was arrived at which is marked as Exhibit M/21 . On the basis of settlement , he was reinstated vide order dated 27-9-96 which is marked as Exhibit M/22 . The workman is continuing his service at Sohagpur Area and a certificate is issued which is marked as Exhibit M/24 . The saidworkman had also submitted an application dated 27-10-07 in this case which is marked as Exhibit M/ 25 and also an affidavit ( M/26). Under the circumstances , no dispute exists between the workmen and the management .

5. To establish the case, the management has examined oral and documentary evidence . The management witness Shri G. Thulasidhara Kurup is Personnel Manager in SECL . He has supported the case that the workman Shri Bhaddelal was chargesheeted on his remaining absent habitually but during the course of enquiry, he submitted resignation from service which is marked as Exhibit M/ 14 . The disciplinary Officer then droppedtheproceeding and accepted the resignation vide order dated 16-11-2000 which is marked as Exhibit M/16. He has stated that on his submission, the pension is granted to him and the pension amount is being credited inhis account is S.B.I. , Nowrozabad Branch. The certificate is furnished which is marked as Exhibit M/ 18 .

6. He has further stated that the workman Shri Chandra Mauli Mishra was also habitual absentee . He was also terminated after conducting departmental enquiry. The order ofremoval is marked as Exhibit M/20. Theworkman and the Union approached the management for an opportunity to improve his conduct. The management considered their request and a settlement has been arrived which is marked as Exhibit M/21 . He has stated that on the basis of settlement, he was reinstated and is working at Pinoura Sub Area of SECL. The said workman has also filed an application and affidavit in support of his reinstatement in service which are marked asExhibit M/24 and M/25 respectively . This shows that now there is no dispute between this workman and the management . Accordingly , the reference is answered.

3. The management/non- applicant appeared and filed statement . The case of the management, in short is that the workman Shri Bhaddelal was appointed as Badli mazdoor on 22-5-78 and subsequently regularized as GeneralMazdoor, Cat- I on 1-8-78 by the management of Nowrozabad colliery.He was transferred to Pinoura project and joined there on 21-2-1990 . The said workman was issued chargesheet for remaining absent from 30-4-91 and another chargesheet on 22-1-95 for remaining absent unauthorisedly from 28-7-94. The chargesheets were sent by registered post to his permanent address but it was returned unserved . On 30-1-95 , he was allowed to resume hisduty with warning by the Manager, Pinoura Project : However the Superintendent for Mines constituted an enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The said workman did not appear inspite ofnotice. Lastly the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and found him guilty of the charges . After considering the enquiry report , the competent authority passed an order of terminationwhich is marked as Exhibit M/ 10 . The workman submitted mercy appeal and after consideration, he was reinstatedvide order No. 1063 dated 24-12-96 for providing him onemore opportunity. The workman again remained absent from duty unauthorisedly without information/ permission. He was again chargesheeted on 12-2-2000 and the departmental enquiry was constituted. During the course of departmental enquiry , he tendered his resignation as such the departmental enquiry was dropped which is marked as Exhibit M/ 15 and the resignation was accepted which is marked as Exhibit M/ 16. The said workman submitted form for grant of pension which is marked as Exhibit M/ 17 . The pension was granted and the saidworkman is getting pension through State Bank of 7270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

7. In the result, no dispute award is passed without any costs .

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 अक्तूबर, 2009

का. आ. 3100.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं न्यूक्लियर पावर कार्पोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/131/2004- आई आर ( सीएम-II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th October , 2009

S.O. 3100. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71 / 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Nuclear Power Corporation , Mapp Employees Co - operative Canteen and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-10-2009 .

[No. L-42012/ 131/2004- IR (CM- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday, the 8th October, 2009

PRESENT:

A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 71/2005

[Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub - section 2 ( A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Mapp Employees Co- operative Society and Nuclear Power Corporationand their Workman]

BETWEEN

Sri M. Vadivelu

: I Party/Petitioner

Vrs.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ))

: I Party/Management 1. The Manager (P& IR) Nuclear PowerCorpn. Kalpakkam Kanchipuram -603102

: II Party/Management 2. The Special Officer Mapp . Employees Coop . Canteen Kalpakkam Kanchipuram-603102

APPEARANCE :

Forthe Petitioner

:Shri S.T. Varadarajulu For the 1st Management : M/ s . V. Vijay shankar For the 2nd Management : M/ s . P. Shankarnarayanan

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-42012/ 131 /2004- IR (CM -II) dated 1-9-2005 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of Mapp Employees Co -operative Canteen andNuclear PowerCorporation in terminating the services of Sri M. Vadivelu w.e.f. 20-1-2004 is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ? "

2. After the receipt of industrial dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 71/2005 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement as the case may be .

3. The averments in the Claim Statement, in a nutshell are as follows :

The petitioner employed as Cook in the Respondent Canteen since 1989 with a continuous service of 15 years was denied employment from 20-1-2004. An Atomic Power Station at Kalpakkam established in 1976 producing electricitybeing a factory , the First Respondent established aCanteen to cater to the needs of the employees alone as the customers . The First Respondent is Chairman of the Management Committee of the Canteen, who is the real employer . The employees of the Statutory Canteen are to be treated as employees of the First Respondent as held by theApex Court in MMR Khans Case ( AIR 1990 SCC 97). The building and every paraphernalia are providedby the First Respondent . The Canteen is a Departmental Canteen registered with Directorate of Canteens , New Delhi. The First Respondent regularized all employees exceptthe petitioner and three others . While the 35 regular employees were paid on scales of pay, the petitioner was kept on daily wages , though petitioner applied for recruitment on regular basis pursuant to notification dated 15-9-2000 , he was not selected which is unfair labour 7271 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

6. Points for determination are:

(1) Whether the termination of the service of the petitioner is legal and justified ?

(ii) To what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled.

7. The evidence consists ofthe sworn affidavit filed by the petitioner in lieu of Chief Examination only onthe petitioner's side who remains not cross -examined at the instance of the Respondent. On the Respondent's side, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced.

Point Nos . 1 & 2

practiceshowing no intention to regularize him. Following a Writ filed as WP 29640/2003 by him and others , the Respondent showing their names under one Contractor by name Punniakoti not known to the petitioner, he was thereafter given Gate Pass through the Contractor getting his pass surrendered . His cessation from employment is unfair. It is retrenchment. He has worked for more than 240 days in a year. Conditions under Section 25 (F) of ID Act were not complied with. The termination is illegal and arbitrary and is in exercise of unfair labour practice. It is also opposed to natural justice and fair play. He has not been given preferential treatment in new recruitments against Section 25 (H) . He may be reinstated with all attendant benefits .

4. The First and Second Respondent filed separate reply statements . The First Respondent avers as follows:

The Second Respondent was registered as a Cooperative Society governed by its own byelaws for whichbuilding and capital equipment are being provided free of cost by Atomic Power Station and managed by a Special Officer appointed by Registrar of Cooperative Societies . In 1995 under a decision by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) , regular employees of theCanteen were regularized in NPCIL. The petitionerwas not a regular employee then of the Canteen. The petitioner performed jobs whenever required in and around the Canteen which did not require any skill . The petitioner had no minimum qualification for regular appointment. NPCIL is in the process of reducing its manpower. No employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondents exists . The petitioner in fact out of his ownvolitionstarted working with Contractor Punniakoti from September 2003. The petitioner has not continuously worked hourly rated basis for 240 days.

5. The Second Respondent in the Reply Statement avers as follows over and above the same contentions raised by the First Respondent:

8. The case ofthe petitioner espoused by himself is that he was denied employment under the Second Respondent Canteen right from 20-01-2004 . Accordingto him he was engaged from the year 1989 as Helper in the Canteen initially paying Rs . 40 and later @Rs . 104 at the time ofhis deprivation of employment on daily rated wages but paid on monthly basis. The petitioner after having filed Sworn Affidavit in lieu of ChiefExamination as early ason6-5-2009, thereafter did not turn up for being allowed tobe cross-examined at the instance of the Respondent. Thedocuments relied on by him and numbered 1-19 serially appended to the affidavit have not been got proved by him, Without formal proof of the same, they do not automatically go into the evidence . So also without the sworn facts averred in the affidavit having been allowed tobetestedwith the touchstone of cross - examination that part of his evidence which is apt to be self- serving in nature cannot be reckoned as any evidence worth the name.The Respondent did not get an opportunity to cross- examine the deponent petitioner solely for the reason that he after having filed the Proof Affidavit remained continuously absent . The non- examination of the petitioner is therefore due to his own fault and hence the ProofAffidavit cannot be treated as evidence as though containing uncontroverted facts to prove his case. Though thisprinciple is not strictly to be applied to the facts of this case for the reason that Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in industrial adjudication and the Tribunal may well act on the basis of any matter which is logically probative to aprudent mind with a reasonable credibility and reliability even such a situation is also absent to favour a decision to the petitioner. Therefore, I am only to hold that the action ofthe Management in the termination of the service of the petitioner is only legal and justified and thatthe petitioner is not entitled to any relief. So ordered. The points are answered against the petitioner.

9. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictatedto the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 8th October, 2009)

The Special Officer is the sole authority for running the affairs ofthe Canteen and there is no committee headed bythe First Respondent as Chairman, who does not have toapprove the actions ofthe Special Officer . The judgment of the Supreme Court in MMR Khans case has been distinguished and explained in the subsequent judgment recorded in 1996-3 - SCC- 267 . The Canteen is an independent body and not a Department of Government of indiabound by any instructions . The petitioner cannot claim anyparity with the regular employees of the canteen. Writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn withthe liberty to approach the Labour Court. Since the request of the petitioner to be engaged in the Canteen could not be fulfilled in the absence of vacancy, he joined the Contractor . The Respondent has not sent him out of work. He left the service on his own volition. The ID maybe dismissed.

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer 3957G1/09-28 7272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

Witnesses Examined :

: None

Forthe I Party/Petitioner

For the II Party/Management : None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side :

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management's side:

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

नई दिल्ली, 20 अक्तूबर , 2009

का. आ. 3101.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस. ई . सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं . एल-22012/269/ 1995- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 20th October, 2009 S.O. 3101. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/96) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-10-2009.

[No. L- 22012/269/ 1995 - IR(C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/ R/32/ 96

PRESENT:

Mohd . Shakir Hasan , Presiding Officer

The General Secretary,

National Colliery Workers Federation , PostSouth Jhagrakhand Colliery ,

Workman/Union Distt. Surguja (MP)

Vrs.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] The Sub Area Manager ,

Jhagrakhand Sub Area, Hasdeo Area , SECL , PostWest Jhagrakhand Colliery , Distt. Surguja (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of October , 2009 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 22012/269/95 - IR ( C- II) dated 30-1-1996 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the following demands of the General Secretary,National Colliery Workers Federation from Sub Area Manager , Jharkhand Sub Area of SECL, Hasdeo Area are proper and legal ?

(i) To provide woolen dresses to all clippers appointed in the main gallery of West JhagrakhandUnderground Colliery.

(ii) The clippers be not given the job of pulling of loader tubs with the help of long iron rope of West Jhagrakhand Underground Colliery.

If not, to what other reliefs the workmen are entitled ?"

2. The Union/applicant did not appear inspite of proper noticeand therefore the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against theUnion on 11-3-2005 .

3. The management/ non- applicant appeared and filed the Written Statement . The case of the management is that after nationalization of Coal Mines , the Govt . of India has initially formed a company named Coal Mines Authority Ltd. (CMAL) . The Coal India has several subsidiary companies namely SECL, WCL , ECL , NCL , BCCL , MCL , CCL and CMPDIL. The Service conditions of the employees working in the Coal Industry are governed by the various settlements generally known as National CoalWageAgreement (NCWA) in addition to the Standing Ordersapplicable to different collieries . The wage structure, job nomenclature , cadre scheme and other benefits given to the employers are given under the said agreement. SECL has several areas spread over the state of M.P. and Chhattisgarh . Several Trade Unions are functioning . The wage negotiation and other service conditions finalized bythe Committee known as Joint Bipartite Committee of CoalIndustry ( in short JBCCI) . The decision of the said committee is binding on the unions and the management. The subsidiary company has no role to decide the policy matters . The applicant Union namely National Colliery Workers Federation is not a Central Trade Union nor it is a recognized Union by the Management . The said Union has no member in Hasdeo Area of SECL and has no locus standi . The management explained the position to the representatives of the Union that the demand raised by 7273 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

of the Labour Court Panaji , Goa now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Dena Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-10-2009 .

[No. L- 12025/ 1 /2009 -IR(B- II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT PANAЛ

them are illegitimate and cannot be decided either byArea Level or at Company Level . The demand of the Union for providing woollen sweaters to all the clippers is not justified. It is stated that on directions of the Conciliation Officer, a Committee conducted an enquiry with regard to reducing the work load of the clippers and for their demand and finally it is concluded that if this dispute is unnecessarily extended , other disputes involving trammers and at all other mines having endless haulage will start which will not be in the interest of any one . It is submitted that on these grounds, the present dispute has no merits and the award be passed in favour of the management.

(Before Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai , Hon'ble Presiding Officer)

Ref. No. IT/10/92

4. The point for consideration is as to whether the demands of the union aforesaid is justified and proper.

Mrs. JyotsnaNaik, C/o. TheGeneral Secretary, DenaBankEmployees Union , GoaBranch, Panaji Goa

Workman/Party I

Versus

TheRegional Manager , DenaBank , Ganesh Bhavan, Swami Narayan Chowk, Dadar,Bombay

Employer/Party I

: Shri Subhash Naik

Workman/Party I

Employer/Party II

:Adv . Shri P. J. Kamat

5. To establish the contention raised by the management, one witness is examined in the case . Shri C. C. Naik is Dy . Personnel Manager at Jharkhand Sub Area of SECL , Hasdeo Area. He has stated that the service conditions of the employees are governed by various settlements and standing orders finalized by JBCCI . The decision of the said committee is binding on the Unions and the management . He has stated that Conciliation Officer after discussion held that it was decided by a Committee and the findings of the Committee also show that there is no scope for any modification . The evidence ofthe witness shows that the demands are not justified. There is no other evidence to rebut the evidence of the witness ofthe management . Accordingly this reference is decided in favour of the management .

AWARD

(Passed on 7th day ofSeptember , 2009 ) 6. In the result, the award is passed ex parte against the Union without costs .

1. By order dated 31-12-1991 , the Government of Goahas referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 21 अक्तूबर , 2009

"(1) Whether the action of the Management of DenaBank isjustified in terminating services ofMrs. Jyotsna Naik, Part- time cleaner, Vasco- da-Gama Branch, w.e.f. 5-11-1990 and in not granting 1/3 of scale of pay as wage to her ?

(2) Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" का. आ. 3102.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार देना बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय, पणजी, गोवा के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 10/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12025/1/2009- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st October , 2009

S.O. 3102. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/1992)

2. The Party I has claimed that she was appointed aspart time employee in October 1986. She was appointed insubordinate cadre for cleaning the bank premises , toilets , preparing tea etc. and she was paid fixed amounts every month on a voucher. The Party I has stated that no inquiry was conducted and that her services were orally terminated on 5-11-1990 . The Party I has stated that her termination was in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act . TheParty I has claimed that the termination is illegal . The Party I has further stated that the carpet area of the bank is 1600 sq . mtrs . As per the guidelines of the bank, the Party II ought to have paid to her. ½ scale as wages .

7274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] However , she was wrongly paid an amount ofRs . 100 per month . The Party I has therefore sought reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits . The Party I has also sought payment of ½ of scale of pay as wages w.e.f. October, 1986.

objection for passing such award . The application at Exb . 23 clearly indicates that the Party I is not interested in pursuing the dispute as she is gainfully employed. Hence , the dispute which was referred to this Tribunal vide order dated 31-12-1991 for adjudication no longer survives .

Inform the government accordingly.

Dated: 7-9-2009. Panaji.

A. PRABHUDESSAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 अक्तूबर , 2009

3. The Party II has stated that the services of the PartyI were engaged purely on temporary bases for casual work,whichwas cleaning only one toilet ofVasco Branch . TheParty I was required to work for less than half an hour in a day from Monday to Friday. The Party II has stated that the Party I was also working for other establishment inVasco. The Party II has stated that the Party I was asked. toclean the toilet in the forenoon. The Party I expressed inconvenience to attend to duties during forenoon and discontinued attending the work w.e. f. 5-11-1990. The Party II has denied that the party I was cleaning an area of 1600 sq. mtrs . moreover , that she was entitled for 1½ of pay scale as wages . The Party II has stated that the Party I is notentitled for any relief.

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings , the following issues were framed:

का. आ. 3103.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन ओवरसीज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 197/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/116/97- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2 Ist October , 2009

(1) Does the Party I/Workman prove that the action oftheManagement of Party II is notjustified in terminating her services as part time cleaner , Vasco-da-Gama Branch , with effect from 5-11-1990 and in not granting ½ ofscale of pay as wage to her?

(2) Does the Party No. I prove that since no Departmental enquiry was held before termination of her services , she is entitled to full wages from the date ofher termination ?

S.O. 3103.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 197 / 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on19-10-2009 .

(3) Does Party I/Workman prove that she is entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and continuity in service for non - compliance of the provision of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by Party II ?

[No. L- 12012/ 116/97- IR (B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, (4) Does Party I/Workman prove that the Party II ought to have paid to her ½ of scale of pay as wage from the date of appointment ?

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH Case I.D. No. 197/97

(5) Does the Party II prove that the statement of claim is liabletobe rejected, as it cannot be treated as the statement of the Dena Bank Employees Union, which is the Party to the reference ?

(6) Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief ?

Sh . Satish Kumar , 621 , Sector-22 -A, Chandigarh ...Applicant (7) What Award or order ?

Versus

The Regional Manager ,

5. During the pendency of the proceedings , the Party I filed an application at Exb . 23 stating that she is gainfully employed and hence , she is not interested in pursuing the dispute . The Party I has prayed that no dispute award be passed. The Party II has given no

Indian Overseas Bank , SCO No. 11 , Sector-7 -C, Chandigarh

.Respondent 7275 [भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/ कार्तिक 23, 1931

APPEARANCES:

Forthe Workman : Ms. Aanchal Thakur

For the Management : Sh . R. K. Chopra

AWARD

(Passed on 7th day ofOctober, 2009)

other documents have also been filed by the workmanto prove that he was entrusted with the work of messenger by the authorities of the bank . Management of the bank filed the photocopies of 13 vouchers and appointment letters ofShri Surjit Kumar and Mohammad Suleman Khan which have been referred to by the workman in his statement of claim showing them as his juniors/fresh recruits.Copy ofrules regarding the appointment against regular vacancies have also been filed.

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide notificationNo. L- 12012/ 116/97- IR (B- II) , dated 27-11-1997, by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act), referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in terminating the services of Shri Satish Kumar w.e.f. 2-11-1995 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ? "

Bothofthe parties were afforded the opportunity of adducing evidence . Oral evidence was recorded . Parties wereheard at length . Written briefs (arguments) have also been filedby the parties . During argument, management was further directed to provide with all the original documents lying in its custody. 13 original vouchers were filedbythe management on 27-7-2009 . I have gone through the evidence, oral and documentary and other materials onrecord.

Onperusal ofpleadings of the workman, it is evident thatworkmanclaimed to work with the management ofthe bank w.e.f. 21-1-1993 to 1-11-1995 as daily- wagedworker as a messenger. His services were terminated on 2-11-1995 without notice and retrenchment compensation. It was contendedby the workman that his termination from the services is illegal and void being against the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It was further contended that he hadworked for more than 240 days in the preceding year from thedateofhis termination.Hisjuniors were retained in services , new hands were recruited , whereas , his services were terminated against the provisions of the Act.

Themanagement contested the claim by filing written statement. It is denied by the respondent bank that the workmanwas working as messenger and had completed 240 days ofwork in the preceding year from the date ofhis termination. The period as claimed by the workman is admitted, but the nature of work has been disputed bythe respondent bank. As per the contention of the bank, the workmanworked as a daily- wager and was never entrusted any work of messenger. He was doing the cleaning work ofthe office as water-man purely on casual basis . He has not completed 240 days , accordingly , there was no necessity for notice or retrenchment compensation. It was further contended by the management of the bank that nojunior was retained in services , nor any new hands were recruited. The persons mentioned by the workman were recruited as per the rules of the department against permanent vacancy.

The main question before this Tribunal is whether the workman has completed 240 days of work with the management and his services were terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation ? It is settled principle ofservice jurisprudence that facts admitted need not to be proved . Management has admitted that workman worked for the period he claimed but as a daily-wager and hasnot completed 240 days in the preceding year from the date ofhis termination . It is the contention ofthe workman that while working with the bank he also discharged the function of a messenger and had completed 240 days of work in thepreceding year from the date ofhis termination. The workman has filed certain authority letters in which signatures of Shri Satish Kumar, the workman, have been attested by the Chief Manager of Indian Overseas Bank . The original letters are lying in the custody of the bank butthe samehave not been provided with to this Tribunal . Thedocuments Mark B to Mark R prove that workman was not only working as a waterman as claimedby the management of bank, but he was discharging the functions ofamessenger, he was paid the wages as the daily-waged worker. The witness of the bank MW1 denied Mark C to be the document of the bank . But it is apparent that endorsement has been made by the management of the bank on the face of these documents . The document bears the signature of Chief Manager and seal ofthe bank . The address mentioned at the top ofthe letters is the same on which the bank was running its business at the time in question. There is no iota of evidence to prove that the documents filed by the workman are not genuine. I am unable to understand what more is required on part of the workmanto prove the contention that he was discharging the functions of a messenger along with working in the capacity ofwaterman . In my view, all the documents Mark B to Mark R are genuine documents and in absence of filing the originals, the bank cannot be permitted to deny the genuineness of the documents .

Bothof the parties preferred to file their respective affidavits and documents . Statement of working days (chart) has been filed by the workman from January 1993 to December 1993. It is a hand made chart prepared on plain sheet which does not bear the signatures of any officer of the bank . Photocopies of certain vouchers , Ex. W2 to Ex. W26 have been filed by the workman. Certain 7276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] To prove the contention that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding years from the date of his termination, he filed the statement of working days prepared on plain sheet . As stated earlier , the statement does not bear the signatures of any officer ofthebank. It seems that it is prepared by workman himself onthe plain paper . This document cannot be relied upon as in my opinion it is not a genuine document prepared and issued by the bank.

beenfiledby the management. The circumstances proved that management has not filed the vouchers deliberately. On the other hand , the management has taken another false plea for destroying the relevant ledger book according to rules. Thus , I am of the view , that neither the entire vouchers were filed by the management nor the relevant ledger book was destroyed in the ordinary course of business by the bank. Hence , an adverse inference shall be taken against the bank. Now the question arise what shouldbe the nature of adverse inference ? In my view, the plea taken by the workman that he had worked for more than240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination shall be accepted by this Tribunal .

The workman has filed the photocopies of 26 vouchers by which he claim to receive the wages . The management has admitted only 13 vouchers and on the basis of 13 vouchers the management claimed that the workman has worked only for 187 days in the preceding yearfrom the date ofhis termination . Regarding rest ofthe vouchers, the bank has denied the custody of the same and has contended that all the vouchers lying in the custody of the bank have been filed . When asked to file the relevant register containing the entries of vouchers bywhich the workman was paid wages , the management claimed to weeded out the register as per the rules of the department. In the cross - examination , MW1 , the witness ofthe management , at Page No. 1 has stated that the ledger book containing the entries of relevant vouchers has been destroyed by the bank according to the rules.

Moreover, on the contention of the workman that juniors were retained, fresh hands were recruited , the management has filed two appointment letters with the contention that appointments were made as per the rules ofthe bank. The letter relating to Sh . Surjit Kumar is an appointment letter , whereas , the letter issued to Mohammad Suleman Khan is the letter relating to the regularization of his services . The letter M14 issued to Mohammad Suleman Khan proves that the Mohammad Suleman Khan was working as a temporary messenger and his services were regularized by the management of the bank. There is not a single word regarding the juniority ofMohammad Suleman Khan to the workman. There is no iota of evidence to prove that Mohammad Suleman Khan was engaged as temporary messenger before appointment of the workman. This also proves that management has violated the seniority of the workman in the matter of recruitment/ regularization of the services of certain persons , whereas , the name of the workman was not considered.

Itis admitted that no notice or retrenchment compensation was given to the workman. Thus , on both ofthe counts namely workman has completed 240 days of workwith the management in the preceding year from the dateofhis termination as waterman- cum -messenger , and hisjunior was not only retained in services but his services were regularized by the management of the bank, the termination of the service of workman is illegal and void against the provisions of the Act .

Subsequently, the order of the prescribed authority for destroying the relevant register ( ledger book) was not provided with by the management. I am unable to accept the contention of the management that the ledger book was destroyed in the ordinary course of business as per rules . The management has claimed the destroying of ledger book during the pendency of this industrial dispute . There was no occasion for the management to destroy the ledger book containing the vouchers regarding the payment of wages to the workman, in case the reference challenging the legality of his termination was pending adjudication . It shows that the management has deliberately destroyed/ withheld the register . All photocopies of vouchers have been filedby the workman , whereas , the management has provided with only 13 vouchers . There is no iota of evidence filed by the management that the vouchers in excess of 13 filed by the management are not genuine documents . The circumstances speaks themselves. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that vouchers have not been filed by the management to prevent the workman to take the shelter of legislative protection as provided under the Act . The management has further taken unacceptable plea that the ledger book containing the entries of vouchers was destroyed according to law.

The management of the bank is a public undertaking governed by certain rules . The documents are destroyed as per the rules in compliance of the orders passed under the signatures of prescribed authority. No such order has

Whenever the termination of any workman is declared by the Tribunal as void and illegal being against the provisions of the Act, there are two possible remedies available to the workman . The management may be directed for re-instatement of the services of the workman on the same position from which he was terminated or retrenched. The workman may also be compensated with a reasonable amount of compensation on account of his illegal termination. It is also the settled principle of service jurisprudence that priority should be given for reinstatement of the services of the workman and in exceptional circumstances , like non existence of any work 7277

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 19-10-2009 .

[No: L- 12011/ 10/93 - IR (B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

orvacancy etc. the workman should be compensated by a reasonshle amount of compensation. It is not the plea of the bank that no work is available nor any vacancy lies with it. Thus , I am ofthe view that order for reinstatement of the workman into the services on the same position fromwhich he was terminated is the adequate remedywhich inmy opinion will meets the ends ofjustice.

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/53/94

Mohd. ShakirHasan, Presiding Officer

TheDy.General Secretary,

Bank ofIndia Employees Union, C/oBank of India,

....Workman/Union

A.G. Office Road, Gwalior .

Versus

TheRegional Manager,

Bank of India,

Gurukripa, NirmaBhavan,

A.G. Office Road,Gwalior.

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of October, 2009

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, vide notification No. L- 12011 / 10/93 - IR (B - II ) dated 5-5-1994has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythistribunal:

The services ofthe workman were terminated against the provisions of the Act. The services of few persons working as temporary messenger on daily- wage basis were regularized, whereas , the name of the workman was not considered. It is true that this Tribunal can only answer the reference to the extent it has been referred. But ifthe management has violated its rules regarding the regularization of services of certain workman , this Tribunal is competent to look into the matter . It is not the case of themanagement that initial appointment of the workman as daily-wager was not according to law . Thus, law cannot permit the management to pick and choose regarding the regularization of the services of the daily- waged persons at its whims. Accordingly, the management is further directed to give the workman a chance regarding the regularization of his services on the same way as the services of Sh. Mohammad Suleman Khan and other daily waged temporary messenger were regularized. The management is accordingly , directed to reinstate the services of the workman within one month from the date ofpublication of the award and shall also abide with the further direction as mentioned above regarding the regularization of service of the workman within a reasonable time . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view, that workman will not be entitled for the arrears of back wages but his seniority will be protected. Let Central Government be approached for. publication of award, and thereafter, file be consigned.

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

"Whether the claim of Bank of India Employees' Union (M.P. ) that Shri Onkar Godia, Shri Shashi Prakash Dubey, Shri Ram Sevak Raikwar, Shri Deviram Batham and Shri Pramod Chaturvedi are entitled to be appointed on regular basis in the services oftheBank of India is justified ? If so , what reliefare these workmen entitled to ? " नई दिल्ली, 21 अक्तूबर , 2009

2. The case of the workman/Union in short is that the workmen were absorbed/appointed by the Bank/ management temporarily in violation of clause 20.7 and 20.8 ofBipartite.

का. आ. 3104.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/10/93- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 21st October, 2009

2. The case of the workman/Union in short is that the workmen were absorbed/ appointed by the Bank/ management temporarily in violation of clause 20.7 and 20.8 ofBipartite Settlement though there were clear cut 14½ vacancies in the Bank. These workmen had acquired the status of permanent/regular employees of the Bank. Theyhadalso completed 240 days continuously in a block of 12 months in a year continuously for three years or more but they were retrenched from the Bank's service since September , 1992 arbitrarily in violation of the provision of Sec-2 B, Sec- 25 -F and 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act, 1947. On these grounds, the award be passed with back wages.

S.O. 3104.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute 7278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

3.The management/Bank appeared and filed reply to the statement of claim . The case of the management in short is that the alleged workmen were not workmen within themeaning of Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act , 1947. They were never employed by the Bank and therefore the question of termination does not arise . It is stated that assuming that they were engaged by the Bank as a daily wages/ casual/ part time, the same might be for making substitute arrangement on need basis in place of regular staff of the Bank but they did not acquire any right to any post . It is stated that the Bank has not violated any provision of the I.D. Act . On these grounds, it is submitted thatthe workmen/Union are not entitled to any relief.

4. It is not out of place to say that the workmen Shri Onkar Godia and Shri Shashi Prakash Dubey had filed applications separately that the management had agreed to settle their dispute and as such they prayed to pass no dispute award . Accordingly the then Tribunal passed award in part on 29-6-2001 in respect of these two workmen. The reference of other three remaining workmen are continuing.

5. The Union/ remaining three workmen subsequently absented . Lastly the predecessor's Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the Union/ workmen on 22-3- 2005.

6. It appears from perusal of the record that three affidavits for evidence are filed by the workmen but none ofthe workmen appeared for cross - examination inCourt. Hence their evidence is of no value to the Union. This shows that there is no evidence of the workmen to prove their case.

7. The management has also not adduced any evidence in the case . Hence this is a reference of no dispute award. Accordingly the reference is answered.

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2009

S.O. 3105. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 200/ 1994) ofthe 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 . BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on22-10-2009.

[No. L- 22012/ 182/93 - IR (C- I)] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , DHANBAD

Inthematter ofa reference U/s . 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes , Act, 1947.

Reference No. 200 of 1994

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Balihari Colliery under P.B. Area of BCCL, P.O. Kusunda , Distt. Dhanbad.

AND

TheirWorkmen

PRESENT :

Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers

costs. 8. In the result, no dispute award is passed without

: Shri S. N. Sinha , Advocate .

Forthe Workmen

: Shri S. Bose, Treasurer , Rashtriya CollieryMazdoor Sangh

State : Jharkhand

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2009

का. आ. 3105.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सस्कार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 200/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/182/93- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी

Industry: Coal Dated, the 30th September, 2009

AWARD

ByOrder No. L-22012/ 182/93 - IR (C- 1 ) dated 3-8-1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour , has inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- sec. ( 1) and sub-sec . (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Balihari Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in not departmentalising/ regularising Sri Ram Bilas Ram and 24 others (as per list enclosed) is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ? " [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

7279

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

Worker'sName

Father's Name

1. RamBilas Ram

Sri Dharamdeo Ram

2. Amulo Mahato

Sri Chamari Mahato

3. Bharat Yadav

Sri Murli Yadav

Sri Chander Yadav

4. BinayKumar

5. Bidesi Ram

Sri Bikaram Ram

SriBinod Orang

6. Bhukhal Orang

7. Dilip Orang

Sri Late Fagu Orang

Sri Ratan Mahato

8. Dhaneshwar Mahato

Sri KetuOrang

9. Ganesh Orang

10. Hitu Mahato

Late Baneshwar Mahato

11. Kameshwar Deo Sri Chhotu Deo

12. Krishna Yadav

Sri Bengali Yadav

Md . Abdul Satar

13. Md. Siraj Khan

14. Ramashankar Yadav Sri Ramayan Yadav

15. Ramesh Kumar

Sri Dharamdeo Ram

16. Shiv Prakash Ram Sri Madan Ram

17. Sitaram Rajwar LateBachu Rajwar

18. Suresh Paswan

Sri Ram Brikah Paswan

19. Surendra Yadav Sri Ramdeo Yadav

20. Surendra Ram

Sri Umashankar Ram

21. Shiv Kumar Yadav Sri Krishna Yadav

22. Samarbahadu Yadav Sri Ratiram Yadav

23. Shiv Bilas Ram

Sri Dharamedo Ram

24. Uday Kumar Yadav Sri Nath Yadav

25. YadavMahato

Sri Baneshwar Mahato

work . The attendance of the concerned workmen were recorded by the company staff in the statutory record and they also worked in the same timings and shift distribution as all other regular employees of the management. The management has taken the plea that the concerned workmenwere working under a contractor but in fact the so-called contractor was not there and it was a camouflage of the management to deprive the workers of their legitimate wages and benefits as available under the terms ofNCWA. The concerned workmen worked in the premises ofthe employer and necessary tools and implements were supplied by the employer including mining shoes, cap lamps and helmets . All the concerned workers were members ofPragatisil Sahayog Sammittee , a Co- operative organisation and the said Co-operative organisation is not a labour contract firm in terms of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act. The said Pragatisil Sahayog Samittee had 5 teams of workers of which the team of Sri Ram Bilas Ram consisted of 25 heads including Ram Bilas Ram. There was another team of the said Co -operative consisting of 15 heads in the name of Ram Nath Singh doing the same and similar job with the team ofRam Bilas Ram butwhile the team members of Ram Nath Singh have been regularised by the management as a result of an Award, being Reference No. 104/90, passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal though similar and same cases of the team of Ram Bilas Ram has been totally ignored and discriminated by the management . The concerned workmen were not only worked under the direct supervision , guidance and control of the management they were individually paid by the management through Dhanbad Central Co - operative Bank.During their working underground all the concerned workmenput in 190 days of attendance and more during the calendar year of 1990 itself. They were issued Identity Cards under the signature of Sr. Personnel Officer of Balihari Colliery . Thus , there existed the relationship 01 master and servant between the management and the concerned workmen . The concerned workmen and each ofthemhaving worked for more than 190 days in a calender year in permanent and perennial nature ofjobs as also in prohibited category ofjobs are entitled to be regularised in their respective jobs . The case of the concerned workmen was negotiated by the union with the relevant management for their regularisation but without any fruitful result and as such the union raised an industrial dispute with the A.L.C. (C) Dhanbad which ended in failure and the present reference is the out come . It has been stated thatthe action of the management in not departmentalising/ regularising the concerned workmen in the direct roll of themanagement is highly unjustified, mala fide and illegal .

It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to pass an award in favour of the workmenbydirecting the management to departmentalise/ regularise the concerned workmen in the direct roll ofthe company with full backwages .

2. The case of the concerned workmen is that while so employed they performed the jobs ofBrivage in stone, Stone cutting, Drivage through fault in stone , Coal cutting , Dressing in coal and stone, Roof supporting , Line packing, Fall cleaning and other Tyndal jobs . The jobs performed by the concerned workmen are permanent and perennial nature and prohibited category of jobs . As regards the permanent and perennial nature of jobs it is submitted that in terms of NCWA- III and IV that such jobs are tobe carried out departmentally and the industry shall not employ labour through contractor or engage contractor's labour on jobs of permanent and perennial nature . While so working the concerned workmen have all along worked under the direct instruction, supervision and control of the management through their official and supervisor staffs.The concerned workmen were directly allottedthe workby the management who also inspected the place of

3957G1/09-29 7280

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

ofthe principal employer . In consonance the workmen concerned is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. It has beenprayed that this Hon'ble may be pleased to give an award in favour ofthe employers .

In rejoinder the employers has stated that M/s . Pragatisil Shramik Sahayog Samity Labour Co- operative at Balihari Colliery and the contract work is awarded to the Samity as and when required in temporary nature ofjob which is distributed among their workman viz . Ram Bilash Ram and 24 others . The case ofRam Nath Singh and others was not similar to the present case.

Ithasbeenprayed that an award be passed in favour ofthe management holding that the concerned workman are not entitled to any relief.

4.The concerned workmen have filed rejoinder stating almost the same things which have been stated in theirwritten statement.

5. The management has produced MW- 1- PurushtamDas who has proved Exts. M - 1 , M- 1/ 1 , M - 1/ 2 and Ext. M- 2, M/2/ 1 and M- 2/2 . The managementhas also produced MW-2 Umesh Prasad Singh, MW-3-B . N. Jha andMW-4-Uttam Chatterjee.

The workmen. had produced WW- 1-Ram Bilash Ram, who has proved Exts. W- 1 to W-5.

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workmen is that the management has deployed the concerned workmen to work in Balihari Colliery regularly in permanent and perennial nature ofjob since 1989. They were engaged to perform the job ofdrivage in stone, stone cutting, coal cutting by separating coal and stone, dressing in coal and stone inside the mine, roof supporting, line packing, fall cleaning and other tyndal jobs on surface and underground. All the jobs are essential forcoal mines operation to its day-to- day function to raise coal:from insidethe mine. All these jobs are in prohibited category in terms of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and to cover up the legal obligation the management forced the workmen to organise a co- operative,namely, Pragatisil Sahayog Co-operative Society, justto show it was a contractor but it isnow a settled fact that the cooperative society cannot undertake jobs for employers but can simply workers to perform duties according to requirement of the employers within their establishment which the concerned 25 workmen have been doing. The management which is a public sector undertaking formed subsequent to nationalisation of CokingCoalMines Act, 1972 has been indulging in illegal action by treating the concerned workmen as that of contractor though in actual practice the concerned 25 workmen are supplied by Cooperative Society to the management and performing duties within the premises of the management which jobs are essential and permanent and perennial in nature for the purpose of running the 3. The written statement has been filed on behalfof the management stating that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the management of Balihari Colliery and Rambilash Ram and 24 others Co- operative workers , namely, Pragatisil Shramik Sahayog Samity and they are not workmen as defined in Sec. 2(s) of the I.D. Act , 1947. M/ s . Pragatisil Shramik Sahayog Samity is labour Co - operative Contractor and the Contract work isawarded to the Samity as and when required . It has beendenied that the concerned Samity has been awarded anycontractwork which is prohibited category under C.L. (R&A) Act, 1970, rules framed and notification issued thereunder. The authorised representative of the said Samity used to supervise the work performed by its members . The management is also under obligation to get the work supervised through its supervisory personnel, only to the extent it is required to do so under the provisions of Mines Act, Rules and Regulation framed thereunder for safety of man and materials . The management is under obligation to provide all persons whetherthey are direct employees of the company or they are employees of their Contractor and even to outsider who used to visit mines , safety equipments for their personnel safety and safety of the Mines under the aforesaid laws . No Act, Rules and Regulations applicable tocoal mines including the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970, provide that the management i.e. the principal employer is to absorb the contractor's workers ignoring the claim of the general public. The inanagement has right tochoose a person for employment of the required skill amongst the persons who have been registered with the Employment Exchange in terms of the Employment ExchangeRules and in case ofnon- availability of required person from the Employment Exchange then the management has got right to choose a person for its employment through open advertisement and if the management is not allowed to exercise its inherent right then it will amount to denial of fundamental right under the Constitution of India and violation of Employment Exchange Rules and Rules framed for employment of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes personnel . It has been submitted that the demand of the concerned union is to abolish the contract system and to employ all the workers of the Contractor by the Principal employer through back door, is contrary to the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation andAbolition) Act, 1970. The Unions are raising demands in one form or the other before the A.L.C. (C) for adjudication. The present case is on such instance and the sponsoring union has raised this dispute toprovide employment to thejob seakers who are complete strangers. In the recunt judgement of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court it has been decided that in case the principai employer or the Contractor violate any of the provisions ofContract Labour (R&A) Act then the remedy lies within this and not outside the Act and the Contractor's workers cannot be deemed to have become the employees 7281 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

mine to raise coal from the underground for which the nationalised company has been formed by the Central Government. The management's witness , MW-1- Purshottam Das, who was working as Surveyor, has stated that the workers belonging to Pragatisil Sahayog Cooperative Society and Ram Bilas Ram , who was SecretaryoftheCooperative, work order was given to him and he was working with other 24 workmen performing job for and on behalf of the management. He has also stated that payments were made through cheques in the name ofPragatisil Sahayog Cooperative Society. He also stated that MW-1 used to prepare bills and bills with attendance chart and got signature from the managerand other authorityofthe colliery. So. as per evidence ofMW- 1 it is clear that financial control was in the hands ofthe management and there cannot by any doubt that there existed a clear relationship of omployers and employees betweenthe management and the concerned 25 workmen. It has also been argued that in the same way the management has regularised another workmen in Reference No. 104/90 . The concerned workmen referred Indian Factories and Labour Reports (79 ) 1998-Part 4- page 191 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, Section 10 Absorption ofmembers ofa Co -operative Society supplied fordoingwork ofEastern Railway since 1988 continuously and the work is of permanent and perennial asture- directed to absorb as regular employees.

7. The management argued that there is no employer- employee relationship between the concerned workmen and the management and they are not doing the job of permanent and perennial nature ofjobs , and such werks performed by the concerned workmen are not prohibited under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act . Thework has been taken temporarily from the concerned workmenthrough contractor on the basis ofwork order, if and when needed and so they cannot be regularised.

management and their names also noted in the Form 'C' Register for doing underground work in the mine. Again thiswitness stated in cross - examination that some workanen ofthis very co-operative society have been regularised in serviceby the management after passing of award bythis Tribunal and other Tribunal. It shows that the management has regularised some workmen for doing some and similar nature of job which the concerned workmen were. performing. Again this witness (MW- 1) stated that the attendance chart prepared at that time bears signature of Manager and other authorities of the colliery. I cannot say that the concerned workmen have completed more than 190 days in the year 1990. It shows that the attendance chart which is prepared by the management is under the signature of the Manager and other authorities of the colliery. It only shows that the concerned workmen are underdirect control and supervision of the management. Again this witness has stated in cross -examination atpage 3 that the bill was prepared by him after measuring the work performed by the workmen and the bill was signed by the Manager and another officers of the colliery and after passing the bill payment was made from the area office. This statement shows that they measure the work donebyconcerned workmen, bill was prepared and signed by the manager and after passing the bill payment was made. MW- 1 also stated in cross -examination at page 4 that the work of line packing is done in a pasticular area of the collierywhile preparing the mine and it is temporary work. For doing regular line packing and its repair is done by regular general mazdoor of the colliery. This shows that the work done by the concerned workmen is of permanent nature though the work is done by other general mazdoors of the colliery. He has stated that 1 cannot say ifthese workmen were engaged for moving heavy materials in the colliery. I cannot say that this Pragatisil Co - operative Society was not registered firm. It only shows that the concerned workmen were engaged by the colliery.

MW-2- Umesh Prasad Singh, who was working as Asstt. Manager in South Balihari colliery and he was Superintendent of Mines from the year 1983 , has stated there was a Co- operative Society of the workers whowere doing the work in the said colliery and were doing the work connected with the mine, such as , line peaking , construction of ventilation stopping etc. In cross- examination he has stated that Pragatisil Co-operative Societywere being offered job probably from the year 1989or 1990. The cheques to the anciety were being issued to them from the account ofBCCL .

8.Inthis respect the evidence ofMW- 1-Purshottam Das is important. He has stated in cross- examination at page 2 that "The Contractor, Ram Bilash Ram worked in the colliery for the entire period of my tenure there i.e. from 1981 to 1995. However, the workmen were working since 1989. Work order was given toRam Bilash Ram and theworkmenhad performed the work as per work order .A large number of work orders had been given to Ram Bilash Ram other than Ext. M- 1 and M - 2 series ." This part shows that it supports the case that they were working since 1989 with Ram Bilash Ram . This witness MW- 1- Purushottam Das stated in cross -examination again that any person or worker going underground is provided safety equipment including cap lamp, helmet and mine shoes . He also stated in Form ' C' it only shows that the concerted workmen are working underground none and as it is pleaded by the workmen shows that cap lamps, helmet and mine shoes were supplied to them by the

MW-3- B . N. Jha has stated in cross -examination at page 2 that I visit underground into mines as a routine duty. If stonebands come into the face of the colliery the coal will not be extracted until and unless the stone band isremoved. The coal cannot be raised without removing the stone bandbut we face this problem not regularlybut 7282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIΚΑ 23 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] occasionally when stone band appears on the face of coal . Geological formation of coal mine is that coal is protected between the stones but the finding of stone on the face of coal is quite uncertain and it is occasionally found in the seam. The concerned workmen are working as and when the work is required to be done by them.

MW-4- Uttam Chatterjee has stated in cross- examination that the bills of the aforesaid Co - operative Society are being checked by me from 1989 and in the same manner their bills are being checked according to the work order given to them. The bills were being certified by the Manager of the colliery. After checking the bill I used to certify that the bill is in order as per work order . The cheques were being issued against the account of BCCL . They were the contractors of BCCL and working for BCCL . It only shows that the payment is made by the BCCL according to the work done by Co -operative Society only shows camouflage because their jobs are permanent and perennial in nature and regular . The work order shows that the work which is being performed by the concerned workmen through co -operative society is of permanent nature.

and positon'-Earlier, Electricity Board had taken decision to regularise services of its daily wage employee who were working from before 4-5-1990-Since petitioners were appointed in Society before 4-5-1990 , they cannot be denied benefit of decisions of Board permitting regularisation-Moreover, when they had put in about 22 years of service . " They have also referred 2008 AIR SCW 3996 ( G.M. , Ο.N.G.C. , Shilchar Vs. O.N.G.C. Contractual Workers Union ) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held-- "Regularisation of services Contractual workers- Disentitlement from claiming regularisation Not inflexible rule-Workers appointed by ONGC initially through contractor-Claim for regularisation-Reference to TribunalFinding of fact by Tribunal that workmen were employees of ONGC and not contract employees Being employees of ONGC workmen would be entitled to all benefits available in that capacity , and issue of regularisation would pale into in significance . Pleadings of parties and evidence produced-Relevant for determining real scope of dispute-Wording of reference showing that core issue before Tribunal was with regard to status ofworkers as employees ofprincipal employer Award of Tribunal holding workers to be employees of principal employer and granting relief of regularisation- Notoutside to jurisdiction . "

2009 (120) FLR 143 ( Kanpur Electricity SupplyCo. Ltd. Vs. Shamim Mirza) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held-" Contention of appellant that there was no employer -employee relationship between the appellant and the respondents-On basis of documents submitted by the workmen and for lack of proper rebuttal to such documents there was no ground to presume that workmen were employee of the contractor-In fact they were in regular employment of appellant as cashiers having worked more than 240 days-Tribunal rightly concluded that termination ofservices of respondents without notice and payment ofcompensation was illegal . "

9. The management's counsel argued that MW- 1- Ram Bilash Ram , who is Secretary of Pragatisil Shramik Sahayog Samiti formed by the members of the Society for underground mine work, has filed Exts . W- 1 , W- 2 , W-3 , W-4 and W -5 series . Ext. W- 2 shows that in Reference No. 51 of 1978 an award was passed for regularisation of workmen dated 5-3-1981 and also in Reference No. 104 of 1990 an award was passed by this Tribunal regarding absorption/ regularisation of the concerned workmen (Ext . W- 2/ 1 ) , Ext . W- 4 series are Identity Cards issued to the concernedworkmen for doing the johs , Ext. W- 5 shows payment by the management, Ext. W- 5 / 1 series slow bills ofPragatisil Shramik Sahayog Samittee Ltd. regarding jobs performed which shows that they are doing the jobs ofdrivage in coal , dressing in coal and stone and cutting of stone etc. As per Ext . W- 3 the attendance of co- operative workers taken by Dy. C.P.M. , P.B. Area to Dy . C.M.E./Agent , Balihari Colliery and Ext. W- 3 / 1 shows that attendance has been verified of the concerned workmen by the management and also Ext . W- 3 / 2 shows the attendance in Form ' C ' Register of the management . Ext . W-2/2 is an award in Reference No. 53/91 in which workmen have been regularised.

2008 LLR 509 (Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Association of Engineering Workers ) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held-" Canteen workers through Contractor-Absorption of By the principal employer- Whenthe canteen is required to be run under Sec . 64 of the Factories Act, 1948-There were 27 canteen workers working for many years through the contractors who were changing but the workers remained the same Complaint for unfair labour practice on behalf of canteen workers accepted by the Industrial Court-High Court confirmed the order since the canteen has been a part of establishment of the management and the workers in canteenwere carrying on the work which was ofperennial nature Canteen has been included to and connected with the work of establishment of the management-Though treating the workers as contract employees contrary to the statutory obligation and the judicial pronouncement oftheApex Court -Management filing appeal before the 10. In this respect the concerned workmen referred 2007 AIR SCW 6904 (U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey & Others ) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held " Constitution of India , Arts , 16, 14- Regularisation of service - Petitioners were daily wage employee of Co- operative Electric Supply Society- Society was taken over by Electricity Board-Pursuant to proceeding by Minister of Co - operative , petitioners ' services were taken over by Board ' in the same manner 7283 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

working through canteen contractor seeking absorption by the principal employer to be entitled to the same benefits-Plea of the principal employer that instead of complaint under the latter Act, the appropriate remedy for seeking redresses of griecances in under the farmer Act, whereby it is tobe resolved by the machinery as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act " Untenable " .

2008 ( 118 ) FIR 1176 ( Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Others) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down-" Regularisation- Respondents 4 to 17 entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment- Taken by Colliery as Clay Cartridge maker-Claimed absorption-Reference decide in their favour- Tribunal as fact finding body held that they were entitled to be absorbed in regular pay roll- Workmenentitled tobe considered for regular appointment incompassionate category-Where discharging perennial duty, enjoying same service benefits like regular workmen Their work supervised by management They wereunder control and supervision of the management- Their absorption as regular workers not erroneous- Interference with the award declined . "

Supreme Court-Relying upon the judgment of3 -judges bench in Petrochemical Corporation Limited & Ors . with identical facts held that the fact in that the canteen establishment ofthe Appellant- Management is a statutory canteen-The respondents - workmen are in fact workmen of the Appellant - Management . RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE- The decisive factor for determination of Control and supervision by the principal employer-Absorption of workers working in statutory canteen through contractor-When the Management is employing more than 250 workers- Factories Act , 1948- Section 2 ( 1 ) , "Worker "- Management engaging contractor for running the canteen since 1971-Contractors were changing from time to time-Last two contractors running the canteen since more than14 years each but the employees remained the same- The appellant-Management was providing premises , furniture, fuel , gas, electricity , water and laid down several procedures as to how food items to be supplied-Industrial Court has rightly held that the wages and the provident fund contributions were reimbursed by the appellant- Management and the evidence released that the contract has been nothing but only a paper arrangement-The material as placed showed that though the canteen was runby the contractor but ultimate control and supervision hasbeenby the Company-Directions issued to implement the decision dated 15-10-1998 within a period of three months.

2008 ( 3 ) JLJR 109 ( M/ s . Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen represented by the EngineeringMazdoor Panchayat Union) in which Hon'ble Jharkahand High Court laid down " Labour and Industrial Laws Regularisation - workmen engaged by the petitioner company in its various units since past twenty years- worked in various departments of petitioner company under direct control and supervision of officers of petitioner company- frequently transferred and posted in various departments - petitioner company cannot take advantage of dubious intermediaries the consumer co- operative stores in the plea of engaging contract labour- management adopted such practice only to avoid the liability of financial trappings as otherwise would be payable to the workmen if absorbed regularly there existeda direct relationship of employer and employee-- voil of contract employment cannot alter this fact- no reasonto interfere with impugned award ofTribunal passed in favour of workmen . "

MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT , 1971 - Section 28- Item 9 of Sch . IV- ULP Complaint-Respondent- Union filed a complaint of unfair labour practice on behalf of 27 canteen workers , against Company claiming the said canteen workers to be employees of the Company-Sought that the canteen workers be given all the benefits as provided to other employees of the Company and to stop the said unfair labour practice- Industrial Court held it to be unfair labour practice committed by Management-Writ petition by Management dismissed-Writ Appeal also dismissed- Appeal in the Apex Court-The Apex Court upheld the decision of the Industrial Court for the reasons ( i ) canteen employees continued despite change of canteen contractors; ( ii) evidence on record established the ultimate control ofManagement on the canteen employees; (iii) Industrial Court rightly decided , in view of evidence coupled with terms of agreement that canteen contract was only paper arrangement; and rightly held that company has committed unfair labour practice; (iv) No error or infirmity in these conclusions of the Industrial Courtwhich was affirmed by High Court.

CONTRACT LABOUR ( REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 VIS - A- VIS MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971-Workers

SCLJ (6) 3867 (M/ s . Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ram Ujagar) inwhich Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down " It was with a view to remove the difficulty in the way of workmen employed contractors that the definition of employer has been extended by sub -clause ( iv) of Section 2(j ) . The position thus is (a) that the respondents are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) being persons employed in the industry to do manual work for reward, and (b) they were employed by a contractor with whom the appellant company had contracted in the course ofconducting the industry for the execution by the said contractor ofthe work of removal of press -mud which is ordinarily a part of the industry. It follows therefore from 7284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

the appellant are either perverse or based on no evidence oruntenable at all .

Section 2( s) read with sub -clause (iv) of Section 2 ( 1 ) of the Act that they are workmen of the appellant company and the appellant company is their employer . "

U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 6 -N- Non-compliance of respondents were engaged as gardeners (Malis) to sweep , clean and maintain lawns and parks inside the factory premises and campus of residential colony-Their services terminated- Provisions ofsection 6-Nnot complied with - Labour Court rightly directedto re-employ them - Concurrent findings recorded by Labour Courtand theHigh Court - Cannot be treated as perverse. "

11. As per discussions made above it shows that the works have been taken by the management; as per evidence produced by the management shows that they (concernedworkmen) are doing the jobs ofpermanent and perennial nature since 1989. Other persons have been regularisedby the management, but the present concerned workman have not been regularised . So, the concerned workmenare entitled to be regularised/departmentalised in the services of the management ofM/ s . BCCL.

12. Accordingly, I render following award- 2000 (87) FLR- 7 ( G. B. Pant University ofAgriculture & Technology Vs. State of U.P. and Others ) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down-" Regularisation- Cafeteria workers in University-For purpose ofproviding food tothe inmates of the hostels Employees of cafeteria therefore be termed to be employees of University Entitled to be regularised The University directed to regularise the services of employees in terms of award passed by Labour Court. The University is directed to regularise the services of the employees in terms of the award passed by the Labour Court by 31st August , 2000 so as to entitle the employees of the Cafeteria to obtain the monthly wages at par with the other employees of the University, and directed by the Labour Court . The arrears ofsalary, ifthere be any payable , as per the said directions as confirmed by the High Court be paid to the canteen staff concerned by twelve equal monthly installments alongwith the regularised salary.

Theaction of the management ofBalihari Colliery of M/s.BCCL innot departmentalising/ regularising Shri Ram Bilas Ram and 24 others is not justified. Hence , the management is directed to departmentalise/ regularise Ram Bilas Ram and 24 others with 50% back wages from the date of their stoppage from service , within 30 days from the date ofpublication of the Award .

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2009

2002 LIR 449 (M/ s . Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co- operative Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal- I , Allahabad and others) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held-- "On the appreciation of evidence , the Tribunal came to the conclusion that they are the employees of the appellant and that finding of fact was based on evidence in our opinion, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal could not be seriously assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We find nojustification to interfere with the award asaffirmed by the High Court. The appeal, therefore , stands dismissed . No cost ."

का. आ. 3106.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नैशनल एविएशन कं. ऑफ इंडिया लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई-2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2003 (93) FIR 826 (M/ s . Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down - " U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section2 ( i ) ( iv) - Employer - Ifworkmen were employed withappellant establishment- To work in their premises - The fact found established after removing the mask of employment under contractor - Appellent cannot escape its liability - respondents were its employees .

[सं. एल-11012/66/2006-आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2009

The definition of' employer' given in Section 2( i) ( iv) of the Act is an inclusive definition. If the respondents- workmen as a matter of fact were employed with the appellant to work in their premises and which fact is found established after removing the mask of facade of make- believe employment under the contractor , the appellant cannot escape its liability.

It is clear whether a workman is an employee of principal employer or not depends on the facts and circumstances of a given case .

S.O. 3106.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/ 2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Mumbai - 2 now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of NACIL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2009.

[No. L- 11012/66/2006- IR(C- I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer -Itisnot possible for us to hold that such concurrent findings recorded by the Labour Court and the High Court that the workman were to be treated as the employees of 7285

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[भाग II-खंड 3(ii)]

ANNEXLURE.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI Present: A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer ReferenceNo. CGIT-2/16 of2007 Employers in relation to the management ofAir India LimitedNow: National Aviation Company of India Ltd.)

The Chairman AirIndiaLtd. (Now:National Aviation Co. ofIndia Ltd.) Air IndiaBuilding, NarimanPoint, Mumbai -400 021 .

And

TheirWorkmen

AirIndiaAircraft Engineer's Association The President Air India Aircraft Engineers' Association, OldAirport, Santacruz(E), Mumbai -400 029.

APPEARANCES

FortheEmployer

: Mr. L. L. D'Souza, Representative

Forthe Workmen

: No appearance

Mumbai, dated 16th September , 2009.

AWARD

1. The Government ofIndia, Ministry ofLabour,by itsOrderNo. L- 11012/66/2006 IR (CM- I) dated 1-3-2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( I ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 have referred the following dispatetothis Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management ofAir India Ltd. , Mumbai in not according the status of "Protected workmen" to the officers of the Association under rule 61 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 , isjustified & legal ? Ifnot,to what relief isthe Association and its officers entitled and from which date?"

2. Though notices were sent to union and served on it aswell as it appeared time and again but failed to file Claim Statement. Notices were sent thrice during the hearing ofthis reference. Even today, when called out in the Court, second partyunion found absent. Hence the order:

ORDER

union. Reference is disposed of for want of presence of Date:16-9-2009

A. A. LAD, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2009

का. आ. 3107.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नैशनल एविएशन कं. ऑफ इंडिया लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई -2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/78/1999- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 22nd October, 2009 S.O. 3107. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Mumbai - 2 now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of NACIL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 22-10-2009.

[No. L- 11012/78/1999- IR (C - I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI Present: A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2/1 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of Air India Limited (Now National Aviation Company ofIndia Ltd.)

The ManagingDirector, AirIndiaLtd. (Now National Aviation Co. of India Ltd.) AirIndia Building , NarimanPoint, Mumbai -400021 . FirstParty

V/s.

TheirWorkmen

The Secretary, Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh , 25, Ibrahim Mansion, Dr. AmbedkarMarg, Parel, Mumbai 420012 .

Second Party APPEARANCES

FortheEmployer

: M/s . Bhasin& Co. , Advocates .

Forthe Workmen

: Mr. N.G. Helekar, Advocate.

7286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Dateofreserving theAward: 29-4-2009.

Date ofpassing the Award: 4-8-2009.

AWARD

Commissioner ( Central ) tried his level best to settle the dispute unable to settle it due to adamant approach of the 1stParty. It is submitted that, dispute send be adjudicated directing 1st Party to regularise the workmen involved in the Reference as its regular employees .

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

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour, by its Order No. L- 11012/78/ 1999 IR( C-I) dated 14-9-2000 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the demand of the Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh from the management of Air India Limited, Mumbai to regularise 354 casual workers (as per list) is legal andjustified ? If so to what relief are the said workmen entitled to and from what date ? "

3. This is disputed by the 1st Party by filing its reply at Exhibit 13 stating and contending that , 1st Party is a Government undertaking . It is stated that, there are Rules and Regulations ofenrolment in the employment of the 1st Party. It is stated that, 1st Party is already loaded with extra manpower . It is stated that, the Union does not represent permanent employees of the Company. It is stated that, these employees involved in the reference are the employees of casual nature and not employees of the 1st Party . It is stated that , since not a single permanent employee of the 1st Party is a member of this Union who is persuing the dispute, has no status and any authority to espouse the cause of the workers involved in the Reference . It is stated that , admittedly the workers involved in the Reference are casual workers and have worked only for fixed period of 110 days in every year and not 240 days as expected though they have worked for 5-10 years with 1stParty. It is stated that, since nobody has worked for more than 110 days in a calendar year during the above tenure with 1st Party , it is stated that, they cannot claim anykind ofpermanency. It is stated that, unfilled vacancies are vacancies which arise on casual basis or on the basiś of long period of leave of the regular workman and it is filledwith the worker of this type . It is alleged that , such is permittedby theGovernment of India since earlier it decided to fillup the posts of that type by following this procedure. Itis stated that, said procedure cannot be challenged before this Tribunal . It is further stated that, 1st Party has in its employment 16610 employees . It is further stated that, out of those 10327 are working as a ' ground category ' consisting of technical and non -technical , clerical and allied category including Loaders , Cleaners , Peons etc. It is further statedthat, out ofthose 10,327 employees 1612 are working as Loaders , 1366 are working as cleaners and 223 are working as handymen safari , 263 are working as Peons . It isfurther stated that, 1011 are working in Clerical category. It isfurther stated that, besides that, 556 are Safai Kamgars and 159 Suraksha Rakshak Kamgars . It is further stated that, to regularise 354 and other casual labourers would mean adding a huge additional financial burden without anyjustification. It is stated that, Company has to engage casual labourers for their valid and legal justification and for various reasons . It is stated that , such policy is adopted bytheGovernment of India and 1st party is following that as per the guide lines given by the Government of India . Besides the Company being national carrier is required to handle various other carriers and their contracts for handling their operations and it is also required to handle special Charters for transportation of perishable and precious articles to their respective destinations within the 2. To support the subject matter vuived in the reference claim statement is filed by the Secretary of the Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh at Exhibit 10 making out the case that, the workers involved in the reference are working with the 1st Party as Loaders , Cleaners , Sweepers , Peons and doing the work done by other employees of the 1st Party. Said work is of perennial nature . It is alleged that , 1st Party is engaging these employees for about 110 days in every year and that too on rotation basis . It is alleged that, said work is allotted by the 1st Party on casual basis purposely to deprive the concerned workmen to claim permanency. It is alleged that, in number of cases Hon'ble High Court direct 1st Party to regularise the workmen of this type on its establishment . It is stated by the 2nd Party that, since said work is of perennial nature and without attending the said work 1st Party cannot function properly, it is prayed that , it is necessary to direct 1st Party to regularise these workers involved in the reference. It is submitted that, the stand taken by the 1st Party that, the employees involved in the Reference are not the permanent employees on the establishment of the 1st Party and they are appointed on casual basis to fillup the vacancy of casual nature does not qualify them to regularise , has no meaning. It is submitted that , the 1st Party can arrange the duties of the employees of its establishment and can appoint the persons in leave vacancy from the regular staff only. It is stated that, it cannot engage such employees on casual basis and engage em on rotation basis in leave vacancy or in absence of regular employee as happened in their case. It is stated that point of regularisation was persued by the Sangh on number or occasions by writing various letters . It is alleged that , however , it was not considered. They claim that , so they approached the Labour Commissioner ( Central) who tried his level best to settle the dispute . It is stated that, though Labour [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

stipulated period. It is stated that, 1st Party has to engage casual workers to fill in the gap createdby absenteeism or leave vacancy. Since not a single employee has worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year though they are working with it for 9-10 years , and it is stated that, they cannot claim permanency. It is further stated that, in number ofWrit Petitions our Hon'ble High Court and other Courts also does not accept the prayer of this type and direct employer of this type to regularise its casual labourers without following recruitment rules.

4. It is stated that, since 1st Party is a Government undertaking and has to follow the recruitment rules by checking age , qualifications and ability of the workers to recruit as its employees . It is stated that , since all these workerswerenot employed by following said tests and the said procedure and were engaged only as casual labourers, it is stated that , such casual labourers cannot claim permanency or regularization in the employment of the 1st Party. It is further stated that such a decision is given by thisCourt while disposing of Reference No. CGIT- 2/ 156 of 1998 where this Tribunal held that , the action of the Management interminating the services of the employees involved in the said Reference was justified. Even in a number of decisions of Hon'ble High Court did not gave a blanket order in favour of any of the Union and asked employers to regularise casual workers on its establishment. On the contrary Hon'ble High Court has on number of occasions , observed that workman who is found fit in the interview and who is found fit in the medical tests should be only regularised by the employers . It is stated that in this light the prayer prayed by the 2nd Party i.e. Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh does not require to consider.

5. In view of the above pleadings , following Issues were framedby my Ld . Predecessor at Exhibit 14 which I replyasunder:

FINDINGS ISSUES

No 1. Whether Management proves that the reference is not maintainable as averred in para 2 of the Written Statement (Exhibit13) ?

No 2. Whether the demand of the Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh from the Management ofAir India Ltd. , Mumbai to regularise 354 casual workers (as per list) is legal andjustified ?

Relief.

3. What relief the said casual workers named in the list are entitled and from what date ?

REASONS:

ISSUE NO. 1 :

6. Ist Party has contended that since not a single employee of its establishment is a member of Sangh,, 2nd 3957G1/09-30

7287

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

Party cannot represent the workers involved in the Reference. It is starid ofthe 1st Party that workmen involved inthe Reference are not the employees of the 1st Party as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. It is stand of the 1st Party that since they are not workers ofthe 1st Party and not a single permanent workman of the 1st Party is a member of the " Sangh " who is representing or espousing the cause of the workers involved in the reference, have no power to raise dispute .

7. In the Reference , it is case of the 1st Party that said Union has no locus standi to fight for these workers and request this Tribunal to direct 1st Party to regularise the workmen involved in the Reference .

8. This is rather a technical issue raised by the 1st Partywhich is disputed by the 2nd Party by filing affidavits oftwo workmen at Exhibit 20 and 28. Both claim that they are acting members of the 2nd Party. Both claim that there was a resolution and it was decided by the said resolution to espouse the dispute of the workmen involved in the Reference.

9. Even in the cross these witnesses admit that they are fighting on behalf of the employees who are members oftheir Union . They also admit that, not a single workman worked for more than 110 days in each calendar year though they are working for years together. On that 1st Party examined one witness , Mrs. Meenakshi Kashyap , by filing his affidavit at Exhibit 33 in lieu of his examination - in-chief. However, cross of the said witness is not taken by the Union, On that evidence was closed by Ist Party by filing closing purshis atExhibit34.

10. Then 1st party submitted written arguments at Exhibit 41. On that no argument is of 2nd Party on any issue .

11. As far as status of Union is concerned, the right of Union to espouse the cause of these workmen is concerned, I think that 1st Party is not sure about its stand though it claimed it from pages 6 to 10 of Exhibit 41. In written arguments 1st Party unable to corner the 2nd Party Union in saying that it has no locus standi to espouse the causeofthe concerned workmen . Admittedly these workers areworking on the floor of the Ist Party . Admittedly workers areworking for 1st Party. Admittedly they are working only for the 1st Party and they are members of the 2nd Party Sangh. It may be that they are casual workers and no any permanent employee is a member of the 2nd Party, in my considered view it does debar the Sangh to espouse the cause of the workers and it does not disqualify the Union to espouse the cause of the workers . So I conclude that the 2ndParty has very much right to espouse the cause of the workers involved in the reference . Hence , 1 answer this issue to that effect.

7288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] ISSUE NOS . 2 & 3 :

reference and 2nd Party's members does not have any required qualifications , age , capacity, eligibility and fitness like other workers . When that is the case in my considered view, it find difficult to direct 1st Party to regularise the workers involved in the reference though work on which they are working is available and is ofperennial nature .

14. Besides Government has allowed 1st Partyto engage casual workers and allowed 1st Partyto engage workers on casual basis in my considered view, 1st Party cannot be restrained in not engaging the employees of this type unless there is ban of Government of India to engage this type of workers in that field.

15. In view of the discussions made above coupled with the case made out by both , I. conclude that, there is no substance in the demand of the 2nd Party. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to its costs .

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Bombay,

4thAugust, 2009

नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2009

का. आ. 3108.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं वाइल्ड लाइफ इन्स्टीट्यूट ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकार के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/102/2003- आई आर (सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2009 12. Here 2nd Party claims that workmen involved inthe Reference by regularised since they have worked for a number of years . In this Reference Union is not claimingthat these workers are dismissed and they should be reinstated . It is case of the Union that they are working with 1st Party for years together and they should be regularised. Against that stand of the 1st Party is that it is a Government undertaking. It is stand of the 1st Party that ithas recruitment rules . It is stand of the 1st Party that it has to follow rules and regulations for recruitment. It is stand of the 1st Party that , it has to follow various recruitment Policies of the Government of India like maintaining reservation ratio, giving priority to various sections of people and castes of the people . It is stated that, 1st Party is bound to observe the rules and regulations as well as has to take other factors into consideration e.g. age limits , qualifications , fitness etc. while recruiting the employees. It is also case of the 1st Party that, it also required to maintain proper reservation ratio of all casts defined by the Government of India . When that is the obligation on the 1st Party, question arises while regularizing these workers who are involved in the Reference whether it can be in a position to follow all that ? No any light is thrown by the 2nd Party on it. On the contrary 2nd Party remained absent and did not cross- examine witnesses of 1st Party . It is stand of the Ist Party that, similar type of issue was decided by this Tribunal disallowing the claim of the Union. It is alleged that, the said award was challenged by the Union before the Hon'ble High Court. It is alleged that , even Hon'ble High Court after hearing the parties rejected the writ petition filed by the Union against the said Award. It is alleged that , after the said judgement, and order of the Hon'ble High Court , the Union stopped in attending this matter . As far as this contention is concerned , it is not disputed by the 2nd Party. Even witnesses of the 2nd Party admit that, not a single workman worked for more than 240 days in each calender year. It is not case of the 2nd Party that, any of the workman involved in the Reference claim that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

S.O. 3108. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Wildlife Institute of India and their workmen, which was received bythe Central Government on 22-10-2009.

[No. L-42012/ 102/2003 - IR (CM - II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT:

N. K. Purohit , Presiding Officer

13. No doubt the work of Loaders , cleaners , clerical and other work on which the workmen involved in the Reference were working, is of perennial nature . At the saine time one cannot ignore that, they are working on -casual basis . When they are working on casual basis and when they are not recruited by following recruitment rules and by looking to the ratio of reservation and looking to the qualifications , age etc. in my considered view, it is not desirable to ask to the Ist Party to regularise these workers . In fact in the said case , workmen were required to be examined for regulation in the employment about their age, qualifications , etc. However, in this case it has not happened. Only two witnesses are examined who have no personal knowledge about other workmen involved in the

7289 [भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

I. D. No. 14/2004

4. It has been submitted by the workman that he had Ref. No. L-42012/ 102/2003 - IR (CM - II ) dated: 14-1-2004

BETWEEN

Shri Megh Raj Saini , S/o Sh . Desh Raj Saini

Village-Talapur , Post - Khas

District- Saharanpur

Saharanpur (U.P. )

AND

TheDirector

worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year during his employment with opposite parties and his services have been terminated without assigning any reason and he has not been paid any notice or compensation in lieu thereof, which is violative ofprovision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further it has been alleged by the workman that some ofthe workmen, junior tohim, have been regularized by the management which is violative of provisions of I. D. Act ; accordingly, he has prayed that histermination be declared illegal and he be reinstated with back wages and continuity in service.

Wildlife Institute of India Post Box No. 18 , Chandrabani Dehradun - 248001

AWARD

7-10-2009

1. By Order No. L -42012/ 102/2003 - IR (CM - II )dated 14-1-2004 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 Shri Megh Raj Saini S/ o Sh . Desh Raj Saini , Village - Talapur, Post Khas , District - Saharanpur , Saharanpur ( U.P. ) and the Director , Wildlife Institute of India , Post Box No. 18 , Chandrabani, Dehradun for adjudication.

2.The reference under adjudication is :

5.The management ofthe Wild Life Institute of India has refuted the claim of workman by filing written statement whereby it has submitted that it is an autonomous institution registered as Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and businesses carried out by it keeps it outside the purview of the definition of term 'Industry' under Section 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act . It has specifically denied ofexistence of any employer -employee relationship with the workman concerned and has submitted that he was engaged by an independent Researcher as per requirement of project allotted to him and the workman had worked under his direct control and supervision and received payments from him only; the institute had no role to play except to act as that of a medium, of funding agency, to provide funds/ grants to the Researcher and it had no administrative control over the said Researcher .

"Whether the action of the Wild Life Institute management interminating the services ofSh. Megh Raj Saini S / o Sh . Desh Raj Saini , Field Assistant , w.e.f. 30-9-2000 instead of regularizing is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief he is entitled ? "

6. The management of WLII has denied that the workman has ever been engaged by the Institute in any capacity whatsoever and since there existed no relationship of employer and employee, as such there arise no question ofeither terminating him or regularizing him atany point oftime or violation of any ofthe provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It has been submitted by the opposite party that Hon'ble High Court never held that the petitioner/workman was daily rated worker of the Institute; rather it held that in case of grievance , he can avail the remedy available under I.D. Act . Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim ofthe workman be rejected.

7. The workman has filed rejoinder wherein it has submitted that Hon'ble High Court, Nainital itself has directed the petitioner to seek alternative remedy under provisions of I. D. Act also the management , in its affidavit before Hon'ble High Court had submitted that iffalls within the provisions of I. D. Act, therefore, the workman can raise an industrial dispute against management of WLII withinthe provisions of I. D. Act, 1947. Rest is nothing apart from reiteration of the facts already stated in the statement ofclaim.

3.Caseoftheworkman, Megh Raj , in brief, is that he was working with the opposite party w.e.f. 1-7-1987 as FieldAssistant . During his employment the employer were directedby Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad vide their order dated 18-11-99 to pay the workman minimum pay scale payable to regular employee; but the employers instead ofregularizing the workman terminated the services of workmanw.e.f. 30-9-2000 without any prior information or notice thereof. Aggrieved from termination , the workman filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court , Nainital whereby Hon'ble High Court vide their interim order dated 21-3-2002 directed the respondents to regularize the services of the workman and pay him minimum pay scale, which were not complied by the management . Thereafter , Hon'bleHigh Court vide their order dated 16-5-2002 held that the petitioner is daily wager of Wild Life Institute of India and their services have been allegedly terminated by oral order; accordingly petitioners there in can seek reliefunder Industrial Disputes Act and vacated the interim order, therefore , he raised the dispute before Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Dehradun.

8. The parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective cases . The workman has 7290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3( ii ) ] examined himself whereas the management of WLIl has examined Shri AJT John Singh , Dean, Faculty ofScience and Dr. S. P. Goyal , Scientist F Category in support of their respective averments . The parties have availed opportunity of filingwritten arguments apart from oral submissions .

13. The questions thus , remain for considerations are whether employer - employee relationship existed between the parties and whether the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination .

9.Heard arguments of both the parties and persued relevant material on record .

10. The learned representative on behalf of the management has raised preliminary objection that the Wild Life Institute of India is not an industry as it is an autonomous body by virtue of aims and objective of the Institution and the functions being carried on therein, the Wild Life Institute of India is purely a research Institute . The institute is not an undertaking analogous to business or trade and it has not engaged in any commercial , industrial activity and it cannot be described as an economic venture or a commercial enterprise . The purpose ofresearch is to acquire knowledge of wild life and it does not come within the definition of term ' Industry' as defined under Section 2 (j ) of the I. D. Act , 1947 ; whereas the leamed representative on behalf of the workman has urged that in Writ Petition No. 107/2002 filed by the workman & others , it was pleaded in the affidavit filed by the Director , Wild Life Institute of India that dispute between the parties is pertaining to the petitioner's rights as a workman within the definition of Section 2 (j ) of the I. D. Act, 1947 and petitioner had alternate adjudicatory remedy by way of having raising industrial dispute . Thus , impliedly it has been admitted by the opposite party that the Wild Life Institute of India is an industry .

14. Learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that vide order dated 18-11-99 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court directed to pay wages which were payable to regular employees ; but the orders were not complied with and services of the workman have been terminated on 30-9-2000 . He further contended that vide interim order dated 21-7-2002 Hon'ble High Court Nainital inWrit Petition No. 207/2002 allowed the petitioner therein to continue as Field Assistant , directions were also given to pay minimum of pay scales ; but the orders were not complied with . Subsequently , Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with observation (vide order dated 16-5-2005) that the petitioners therein can avail remedy under Industrial Disputes Act . He has also submitted that in the above Writ Petition an affidavit was filed by the Director of the Institute wherein it is admitted that petitioners were appointed as casual Field Assistant inOctober , 1995 to assist in research work . He has further submitted that there was no such contract that after completion of research work the services of the workman shall stand terminated. The research project was approved by the Institute and research was being done under the control of the institute . Researcher A. Christy Williams left in year 1999 and S. P.Goyal , Sr. Scientist was subsequently supervising the whole research project . He has also submitted that it is evident from the letters dated 15-11-99 and 16-11-99 , written by Sr. Scientist, S. P. Goyal to Director , Rajaji National Park, that the workman was employee of the Institute .

11. In Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa & others 1979 SC 539 , Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant , be the venture in the public , joint private or other sector. Hon'ble Court has further observed :

"Does research involve collaboration between employer and employee ? It does . The employer Even through a research institution may be separate entity disconnected from the many industry which founded the institute itself, it can be regarded as an organization , propelledby systematic activity, modeled on cooperation between employer and employee and calculated to throw up - discoveries and inventions and useful solution which benefit individual industries and the nation interms of goods and services and wealth . If follows that Research Institutes , albeit run without profit motive are ' industry . "

12. Thus, in view of definition of industry as explainedbyHon'ble Apex Court in above mentioned case Wild Life Institute of India falls in the ambit of definition of term ' industry' under Section 2 (j ) ofthe I. D. Act , 1947.

15. Per contra , learned representative on behalf of the management has urged that in respect of order dated 18-11-99 of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court , the workman did not file any contempt petition against the management of the Institute for alleged non - implementation thereof. Further,the applicant cannot avail any relief from the interim order dated 21-3-2003 as Hon'ble High Court, Nanital has vacated the said order vide its subsequent order dated 16-5-2002 . He has further urged that copy of counter affidavit said to be served by Director of the Institute is photocopy whichdo not carry any signature and stamp on behalf of the Institute . Letter dated 15-11-99 and 16-11-99 said to be written by Scientist ofthe Institute pertains to seeking permission to entry into Park and do not prove employer -employee nexus between the Institute and the workman . He has also urged that no evidence is available on the record to show regularization of two persons viz . Rakesh and Mh . Yaseen or they were junior to him . He has also urged that there is no evidence on record to prove that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in required period . Mere statement of the 7291 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

workman is not sufficient to prove the above facts . The learned representative on behalf of the management in support tohis contentions has placed reliance on following cases laws :

(1) (2008 ) 2 SCC ( L& S) 648 Ranip Nagar PalikaVs. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore & others .

1998. In cross - examination he has stated that he was engaged by Dr. John Singh ; but no appointment letter was given by him . He has further admitted that he has not filed any proof of working continuously for 240 days or more . He has further admitted that he has not produced any proofregarding direct payment from the Institute . He has also admitted that A. Christy Williams was working as Researcher and he had no relation with the Wild Life Institute of India.

(ii) (2008 ) 2 SCC (L& S) 1016 State ofHaryana Vs. Ramesh Kumar .

(iii) 2005 ( 106) FLR 968 Employees State Insurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Srfuddin.

(iv) (2007) 1 SCC ( L & S ) 679 Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Rafi .

(v) 2007 ( 115 ) FLR 638 U.P. Power CorporationLtd. & others Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court , Gorakhpur & others .

(vi) 2002 SCC (L&S ) 367 Range Forest Officer Vs. S. T. Hadimani .

(vii) 2005 SCC (L& S ) 154 Mahendra L. Jain & others Vs. Indore Development Authority & others .

17. In rebuttal , the management witness Shri A. J. Т. John Singh, Dean Faculty of Sciences has stated that the workman never worked as casual labour or daily wager in the Institute . He was not paid any wages by the Institute. The fund of the project was made available by the United State Fish and Wildlife Services through the Institute and theworkman was engaged by the Researcher A. Christy Williams and payments were used to be made by him . There was no control or supervision of the Institute on the persons engaged by the said Researcher. The project wasfor period of 5 years which completed in the months ofSeptember, 2005. In cross- examination he has admitted that certificates C - 5/ 2 was given by him but he has explained that the workman requested him to give the certificate for applying for service elsewhere ; on humanitarian ground he has given the said certificate.

(viii) 2006 SCC (L& S ) 429 State of M. P. & others Vs. ArjunLal Rajak.

(ix) 2005 (106) FLR 531 Rajasthan Handpump Mistry Karamchari Sangh INTUC Vs. State ofRajasthan &others.

(x) 2005 ( 104) FLR 651 Nagar Panchayat Gajraula, Moradabad Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court, Rampur& others .

18. Management witness Dr. S. P. Goyal , Scientist has stated that photocopies of the alleged Daily Working Diary, document 26/28 to 26/77 is not relating to the Institute. No instructions or orders were given to prepare such document . Original of the above documents have not been produced. He has denied that originals are with him. He has also denied his alleged signatures on the above documents . In cross -examination, he has stated that the investigator used to engage Researcher for any project and for execution of the work the researcher is free to engage any person.

(xi) 2005 ( 104) FLR 999 Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Bhola Singh.

(xii) 2005 ( 105) FLR 386 Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute (Cordet) Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court , Allahabad & others.

19. From the evidence of both the sides on record , it reveals that A. Christy Williams , Researcher had undertaken a collaborative research viz . United States Fish and Wildlife Services ( WII - USFWS) Project which was funded by United States Fish and Wildlife Services and the said project was for a specified period of five years and was being up to 30th September, 2000. It also reveals that the workman was engaged by the Researcher as per requirement ofthe project and he was engaged for project related to research work .

16. The workman , Megh Raj , has stated in his statement on oath that he was working as Field Assistant in Wild Life Institute of India , Dehradun since July, 1987 and his services were terminated on 30-9-2000 without any notice. He has further stated that services of Rakesh and Mh . Yaseen , who were working with him were regularized; but in cross - examination he has admitted not filing any proofofworking in the Institute from July, 1987 . He has admitted that from October , 97 to August, 98 he was receiving Rs . 1800 per month as wages. He has also admitted his signature on the receipt for payment ofwages for the month of August , 98 ; wherein it has been written thatamount of Rs . 1800 has been received from A. Christy Williams as Field Assistant wages for the month ofAugust,

20. The management witness has categorically denied that the workman was an employee of the Institute . Hehas stated that neither the workman was a casual labour in the Institute nor a daily wager and he was not paid wages by the Institute . The workman himself has admitted thatpayments have been made to him by A. Christy Williams , Researcher . He has not produced any receipts or any vouchers to establish that payments have been made by the institute to him.

7292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[PART II SEC . 3(ii )]

Dr. A. J. T. John Singh . The management witness Dr. A. J. T. Johin Singh has admitted that such certificate was given by him but Dr. John Singh has clarified that he had issued the same on humanitarian ground as the workman had asked for same on the ground that he had applied forjob somewhere else and he required experience certificate ofproject work. He has stated that he had told the workman to take the certificate from A. Christy Williams , but he insisted for getting certificate from him onthepretext that the certificate from institute would carry more value. The explanation given by him seems to be plausible in the given circumstances and mainly on the basis of said certificate no conclusion can be drawn as regards employer -employee relation between the institute and the workman .

21. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has argued that Hon'ble Uttranchal High Court, Nainital in the order dated 16-5-2002 has held the applicant to be daily rated worker of the institute. In this regard the copy of the said order is on the record and it is evident from said order that it was contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that petitioners are daily wagers working in the Wild Life Institute of India and by oral order their services were terminated hence filed a Writ Petition. In this context Hon'ble High Court had only held that in case of grievance , the petitioners therein can avail the remedy under the I. D. Act without going into the status of applicant vis - a - vis the institute . Therefore , the contention of the learned representative on behalf of the workman is devoid of any substance .

22. To establish the relation of employer - employee the workman has mainly relied on the photocopy ofthe following documents:

(1) Certificate said to be given by the Director , Wild Life Institute of India dated 6-7-98 (C-5/1 ).

( ii) Certificate said to be given by Principal Investigator , Dr. A. J. T. John Singh dated 24-10-97(C-5/2) .

(iii) Copy of the Daily Working Diary said to be filledby the workman himself regarding dayto dayworking, paper No. 21/27 to 21/46 .

(iv) Letter of S. P. Goyal dated 15-11-99-request to continue to avail the facility extended by the park and collection of data under the research project C -5/31 ; and

(v) Letter dated 16-11-1999 ofS. P. Goyal regarding persons involved in the research work C-5/ 3B .

25. The workman has also produced copies of two letters of Shri S. P. Goyal , Scientist dated 15-11-1999 and 16-11-1999 addressed to the Director, Rajaji National Park . It isnot disputed that said letters were written by Shri S. P. Goyal, Scientist . The management witness , Shri S. P. Goyal has admitted his signatures on the said letter dated 15-11-1999 . It reveals from the letter dated 15-11-1999 that research project was for limited period of five years and for that research, Field Assistants were engaged and request was made to allow to continue the facilities extended by Rajaji National Park and in reference to the above letter , vide letter dated 16-11-1999 , information was furnished regarding the names ofpersons involved in the said project . It reveals from the said letter dated 16-11-1999 that name of the workman finds place in the names of Field Assistants mentioned therein . The management witness , Shri S. P. Goyal has stated in his cross-examination that said request was only for providing facility to field staff but they were not under his control. The workman himself has stated in his cross - examination that said letters pertains to permission for entry into Rajaji National Park .

26. Admittedly , the workman was not receiving any salary or wages from the Institute directly and he was receiving payment from A. Christy Williams , Researcher , who was not the employee of the Institute . Moreover, the project was for a limited period of 5 years and came to an end on 30th September , 2000. Upon a perusal of the said letters , in the context of entire material on record , it appears that names of the persons involved in the research project have been communicated for seeking of permission only foravailing facility of the Rajaji National Park for Research work. Thus , the contention of the learned representative on behalf of the workman that it is established from said letter that the workman was employee of the institute , is not tenable.

23. So far as certificate dated 6-7-98 said to be given by the Director is concerned , the workman has admitted thatoriginal of the said certificate has not been submitted by him . Similarly, the workman has not produced the originals of photocopies of alleged daily working dairy. In absence of original , daily working dairy cannot be read in evidence, specifically when the same photocopies have been categorically denied by the institute . Moreover , he has not stated in his statement that any such diary was maintainedby him . The management witness Dr. S. P. Goyal has denied his signature on the various pages of the alleged daily working diary (21/27 to 21/46). In 2005 ( 106) FLR 968 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has observed that photo state documents has no evidentiary value unless original isproduced and proved . Thus , in view of the above legal points there is no evidentiary value of the above documents produced by the workman .

27. Even, if, it is presumed , on the basis of said letter, that employer - employee relations existed between the institute and the workman, it was for the workman to 24. The workman has produced photocopy of a certificate C- 5 / 2 said to be given by Principal Investigator, 7293

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2009

lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked continuously for 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date ofhis alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000. It was the case ofthe workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in required period and this claim has been denied by the management, therefore , initial burden was on the workman to prove his case.

का. आ. 3109.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं वाइल्ड लाइफ इन्स्टीट्यूट ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/ 101/ 2003 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2009

S.O. 3109. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Wildlife Institute of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 22-10-2009 .

28. In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer Vs. S. T. Hadimani Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that mere filing ofaffidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence to establish that he had in fact worked for 240 days . In 2008 2 SCC ( L& S) 648 Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that the workman has to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum of being in employment ofthe employer. In (2007) 1 SCC ( L& S ) 679 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that burden ofproof lies on the workman that he had worked for continuous period of240 days in a year so as to entitled him to benefit ofSection 25F of I.D. Act . It is also settled legal position that if a party challenges the legality of any action ofthe management, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail .

[No. L-42012/ 101 /2003- IR ( CM- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

N. K. Purohit , Presiding Officer I. D. No. 15/2004 Ref. No. L-42012/ 101 /2003 - IR (CM- II) dated : 14-1-2004

BETWEEN

29. In the present case it is not the case of the workman that any appointment letter was ever issued to him. He himself has admitted during cross- examination that he has not filed any proof of working continuously under the Institute from July, 1987 till the date ofhis alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000 . He has categorically admitted that there is no proof on record as regard working for more than 240 days under the Institute . He has not produced any vouchers or record of getting wages by the Institute directly. He has also not produced the original of the certificate said to be given by Director , Wild Life Institute ofIndia andPrincipal Investigator , Dr. A. J. T. John Singh . Hehas also not produced the original Daily Working Dairy said to be maintained by him . In absence of originals there is no evidentiary value of said documents , particularly, when the management has denied their genuineness.

Shri Ramesh Chand S/ o Sh . Mam Chand , Village & Post - Kasampur, District - Saharanpur , Saharanpur (U.P. ) AND

TheDirector, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Box No. 18 , Chandrabani, Dehradun- 248001

AWARD 7-10-2009

30. In view of the above discussion, the workman has failed to proved that he had worked as Field Assistant continuously for 240 days in preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000, therefore, his case is not covered under Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Resultantly , he is not entitled for any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

31. Award as above .

Lucknow, 7-10-2009

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

1.ByOrder No. L-42012/ 101 /2003- IR (CM- II) dated: 14-1-2004 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) 7294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIΚΑ 23, 1931

referred this industrial dispute between Sh . Ramesh Chand S/o Sh . Mam Chand, Village and Post - Kasampur, District- Saharanpur , Saharanpur ( U.P. ) and the Director, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Box No. 18 , Chandrabani , Dehradun foradjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is :

"Whether the action of the Wildlife Institute management in terminating the services of Sh . Noor Hassan S/ o Sh . Nazar Hassan , Field Assistant , w.e.f. 30-9-2000 instead of regularizing is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief he is entitled ? " 3. Case of the workman, Ramesh Chand, in brief, is that he was working with the opposite party w.e.f. 1-1-1987 as Field Assistant . During his employment the employer were directed by Hon'ble High Court , Allahabad vide their order dated 18-11-99 to pay the workman minimum pay scale payable to regular employee; but the employers instead of regularizing the workman terminate the services ofworkman w.e.f. 30-9-2009 without any prior information or notice thereof. Aggrieved from termination the workman filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble Higli Court, Nainital whereby Hon'ble High Court vide their interim order dated 21-3-2002 directed the respondents to regularize the services of the workman and pay him minimum pay scale , whichwere not compliedby the management. Thereafter , Hon'ble High Court vide their order dated 16-5-2002held thatthe petitioner is daily wager of Wild Life Institute of India and their services have been allegedly terminated by oral order; accordingly petitioner there in can seek reliefunder Industrial Disputes Act and vacated the interim order , therefore , he raised the dispute before Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central) , Dehradun .

4. Ithas been submitted by the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year during his employment with opposite parties and his services have been terminated without assigning any reason and he has not been paid any notice or compensation in lieu thereof, which is violative of provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further it has been alleged by the workman that some of the workmen , junior to him, have been regularized by the management which is violative of provisions of I. D. Act; accordingly , he has prayed that his termination be declared illegal and he be reinstated with back wages and continuity in service.

5.The management of the Wild Life Institute of India has refuted the claim ofwon by filing written statement whereby it has submitted that it is an autonomous institution registered as Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and businesses carried out by it keeps it outside the purview of the definition of term 'Industry' under Section 2 (j ) of the I. D. Act . It has specifically denied of existence of any employer- employee relationship with the workman concerned and has

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] submitted that he was engaged by an independent Researcher as per requirement of project allotted to him and the workman had worked under his direct control and supervision and received payments from him only; the institute had no role to play except to act as that of a medium, of funding agency , to provide funds/ grants to the Researcher and it had no administrative control over the said Researcher .

6. The management of WLII has denied that the workman has ever been engaged by the Institute in any capacity whatsoever and since there existed no relationship of employer and employee , as such there arise no question of either terminating him or regularizing him atanypoint of time or violation of any of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It has been submitted by the opposite party that Hon'ble High Court never held that the petitioner/workman was daily rated worker of the Institute; rather it held that in case of grievance , he can avail the remedy available under I. D. Act. Accordingly , the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected.

7. The workman has filed rejoinder wherein it has submitted that Hon'ble High Court, Nainital itself has directed the petitioner to seek alternative remedy under provisions of I. D. Act also the management, in its affidavit before Hon'ble High Court had submitted that if falls within the provisions of I. D. Act, therefore , the workman can raise an industrial dispute against management of WLII within the provisions of I. D. Act, 1947. Rest is nothing apart from reiteration of the facts already stated in the statement of claim .

8. The parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective cases . The workman has examined himself whereas the management of WLII has examined Shri A.J.T. John Singh , Dean Faculty of Science and Dr. S. P. Goyal , Scientist F Category in support of their respective averments . The parties have availed opportunity of filling written arguments apart from oral submissions .

9.Heard arguments of both the parties and perused relevant material on record .

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

learned representative on behalf of the workman has urged that in Writ Petition No. 107/2002 filed by the workman and others , it was pleaded in the affidavit filed by the Director,Wild Life Institute of India that dispute between the parties is pertaining to the petitioner's rights as a *workman within the definition of Section 2 (j ) of the I. D. Act, 1947and petitioner had alternate adjudicatory remedy byway ofhaving raising industrial dispute. Thus, impliedly ithas been admitted by the opposite party that the Wildlife Institute of India is an industry.

filedby the Director of the Institute wherein it is admitted thatpetitioners were appointed as casual Field Assistant inOctober, 1995 to assist in research work . He has further submitted that there was no such contract that after completion of research work the services of the workman shall stand terminated. The research project was approved by the Institute and research was being done under the control of the institute. Researcher A. Christy Williams left in year 1999 and S. P.Goyal , Sr. Scientist was subsequently supervising the whole research project. He has also submitted that it is evident from the letters dated 15-11-99 and 16-11-99 , written by Sr. Scientist, S. P. Goyal to Director, Rajaji National Park, that the workman was employee of the Institute .

11. In Bangalore Water Supply & SewerageBoard Vs. A. Rajappa & Others 1979 SC 539, Hon'ble ApexCourt has observed that the absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public , jointprivate or other sector . Hon'ble Court has further observed:

"Does research involve collaboration between employer and employee ? It does . The employer Eventhrough a research institution may be separate entity disconnected from the many industry which founded the institute itself, it can be regarded as an organization, propelledby systematic activity, modeled on cooperation between employer and employee and calculated to throw up discoveries and inventions and useful solution which benefit individual industries and the nation interms ofgoods and services and wealth. If follows thatResearch Institutes , albeit run without profit motive are ' industry . "

12. Thus , in view of definition of industry as explainedbyHon'ble Apex Court in above mentioned case Wild Life Institute of India falls in the ambit of definition ofterm ' industry ' under Section 2 (j ) of the I. D. Act, 1947.

15. Per contra, learned representative on behalf of the management has urged that in respect of order dated 18-11-99 of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court , the workman did not file any contempt petition against the management ofthe Institute for alleged non- implementation thereof. Further, the applicant cannot avail any relief from the interim order dated 21-3-2003 as Hon'ble High Court, Nanital has vacated the said order vide its subsequent order dated 16-5-2002 . He has further urged that copy of counter affidavit said to be served by Director of the Institute is photocopy which do not carry any signature and stamp on behalf of the Institute . Letter dated 15-11-99 and 16-11-99 said to be written by Scientist of the Institute pertains to seeking permission to entry into park and do notprove employer- employee nexus between the institute and the workman . He has also urged that no evidence is available on the record to show regularization of two persons viz .Rakesh and Mh . Yasen or they were juniorto him. He has also urged that there is no evidence on record to prove that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in required period. Mere statement of the workman is not sufficient to prove the above facts . The learned representative on behalf of the management in support to his contensions has placed reliance on following cases laws:

13. The questions thus, remain for considerations are whether employer- employee relationship existed between the parties and whether the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination .

(i) (2008) 2 SCC (L& S) 648 Ranip Nagar Palika Vs. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore & others .

(i ) (2008 ) 2 SCC (L&S) 1016 State of Haryana Vs. Ramesh Kumar .

(iii) 2005 (106) FLR 968 Employees State Insurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Srfuddin.

(iv) (2007) 1 SCC (L& S ) 679 Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohd . Rafi .

(v) 2007 ( 115) FLR 638 U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. &others Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court, Gorakhpur & others .

(vi ) 2002 SCC ( L& S) 367 Range Forest Officer Vs. S. T. Hadimani .

3957G1/09-31 7296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] (vii) 2005 SCC (L& S) 154 Mahendra L. Jain & Others Vs. IndoreDevelopment Authority & Others .

(viii) 2006 SCC (L& S) 429 State ofM. P. & Others Vs. ArjunLal Rajak.

(ix) 2005 ( 106) FLR 531 Rajasthan Handpump Mistry Karamchari Sangh INTUC Vs. State ofRajasthan & others .

18. Management witness Dr. S. P. Goyal, Scientist has stated that photocopies of the alleged Daily Working Diary, document 20/27 to 20/48 is not relating to the Institute.No instructions or orders were given to prepare such document. Original of the above documents have not been produced . He has denied that originals are with him . He has also denied his alleged signatures on the above documents . In cross - examination, he has stated that the investigator used to engage Researcher for any project and for execution of the work the researcher is free to engage any person .

(x) 2005 (104) FLR 651 Nagar Panchayat Gajraula, Moradabad Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rampur& Others .

(x1) 2005 ( 104) FLR999 Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Bhola Singh .

(xii) 2005 ( 105) FLR 386 Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute(Cordet) Vs. PresidingOfficer, Labour Court, Allahabad & Others .

19. From the evidence ofboth the sides on record , it reveals that A. Christy Williams , Researcher had undertaken a collaborative research viz . United States Fish and Wildlife Services (WII - USFWS) Project which was funded by United States Fish and Wildlife Services and the said project was for a specified period of five years and was being up to 30th September, 2000. It also reveals that the workman was engaged by the Researcher as per requirement ofthe project and he was engaged for project related to research work .

20. The management witness has categorically deniedthat theworkman was an employee of the Institute. He has stated that neither the workman was a casual labour in the Institute nor a daily wager and he was not paid wages by the Institute . The workman himself has admitted that payments have been made to him by A. Christy Williams , Researcher. He has not produced any receipts or any vouchers to establish that payments have been made by the institute to him .

16. The workman, Ramesh Chand , has stated in his statement on oath that he was working as Field Assistant in Rajaji National Park since 1-1-1987 and his services were terminated on 1-10-2000 without any notice . He has further stated that services of Rakesh and Md. Yaseen, who were workingwith him were regularized . In cross - examination be has admitted not filing any proof of working in the Institute from January, 1987 to September , 2000. He has also admitted that no attendance was recorded in any register. He used to report directly to the Researcher in the field. He has stated that he used to receive wages sometimes from the Researcher and some times from Mr. Goyal . He also admitted that A. Christy Williams is not working under the Institute and there is no link between A. ChristyWilliams and the Institute . He has also admitted thathehas not produced anydocument for direct payment from the Institute . He has also admitted his signature on the receipt for payment of wages for the month of August, 98; wherein it has been written that amount of Rs . 1800 has been received from A. Christy Williams as Field Assistant wages for the month of August , 1988 .

21. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has argued that Hon'ble Uttranchal High Court , Nainital inthe order dated 16-5-2002 has held the applicant tobe daily rated worker of the institute . In this regard the copy of the said order is on the record and it is evident from said order that it was contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that petitioners are daily wagers working in the Wild Life Institute of India and by oral order their services were terminated hence filed a Writ Petition. In this context Hon'ble High Court had onlyheld that in case ofgrievance , the petitioners therein can avail the remedy under the I. D. Act without going into the status of applicant vis- a - vis the institute . Therefore , the contention of the learned representative on behalf of the workman is devoid of any substance.

22. To establish the relation of employer- employee the workman has mainly relied on the photocopy of the following documents:

(i) Certificate said to be given by the Director, Wild Life Institute of India dated 6-7-98 (C-5/ 1 ).

17. In rebuttal , the management witness Shri A. J. T. John Singh, Dean Faculty of Sciences has stated that the workman never worked as casual labour or daily wager in the Institute . He was not paid any wages by the Institute . The fund of the project was made available by the United State Fish and Wildlife Services through the Institute and the workman was engaged by the Researcher A. Christy Williams and payments were used to be made by him. There was no control or supervision of the Institute on the persons engaged by the said Researcher . The project was for period of 5 years which completed in the months ofSeptember, 2005. In cross- examination he has admitted that certificates C-5/ 2 and C- 5/3 was given by him but he has explained that the workman requested him to give the certificate for applying for service elsewhere ; on humanitarian ground he has given the said certificate .

(ii) Certificate said to the given by Principal Investigator, Dr. A. J. T. John Singh dated 24-10-97 and 27-3-92 (C-5/2 and C-5/3) .

7297 [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

(iii) Copy of the Daily Working Diary said to be filledbythe workman himself regarding dayto dayworking, paper No. 20/27 to 20/48 .

(iv) Letter of S. P. Goyal dated 15-11-99-requestto continue to avail the facility extended by the parkand collection of data under the research project C- 5/5; and

above letter, vide letter dated 16-11-1999, information was furnished regarding the names of persons involved in the said project . It reveals from the said letter dated 16-11-1999 that name of the workmar finds place in the names of Field Assistants mentioned therein . The management witness , Shri S. P. Goyal has stated in his cross-examination that said request was only for providing facilityto field staff but they were not under his control.

(v) Letter dated 16-11-1999 ofS . P. Goyal regarding persons involved in the research workC-5/6.

26. Admittedly, the workman was not receiving any salary or wages from the Institute directly and he was receiving payment from A. Christy Williams , Researcher, whowas not the employee of the Institute. Moreover, the projectwas for a limited period of 5 years and came to an endon30th September, 2000. Upon a perusal ofthe said letters, in the context ofentire material on record, it appears that names of the persons involved in the research project have been communicated for seeking ofpermission only foravailing facility ofthe Rajaji National Park for Research work. Thus, the contention of the learned representative onbehalf ofthe workman that it is established from said letter that the workman was employee of the institute, is not tenable.

23. So far as certificate dated 6-7-98 said tobe given by the Director is concerned , the workman has admitted that original ofthe said certificate has not been submitted by him . Similarly, the workman has not produced the originals ofphotocopies of alleged daily working dairy. In absence oforiginal , daily working dairy cannot be read in evidence, specifically when genuineness of the same photocopies have been categorically denied by the institute. The management witness Dr. S. P. Goyal has denied his signature on the various pages of the alleged dailyworking diary (20/27 to 20/48 ). In 2005 (106) FLR968 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has observed that photo state documents has no evidentiary value unless original isproduced and proved. Thus , in view of the above legal points there is no evidentiary value of the above documents produced by the workman.

27. Even, if, it is presumed on the basis ofsaid letter, that employer -employee relations existed between the institute and the workman , it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked continuously for240days in preceding 12 months from the date ofthis alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000: It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in required period and this claim has been denied by the management, therefore , initial burden was on the worlanan toprovehis case .

24. The workman has produced photocopy of a certificate C- 5 /2 and C-5/3 said to be given by Principal Investigator , Dr. A. J. T. John Singh . The management witness Dr. A. J. T. John Singh has admitted that such certificatewas given by him but Dr. John Singh has clarified that he had issued the same on humanitarian ground as the workman had asked for same on the ground that he had applied for job somewhere else and he required experience certificate of project work . He has stated that he had told the workman to take the certificate from A. Christy Williams , but he insisted for getting certificate fromhim on the pretext that the certificate from institute would carry more value . The explanation given by him seems to be plausible in the given circumstances and mainly on the basis of said certificate no conclusion can bedrawn as regards-employer-employee relationbetween the institute and the workman.

28. In (2002)3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer Vs. S. T. Hadimani Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that mere filing of affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence to establish that he had in fact worked for 240 days . In 2008 2 SCC (L& S ) 648 Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that the workman has to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum of being in employment ofthe employer . In (2007) 1 SCC ( L& S ) 679 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that burden ofproof lies on the workman that he had worked for continuous periodof240days in a year so as to entitled him to benefit ofSection 25F of I.D. Act. It is also settled legal position thatifaparty challenges the legality of any action ofthe management, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail.

25. The workman has also produced copies of two letter of Shri S. P. Goyal, Scientist dated 15-11-1999 and 16-11-1999 addressed to the Director, Rajaji National Park. It isnot disputed that said letter were written by Shri S. P. Goyal, Scientist, The management witness , Shri S. P.Goyal has admitted his signatures on the said letter dated 15-11-1999. It reveals from the letters dated 15-11-1999 that research project was for limited period of five years and for that research, Field Assistants were engaged and request was made to allow to continue the facilities extended by Rajaji National Park and in reference to the

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23, 1931

alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000 . He has categorically admitted that there is no proof on record as regard working for more than 240 days under the Institute . He has not produced any vouchers or record of getting wages by the Institute directly. He has also not produced the original of the certificates said to be given by Director , Wild Life Institute of India and Principal Investigator , Dr. A. J. T. John Singh . He has also not produced the original Daily Working Dairy said to be maintained by him . In absence oforiginals there is no evidentiary value of said documents , particularly, when the management has denied their genuineness .

30. In view of the above discussion , the workman has failed to proved that he had worked as Field Assistant continuously for 240 days in preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000 , therefore , his case is not covered under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Resultantly , he is not entitled for any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

31. Award as above .

Lucknow, 7-10-2009

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2009

का. आ. 3110.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं भारतीय खाद्य निगमके प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 26/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/427/ 1999- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2009 S.O. 3110. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2009.

[No. L- 22012/427/ 1999 - IR(CM- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT:

N.K. Purohit, Presiding Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

I.D. No. 26/2000

Ref. No. L- 22012/427/ 1999 - IR (CM- II) dated:07-03-2000

BETWEEN

The State Secretary Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh Habibullah Estate , Lucknow

And

The Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Habibullah Estate, Lucknow

AWARD

Dated: 12-10-2009

1. By order No. L-22012/427/ 1999 - IR(CM - II ) dated 07-03-2000 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 the State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh, Habibullah Estate, Lucknow and the Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Habibullah Estate , Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is as under :-

"Whether the action of the Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India , Lucknow in imposing penaltydt . 25-7-98 and penaltydt. 13-11-98 , 24-9-97 and 28-12-98 passed by the Distt . Manager , Food Corporation of India , Haldwani against Ishrat Hussain A.G. - II were legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

3. Following issues were framed vide order dated 3-11-2000:

1. Whether the domestic enquiry resulting into penaltydt . 25-7-98 passed by Sr. Regional Manager , Food Corpn . of India, Lucknow is legal andjustified?

2. Whether the domestic enquiry resulting into penalty dated 13-11-98 passed by the District Manager , Food Corporation of India , Haldwani , against the workman is legal and justified? ' 3. Whether the domestic enquiry resulting into penalty dated 24-9-97 passed by the District Manager, Food Corpn. of India, Haldwani against the workman is legal and justified?

4. Whether the domestic enquiry resulting into penalty dated 28-12-98 passed by the District Manager, Food Corpn. of India, Haldwani , against the workman is legal and justified.

4. It revealsfrom the proceedings of the case that after framing above issues , management filed its documents 7299 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14 , 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

on 27-12-2000 and case was fixed for workman's evidence on 31-1-2001 but at this stage learned representative on behalf of both sides submitted that oral evidence is not required as both the sides have admitted documents of each other. It was submitted by the learned representative on behalf of the workman's union that union may be allowed to file affidavit on limited point whether union is empowered to espouse the cause of workman under I.D. Act . Subsequently , during pendency of the proceeding on 25-7-2001 , the representative on behalf of the workman informed that the workman Ishrat Hussain has died .

5. On 22-11-2001 the then learned Presiding Officer passed the following order:

been decided against the management . But it is evident upon perusal of all the impugned orders that said orders have been passed under Regulation 60 of FCI Staff Regulation 1971 which pertains to procedure for minor penalty & only minor penalties have been imposed upon the workman. Clause (b) of Sub- Regulation ( 1 ) of Regulation 60 envisages that no order imposing on an employee any of the minor penalties specified in clauses (ito iv) ofRegulation 54, shall be made except holding an enquiry in the manner laid down in Sub - regulation (3 ) to (23) of Regulation 58 , in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such enquiry isnecessary. It is not the case of either party that any domestic enquiry was conducted & any report was submitted under above provisions.

"This industrial dispute has been raised by the union, espousing cause of the deceased Ishrat Hussain . The deceased has no locus standi and union, alone, is competent to pursue the case ."

10. In above factual back drop the question thus arises for consideration is whether action of the management in imposing penalty order dated 13-11-1998, 24-9-1997,28-12-1998 & 25-7-1998 legal & justified.

Theimpugned order dt. 13-11-1998

6. With above observation this case was fixed for argument on preliminary issues vide order dt . 31-12-2001 . Subsequently, vide order dt . 31-12-2001 the then learned Presiding Officer observed that in absence of the enquiry files, there is no material to hold the enquiry fair and proper and passed the following order :

11.Vide impugned order dt . 13-11-98 the opposite partyNo. 2 has imposed penalty ofrecovery of 75 % value ofalleged loss of Rs . 28,088.50 in equal proportion between Sh. IshratHussain and Sh . Subhas Chandra. The impugned order dt. 13-11-98 is reproduced below:

"Aquantity of 51-07-000 qtls . Rice raw common was reported to be storage loss at Maize Factory Unit , FSD, Rampur during May, 1998 with its percentage of1.5 and 2.9 in the following cases:-

Value

% Period of

Quantity

ofstg. loss

storage

09.91.000

3-5 months

Rs . 05,230.50 1.5

16months

41-56-000 Rs . 22,858.00 2,9

Accordingly, the preliminary issues are decided against the management . The management is at libertyto examine fresh evidence before this Tribunal with a view to substantiate charges against the deceased Ishrat Hussain , A.G. - II (D) . Since the dispute was raised by the union, the death of Ishrat Hussain will not result into abatement of this proceeding under sub - section (8 ) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act , 1947. Fixed 17-1-2000 for the management to inform about availing the opportunity as aforesaid and to submit list of witnesses and documents to be raised during the enquiry before this Tribunal on 4-2-2002 . The workman is also directed to submit list of its witness and documents on the same date .

7. The management filed the list of witnesses and documents on 4-2-2002 and examined Sh. AshrafAli Sr. Regional Manager and Sh . G.K. Pant , Asstt. Manager (Vigilance) in support of its case . None has been examined on behalf of the union in rebuttal of the management evidence .

Above stocks were received under ' A' category with its 100% weighment at the time of receipt and with its disposal in the same conditions . In reference to Head quarters Circular No. SLS'RL/ 35 ( 1 ) / 85 dt . 9/ 10-5-85 circulated vide this office letter No. E- 19(1)/SL/Cir /98-99/ 5916dt. 27-10-1998 , above the losses in reference to above conditions of storage and period of storage in consideration are. unrealistic and unjustified . These losses have been reported due to loss of moisture, Asstt. Manager (OC) FSD, Rampur as well as Distt. Office Haldwani have also reported these losses as abnormal and high losses .

8. Heard the learned representative onbehalf ofboth the sides and perused the relevant record.

9. It is pertinent to mention that in the preliminary issues it was to be decided whether domestic enquiries resulting into penalty orders dated 25-7-98 , 15-11-98 , 24-9-1997 & 28-12-1998 against the workman are legal & justified & vide order dt. 31-12-2001 above issue have

S/Shri Subhas Chandra , T.A. II and Ishrat Hussain , AG.I (D) were holding the charge of above unit of Maize Factory Rampur where these losses occurred. The connivance of Sh . Ishrat Hussain, AG.I (D) in this case can not be ignored and avoided as he was dutybound to report about receipt of stocks having 7300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] excessive percentage of moisture in his unit which has finally resulted such percentage of losses.

proposal . It further envisages recording of findings on each of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.

16. It is evident from the impugned order that penalty ofrecovery has been imposed for alleged pecuniar loss to the Corporation which is a minor penalty under section 54. It is not evident from the order that any show cause notice was given or opportunity of making representation was provided before passing impugned order. It is not mentioned in the order itself that allegations of the shortage ever admitted by the workman.

Taking a lenient view and permitted margin of 25% of reported storage losses in this case as losses on account of natural driage as natural phenomia in case of storage of rice , the recovery of 75 % value of the total losses detailed above is imposed on above officials in equal proportion for its equal and easy recovery in24 monthly instalments from their salary with effect from November, 1998 to compensate above losses and to regularise the losses reported and referred above .

Sd/- DistrictManager

17. The management witness Sh . Ashraf Ali has stated that before passing impugned order explanation was sought from the workman and after receiving his explanation he has passed impugned order but the management has not produced any show cause notice or reply said to be given by the workman . Moreover , the statement of the witness does not find support from the impugned order itself therefore , impugned order dtd. 13-11-98 is in violation of the Regulation 60 of the Staff Regulation 1971 .

Impugned order dated 24-9-1997

12. The learned representative on behalf ofthe union has argued that the order of recovery is a minor penalty under Regulation 54 of Staff Regulations 1971 which can notbe imposed without issue of charge sheet as provided inRegulations 60 of Staff Regulation 1971 , but no charge sheet has been issued to the workman as such the impugned penalty order dtd . 13-11-98 is illegal and arbitrary andwithout jurisdiction and also violative of Regulation 60 of Staff Regulations 1971 as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside .

18. The workman was served memo dated 24-6-97 (3/12) alongwith the statement ofimpugationof impugation dtd . 25-6-1997 (3/13 ). The reply dated 15-7-97 (3/4 ) was filed by the workman and vide impugned order dtd. 24-9-97 ( 3/14) the District Manager , FCI , Haldwani imposed the punishment ofrecovery of Rs . 47,120 upon the workman .

13. Per contra, the learned representative on behalf ofthe Corporation has urged that in paras 5 & 6 of the written statement it has been clearly mentioned that storage losses charges upon which the penalty order dtd. 13-11-98 hasbeen passed, had been admitted by Sh . Ishrat Hussain workmanand there is no denial of above plea ofadmission in rejoinder . The only contention raised is there is no basis for presuming drainage of 2.5%. He has further urged that once allegation of shortage are admitted , there was no question of any enquiry moreover, the management has taken a lenient view against the workman and penalty order does not suffer any illegality .

14. I have given my thoughtful consideration on rivalsubmissions . Regulation 54 of the Regulations 1971 pertains to minor penalities & one of the minor penalty enumerated in the said Regulation 54 is as under:

"Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any loss caused by him to the Corporation by negligence orbreach of orders ."

19. The learned representative on behalf of the workmanhas contended that as per Regulation 60( 1 ) (d) of the Staff Regulation 1971 disciplinary authority shall record findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour and shall consider the representation ofthe workman against the charge sheet. The plea of the workman in his reply was that moisture contents was recorded by technical staffof the Depot while the workman was Depot staff. The technical staff does not show moisture contents to Depot staff at the time of issue stock . Depot staffdoes not have any facility to check moisture contents , but above plea has not been considered in the impugned order. He has further contended that storage loss in Zila Parishad has been considered without considering the worthy condition ofthe Godown of Maize Factory moreover, there is no reference of Zila Parishad godown in the charge sheet as such the workman could not reply this allegation . The impugned order has been passed on the basis of extraneous considerations. The disciplinary authority was duty bound to rivc reasons for not agreeing with the representation of the workman . He has also contended that new charge of not reporting of facts timely in the interest of FCI has been added, which is illegal . Further, the basis onwhich calculation of losses were made in the impugned order, are arbitrary without any basis or specification of scientific storage . The impugned order is 15. Rule 60 pertains to procedure for imposing minor penalty which envisages that subject to provision ofSub-Regulation 3 of the Regulation 59, no order to impose penalty specified in Regulation 54 shall be made except after informing the employee in writing of the proposal to take action against him and imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the 7301

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

[भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

non-reporting of facts timely in the interest of FCI , isfurther misconduct and an act ofunfair intention. " non-speaking arbitrary therefore , this is liable to be set aside.

20. Whereas the learned representative on behalf ofthe Corporation has submitted that as per para 13 of the claim the workman had admitted the storage losses tookplacebut they were natural loss beyond his control . The impugned order itself clearly mention the reason for imposing penalty . Upon perusal of the penalty order storagé losses are evident and the statement has been signedby Sh. Ishrat Hussain if the statement was incorrect, the workman should not have signed the statement . He has further argued that the workman never reported short coming at appropriate time nor suggested any remedial measure to avoid storage losses thus concealment and notreporting of facts timely in the interest of work as well as in the interest of FCI is misconduct and penalty of recoveryhas been rightly imposed for the said misconduct. It isnot incorrect that none reporting facts timely is a new charge. Further submitted that Sh. Ashraf Ali has been examined on behalf of the Corporation & the charge against the workman stands proved by his evidence .

22. In statement of allegation it is alleged that loss of2.1% & 3.5% weighing 42.41 qtls . & 81.59 qtls . had been found to be occurred in wheat stock of Maize godown duringperiodmentioned therein. The value ofsaid weight loss was estimated Rs . 16,115.80 & Rs . 31,004.20 respectively. The workman in his reply has contended that moisture contents were never measured before him . The percentage of moisture contents has been shown constraint which is not possible . The reduction in percentage ofmoisture contents led towards storage loss in due course & he had no control over it . It is evident from the impugned order that the disciplinary authority did not found above justification for storage loss convincing mainly on this ground that stock stored in Zila Parishad Unit during the same period of storage of sevenmontha had 0.3 % storage loss while stock stored in Maize FactoryUnit during the same period of storage with same category of stock & mode/procedure of weighment bears losses of 2.1 % & 3.5% . It is not alleged in the statement of imputation misconduct that in comparison to percentage loss in other unit i.e. Zila Parishad Unit , percentage of storage loss in Maize Factory Unit was found on much higher side . Thus , the workman had no opportunity to explain the same , the contention of the learned representative on behalf of the workman, that finding in the impugned order is based on extraneous considerations has substance since the impugned order dated 24-9-1997 is in violation ofprinciple ofnatural justice, the same is not justified.

21. The management witness Sh . Ashraf Ali has stated that impugned order dtd . 24-9-97 was passed by him after obtaining the explanation from the workman and considering the material on record and necessary circumstances inthe matter . In this regard memo dtd. 24-6-97 (3/12), statement of imputation ofmisconduct for proposed action against the workman (3/3 ) and reply dtd. 15-7-97 submitted by him and impugned order are on the record. In impugned order while imposing the penalty, the disciplinary authority has observed as under :

Impugned order dated 28-12-1998

23. Vide memo dtd. 21-10-98 (3/17) the statement of . imputation ofmisconduct (3/18) on the basis of which action was to be taken was served upon the workman under Regulation 60 of Staff Regulation 1971. Reply dtd. 6-11-98 (3/20) was filed by the workman and after considering the said reply vide impugned order dtd. 28-12-98 (3/22 ) , the disciplinary authority imposed penalty ofwithholding of one annual increment for the year 1999without cumulative effect upon the workman.

"And whereas on careful and dispassionate examination of his said reply dtd. 15-7-97, the justifications given by him were not found convincing. In case , he disputes the correctness and genuineness of moisture contents recorded in the statements of storage losses of his depot for themonth ofDec. 1996, for the losses detailed in the memorandum at this stage , he should have not signed the said statement of storage losses which has been signed by other several TAs with him . Most alarming is that stock stored in Zila Parishad unit during the same period of storage of seven months has 0.3% storage loss while stock stored in Maize Factoryunit during the same period of storage with same category of stock and mode/Percentage ofweighment bears losses of2.1 % and 3.5 % . Wheat has tendency of storage gain while has reported storage losses that too of2.1 % and 3.5 %. If he was aware of the shortcomings and irregularities , pointed outby him now in his said representation, he should have reported the same at the same time for appropriate and remedial actions to avoid these storage losses which he avoided. Concealment and

24. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that opposite party no . 2 has not givenany findings whatsoever to support the charge. New charge has been added that workman has not informed alleged irregularity mentioned in his replywhich itself is a misconduct. He has further contended that the disciplinary authority has not recorded the reasons for disagreeing with the representation of the workman therefore , impugned order is liable to set aside, whereas the learned representative on behalf ofthe Corporation has submitted that it is evident from the impugned order dtd. 28-12-98 thatthe disciplinary authority has considered the reply of theworkman dtd. 6-11-98. It is not correct that disciplinary 7302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 14, 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

the procedure laid down in Regulation 60 of Regulation 1971 , there is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. Impugned order dt . 25-7-98

authorityhas not assigned any reason for imposing penalty. The perusal of penalty order shows that detailed reasons have been given and in view of the admission of the workman with regard to shortages there was no need for giving further reason . He has further submitted that the penalty order is justified and there is no illegality or infirmity in it.

29. As per impugned order dt. 25-7-98 memo. dt. 7-6-97 was issued to the workman for his failure to supervise rice loading with the result rice stocks despatch Ex-Rampur was not only found BRL at Jawalapur/Haridwar but containers found with lots ofbirds excreta remanents ofdead pigeons , profuse webbing and dirt and dust over them. As a result Corporation suffered a loss of Rs . 2,80,424.10 only due to despatch ofBRL rice stocks . It is evident from the impugned order that opportunity to submit representation against the charges was provided and representationdt. 27-2-98 was submitted by the workman and after considering the disciplinary authority did not find the points of representation convincing and impose penalty for recovery of Rs . 15,000 upon the workman.

25. Theallegation in the statement of imputation is that stock of high percentage of moisture were stored by him in active connivance with the technical assistant posted in his unit . The storage loss was quite unrealistic and unjustified and FCI has suffer financial loss of Rs . 18,459.49 due to said loss in storage of BRL loss stored by the workman . Further in case higher percentage of moisture, the workman was duty bound to report the matter which he avoided. It is further alleged that workman deliberately allowed to get higher percentage of rice stock stored in connivance with Technical Assistant Sh. Shitla Prasad posted at Maize Factory, Rampur .

26. The management witness Sh . Ashraf Ali has stated that said impugned order was passed atter considering the reply of the workman . The penalty order dt. 28-12-98 was passed by him on the basis of available evidence and other material on record. He has further stated that after hearing the concerned workman, he has passed the order . His statement also find support from the impugned order wherein it is mentioned that charge sheet was served upon the workman under Reg . 60 of Regulation 1971 & opportunity submit explanation was also provided &workman has submitted his reply to the charge sheet . It is also evident from the impugned order that finding has been recorded on alleged misconduct after considering reply ofthe workman .

30. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that Corporation was to prove its case by adducing the evidence in this regard . The Corporationhas examined Sh . G.K. Pant but neither the charge sheetdt. 7-6-97 nor the reply of the workman dt. 27-2-98 has been produced by the Corporation only copy of punishment order has been placed on the record, which is not sufficient to prove the case of the Corporation. Hehas further submitted that FCI in para 29 of the written statement has admitted that charge sheet to all the four Godown Incharge have been issued which means admittedly the stock was issued from four godowns. The stocks ofworkman at destination has not been segregated & identified. As such it was to be specified whether wagons which contained sub standard stock pertains to the stock of the workman. Hence the allegation that stock of workman was unhygienic conditions was unattainable being vague . He has also submitted that quality control complaint procedure in vogue in FCI has not been followed. He has also submitted that Sri Pant is not the material witness . The Senior Regional Manager who has imposed penalty is material witness but he has not been examined. The non production of material witness violation ofprinciple of of natural justice .

27. The contention of the learned representative on behalf of union that recording of detailed reasons for disagreement with the contention of the workman was essential , is untenable . Recording of such reasons is required under Sub Reg. (2) ofReg . 59 of Regulation 1971 in the matter of imposition of major penalty while disagreeing with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge . There is no such specific provisions under Reg . 60 which pertains to procedure for minor penalty. The contention of learned representative that new charge has been added in the impugned order is also devoid of any force . While considering the plea taken in the reply of the workman, the disciplinary authority has just observed that the workman was duty bound to report if, there was any thing irregular as mentioned now in his reply.Uponperusal of the impugned order it is not evident that any new charge has been added & penalty has been imposed for any such charge.

31. Whereas the learned representative on behalf of Corporation has submitted that the impugned order clearly specifies the reasons for awarding penalty . The workman denied the charges on the plea that there was no bird trouble in the Godown but the report of Sh. V. Uniyal , Ex-Dy. Manager, Quality Control speaks otherwise. It was established during receipt of rice stock at Haridwar that BRL rice stock dispatched by the workman contained heavy lots of bird excreta which cause loss of the Corporation. There is no illegality in imposing penalty vide impugned order dt . 25-7-1998 .

28. Since , the penalty of stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect has been imposed uponthe workman vide impugned order after following

32. The Corporation has examined Sh . G.K. Pant , Asstt. Manager ( Vigilance) who has stated that before [भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

7303

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

issuing charge sheetdt . 24-6-1997 ( 3/15) a show cause notice was served upon the workman but he did not reply. Afterserving charge sheet , reply dated 27-2-98 was filed by the workman & after considering the same the impugned order was passed by the Regional Manager.He has further stated that alongwith the workmen fourAsstt . Grade , Seven Technical Asstt. & one Asstt . Manager were also charge sheeted.

33. It is evident upon perusal of the impugned order that charge sheet was served under Reg . 60 of Regulation 1971 for minor penalty & holding of enquiry vide Reg. 60 isnecessary ifdisciplinary authority is of the opinion that enquiry is necessary. But even under Reg. 60 it is tobe seenwhether statement of allegation alongwith the memo was served & opportunity to reply was provided & after considering the reply impugned order has been passed. Despite direction of the Tribunal the Corporation has not produced statement of allegation , reply filed by the workman & relevant document of proceedings . Except impugned order , there is no document on record pertaining to alleged misconduct in the impugned order . The management has only file punishment order which cannot be treated as material on record for the purposes of appreciating whether the charges were vague , & rule of natural justice was observed & whether contention in the reply of the workman have been considered . Thus , the management has failed to establish that action of the management was justified & legal in imposing the punishment upon the workman vide impugned order dated 25-7-1998.

34. In view of the above discussions the action of the Sr. Regional Manager , FCI , Lucknow in imposing penalty dated 25-7-98 & action of the Distt. Manager , FCI , Haldwani imposing penalty vide impugned order dated 13-11-98 & 24-9-97 against the deceased workman Sh. Ishrat Hussain is not justified & legal . But penalty imposed upon the workman vide impugned order dated 25-12-98 is justified& legal .

35. Accordingly, the reference under adjudication is answered as under :

(i) Impugned order dated 28-12-98 is justified & legal.

(ii) Impugned orders dated 13-11-98 , 24-9-97 & 25-7-98 are not justified & legal & the same are set aside.

(iii) If any amount has been recovered as penalty imposed upon the workman vide impugned orders dated 13-11-98 , 24-9-97 & 25-7-98 the same may be refunded to the legal heirs of the deceased workman within 3 months from the date ofpublication of the award.

36. Award as above .

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer Lucknow: 12-10-2009

3957G1/09-32

नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर , 2009

का. आ. 3111.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं वाइल्ड लाइफ इन्स्टीट्यूट ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/100/2003 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October, 2009

S.O. 3111. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Wildlife Institute of India, and their workmen , which was received bythe Central Government on 22-10-2009.

[No. L-42012/ 100/2003- IR (CM- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT:

N. K. Purohit, Presiding Officer . I.D. No. 13/2004 Ref. No. L-42012/ 100/2003 - IR (CM- II) dated 14-1-2004 BETWEEN

Shri Satish Kumar , S/o . Shri Ramswaroop Village , Safipur, Post Badshai , District Saharanpur.

AND

The Director, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Box No. 18, Chandrabani , Dehradun - 248001 .

AWARD 30-09-2009

1. By order No. L-42012/ 100/2003- IR (CM - II ) dated 14-1-2004 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour, NewDelhi in exercise ofpowers 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 Satish Kumar S /o . Shri Ramswaroop , Village Safipur , Post Badshai , District Saharanpur and the Director , Wildlife Institute of India , Post Box No. 18 , Chandrabani , Dehradun for adjudication.

7304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[PART II--SEC . 3( ii) ) 2. The reference under adjudication is :

Researcher and it had no administrative control over the said Researcher .

"Whether the action of the Wildlife Institute management in terminating the services of Shri Satish Kumar, S/ o . Shri Ram Swaroop , Field Assistant, w.e.f. 30-9-2000 instead of regularizing is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled ? "

6. The management of WLII has denied that the workman has ever been engaged by the Institute in any capacitywhatsoever and since there existed no relationship ofemployer and employee , as such there arise no question ofeitherterminating him or regularizing him at any point of time or violation of any of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . It has been submitted by the opposite party that Hon'ble High Court never held that the petitioner/ workman was daily rated worker of the Institute ; rather it held that in case of grievance , he can avail the remedy available under I.D. Act . Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected .

7. The workman has field rejoinder wherein it has submitted that Hon'ble High Court , Nainital itself has directed the petitioner to seek alternative remedy under provisions of I.D. Act also the management, in its affidavit before Hon'ble High Court has submitted that it falls within the provisions of I.D. Act, therefore , the workman can raise anindustrial dispute against management of WLII within the provisions ofI.D. Act, 1947. Rest is nothing apart from reiteration of the facts already stated in the statement of claim.

3. Case of the workman, Satish Kumar, in brief, is that he was working with the opposite party w.e.f. 1-8-1997 as Field Assistant. During his employment the employer were directedby Hon'ble High Court , Allahabad vide their order dated 18-11-1999 to pay the workman minimum pay scale payable to regular employee; but the employers instead ofregularizing the workman terminated the services ofworkman w.e.f. 30-9-2000 without any prior information ornotice thereof. Aggrieved from termination, the workman filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court , Nainital wherebyHon'ble High Court vide their interim order dated 21-3-2002 directed the respondents to regularize the services of the workman and pay him minimum pay scale, which were not complied by the management . Thereafter , Hon'bleHigh Court vide their order dated 16-5-2002 held that the petitioner is daily wager of Wildlife Institute of India and their services have been allegedly terminated by oral order; accordingly petitioners therein can seek relief under Industrial Disputes Act and vacated the interim order , therefore, he raised the dispute before Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central) , Dehradun.

8. The parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective cases . The workman has examined himself whereas the management of WLII has examined Shri AJT John Singh , Dean Faculty of Science and Dr. S. P. Goyal , Scientist F Category in support oftheir respective averments . The parties have availed opportunity offiling written arguments apart from oral submissions .

9.Heard arguments of both the parties and perused relevant material on record .

4. Ithas been submitted by the workman that hehad worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year during his employment with opposite parties and his services have beenterminated without assigning any reason and he has not been paid any notice or compensation in lieu thereof, which is violative of provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Further it has been alleged by theworkman that some of the workmen, junior to him, have beenregularizedby the management which is violative of provisions of 1.D. Act ; accordingly , he has prayed that his termination be declared illegal and he be reinstated with back wages and continuity in service.

10. The learned representative on behalf of the management has raised preliminary objection that the Wildlife Institute of India is not an industry as it is an autonomous body by virtue of aims and objective of the Institution and the functions being carried on therein , the Wildlife Institute of India is purely a research Institute. The institute is not an undertaking analogous to business ortrade and it has not engaged in any commercial , industrial activity and it cannot be described as an economic venture or a commercial enterprise . The purpose of research isto acquire knowledge of wildlife and it does not come within the definition ofterm ' industry ' as defined under Section 2 (j ) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947; whereas the learned representative on behalfof the workman has urged that in Writ Petition No. 107/2002 filed by the workman and others, it was pleaded in the affidavit filed by the Director, Wildlife Institute of India that dispute between the parties is pertaining to the petitioner's rights as a workman within the definition of Section 2(j ) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 and petitioner had alternate adjudicatory remedy by way of having raising industrial 5. The management of the Wildlife Institute of India has refuted the claim of the workman by filing written statement whereby it has submitted that it is an autonomous institution registered as Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and businesses carried out by it keeps it outside the purview of the definition of term ' industry' under Section 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act . It has specifically denied of existence of any employer - employee relationship with the workman concerned and has submitted that he was engaged by an independent Researcher as per requirement of project allotted to him and the workman had worked under his direct control and supervision and received payments from him only; the institute had no role to play except to act as that of a medium, offunding agency, to provide funds /grants to the

中 7305 [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

dispute. Thus , impliedly it has been admitted by the opposite party that the Wildlife Institute of India is an industry.

11. InBangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs.A.Rajappa and others 1979 SC 539 , Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public , joint private or other sector. Hon'ble Court has further observed:

given by A.J.T. John Singh, Dean, Faculty of Sciences dated 24-10-1997, wherein he has certified that Satish Kumar was working as Field Assistant in Wild Life Institute of India-United States Fish and Wildlife Services (WII- USFWS ) Project, titled " The relationships among large herbivores , habitat and humans in Rajaji - Corbett National Parks " (WII - USFWS Project) . The workman stated that he had worked in the ' elephant project ' only and in the said certificatethename ofprogramme was WII- USFWS Project. He has further admitted that no appointment letter or termination letter was issue to him .

"Does research involve collaboration between employer and employee ? It does. The employer Eventhrough a research institution maybe separate entity disconnected from the many industry which founded the institute itself, it can be regarded as an organization , propelled by systematic activity, modeled on cooperation between employer and employee and calculated to throw up discoveries and inventions and useful solutions which benefit individual industries and the nation in terms of goods and services and wealth . If follows that Research Institutes , albeit run without profit motive are ' industry'."

16. In rebuttal , the management witness Shri A. J. T. John Singh, Dean Faculty of Sciences has stated that the workman never worked as casual labour or daily wager in the Institute. He was not paid any wages by the Institute . The fund of theproject was made available by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services through the Institute and the workman was engaged by the Researcher A. Christy Williams and payments were used to be made by him. There was no control or supervision of the Institute on the persons engaged by the said Researcher. The project was for period of 5 years which completed in the months of September,2005. In cross- examination he has admitted that certificate C-30 was given by him but he has explained that the workman requested him to give the certificate for applying for service elsewhere; on humanitarian ground he has given the said certificate .

12. Thus , in view ofdefinition ofindustry as explained byHon'ble Apex Court in above mentioned case the Wildlife Institute of India falls in the ambit of definition of term 'industry' under Section 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 .

13. The questions thus , remain for considerations are whether employer- employee relationship existed between the parties and whether the workman had continuouslyworked for more than 240 days in preceding 12months from the date ofhis alleged termination.

17. Management witness Dr. S. P. Goyal, Scientist has stated that photocopies of the alleged Daily Working Diary, document 35/28 to 35/56 is not relating to the Institute. No instructions or orders were given to prepare such document. Original of the above documents have not been produced. He has denied that originals are with him . He has also denied his alleged signatures on the above documents . In cross - examination , he has stated that the investigator used to engage Researcher for any project and for execution of the work the researcher is free to engage any person .

18. From the evidence of both the sides on record, it reveals that A. Christy Williams , Researcher had undertaken a collaborative research viz . United States Fish and Wildlife Services ( WII - USFWS) Project which was funded by United States Fish and Wildlife Services and the said project was for a specified period of five years and was being up to 30th September , 2000. It also reveals that the workman was engagedby the Researcher as per requirement of the project and he was engaged for project related to research work also , the advances for the project were made to and sanctioned for and on behalf of US FWS Project only .

14. In present case workman, Satish Kumar , has stated in his statement on oath that he was working as FieldAssistant in Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun since 1997 andhis services were termination on 30-9-2000 without any notice. In cross- examination he has admitted that he has not submitted any proof of continuous working in the institute from August, 1997 till the date of his alleged termination. He has further admitted that there is no proof orevidence regarding his working for 240 days or more in ayear. He has also admitted that from the month ofOctober , 1997 to January, 1998 he was paid Rs . 1800 per monthbyA. ChristyWilliams , Researcher as monthly wages . Upon being shown and confronted with the payments between October, 1997 to January , 1998 he also admitted receiving payment from A. Christy Williams, Researcher @ Rs . 1500 permonth. The workman has not adduced any documentary evidence to establish that he was receiving payments directly from the institute.

15. The workman has filed a copy of certificates said to be given by S. K. Mukharjee , Director of the institute, but he has admitted not having originals of the said certificate. He has also produced a certificate said to be

19. Although, the workman in his evidence has stated all the proof of his employment are on record but no such original record has been produced by him. He himself has admittedthat there is no proofofcontinuously working for 240 days in the institute from August , 1997 till the date of 7306

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

his alleged termination. He has further admitted that no appointment letter was issued to him by the institution.

representative on behalf of the management , Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has observed that photostat documents has no evidentiary value unless original is produced and proved. Thus , in view of the above legal position, there is no evidentiary value of the above documents produced by the workman .

20. The management witness has categorically denied that the workman was an employee of the Institute. He has stated that neither the workman was a casual labour in the institute nor a daily wager and he was not paid wages by the Institute . The workman himself has admitted that payments have been made to him by A. Christy Williams , Researcher . He has not produced any receipts or any vouchers to establish that payments have been made to himby the institute .

24. The workman has produced a certificate (C-30) said to be givenby Principal Investigator , Dr. A. J. T. John Singh. The management witness Dr. A.J.T. John Singh has admitted that such certificate was given by him but Dr. John Singh has clarified that he had issued the same on humanitarian ground as the workman had asked for same onthe ground that he had applied for job somewhere else and he required experience certificate ofproject work . He has stated that he had told the workman to take the certificate from A. Christy Williams , but he insisted for getting certificate from him on the pretext that the certificate from institute would carry more value . The explanation given by him seems to be plausible in the given circumstances and mainly on the basis of said certificate no conclusion can be drawn as regards employer - employee relation between the institute and the workman .

21. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has argued that Hon'ble Uttranchal High Court, Nainital in the order dated 16-5-2002 has held the applicant tobe daily rated worker of the institute . In this regard the copy of the said order is on the record and it is evident from said order that it was contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that petitioners are daily wagers working in the Wild Life Institute of India and by oral order their services were terminated hence filed a Writ Petition . In this contextHon'ble High Court had only held that in case of grievance , the petitioners therein can avail the remedy under the I.D. Act without going into the status of applicant vis- a-vis the institute . Therefore , the contention of the learned representative on behalf of the workman is devoid of any substance .

22. To establish the relation of employer - employee theworkmanhas mainly relied the following documents :

(i) Certificate said to be given by the Director , Wild Life Institute of India dated 6-7-98 (C -2/ 1 ) .

(ii) Certificate said to be given by Principal Investigator, Dr. A.J.T. John Singh dated 24-10-97 (C-2/2); and

(iii) Copy of the Daily Working Diary said to be filled by the workman himself regarding day to day working, paper No. 35/28-35/56.

25. The workman has also produced copies of two letters of Shri S. P. Goyal, Scientist dated 15-11-1999 and 16-11-1999 addressed to the Director, Rajaji National Park. It is not disputed that said letters were written by Shri S. P. Goyal, Scientist. The management witness , Shri S. P. Goyal has admitted his signatures on the said letter dated 15-11- 1999. It reveals from the letter dated 15-11-1999 that research project was for limited period of five years and for that research , Field Assistants were engaged and request was made to allow to continue the facilities extended by Rajaji National Park and in reference to the above letter , vide letterdated 16-11-1999, information was furnished regarding the names ofpersons involved in the said project . It reveals from the said letter dated 16-11-1999 that name of the workman finds place in the names of Field Assistants mentioned therein . The management witness , Shri S. P. Goyal has stated in his cross - examination that said request was only for providing facility to field staff but they were not under his control .

(iv) Letter of S. P. Goyal dated 15-11-1999-request to continue to avail the facility extended by the park and collection of data under the research project.

(v) Letter dated 16-11-1999 of S. P. Goyal regarding persons involved in the research work.

26. Admittedly, the workman was not receiving any salary or wages from the Institute directly and he was receiving payment from A. Christy Williams , Researcher , who was not the employee of the Institute . Moreover , the project was for a limited period of 5 years and came to an end on 30th September , 2000. Upon a perusal of the said letters , in the context of entire material on record. It appears that names of the persons involved in the research project have been communicated for seeking of permission only for availing facility of the Rajaji National Park for Research work . Thus , the contention of the learned representative on behalf ofthe workman that it is established from said letter that the workman was employee of the institute , is not tenable .

23. So far as certificate dated 6-7-1998 said to be given by the Director is concerned , the workman has admitted that original of the said certificate has not been submitted by him . Similarly, the workman has not produced the originals ofphotocopies daily working diary. In absence oforiginal , daily working diary cannot be read in evidence , specifically when the genuineness of photocopies have been categorically denied by the institute. The management witness Dr. S. P. Goyal has denied his signature on the various pages of the alleged daily working diary ( 35/28 to 35/56) . In 2005 ( 106) FLR 968 relied on by the learned [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

7307

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23, 1931

27. Even, if, it is presumed on the basis ofsaid letter, that employer- employee relations existed between the institute and the workman , it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked continuously for240 days in preceding 12 months from the date ofhis alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000. It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in required period and this claim has been denied by the management, therefore , initial burden was on the workman to prove his case.

28. In(2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer Vs. S. T. Hadmani Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that mere filing ofaffidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence to establish that hehad infactworked for 240 days. In 2008 2 SCC ( L& S ) 648 Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that the workman has to adduce evidence apart from examining himselfto prove the factum ofbeing in employment of the employer . In (2007) 1 SCC (L& S) 679 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that burden of proof lies on the workman that he hadworked for continuous period of 240 days in a year so as to entitled him to benefit of Section 25F of I.D. Act . It is also settled legal position that if a party challenges the legality of any action of the management, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and ifno evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail.

29. In the instant case the workman himself has admitted that he had not adduced any proof to establish that he had continuously worked for 240 days from the date ofhis alleged termination .

30. In view of the above discussion , the workman has failed to proved that he had worked as Field Assistant continuously for 240 days in preceding twelve months from the date ofhis alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000, therefore, his case is not covered under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Resultantly, he is not entitled for any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

31. Award as above .

Lucknow, 30-9-2009

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer. नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2009

का. आ. 3112.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं वाइल्ड लाइफ इन्स्टीट्यूट ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 11/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं.एल-42012/98/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 22nd October, 2009 S.O. 3112. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Wildlife Institute of India , and their workmen, which was received bythe CentralGovernment on 22-10-2009.

[No. L-42012/98/2003- IR (CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT , LUCKNOW PRESENT:

N. K. Purohit, Presiding Officer I.D. No. 11/2004 Ref. No. L-42012/ 98/2003 - IR (CM - II) dated 14-1-2004 BETWEEN Shri Ram Saran Singh S/ o Shri Mamchand, Village and Post Kasampur, District Saharanpur (U.P. ) AND

The Director, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Box No. 18 , Chandrabani , Dehradun -248001 AWARD 30-09-2009

1. By order No. L-42012/98/2003 - IR(CM - II) dated 14-1-2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise ofpowers 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 Ram Saran Singh S/o Shri Mamchand, Village and Post, Kasampur, District Saharanpur and the Director, Wildlife Institute of India , Post Box No. 18 , Chandrabani , Dehradun for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the Wild Life Institute management interminating the services of Shri Ram Saran S/ o Shri Mamchand, Field Assistant , w.e.f. 30-9-2000 instead of regularizing is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?

3. Case of the workman , Ram Saran, in brief, is that hewas working with the opposite party w.e.f.1-1-1991 as FieldAssistant. During his employment the employer were directedby Hon'ble High Court , Allahabad vide their order dated 18-11-1999 to pay the workman minimum pay scale payable to regular employee ; but the employers instead of 7308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009 /KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

available under I.D. Act. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected .

7. The workman has filed rejoinder wherein it has submitted that Hon'ble High Court, Nainital itself has directed the petitioner to seek alternative remedy under provisions of I.D. Act also the management, in its affidavit before Hon'ble High Court has submitted that it falls within the provisions of I.D. Act, therefore , the workman can raise an industrial dispute against management of WLII within the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Rest is nothing apart from reiteration of the facts already stated in the statement of claim.

regularizing the workman terminated the services of workman w.e.f. 30-9-2000 without any prior information or notice thereof . Aggrieved from termination , the workman filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court, Nainital wherebyHon'ble High Court vide their interim order dated 21-3-2002 directed the respondents to regularize the services ofthe workman and pay him minimum pay scale, whichwere not complied by the management. Thereafter , Hon'ble High Court vide their order dated 16-5-2002 held that the petitioner is daily wager of Wild Life Institute of Indiaand their services have been allegedly terminated by oral order, accordingly petitioners therein can seek relief under IndustrialDispute Act and vacated the interim order, therefore, he raised the dispute before Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central) , Dehradun .

8. The parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective cases . The workman has examined himself whereas the management of WLII has examined Shri AJT John Singh , Dean Faculty of Science andDr. S. P. Goyal, Scientist F Category in support oftheir respective averments . The parties have availed opportunity offiling written arguments apart from oral submissions.

9.Heard arguments of both the parties and perused relevant material on record.

4. It has been submitted by the workman that he had worked for morethan 240 days in each calendar yearduring his employment with opposite parties and his services have beenterminated without assigning any reason and he has notbeen paid any notice or compensation in lieu thereof, which is voilative of provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Further it has been alleged bythe workman that some of the workmen , junior to him,. have been regularized by the management which is violative ofprovisions of I.D. Act ; accordingly , he has prayed that his termination be declared illegal and he be reinstated with back wages and continuity in service.

5. The management ofthe Wild Life Institute of India has refuted the claim of the workman by filing written statement whereby it has submitted that it is an autonomous institution registered as Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and businesses carried out by it keeps it outside the purview of the definition of term ' industry' under Section 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act . It has specifically denied ofexistence of any employer- employee relationship with the workman concerned and has submitted that he was engaged by an independent Researcher as per requirement of project allotted to him and the workman had worked under his direct control and supervision and received payments from him only; the institute had no role to play except to act as that of a medium, offunding agency, to provide funds/ grants to the Researcher and it had no administrative control over the said Researcher .

10. The learned representative on behalf of the management has raised preliminary objection that the Wild Life Institute of India is not an industry as it is an autonomous body by virtue of aims and objective of the Institution and the functions being carried on therein, the Wild Life Institute of India is purely a research Institute . Theinstitute is not an undertaking analogous to business ortrade and it has not engaged in any commercial , industrial activity and it cannot be described as an economic venture ora commercial enterprise . The purpose of research is to acquire knowledge ofwild life and it does not come within the definition of term ' industry' as defined under Section 2(j ) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947; whereas the learned representative on behalf of the workman has urged that in Writ Petition No. 107/2002 filed by the workman and others , it was pleaded in the affidavit filed by the Director, Wild Life Institute of India that dispute between the parties is pertaining to the petitioner's rights as a workman within the definition of Section 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and petitioner had alternate adjudicatory remedy by way of having raising industrial dispute . Thus , impliedly it has beenadmitted by the opposite party that the Wild Life Institute of India is an industry.

11. InBangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and Others 1979 SC 539 , Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public , joint private or other sector. Hon'ble Court has further observed :

"Does research involve collaboration between employer and employee ? It does . The employer Even though a research institution 6. The management of WLII has denied that the workman has ever been engaged by the Institute in any capacity whatsoever and since there existed no relationship of employer and employee, as such there arise no question ofeitherterminating him or regularizing him at any point of time or violation of any of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . It has been submitted by the opposite party that Hon'ble High Court never held that the petitioner/ workman was daily rated worker of the Institute ; rather it held that in case of grievance , he can avail the remedy 7309 [भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

may be separate entity disconnected from the many industry which founded the institute itself, it can be regarded as an organization , propelled by systematic activity, modeled on cooperation between employer and employee and calculated to throw up discoveries and inventions and useful solutions which benefit individual industries and the nation in terms of goods and services and wealth. If follows that Research Institutes , albeit run without profit motive are ' industry ."

12. Thus, in view of definition of industry as explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in above mentioned case the Wild Life Institute ofIndia falls in the ambit of definition ofterm 'industry' under Section 2 (j ) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947.

orderdated21-3-2003 as Hon'ble High Court, Nanital has vacated the said order vide its subsequent order dated 16-5-2002 . He has further urged that copy of counter affidavit said to be served by Director of the Institute is photocopy which do not carry any signature and stamp on behalfofthe Institute . Letter dated 15-11-99 and 16-11-99 said to be written by Scientist of the Institute pertainsto seeking permission to entry into Park and do not prove employer - employee nexus between the Institute and the workman. He has also urged that no evidence is available on the record to show regularization of two persons viz . Rakesh and Mh. Yasen or they were junior to him . He has also urged that there is no evidence on record to prove that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in required period . Mere statement of the workman is not sufficient to prove the above facts . The learned representative on behalf of the management in support to his contentions has placed reliance on following cases laws:

(i) (2008 ) 2 SCC (L& S) 648 Ranip NagarPalika vs. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore & others .

( ii) (2008 ) 2 SCC ( L& S) 1016 State ofHaryana vs. Ramesh Kumar .

(in) 2005 (106) FLR 968 Employees State Insurance Corporation Ltd. vs. Srfuddin.

(iv) (2007 ) 1 SCC ( L& S ) 679 Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. vs. Mohd. Rafi .

(v) 2007 (115) FLR 638 U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court, Gorakhpur & others .

(vi) 2002 SCC (L& S) 367 Range Forest Officer vs. S. T. Hadimani .

(vii) 2005 SCC (L&S) 154 Mahendra L. Jain & others vs. Indore Development Authority & others .

(viii) 2006 SCC ( L& S) 429 StateofM. P. & others vs. Arjun Lal Rajak.

(ix) 2005( 106) FLR531 Rajasthan Handpump Mistry Karamchari Sangh INTUC vs. State ofRajasthan &others.

(x) 2005 ( 104) FLR 651 Nagar Panchayat Gajraula, Moradabadvs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court , Rampur& others.

(xi) 2005 (104 ) FLR 999 Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs.Bhola Singh.

14. Learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that vide order dated 18-11-99 Hon'ble Allhabad High Court directed to pay wages which were payable to regular employees ; but the orders were not complied with and services of the workman have been terminated on 30-9-2000 . He further contended that vide interim order dated 21-7-2002 Hon'ble High Court Nainital inWrit PetitionNo. 207/2002 allowed the petitioner therein to continue as Field Assistant, directions were also given to pay minimum of pay scales ; but the orders were not compliedwith. Subsequently, Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with observation (vide order dated 16-5-2005) that the petitioners therein can avail remedy under Industrial Disputes Act. He has also submitted that in the above Writ Petition an affidavit was filed by the Director of the Institute wherein it is admitted that petitioners were appointed as casual Field Assistant in October , 1995 to assist in research work. He has further submitted that there was no such contract that after completion of research work the services of the workman shall stand terminated . The research project was approved by the Institute and research was being done under the control ofthe institute. Researcher A. Christy Williams left inyear 1999 and S. P. Goyal, Sr. Scientist was subsequently supervising the whole research project . He has also submitted that it is evident from the letters dated 15-11-99 and16-1-99, written by Sr. Scientist, S. P. Goyal to Director, Rajaji National Park, that the workman was employee of the Institute.

(xii) 2005 ( 105) FLR 386 Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute (Cordet) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad & others .

16. The workman , Ram Saran, has stated in his statement on oath that he was working as Field Assistant inWildlife Institute of India, Dehradun since 1997 and his 15. Per contra, learned representative on behalf of themanagement has urged that in respect of order dated 18-11-99 ofthe Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, the workman didnot file any contempt petition against the management ofthe Institute for alleged non - implementation thereof. Further, the applicant cannot avail any relieffrom the interim 7310

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]

19. Management witness Dr. S. P. Goyal , Scientist has stated that photocopies of the alleged Daily Working Diary, document 20/27 to 20/46 is not relating to the Institute. No instructions or orders were given to prepare such document . Original of the above documents have not been produced . He has denied that originals are with him . He has also denied his alleged signatures on the above documents . In cross - examination, he has stated that the investigator used to engage Researcher for any project and for execution of the work the researcher is free to engage any person.

20. From the evidence of both the sides on record , it reveals that A. Christy Williams , Researcher had undertaken a collaborative research viz . United States Fish and Wildlife Services (WII - USFWS) Project which was funded by United States Fish and Wildlife Services and the said project was for a specified period of five years and was being up to 30thSeptember , 2000. It also reveals that the workman was engagedby the Researcher as per requirement of the project andhe was engaged for project related to research work.

services were termination on 1-10-2000 without any notice . He has further stated that service ofRakesh and Mo. Yasin who were working with him were regularized. He has stated that Dr. John Singh Appointed him but, admitted that no appointment letter was issued to him. The workman has also admitted that he has not produced any proofofbeing appointed on 1-1-1991 and he has not submitted any proof ofworking more than 240 days in a year. He has stated that he was working in Rajaji Elephant Project, which started in 1995 and came to an end on September, 2000 and he had worked in one project only he has further admitted that attendance was embarked by Researcher and he was paid wages by him only. He admitted that A. Christy Williams , Researcher is not an employee of Wildlife Institute of India. He has alleged that his services were terminated by S. P. Goyal but no termination letter was given to him . The workman has produced Daily Working Diary ( 20/27 to 20/46) , but he has admitted not having original of alleged Diary. According to him , the originals thereof had been deposited with S. P. Goyal . In cross- examination he also admittedthat Daily Working Diary was in his hand writing and hewas not given any order to maintai: such Diary ... d there is no stamp/seal of the Institute on the said diary.

21. Although , the workman in his evidence has stated that all the proof of his employment are on record but no such original record has been produced by him. He himself has admitted that there is no proof of continuously working for 240 days in the institute from January , 1991 till the date ofhis alleged termination. He has further admitted that no appointment letter was issued to him by the institution.

22. The management witness has categorically deniedthat the workman was an employee of the Institute . Hehas stated that neither the workman was a casual labour inthe institute nor a daily wager and he was not paid wages by the Institute. The workman himself has admitted that payments have been made to him by A. Christi Williams , Researcher . He has not produced any receipts or any vouchers to establish that payments have been made by the institute to him .

17. The workman has filed a copy of certificates said to be given by S. K. Mukharjee , Director of the institute, but he has admitted not having originals of the said certificate . He has also produced original certificates said tobe givenby A.J.T. John Singh, Dean, Faculty of Sciences dated 24-10-1997 ( 14C , original ofC- 5 /2A) and 20-4-1999 (15C, original ofC- 5/2B) at the time of evidence , wherein he has certified that Ram Saran was working as Field Assistant inWildlife Institute ofIndia-United States Fish and Wildlife Services (WII - USFWS) Project , titled "The relationships among large herbivores , habitat and humans in Rajaji- Corbett National Parks " ( WII - USFWS Project ) . The workman stated that he had worked in the ' elephant project' only and in the said certificate the name of programme was WII - USFWS Project . He has further admitted that no appointment letter or termination letter was issue to him .

23. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has argued that Hon'ble Uttranchal High Court , Nainital in the order dated 16-5-2002 has held the applicant to be daily rated worker of the institute. In this regard the copy of the said order is on the record and it is evident from said order that it was contention of the learned counsel ofthe petitioner that petitioners are daily wagers working in the Wildlife Institute of India and by oral order their services were terminated hence filed a Writ Petition . In this context Hon'ble High Court had only held that in case of grievance, the petitioners therein can avail the remedy under the I.D. Act without going into the status of applicant vis- a-visthe institute . Therefore , the contention of the learned representative on behalf of the workman is devoid of any substance .

24. To establish the relation of employer-employee the workman has mainly relied on the following documents:

(i) Certificate said to be given by the Director , Wildlife Institute of India dated 6-7-98 (C -2/ 1 ) .

18. In rebuttal , the management witness Shri A. J. T. John Singh , Dean Faculty of Sciences has stated that the workman never worked as casual labour or daily wager in the Institute . He was not paid any wages by the Institute. The fund of the project was made available by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services through the Institute and the workman was engaged by the Researcher A. Christy Williams and payments were used tobe madeby him. There control or supervision of the Institute on the persons engaged by the said Kescarcher . The project was for period of 5 years which completed in the months of September, 2005. In cross - examination he has admitted that certificates 14C and 15C were given by him but he has explained that the workman requested him to give the certificate for applying for service elsewhere ; on humanitarian ground he has given the said certificate . W 7311

भारत काराजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/ कार्तिक 23 , 1931

[भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

(ii) Certificate said to the given by Principal Investigator, Dr. A.J.T. John Singh dated 24-10-97 (C-2/2); and

(iii) Copy ofthe Daily Working Diary said tobe filled by the workman himself regarding day to day working, paperNo. 20/27 to20/46.

was made to allow to continue the facilities extended by Rajaji National Park and in reference to the above letter, vide letter dated 16-11-1999, information was furnished regarding the names ofpersons involved in the said project. Itreveals from the said letter dated 16-11-1999 that name of theworkman finds place in the names of Fleld Assistants mentioned therein. The management witness , Shri S. P. Goyal has stated in his cross-examination that said request was only for providing facility to field staff but they were not under his control.

(iv) Letter ofS. P. Goyal dated 15-11-1999-request to continuetoavail the facility extendedby the park andcollection of data under the research project.

(v) Letter dated 16-11-1999 ofS. P. Goyal regarding persons involved in the research work.

28.Admittedly, the workman was not receiving any salary or wages from the Institute directly and he was receiving payment from A. Christy Williams , Researcher, whowas not the employee of the Institute . Moreover, the projectwas for a limited period of 5 years and came to an end on 30th September, 2000. Upon a perusal of the said letters, inthe context of entire material on record, it appears that names ofthe persons involved in the research project have been communicated for seeking of permission only for availing facility of the Rajaji National Park for Research work. Thus , the contention of the learned representative onbehalf of the workman that it is established from said letterthat the workman was employee of the Institute , is not tenable .

25. So far as certificate dated 6-7-1998 said to be givenby the Director is concerned, the workman has admitted that original of the said certificate has not been submittedby him. Similarly, the workman has not produced the originals ofphotocopies ofalleged daily working diary. In absence oforiginal , daily working diary cannot be read in evidence, specifically when the same photocopies have beencategorically denied by the institute . The management witness Dr. S. P. Goyal has denied his signature on the various pages ofthe alleged daily working diary (20/27 to 20/46) . In 2005 ( 106) FLR 968 relied on by the learned representative on behalf of the management, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has observed that photostat documents has no evidentiary value unless original is produced and proved. Thus, in view of the above legal points, there is no evidentiary value ofthe above documents producedby the workman.

29. Even, if, it is presumed on the basis of said letter, that employer-employee relations existed between the Institute and the workman, it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked continuously for240 days inpreceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000 . It was the case ofthe workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in required period and this claim has been denied by the management, therefore, initial burden was on the workman toprove his case.

26. The workman has produced certificates 14C & 15C said to be given by Principal Investigator, Dr. A. J. T. John Singh. The management witness Dr. A.J.T. John Singh has admitted that such certificate was givenby him butDr. John Singh has clarified that he had issued the same on humanitarian ground as the workman had asked for same onthe ground that he had applied for job somewhere else and he required experience certificate ofproject work, He has stated that he had told the workman to take the certificate from A. Christy Williams, but he insisted for getting certificate from him on the pretext that the certificate from institutewould carry more value . The explanation given by him seems to be plausible in the given circumstances and mainly on the basis of said certificate no conclusion canbe drawn as regards employer- employee relation between the institute and the workman .

30. In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadmani Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that mere filing ofaffidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence to establish that hehad in fact worked for 240 days. In 2008 2 SCC (L&S) 648 Hon'bleApex Court has also observed that the workman has to adduce evidence apart from examining himselfto provethe factum ofbeing in employment of the employer. In (2007) 1. SCC ( L& S) 679 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observedthat burden of proof lies on the workman that he hadworked for continuous period of240 days in a year as to entitled him to benefit of Section 25F of I.D. Act . It is also settled legal position that if a party challenges the legálity of any action of the management, the burden lies uponhimtoprove illegality ofthe order and ifno evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail .

31. In the instant case the workman himself has admitted that he had not adduced any proof to establish that he had continuously worked for 240 days from the date ofhis alleged termination .

27. The workman has also produced copies of two letters ofShri S. P. Goyal , Scientist dated 15-11-1999 and 16-11-1999 addressed to the Director , Rajaji National Park. Itisnotdisputed that said letters were written by Shri S. P. Goyal, Scientist. The management witness, Shri S. P. Goyal has admitted his signatures on the said letters dated 15-11-1999 . It reveals from the letter dated 15-11-1999 that research project was for limited period of five years and for thatresearch, Field Assistants were engaged and request

3957G1/09-33 7312

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23, 1931

AWARD

6-10-2009

32. In view of the above discussion , the workman has failed toprove that he had worked as Field Assistant continously for240 days in preceding twelve months from thedate ofhis alleged termination i.e. 1-10-2000, therefore, his case is not covered under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Resultantly, he is not entitled forany relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

33. Award asabove.

Lucknow, 30-9-2009

N. K. PUROHIT, PresidingOfficer

1. By order No. L-42012/99/2003 - IR (CM- II) dated 14-1-2004the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour, NewDelhi in exercise ofpowers 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 Noor Hassan, S/ o . Shri Nazar Hassan, Village Shajahanpur , Post Kurdi Beada, District Saharanpur , Saharanpur (U.P.) and the Director, Wildlife Institute ofIndia, Post Box No. 18, Chandrabani , Dehradun for adjudication.

नईदिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर, 2009

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the Wild Life Institute management in terminating the services of Shri Noor Hassan S/o. Shri Nazar Hassan, Field Assistant, w.e.f. 30-9-2000 instead of regularizing is legal and justified ? If not, to what reliefhe is entitled ?

का. आ. 3113.-औद्यानिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं वाइल्ड लाइफ इन्स्टीट्यूटऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/99/2003 -आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the22nd October, 2009

5.0. 3113.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/ 2004)ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the mdustrial dispute between the management ofWildlife Institute ofIndia, and their workman, which was received bythe CentralGovernment on 22-10-2009.

[No.L-42012/99/2003-IR(CM-II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

3. Case of the workman, Noor Hasan, in brief, is that hewasworking with the opposite party w.e.f.1-5-1998 as FieldAssistant . During his employment the employer were directedbyHon'ble High Court, Allahabad vide their order dated 18-11-1999 to pay the workman minimum pay scale payable to regular employee; but the employers instead of regularizing the workman terminated the services of workman w.e.f. 30-9-2000 without any prior information or notice thereof.Aggrieved from termination, the workman filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court, Nainital whereby Hon'ble High Court vide their interim order dated 21-3-2002 directed the respondents to regularize the servicesoftheworkman and pay him minimum pay scale, whichwere not complied by the management. Thereafter, Hon'ble High Court vide their order dated 16-5-2002 held that thepetitioner is daily wager of Wild Life Institute of Indiaand their services have been allegedly terminated by oral order; accordingly petitioners therein can seek relief under Industrial Disputes Act and vacated the interim order, therefore, he raised the dispute before Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central) , Dehradun.

TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

N. K. Pürohit , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 12/2004

Ref. No. L-42012/99/2003 -IR (CM- II) dated 14-1-2004

BETWEEN

Shri Noor Hassan , S/ o . Shri Nazar Hassan, Village Shajahanpur , Post Kurdi Beada , District Saharanpur , Saharanpur (U.P. ) .

AND

4. Ithas been submitted by the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year during his employment with opposite parties and his serviceshave beenterminated without assigning any reason and he has not been paid any notice or compensation in lieu thereof, which is voilative of provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Further it has been alleged by the workman that some of the workmen , junior to him,. havebeenregularized by the management which is violative ofprovisions of I.D. Act; accordingly, he has prayed that histermination be declared illegal and he be reinstated withback wages and continuity in service .

The Director , Wildlife Institute of India, Post Box No. 18, Chandrabani , Dehradun - 248001 .

5. Themanagement of the Wild Life Institute of India has refuted the claim of the workman by filing written [भाग -खंड 3(ii) ]

7313 भारत का राजपत्र : 14 2009/ 23, 1931

statement whereby it has submitted that it is an autonomous institution registered as Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and businesses carried out by it keeps it outside the purview of the definition of term 'industry' under Section 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act. It has specificallydenied of existence of any employer-employee relationship with the workman concerned and has submitted that he was engaged by an independent Researcher as per requirement of project allotted to hiện and the workman had worked under his direct control and supervision and received payments from him only; the institute had no role to play except to act as that of a medium, offunding agency, to provide funds/grants to the Researcher and it had no administrative control over the saidResearcher.

activity and it cannot be described as an economic venture or a commercial enterprise . The purpose of research is to acquire knowledge of wild life and it does not come within thedefinition ofterm ' industry' as defined under Section2 (j) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 ; whereas the learned representative on behalf of the workman has urged that in Writ Petition No. 107/2002 filed by the workman and others, it was pleaded in the affidavit filed by the Director, Wild Life Institute of India that dispute between the parties is pertaining to the petitioner's rights as a workman within the definition of Section 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and petitioner had alternate adjudicatory remedy by way of having raising industrial dispute . Thus , impliedly it has been admitted by the opposite party that the Wild Life Institute of India is an industry.

11. InBangaloreWater Supply and SewerageBoard vs.A. Rajappaand others 1979 SC 339, Hon'bleApex Court has observed that the absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint private or other sector. Hon'ble Court has further observed:

6. The management of WLII has denied that the workman has ever been engaged by the Institute in any capacitywhatsoever and since there existed no relationship ofemployer and employee, as such there arise no question ofeitherterminating him or regularizing him at any point of time or violation of any of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . It has been submitted by the opposite party that Hon'ble High Court never held that the petitioner/ workman was daily rated worker of the Institute; rather it held that in case of grievance, he can avail the remedy available under I.D. Act . Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected.

"Does research involve collaboration between employer and employee ? It does. The employer Even through a research institution maybe separate entity disconnected from the many industry which founded the institute itself, it can be regarded as an organization, propelled by systematic activity, modeled on cooperation between employer and employee and calculated tothrow up discoveries and inventions and useful solutions which benefit individual industries and the nation in terms ofgoods and services and wealth . If follows that Research Institutes, albeit run without profit motive are "industry ."

7. The workman has filed rejoinder wherein it has submitted that Hon'ble High Court, Nainital itself has directed the petitioner to seek alternative remedy under provisions of I.D. Act also the management, in its affidavit before Hon'ble High Court has submitted that it falls within theprovisions of I.D. Act, therefore, the workman can raise anindustrial dispute against management ofWLII within the provisions ofI.D. Act, 1947. Rest is nothing apart from reiteration ofthe facts already stated in the statement of claim.

12. Thus, in view ofdefinition of industry as explained byHon'ble Apex Court in above mentioned case theWild Life Institute of India falls in the ambit ofdefinition ofterm 'industry'under Section 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

8. The parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective cases . The workman has examined himself whereas the management of WLU has examined Shri AIT John Singh, Dean Faculty of Science andDr. S. P.Goyal, Scientist F Category in support oftheir respective averments. The parties have availed opportunity offilingwrittenarguments apart from oral submissions.

13. The question thus , romain for considerations are whether employer- employee relationship existed between the parties and whether the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date ofhis alleged termination.

9. Heard arguments of both the parties and perused relevant material on record.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23, 1931

to pay minimum of pay scales ; but the orders were not compliedwith. Subsequently, Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with observation (vide order dated 16-5-2005) that the petitioners therein can avail remedy under Industrial Disputes Act. He has also submitted that in the above Writ Petition an affidavit was filed by the Director of the Institute wherein it is admitted that petitioners were appointed as casual Field Assistant in October, 1995 to assist in research work. He has further submitted that there was no such contract that after completion of research work the services of the workman shall stand terminated. The research project was approved by the Institute and research was being done under the control ofthe Institute. Researcher A. Christy Williams left in year 1999 and S. P. Goyal, Sr. Scientist was subsequently supervising the whole research project . He has also submitted that it is evident from the letters dated 15-11-99 and 16-11-99, written by Sr. Scientist , S. P. Goyal to Director, Rajaji National Park, that the workman was employee ofthe Institute.

15. Per contra, learned representative on behalf of the management has urged that in respect of order dated 18-11-99 of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, the workman did not file any contempt petition against the management of the Institute for alleged non- implementation thereof. Further,the applicant cannot avail any relieffrom the interim orderdated 21-3-2003 as Hon'ble High Court, Nainital has vacated the said order vide its subsequent order dated 16-5-2002. He has further urged that copy of counter affidavit said to be served by Director of the Institute is photocopy which do not carry any signature and stamp on behalf ofthe Institute . Letter dated 15-11-99 and 16-11-99 said to be written by Scientist nf the Institute pertains to seeking permission to entry into Park and do not prove employer -employee nexus between the Institute and the workman . He has also urged that no evidence is available on the record to show regularization of two persons viz . Rakesh and Mh. Yassen or they were junior to him. He has also urged that there is no evidence on record to prove that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in required period. Mere statement of the workman is not sufficient to prove the above facts . The learned representative on behalf of the management in supportto his contensions has placed reliance on following cases laws:

(1) (2008 ) 2 SCC ( L& S) 648 Ranip Nagar Palika vs. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore & others .

( ii) (2008) 2 SCC (L& S ) 1016 State of Haryana vs. Ramesh Kumar.

(iii) 2005 ( 106) FLR 968 Employees ' State Insurance Corporation Ltd. vs. Srfuddin .

( iv) ( 2007) 1 SCC ( L& S) 679 Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. vs. Mohd. Rafi .

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] (v) 2007 ( 115) FLR 638 U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court , Gorakhpur & others.

(vi ) 2002 SCC (L& S) 367 Range Forest Officer vs. S. T. Hadimani .

(vii) 2005 SCC (L& S) 154 Mahendra L. Jain & others vs. Indore Development Authority & others .

(viii) 2006 SCC ( L&S) 429 State ofM. P. & others vs. ArjunLal Rajak .

(ix) 2005(106) FLR 531 Rajasthan Handpump Mistry Karmchari Sangh, INTUC vs. State ofRajasthan & others .

(x) 2005 ( 104) FLR 651 Nagar Panchayat Gajraula, Moradabad vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court, Rampur& others .

(x1) 2005( 104) FLR 999 Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs.Bhola Singh.

(xii) 2005 ( 105) FLR 386 Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute ( Cordet) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad & others .

16. The workman , Noor Hasan , has stated in his statement on oath that he was working as Field Assistant in Rajaji National Park since May, 1998 and his services wereterminated on 30-9-2000 without any notice . He has further stated that services of Rakesh and Mh . Yaseen, who were working with him were regularized; bút in cross- examinationhehas admitted nnt filing anyproof of working inthe Institute from May, 1998 till the date of his alleged termination . He has further admitted that he has not filed any proof ofworking continuously for 240 days or more. Hehas stated that when he worked in field, no attendance was recorded. He stated that he had worked in Project named' The Relationship among large herbivores , habitat andhumans in Rajaji -Corbett National Parks ' (WII - USFWS). Hehas also admitted that payment ofwages were done by Researcher and he used to sign on revenue stamp. In absence of the Researcher , he used to receive payment from Dr. Goyal but he had not filed any proof for getting payment from the Institute . He has also admitted that he is not a Casual Labour . He has further admitted that Mh . Yaseenand Rakesh Sundriyal , who have been given regular employment are senior to him and after removing him no body else has been kept in Rajaji National Park.

17. In rebuttal , the management witness Shri A. J. T. John Singh, Dean , Faulty of Sciences has stated that the workman never worked as casual labour or daily wager in the Institute. He was not paid any wages by the Institute . The fund ofthe project was made available by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services through the Institute and the workman was engaged by the Researcher A. Christy Williams andpayments were used to be made by him . There was no control or supervision of the Institute on the persons engaged by the said Researcher . The project was for period of 5 years which completed in the months of 7315 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

(ii) Certificate said to the given by Principal. Investigator, Dr. A.J.T. John Singh dated 19-7-97 (C-5/2);

September, 2005. In cross-examination he has admittedthat certificate C -5/2 was given by him but he has explained that the workman requested him to give the certificate for applying for service elsewhere ; on humanitarian ground he has given the said certificate.

(iii) Copy ofthe DailyWorking Diary said to be filled by the workman himself regarding day to day working , paper No. 26/28 to26/77;

( iv) Letter ofS. P. Goyal dated 15-11-1999 request to continuetoavail the facility extended by the Park and collection of data under the research project C-5/4; and

(v) Letter dated 16-11-1999 of S. P. Goyal regarding persons involved in the research work C-5/5.

18. Management witness Dr. S. P. Goyal , Scientist has statedthat photocopies of the alleged Daily Working Diary,document 26/28 to 26/77 is not relating to the Institute. No instructions or orders were given to prepare such document. Original of the above documents have not been produced. He has denied that originals are with him. He has also denied his alleged signatures on the above documents. In cross-examination, he has stated that the investigator used to engage Researcher for any project and for execution of the work the researcher is free to engage anyperson.

19. From the evidence ofboth the sides on record, it revealsthatA. ChristyWilliams , Researcher had undertaken acollaborative research viz . United States Fish and Wildlife Services (WII - USFWS ) Project which was funded by United States Fish and Wild life Services and the said project was for a specified period of five years and was being up to 30th September , 2000. It also reveals that the workmanwas engaged by the Researcher as per requirement ofthe project and he was engaged for project related to researchwork.

23. So far as certificate dated 6-7-1998 said to be given by the Director is concerned, the workman has admitted that original of the said certificate has not been submitted by him. Similarly, the workman has not produced the originals ofphotocopies of alleged daily working diary. Inabsence oforiginal, daily working diary cannot be read in evidence , specifically when genuineness of the photocopies have been categorically denied by the institute. Moreover , he has not stated in his statement that any such diary was maintained by him. The management witness Dr. S. P. Goyal has denied his signature on the various pages of the alleged daily working diary (26/28 to 26/77) . In 2005 (106) FLR 968 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has observed that photostat documents has no evidentiary value unless original is produced and proved. Thus, in view of the above legal points there is no evidentiary value of the above documents produced by theworkman.

20. The management witness has categorically. denied that the workman was an employee of the Institute. He has stated that neither the workman was a casual labour in the Institute nor a daily wager and he was not paid wages by the Institute. The workman himself has admitted that payments have been made to him by A. Christy Williams, Researcher . He has not produced any receipts or any vouchers to establish that payments have been made by the Institute to him.

24. The workman has produced photocopy of a certificate C-5 /2 said tobe givenby Principal Investigator , Dr. A. J. T. John Singh . The management witness Dr. A.J.T. John Singh has admitted that such certificate was given by himbut Dr. John Singh has clarified that he had issued the same on humanitarian ground as the workman had asked for same on the ground that he had applied for job somewhere else and he required experience certificate of project work, He has stated that he had told the workman to take the certificate from A. Christy Williams, but he insisted for getting certificate from him on the pretext that the certificate from Institute would carry more value . The explanationgiven by him seems to be plausible in the given circumstances and mainly on the basis of said certificate noconclusion can be drawn as regards employer-employee relationbetween the Institute and the workman.

21. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has argued that Hon'ble Uttranchal High Court, Nainital in the order dated 16-5-2002 has held the applicant tobe daily rated worker of the Institute. In this regard the copy of the said order is on the record and it is evident from said order that it was contention of the learned counsel ofthe petitioner thatpetitioners are daily wagers working in the Wildlife Institute of India and by oral order their services were terminated hence filed a Writ Petition . In this contextHon'ble High Court had only held that in case of grievance,thepetitioners therein can avail the remedy under the I.D. Act without going into the status of applicant vis- a-vis the Institute. Therefore , the contention of the learned representative on behalf of the workman is devoid of any substance .

22. To establish the relation ofemployer-employee the workman has mainly relied the following documents :

25. The workman has also produced copies of two letter of Shri S. P. Goyal , Scientist dated 15-11-1999 and 16-11-1999 addressed to the Director, Rajaji National Park . Itisnotdisputed that said letters were written by Shri S. P. Goyal, Scientist. The management witness , Shri S. P. Goyal has admitted his signatures on the said letter dated -15-11-1999 . It reveals from the letter dated 15-11-1999 that research project was for limited period of five years and for (i) Certificatesaidto be given by the Director, Wildlife Institute of India dated 6-7-98 (C-5/1 );

7316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14 , 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] that research , Field Assistants were engaged and request was made to allow to continue the facilities extended by Rajaji National Park and in reference to the above letter , vide letter dated 16-11-1999 , information was furnished regarding the names ofpersons involved in the said project. It reveals from the said letter dated 16-11-1999 that name of the workman finds place in the names of Field Assistants mentioned therein. The management witness , Shri S. P. Goyalhas stated in his cross -examination that said request wasonly for providing facility to field staff but they were not under his control . The workman himself has stated in his cross - examination that said letters pertains to permission for entry into Rajaji National Park.

him .He himselfhas admitted during cross -examination that hehas not filed any proof of working continuously under the Institute from May , 98 till the date of his alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000 . He has categorically admitted that there is no proof on record as regard working for more than 240 days under the Institute . He has not produced any vouchers or record of getting wages by the Institute directly. He has also not produced the original of the certificates said to be given by Director, Wildlife Institute ofIndia and Principal Investigator, Dr. A.J.T. John Singh . Hehas also not produced the original Daily Working Diary said tobe maintained by him . In absence of originals there is no evidentiary value of said documents , particularly, when the management has denied their genuineness

30. In view of the above discussion , the workman has failed to prove that he had worked as Field Assistant continuously for240 days in preceding twelve months from the date ofhis alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000 , therefore, his case is not covered under Section 25 -Fof the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Resultantly, he is not entitled for any relief. The reference under judication is answered accordingly.

31. Award as above.

Lucknow,

6-10-2009

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 अक्तूबर , 2009

26.Admittedly, the workman was not receiving any salary or wages from the Institute directly and he was receiving payment from A. Christy Williams , Researcher, who was not the employee of the Institute . Moreover, the project was for a limited period of 5 years and came to an end on 30th September , 2000. Upon a perusal of the said letters, in the context of entire material on record , it appears that names of the persons involved in the research project have been communicated for seeking of permission only for availing facility of the Rajaji National Park for Research work. Thus, the contention of the learned representative onbehalf of the workman that it is established from said letter that the workman was employee of the Institute , is not tenable.

का. आ. 3114.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा -1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 नवम्बर, 2009 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45- धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा-76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध पश्चिम बंगाल राज्यके निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

27. Even, if, it is presumed on the basis of said letter, that employer-employee relations existed between the institute and the workman , it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked continuously for 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date ofhis alleged termination i.e. 30-9-2000. It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in required period and this claim has been denied by the management, therefore , initial burden was on the workman to prove his case .

" बर्दमान जिला में कुल्टी नगरपालिका सीमा के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्रों को शामिल करके "

[सं. एस-38013/45/2009-एस.एस. - 1 ] एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th October , 2009

S.O. 3114. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st November , 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter - IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter -V and VI [ except Sub -section( 1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 and 79 , 81 which have alreadybeenbrought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of West Bengal , namely:-

28. In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer Vs. S. T. Hadimani Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that mere filing ofaffidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannotbe regarded as sufficient evidence to establish that hehad in fact worked for 240days. In 2008 2 SCC (L& S) 648 Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that the workman has to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum ofbeing in employment of the employer. In (2007) 1 SCC ( L& S) 679 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that burden of proof lies on the workman that he had worked for continuous period of 240 days in a year so as to entitle him to benefit of Section 25F of I.D. Act. It is also settled legal position that if a party challenges the legality of any action of the management, the burden lies upon him toprove illegality of the order and ifno evidence isproduced the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail.

"Areas under the Municipal Limit of Municipality in the District Burdwan. "

29. In the present case it is not the case of the workman that any appointment letter was ever issued to

[No.S- 38013/45/2009- S.S- I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

7317 [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2009/कार्तिक 23 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 28 अक्तूबर , 2009

नई दिल्ली, 28 अक्तूबर, 2009

का. आ. 3116.- जबकि मैसर्स इन्डो गल्फ फर्टिलाइजर्स (वाराणासी, यूपी क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या यूपी/ 12413 के अंतर्गत) (एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है । का. आ. 3115.- जबकि मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान एरोनोटिक्स लि. (उत्तर प्रदेश क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या यूपी/3871 के अंतर्गत) ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियमके रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दियाहै ।

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 नही है 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 ।

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 ।

3. केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा, अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान में रखते हुए, उक्तप्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 01-07-1984 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है । 3. केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 कीउप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( 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 01-04-1972 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/100/2009- एस.एस.- II ] एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव [सं. एस-35015/87/2009 - एस.एस.- II ] एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 28th October, 2009 New Delhi, the 28th October, 2009

S.O. 3115.-Whereas M/s . Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.(under Code No. UP/3871 in Uttar Pradesh Region) (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section ( 1) ofSection 17 ofthe Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct).

S.O. 3116. Whereas M/ s . Indo Gulf Fertilisers [under Code No. UP/ 12413 in Varanasi (UP) Region ] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied forexemptionunder clause (a) ofsub- section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referredto 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 ofcontribution 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.

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' ProvidentFunds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment ofsimilar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of sub -section ( 1) of Section 17 of the saidAct 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 01-04-1972 until further notification:

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 fromtime to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01-7-1984 until further notification .

[No.S-35015/87/2009 - S.S.- II. ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

[No. S- 35015/100/2009 -S.S. - II . ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

7318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2009/KARTIKA 23 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नईदिल्ली, 28 अक्तूबर, 2009

नई दिल्ली, 28 अक्तूबर, 2009

का. आ. 3117.-जबकि मैसर्स स्टील ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया लि. ( पार्क स्ट्रीट कोलकाता क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डब्ल्यूबी/ 9057 के अंतर्गत ) ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) (एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

का. आ. 3118. जबकि मैसर्स टिमकेन इंडिया लि. (जमशेदपुर, झारखण्ड क्षेत्र में कोड संख्यां जेएच/ 12563 के अंतर्गत) (एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

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 कर्मचारियोंके 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 ।

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 नहींहैं 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 ।

[सं. एस-35015/102/2009 -एस.एस.- II ]

एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 28th October, 2009 New Delhi , the 28th October, 2009

S.O. 3117. Whereas M/ s . Steel Authority of India Ltd. [ under Code No. WB/9057 in Park Street, Kolkata 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) .

S.O. 3118.- Whereas M/ s . Timken India Ltd. [under Code No. JH/ 12563 in Jamshedpur , Jharkhand 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 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 .

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme , 1952 ( hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

3. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from 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 30-06-1962 until further notification.

3. Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby clause (a) of sub- section ( 1) of Section 17 of the saidAct and subject to the conditions specified in this regard fromtimeto time , the Central Government , hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 14-03-1993 until further notification .

[No. S-35015/ 101/2009 -S.S. - II . ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy

[No. S- 35015/102/2009- S.S. - II . ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road , Maya Puri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi- 110054 , 2009