REGD . NO . D. L. ( N ) 04 / 0007 /2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं . डी. एल . ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 31
नई दिल्ली , जनवरी 10 जनवरी 16 , 2010 , शनिवार/पौष 20- पौष 26 , 1931
NEW DELHI , JANUARY 10-JANUARY 16 , 2010 , SATURDAY/PAUSA 20- PAUSA 26, 1931 No. 3 ]
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 उप -खण्ड ( ii )
PART II-Section 3-Sub- section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence )
गृह मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 18 नवम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 144. सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों 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 कालम ( 2 ) में वर्णित अधिकारियों को भारत सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के पद के समकक्ष होने के नाते कथित अधिनियम के उद्देश्यों हेतु सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है जो कथित सारणी के कालम (3) में विनिर्दिष्ट क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर कथित अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अथवा उसके द्वारा सम्पदा अधिकारी को सौंपे गए कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन और प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे :
सारणी
सरकारी परिसरों की श्रेणियां तथा क्षेत्राधिकार की अधिकारी का पदनाम
स्थानीय सीमाएं
क्रम सं.
3
1 2
पंजाब राज्य में जालंधर में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित 1. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक , ग्रुप केन्द्र केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , जालंधर ( पंजाब)
भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
बिहार राज्य में मुजफ्फरपुर में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
2. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक, ग्रुप केन्द, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल, मुजफ्फरपुर (बिहार )
महाराष्ट्र राज्य में पुणे में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
3. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक , ग्रुप केन्द्र, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , पुणे ( महाराष्ट्र)
13 G1/2010
(299) 300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II- SEC: 3 (ii) ] 1
2
3
4. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक , ग्रुप केन्द्र, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , लखनऊ ( उत्तर प्रदेश )
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में लखनऊ में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
5. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक , ग्रुप केन्द, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल, इलाहाबाद ( उत्तर प्रदेश )
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में इलाहाबाद में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
6. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक , ( संभरण एवं लेखा ) मध्य सेक्टर केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , लखनऊ ( उत्तर प्रदेश )
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में लखनऊ में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
7. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक, ग्रुप केन्द्र, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , भोपाल ( मध्य प्रदेश )
मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में भोपाल में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
8. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक , ग्रुप केन्द्र , केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , ग्वालियर , ( मध्य प्रदेश )
मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में ग्वालियर में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
9. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक, ग्रुप केन्द्र, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , ग्रेटर नोएडा ( उत्तर प्रदेश )
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में ग्रेटर नोएडा में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
10. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक , ग्रुप केन्द, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , बिलासपुर , ( छत्तीसगढ़ )
छत्तीस गढ़ राज्य में बिलासपुर में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
आसाम राज्य में सिल्वर जिला - कछार में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
11. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक , ग्रुप केन्द्र, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , सिल्चर , ( आसाम)
आसाम राज्य में सिल्चर, जिला- कछार में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल से संबंधित भूमि परिसर व परिसंपत्तियां
12. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक/प्रिंसिपल , प्रतिविद्रोहिता एवं आंतक विरोधी स्कूल , केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , सिल्वर , ( आसाम)
[फा. सं. ए- II - 18 /08-09-प्रशा-1 ( श्रीनगर) एमएचए- पीएफ- III ]
एच. के. सुआनथंग , अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
New Delhi , the 18th November , 2009
S.O. 144. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un - authorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ( 40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the Officers mentioned in column (2 ) of the Table below, being the officers equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officers of the Government , to be Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officer by or under the said Act within the local limits of the jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column ( 3 ) ofthe said Table:
TABLE
S. No. Designation of the Officer
Public premises and local limits ofjurisdiction
(3)
(1) (2)
1. Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre , Central Reserve Police Force , Jalandhar ( Punjab)
Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Jalandhar in the State of Punjab .
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre , Central Reserve Police Force , Muzaffarpur , ( Bihar)
Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Muzaffarpur in the State of Bihar . Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre , Central Reserve Police Force , Pune ( Maharashtra) Reserve Police Force at Pune in the State of Maharashtra Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre , Central Reserve Police Force , Luckow ( Uttar Pradesh) 4.
Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Lucknow in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
301 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
3
1
2
Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Allahabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh .
5. Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre , Central Reserve Police Force , Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh)
Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central. Reserve Police Force at Lucknow in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
6. Deputy Inspector General ( Provision & Accounts) Central Sector , Central Reserve Police Force , Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh)
Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
7. Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre , Central Reserve Police Force , Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Gwalior in the State of Madhya Pradesh .
8. Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre , Central Reserve Police Force , Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh)
Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Greater Noida in the State of Uttar Pradesh .
9. Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre , Central Reserve Police Force, Greater Noida (Uttar Pradesh)
10. Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre , Central Reserve Police Force , Bilaspur (Chhattishgarh)
Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Bilaspur in the State of Chhattishgarh .
Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Silchar in the State of Assam .
11. Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre , Central Reserve Police Force , Silchar (Assam)
Premises of land and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Silchar in the State of Assam .
12. Deputy Inspector General Principal , Counter Insurgency and Anti Terrorist School , Central Reserve Police Force , Silchar (Assam)
[ File No. A - II - 18/08-09 - Adm - IMHA - PF. - III ] H. KAM SUANTHANG Under Secy .
कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )
(Department ofPersonnel and Training ) नई दिल्ली , 8 जनवरी , 2010
New Delhi , the 8th January. 2010 का.आ. 145.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए बिहार राज्य सरकार, गृह ( पुलिस ) विभाग की अधिसूचना संख्या-1 /सी.बी.आई. 80-03/09 - एच. ( पी. ) /3938/पटना दिनांक 25-6-09 द्वारा सहमति से पुलिस थाना कदमकुओं , ( जिला पटना ) में भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 302 / 120बी/34 और आयुध अधिनियम की धारा 27 के अन्तर्गत श्री संतोष टेकरीवाल की हत्या से संबंधित अपराध संख्या -0166/ 2009 दिनांक 12-06-2009 सहित उक्त मामले से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्न , दुष्प्रेरण और षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किये गये अथवा उन्ही तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध का अन्वेषण करने के लिये दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण बिहार राज्य पर करती है ।
S.O. 145. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946 ) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Bihar, Home ( Police ) Department , vide Notification No. 1 / C.B.I . 80/03/09 H ( P)/ 3938 dated 25th June, 2009 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Bihar for investigation of the Case No. 166/09 dated 12-6-2009 under sections 302 , 120- B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and section 27 of the Arms Act , 1959 ( Act No. 54 of 1959 ) registered at Police Station Kadamkuan (District Patna) relating to the murder of Sh. Santosh Tekriwal and attempt , abetment and conspiracy in relation to or connection with the above mentioned offences and a other offence /offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228 /31 / 2009 - AVD -I [संख्या 228 /31 /2009 - ए.वी.डी.- II ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव
CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Sery 302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010 /PAUSA 26 , 1931
PART 11---SFC. 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 9 जनवरी , 2010
5-1-2010 under section 306 , 107 , 108 and 120- B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860 ) registered at Police Station, Sector -5 , Panchkula and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence / offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228 / 2/2010 - AVD - II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली , 9 जनवरी , 2010
का.आ. 147. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की ध ारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निम्नलिखित अपराधों कादिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के द्वारा अन्वेषण किए जाने के लिए विनिर्दिष्ट करती है: -
(क) भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 195 , 195 ए, 348 , 357 और 358 के तहत दंडनीय अपराधों और
(ख) उक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों और उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत कोई अन्य अपराध का.आ. 146. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए हरियाणा राज्य सरकार , गृह विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. 20/1/2010-3 - एचजी -1 दिनांक 7 जनवरी , 2010 द्वारा सहमति से पुलिस स्टेशन , सैक्टर -5 , पंचकूला में भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 166 , 167 , 191, 195 , 201 , 340 , 344 , 347 , 348 , 357 , 358 , 467 , 471 , 506, 120 -बी केअधीन दर्ज एफआईआर सं. 573 दिनांक 29-12-2009 और पुलिस स्टेशन सैक्टर -5, पंचकूला में भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 (1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 166 , 167, 182 , 191 , 195 -ए, 201 , 307 , 340 , 344 , 347,348,357,358 , 467 , 471 , 506 , और 120- बी के अधीन दर्ज एफआईआर सं. 574 दिनांक 29-12-2009 और पुलिस स्टेशन सैक्टर -5 , पंचकूला में भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45) की धारा 306 , 107 , 108 , 120- बी के अधीन दर्ज एफआईआर सं. 7 दिनांक 5-1-2010 के मामले के संबंध में और उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों और अथवा उन्ही तथ्यों से उदभूत किन्ही अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण हरियाणा राज्य पर करती है ।
[ संख्या 228 /2 /2010 - ए.वी.डी. - 11 ]
चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव [संख्या 228/2/2010 - ए.वी.डी.- II ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 9th January , 2010 New Delhi , the 9th January, 2010
S.O. 147. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:-
(a) Offence punishable under sections 195 , 195 - A, 348 , 357 and 358 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and
(b) Attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the Offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228 / 2/2010- AVD - II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy .
S.O. 146. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the StateGovernment of Haryana. Home Department , vide Notification No. 20/ 1 /2010-3HG- 1 dated 7th January , 2010 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State ofHaryana for investigation of FIR No. 573 dated 29-12-2009 under sections 166 , 167, 191 , 195 , 201 , 340 , 344, 347, 348, 357 , 358 , 467, 471 , 506 and 120- B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) registered at Police Station , Sector - 5 , Panchkula, FIR No. 574 dated 29-12-2009 under sections 166, 167, 182 , 191 , 195 - A, 201 , 307, 340 , 344, 347, 348 , 357, 358 , 467, 471 , 506 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) registered atPolice Station , Sector- 5 , Panchkula , FIR No. 7 dated
वित्त मंत्रालय
(राजस्व विभाग)
सीमा शुल्क के आयुक्त का कार्यालय
पुणे , 16 नवम्बर , 2009
संख्या 01 /2009- नॉन टैरिफ- सीमा शुल्क
का.आ. 148. सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) की धारा 8 तथा दिनांक 26 अप्रैल , 2005 की अधिसूचना संख्या 04/2005 - एन टी- सीमा शुल्क, दिनांक 2 जनवरी , 2006 की अधिसूचना संख्या 01 /2006- एन टी- सीमा शुल्क तथा दिनांक 8 मार्च, 2007 की 303
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931年 上 三川
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
अधिसूचना संख्या 01 / 2007-एन टी- सीमा शुल्क के अधीन प्रदत्त अधिकारों को कार्यान्वित करते हुए , मैं, श्री आर. सेकर , आयुक्त सीमा शुल्क , पुणे, एतद्वारा इस अधिसूचना की अनुसूची के स्तंभ 3 में विनिर्दिष्ट , स्तंभ 2 में उल्लिखित पत्तन ( पोर्ट ) , स्तंभ 4 में विनिर्दिष्ट स्थान को कोयला उतारने के लिए सीमा शुल्क क्षेत्र के रूप में मंजूरी प्रदान करता हूँ ।
उपर्युक्त घोषणाएं, सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 के संबंधित उपबंधों का कड़ाई से पालन तथा भारत सरकार द्वारा समय - समय पर जारी अनुदेशों का अनुसरण किए जाने की शर्तों पर की जा रही है ।
अनुसूची
अवतरण/लैडिंग स्थान
पत्तन का नाम
क्रम सं.
सीमा शुल्क क्षेत्र की सीमा
4
3
1
2
1. रानपार पत्तन (पोर्ट)
मैसर्ज फिनोलेक्स इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की दो निजी जेटी
100 मीटर्स की कन्साइनमेंट जेटी के मुख्य तथा अतिरिक्त डायमेन्शन्स । दो जेटी की सभी चारों दिशाओं तथा दो जेटी के बीच की 600 मीटर्स की दूरी ।
[फा. सं. VIII/सी . शु./ 48-149 /टी सी/09/4136] आर. सेकर , आयुक्त
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department ofRevenue)
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE CUSTOMS Pune, the 16th November , 2009
No. 01/2009 - NT- CUSTOMS
S.O. 148. In exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 8 of the Customs Act , 1962 ( 52 of 1962 ) and in continuation of notification No. 4 /2005 - NT- Customsdt . 26th April , 2005 , notification No. 1 /2006 - NT- Customs dt . 2nd January , 2006 and notification No. 1 /2007 - NT - Customsdt . 8th March , 2007 , I , Shri R. Sekar , Commissioner of Customs , Pune hereby approve the place specified in col . 3 of the schedule to this notification , located in the port mentioned at col . 2 of the said schedule to be the Customs Area for unloading of coal as specified in col . 4 of the said schedule .
The above declarations are subject to strict observance of relevant provisions of the Customs Act . 1962 and the instructions issued by Government of India from time to time in pursuance thereof.
SCHEDULE
Customs Area Limits
Name of Port
S. No.
LandingPlace
4
3
2
1
1
RanparPort Two Private Jetties of M/ s . Finolex Industies Ltd.
Main& over Dimension Consignment Jetty with 100 mtrs . On all 4 sides of the two jetties and the distance of 600 mtrs . between the two jetties .
[F. No. VIII /Cus/48-149/TC/09/4136 ] R. SEKAR, Commissioner
गांधीधाम , जिला कच्छ, को भाण्डागारण स्टेशन " के रूप में घोषित करता हूँ ।
कार्यालय , मुख्य आयुक्त , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क अहमदाबाद , 21 दिसम्बर , 2009
सं. 02/ 2009-2010 सीमा शुल्क ( गै. टै. )
[फा. सं. V/30-115/मु.आ.का./तक./2009 ] अजीत कुमार , मुख्य आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
CENTRAL EXCISE
Ahmedabad, the 21st December , 2009 No. 02 /2009-2010 Customs ( N.T. )
S.O. 149. In exercise of the powers conferred vide Notification No. 33/94 Cus ( NT ) dated 1st of July 1994 of the Government of India , Ministry of Finance , Department का.आ. 149. सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 152 के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत जारी भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली की अधिसूचना सं. 33/94 सी. शु. ( गै. है. ) दिनांक 1 जुलाई , 1994 के साथ पठित यथा संशोधित अधिसूचना सं. 14/2002 सी. शु. ( गै. टै. ) दिनांक 7 मार्च , 2002 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैं , अजीत कुमार , मुख्य आयुक्त, केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क , अहमदाबाद क्षेत्र , एतद्वारा " सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 9 के अंतर्गत गुजरात राज्य के गाँव पड़ाना , तहसील- 304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010 /PAUSA 26, 1931
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
1. Smt. Y. Sunitha Chowdary
2. Shri M. Manmohan Reddy
3. Smt . Swapna
4. Smt . Reethi
5. Shri Komireddy Krishna Vijay Azad ofRevenue , New Delhi , issued under Clause ( a) of Section 152 of the Customs Act , 1962 , read with Notification No. 14/2002 - Cus . (NT) dated 7th March 2002, as amended, I AjitKumar , Chief Commissioner of Central Excise , Ahmedabad Zone , hereby declare Village Padana , of Tehsil -Gandhidham , District Kutch in the State of Gujarat , to be a Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act , 1962 .
6. Smt. K. Nivedita Goverdhan Reddy
7. Smt . D. Vijaya Lakshmi
[F. No. V/30-115/ CCO/Tech/ 2009] AJIT KUMER , Chief Commissioner
[F. No. 809/3 /2009 - F ( C ) ] सूचना एवं प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर , 2009
AMITABH KUMAR , Director ( Films) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 151. इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 10-11-2009 के समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुंबई सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है : -
का.आ. 150. इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 10-11-2009 के समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है : -
1. श्री योगेश दुबे
1. श्रीमती वाई. सुनीता चौधरी
2. श्री अली असगर सिद्दीकी
2. श्री एम. मनमोहन रेड्डी
3. डॉ मृणालीनी ए. दयाल
3. श्रीमती स्वपना
4. डॉ इरशाद कॉमिल
4. श्रीमती रीति
5. श्रीमति उषा मुरलीधर फेले
5. श्री कोमीरेड्डी कृष्ण विजय आजाद
6. श्री यशराज
6. श्रीमती के. निवेदिता गोवर्धन रेड्डी
7. श्रीमती डी. विजय लक्ष्मी
[फा. सं. 809/7/2009 - एफ ( सी ) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म)
New Delhi , the 29th December , 2009 [फा. सं. 809/3/2009- एफ ( सी) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म)
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING
New Delhi , the 21st December , 2009
S.O. 151. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act , 1952 ( 37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Mumbai Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier:---
1. Dr. Yogesh Dube
2. Shri Ali Asgar Sadequian
3. Dr. Mrunalini A. Dayal
S.O. 150.-In continuation of Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematography (Certification) Rules , 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint the follow- ing persons as members of the Hyderabad Advisory panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier :-
4. Dr. Irshad Kamil [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
5. Smt . Usha Murlidhar Phale
6. Shri Jesuraj
[F. No. 809/7/2009 - F(C) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director ( Films) नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 152.-इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 10-11-2009 के समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुंबई सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है :-
( 1 ) श्री अशोक काम्बले , फ्लैट नं. 12 , दूसरा तल, राम प्रसाद सोसायटी , अंबानी अस्पताल के सामने , पोर बंग्लो , अंधेरी ( प. ) , मुम्बई-400 053
( 2 ) डॉ. राजकुमार वेरका , 62, 63 , 64 , नेहरू शॉपिंग कॉम्पलैक्स, लारेन्स रोड , अमृतसर , पंजाब ।
[फा. सं. 809/7/2009- एफ ( सी ) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009 S.O. 152. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 ( 37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appointthe following persons as members of the Mumbai Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .
(1) Shri Ashok Kamble , Flat No. 12, 2nd Floor , Ram Prosad Society, Opp . Ambani Hospital , Por Banglo , Andheri (W) , Mumbai -400 053.
(2 ) Dr. Raj Kumar Verka , 62, 63 , 64, Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road , Amritsar , Punjab .
[F. No. 809/7/2009 - F ( C ) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director ( Films ) नई दिल्ली , 21 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 153. इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 10-11-2009 के समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल
305
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010 /पौष 26 , 1931
प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के दिल्ली सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है :
1. श्रीमती प्रिया सिंह
2. श्री सागरमल बैद
3. श्री अनिल कुमार कुकरेजा
4. श्री राजेश गुप्ता
[फा. सं. 809/8/2009- एफ ( सी ) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi , the 21st December , 2009 S.O. 153. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act , 1952 ( 37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Delhi Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier : -
1. Mrs. Priya Singh
2. Shri Sagarmal Baid
3. Shri Anil Kumar Kukreja
4. Shri Rajesh Gupta
[ F. No. 809/8 /2009 - F ( C ) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director ( Films ) नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 154. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 10-11-2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार श्री शेख शाहजहां , द्वारा एस. के . वाली , प्लॉट नं. 105 , मुरूति ईस्टेट , निजामपेट रोड , कुक्कटपल्ली , हैदराबाद -500072 को तत्काल प्रभाव से 2 वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है ।
[फा. सं. 809/3/2009 - एफ ( सी ) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म ) New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009 S.O. 154. In continuation of Ministry's Notification of even number, dated 10-11-2009 and in 306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certifica- tion) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Shaik Shajahan , C/ o S. K. Vali , Plot No. 105, Muruthi Estate, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad- 500072 as a member of the Hyderabad Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immdiateef- fect for a period of two years or until further orders , which- ever is earlier .
[F. No. 809/3 /2009 - F ( C) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली , 31 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 155.-इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 11-11-2009 के समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के कोलकाता सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है : -
1. श्री ममता शंकर
2. सुश्री रत्न लोड़
3. सुश्री कविता रहमान
4. सुश्री सुपर्णा बनर्जी
5. सुश्री अनामिता सेन
6. सुश्री सुस्मिता घोष
7. श्री एन. के. सिंह
[फा. सं. 809/3/2008 - एफ ( सी) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म ) New Delhi , the 31st December , 2009 S.O. 155. In continuation of Ministry's Notifica- tion ofeven number , dated 11-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 ( 37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematography ( Certification ) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the follow- ing persons as members of the Kolkata Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .
1. Ms. Mamata Shankar
2. Ms. Ratna Lodh
3. Ms. Kabita Rahman
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4. Ms. Suparna Banerjee
5. Ms. Anamita Sen
6. Ms. Susmita Ghosh
7. Shri N. K. Singh
[F. No. 809/3 /2008 - F ( C ) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director ( Films ) नई दिल्ली , 21 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 156.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 11-11-2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार श्री केशव चंद्र राउत को तत्काल प्रभाव से 2 वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के कटक सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है ।
[फा. सं. 809/4/2008 - एफ ( सी) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म ) New Delhi , the 21st December , 2009 S.O. 156. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 11-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 ( 37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Keshab Chandra Rout as a member of the Cuttack Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immdiate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .
[F. No. 809/4/2008 - F ( C ) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films ) नई दिल्ली , 21 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 157. इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 10-11-2009 के समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952 (1952का 37) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के बैंगलोर सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है :
1. श्रीमती उमा पाटील
2. श्री एस. के. आर. जिलानी पाशा
3. श्री के. प्रसन्ना कुमार
4. श्री पी.एस. निरंजन राव भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
5. श्रीमती संध्या एस. कुमार
6. श्री प्रदीप कुसनुर
7. श्री प्रसाद अबय्या
8. श्री शामनूर शिवशंकरप्पा गणेश
9. श्री रवि राठौर
10. श्रीमती कमलम्मा
11. श्रीमती वसंती शिवन्ना
12. श्री आर. के. राजु
13. श्री आर. नारायणास्वामी
14. श्री चिन्ने गोवदा
[फा. सं. 809/5/2009 - एफ ( सी) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म ) New Delhi , the 21st December , 2009 S.O. 157. In continuation of this Ministry's Noti- fication of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematography ( Certification ) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the follow- ing persons as members of the Bangalore Advisory panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .
1. Smt . Uma Patil
2. Shri S.K.R. Jilani Pasha
3. Shri K. Prasanna Kumar
4. Shri P.S. Niranjan Rao
5. Smt. Sandhya S. Kumar
6. Shri Pradeep Kusnur
7. Shri Prasad Abbayya
8. Shri Shamanur Shivashankarappa Ganesh 9. Shri Ravi Rathod
10. Smt . Kamalamma
11. Smt . Vasanthi Shivanna
12. Shri R.K. Raju
13. Shri R. Narayanaswamy
14. Shri Chinne Gowda
[F. No. 809/5 /2009 - F ( C) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director ( Films ) 13 GI /2010-2
307 नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 158. इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 10-11-2009 के समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के तिरूअनंतपुरम सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है : -
1. श्रीमती थैंकमणि दिवाकरण
2. डॉ. ( सुश्री ) जौली जचारिया
3. श्री पी.एस. बाबुराज
4. श्री बी. बैजू
5. डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) लक्ष्मी पी. नायर
6. श्री के.पी. शशिधरन उन्निदन
7. श्रीमती नुजरत जहां ई.के.
8. डॉ. वी.ए. अगस्तिन
9. श्री ए.एम.दिलीप कुमार
10. श्री यू.के. कुमारन
11. श्री आर. के. रवि वर्मा
12. श्री ए. संजीवन
[फा. सं. 809/6 /2009- एफ( सी ) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi , the 21st December , 2009 S.O. 158. In continuation of Ministry's Notifica- tion of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematography ( Certification ) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the follow- ing persons as members of the Thiruvananthapuram Ad- visory panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .
1. Mrs. Thankamony Divakaran
2. Dr (Ms) Jolly Zacharia
3. Shri P.S. Baburaj
4. Shri B. Baiju
5. Dr (Mrs) Lekshmi P. Nair
6. Shri K.P. Sasidharan Unnithan 308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
7. Smt . Nuzarath Jahan E.K.
8. Dr. V.A. Augustine
9. Shri A.M. Dileep Kumar
10. Shri U.K. Kumaran
11. Shri R.K. Ravi Varma
12. Shri A. Sajeevan
[F. No. 809/6/2009 -F (C) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली , 5 जनवरी , 2010
का.आ. 159.-केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में , दूरदर्शन महानिदेशालय ( सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय ) के निम्नलिखित अधीनस्थ केंद्रों/कार्यालयों , जिनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है :
1. दूरदर्शन अनुरक्षण केंद्र, बड़ौदा ।
2. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर, गोधरा ।
3. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर, लूणावाड़ा ।
4. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , छोटा उदयपुर । 5. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , दाहोद ।
6. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , देवगढ़ वारिया । 7. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , संजेनी ।
8. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , खंभात ।
9. दूरदर्शन उच्च शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , कटक ।
10. दूरदर्शन उच्च शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , गुना ( मध्य प्रदेश ) । 11. दूरदर्शन अनुरक्षण केंद्र , सूरत ।
12. दूरदर्शन उच्च शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , सूरत ।
13. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , आहवा ।
14. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , नवापुरा ।
15. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , दमण ।
16. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , धरमपुर ।
17. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , सोनगढ़ ।
18. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , बलसाड़ ।
19. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , बरहामपुर ( उड़ीसा ) ।
[सं. ई -11017/6/ 2010- हिंदी] प्रियम्वदा, निदेशक ( राजभाषा) New Delhi , the 5th January , 2010
S.O. 159. In pursuance of Sub - Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages ( Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under Directorate General of Doordarshan (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) ,
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .
1. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre , Baroda 2. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Godhra 3. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Lunavada 4. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Chhota Udaipur
5. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Dahod 6. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Devgarh Baria
7. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Sanjeni 8. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Khambhat 9. Doordarshan High Power Transmitter , Cuttack 10. Doordarshan High Power Transmitter, Guna (Madhya Pradesh )
11. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre , Surat 12. Doordarshan High Power Transmitter , Surat 13. Doordarshan High Power Transmitter , Ahwa 14. Doordarshan High Power Transmitter , Nawapur 15. Doordarshan High Power Transmitter , Daman 16. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Dharampur 17. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Songarh 18. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Valsad 19. Doordarshan High Power Transmitter , Berhampur (Orissa)
[No. E- 11017/6/2010-Hindi ] PRIYAMVADA, Director (O.L. ) नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2010
का.आ. 160. केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, आकाशवाणी महानिदेशालय ( सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय ) के निम्नलिखित अधीनस्थ केंद्र/कार्यालय , जिनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है :
1. आकाशवाणी , पटियाला ।
[सं. ई-11017/6/2010- हिंदी ] प्रियम्वदा, निदेशक ( राजभाषा) New Delhi , the 5th January , 2010
S.O. 160.- In pursuance of Sub - Rule ( 4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Languages ( Use for Official Purposes of the Union ) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under Directorate General of All India Radio ( Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) , more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi .
1. All India Radio (AIR ) , Patiala
[No. E - 11017/6/2010 -Hindi ] PRIYAMVADA, Director ( O.L. ) 309
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/ पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
पर्यावरण एवं वन मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 161. - सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम , 2005 की धारा 5 ( 1 ) / धारा 19 ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पर्यावरण एवं वन मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को उनके नाम के सामने दर्शाए गए विनिर्दिष्ट विषय - वस्तु के संदर्भ में केन्द्रीय जन सूवना अधिकारियों/अपीलीय प्राधिकारियों आदि के रूप में नामोदिष्ट किया जाता है :-
1. उपरोक्त अधिनियम की धारा 5 ( 1 ) के अतंर्गत केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारियों के रूप में नामोदिष्ट निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को किया जाता है : -
पदनाम
दूरभाष सं.
क्रम सं.
विषय वस्तु
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
राष्ट्रीय बाघ संरक्षण प्राधिकरण ( एनटीसीए ) से संबंधित मामले 1. श्री एस. पी. यादव , उप वन महानिरीक्षक
दूरभाष सं. 23389883 [email protected]
2. श्रीबी. के. सिंह , सहायक वन महानिरीक्षक
वन संरक्षण ( आंध्र प्रदेश , चंडीगढ़ , दिल्ली , हरियाणा , कर्नाटक , मध्य प्रदेश , मणिपुर , मेघालय , उड़ीसा , पांडिचेरी और उत्तराखंड ) 3.
[email protected] विज्ञान सदन , आर.के. पुरम , दूरभाष सं. 26101190 दूरभाष सं. 26101127
श्री उमाकान्त ,
सहायक वन महानिरीक्षक
in
वन संरक्षण ( अंदमान और निकोबार , असम , सिक्किम, केरल , महाराष्ट्र, नगालैंड , पंजाब , तमिलनाडु , उत्तर प्रदेश , पश्चिम बंगाल, त्रिपुरा)
4. सुश्री शैली रंजन , सहायक वन महानिरीक्षक
दूरभाष सं. 24361223 इंटरकॉम सं. 444 [email protected]
बाह्य सहायता प्राप्त परियोजनाओं ( ईएपी )/पूर्वोत्तर राज्य प्रकोष्ठ (एनईसेल ) से संबंधित कार्य और वन सुरक्षा प्रभाग ( एफपीडी) , संयुक्त वन प्रबंधन ( जेएफएम ) प्रकोष्ठ, जलवायु परिवर्तन संबंधी संयुक्त राष्ट्र फ्रेमवर्क कन्वेंशन ( यूएनएफसीसीसी ) के अंतर्गत एलयूएलयूसीएफ , गैर इमारती लकड़ी के वन उत्पाद । अनुसंधान और प्रशिक्षण ( आरटी ) वन नीति ( एफपी ) 5. श्री राजन सहगल , सहायक वन महानिरीक्षक
दूरभाष सं. 24362131 इंटरकॉम सं. 109 aig [email protected]
6. श्री सी. डी. सिंह , सहायक वन महानिरीक्षक
वन संरक्षण ( अरुणाचल प्रदेश , छत्तीसगढ़ , दादर और नगर हवेली , दमन और दीव , गोआ, गुजरात , हिमाचल प्रदेश, झारखंड , मिजोरम , राजस्थान)
[email protected] विज्ञान सदन, आर.के. पुरम दूरभाष सं. 26101153
7. श्री विवेक सक्सेना, निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24362065 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 135
वन संरक्षण के प्रशासनिक मामले वन (संरक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1980 वन सलाहकार समिति - प्रतिपूर्ति वनीकरण निधि प्रबंध और योजना प्राधिकरण ( सीएएमपीए) गोविन्द बल्लभ पंत हिमालय पर्यावरण विकास संस्थान ( जीबीपीएच आईईडी ) ओर एकीकृत पर्वत विकास के लिए अन्तरराष्ट्रीय केन्द्र (आईसीआईएमओडी )
8. श्री आर के सेठी, निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24362252 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 135
क्योटो प्रोटोकॉल , राष्ट्रीय सीडीएम प्राधिकरण की बैठकों सहित स्वच्छ विकास तंत्र( सीडीएम ) , उपशमन , प्रौद्योगिकी हस्तान्तरण और ऊर्जा सक्षमता से संबंधित मुद्दे , स्वच्छ विकास और जलवायु पर एशिया- पेसिफिक पार्टनरशिप , वैज्ञानिक और तकनीकी सलाह पर सहायक निकाय ( एसबीएसटीए ) , सीडीएम और संबंधित मुद्दों पर परामर्शदात्री उप - समूह । आरटीआई मामले /मंत्रीमंडल से संबंधित मामले प्रधान मंत्री कार्यालय के संदर्भ में उनके कार्य से संबंधित संसद प्रश्न और अन्य संसदीय मामले , जलवायु परिवर्तन पर इंटरनेट 310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
(1)
(2)
(3) 9. श्री ए. ए. राव , निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24361797 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 182
दूरभाष सं. 24361601 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 737 10. डॉ. सुजाता अरोड़ा, अपर निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
11. श्री एन. मुरुगानन्दम, निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24361487 इंटरकॉम सं. 122 12. डॉ. एस के अग्रवाल , निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक )
दूरभाष सं. 24362434 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 545 13. डॉ. पी एल आहूजाराय , निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक ) दूरभाष सं. 24363973 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 174 14. डॉ. जगराम , निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक ) दूरभाष सं. 24367640 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 739 15. श्री सुरेन्द्र कुमार ,
निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24361613 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 116 16. श्री भारत भूषण , निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24360795 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 534 17. डॉ. टीचांदनी , निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक )
दूरभाष सं. 24363963 tchand [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 172 कमरा नं. 1027 18. डॉ. पी. बी. रस्तोगी , निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक ) दूरभाष सं. 24367668 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 550
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] - (4)
पॉलिसी सर्च सब्सिडरी बॉडी ऑफ इम्पलीमन्टेशन , राजनैतिक उप समूह सहित जलवायु परिवर्तन पर परामर्शदात्री समूह, उप - समूह, क्लाइमेट मॉडेलिंग , उप - समूह , यूएनएफसीसीसी के अंतर्गत वित्तपोषण , सीओपी/ एमओपी और अन्य, यूएनएफसीसीसी से संबंधित बैठक
( ईई ) पर्यावरणीय शिक्षा पर्यावरणीय शिक्षा केन्द्र, अहमदाबाद
सीपीआर पर्यावरणीय शिक्षा केन्द्र, चेन्नई
नये उत्कृष्टता केन्द्र की स्थापना
राष्ट्रीय पर्यावरण जागरुकता अभियान ( एनईएपी ) और मीडिया सेल राष्ट्रीय जैव- विविधता प्राधिकरण ( एनबीए ) , जैव विधिता पर कन्वेंशन ( सीबीडी) , राष्ट्रीय जैव - विविधता कार्य योजना ( एनबीएपी ) राष्ट्रीय पर्यावरण सुरक्षा प्राधिकरण ( एनईपीए )
(ईआईए ) अधिसूचना का संशोधन एवं संबंधित मुद्दे उद्योग परियोजनाओं का पर्यावरणीय मूल्य निर्धारण
खनन (गैर-कोयला ) हेतु मूल्य निर्धारण समिति
एसईआईएए और एसईएसी का गठन और उन पर अनुवर्ती कार्रवाई तेल, गैस और पेट्रोलियम और डिस्टीलरीज क्षेत्र सहित औद्योगिक परियोजनाएं
नेशनल नेचुरल रिसौर्स मेनेजमेंट सिस्टम ( एनएनआरएमएस ) के अंतर्गत अनुसंधान प्रस्ताव
ईआरसी- प्रदूषण निवारण , नियंत्रण और उपशमन से संबंधित परियोजनाओं से संबंधित स्कीम
लागत के लाभों के विश्लेषण , सामाजिक, आर्थिक मुद्दों, विधिक और नीति संबंधित मामलों के संबंध में सामाजिक और आर्थिक विशेष प्रकरण समूह
प्रदूषण निवारण , नियंत्रण और उपशमन पर विशेष प्रकरण समूह प्रभाग सीईएमडीई का समन्वय कार्य ई-गवर्नेन्स
निमार्ण परियोजनाएं संसद संबंधी मामलों का समन्वय , वरिष्ठ अधिकारियों की बैठक और व्यय विवरण हेतु सूचना का मिलान करना
कोयला खनन परियोजनाओं का पर्यावरणीय प्रभाव मूल्यंकन सेन्टर ऑफ माइनिंग एनवायरमेंट ( सीएमई ) , धनबाद क्षेत्र विशिष्ठ ईआईए मैन्यूअल/दिशा-निर्देश के विकास हेतु प्रस्तावों की समीक्षा करना और संस्थानों को निधियाँ जारी करना पर्यावरण प्रभाव मूल्यांकन औद्योगिक परियोजना
पर्यावरणीय परामर्शदाता को प्रांधिकृत करना और क्यू.सी.आइ. के साथ समन्वय स्थापित करना। [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(3)
(2)
(1)
दूरभाष सं. 24360492 19. डॉ. एस कौल, निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक ) 26178917(R) [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 602
दूरभाष सं. 24363964
इंटरकॉम सं. 530 20. डॉ. ( श्रीमती) रंजनी वारियर , निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
21 . डॉ. नसीम अहमद, निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24363677 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 927 22. डॉ. जे.आर. भट्ट , निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24363962 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 546 23. श्री विजय कुमार , निदेशक ( सतर्कता)
दूरभाष सं. 24366841 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 535 24. डॉए दुराईस्वामी, निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24642176 [email protected] 25. डॉ आर. के. राय , निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24367669 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 612 26. डॉ एम. होता , निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24367663 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 914
311
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/ पौष 26 , 1931
(4)
उड़ीसा , केरल , कनार्टक, झारखंड , आंध्र प्रदेश , बिहार, मध्य प्रदेश , महाराष्ट्र, त्रिपुरा , उत्तराखंड, मेघालय , तमिलनाडु, गुजरात और चंडीगढ़ संघ शासित प्रदेश को छोड़कर अन्य राज्यों में नमभूमियों का संरक्षण और प्रबंधन
रामसर कन्वेंशन
आनुवंशिक इंजीनियरिंग अनुमोदन समिति ( जीईएसी ) जैव सुरक्षा पर कार्टिजेना प्रोटोकोल
जैव- सुरक्षा पर क्षमता निर्माण परियोजना
पारिप्रणाली अनुसंधान कार्यक्रम से संबंधित परियोजनाओं के लिए वित्तीय सहायता
पूर्वी तथा पश्चिमी घाट कार्यक्रम से संबंधित परियोजनाओं हेतु वित्तीय सहायता
प्राकृतिक, संसाधनों के सतत उपयोग और संरक्षण पर विशेषज्ञ प्रकरण समूह ( ए ) ( पारिप्रणाली अनुसंधान और पूर्वी और पश्चिमी घाटों के प्रस्तावों पर विचार करने के लिए)
अखिल भारतीय वर्गिकी क्षमता निर्माण परियोजना कच्छ वनस्पतियों और प्रवाल भित्तियों के संरक्षण हेतु राज्य सरकारों कोवित्तीय सहायता
प्राकृतिक संसाधनों ( मानव और जैव मंडल कच्छ वनस्पतियां और प्रवाल भित्तियों , नमभूमियों और जैव विविधता आदि पर प्रस्तावों पर विचार करना ) संरक्षण और सतत उपयोगिता पर थीमेटिक एक्सपर्ट ग्रुप ( बी)
वर्गिकी पर राष्ट्रीय पुरस्कार
फांऊडेशन फॉर रिवाईटलाईजेशन ऑफ लोकल हैल्थ ट्रेडिशन (एफआरएलएचटी )
एआईसीओपीटीएएक्स
सतर्कता से संबंधित मामले
ओजोन सेल और मान्ट्रियल प्रोटोकोल
वानस्पतिक उद्यानों को सहायता
सेंटर ऑफ इकोलॉजिकल सांईसिज , बंगलौर , जैव विविधता संरक्षण सामुदायिक सहभागिता के माध्यम से जैव - विविधता संरक्षण पर यू.एन.डी.पी. परियोजना
अंतर्राष्ट्रीय रसायनिक प्रबंध के प्रति रणनीतिक एप्रोच ( एसएआईसीएम ) अंतर्राष्ट्रीय व्यापार में कतिपय परिसंकटमय रसायनिकों और कीटनाशाकों हेतु पूर्व सूचित सहमति प्रक्रिया पर रॉटेरडैम कन्वेंशन जन दायित्व बीमा अधिनियम
नगर पालिका ठोस अपशिष्ट ( प्रबंध और हथालन ) नियमावली पुनःचक्रित प्लास्टिक ( प्रबंध और हथालन ) नियमावली 312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010 / PAUSA 26 , 193-1
(2)
(3) (1)
27. श्री अग्रिम कौशल , निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24364642 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 704 28. श्री पंकज गर्ग , उप सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24360686 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 918 29. सुश्री रेनु सी. देशपांडे , लेखा नियंत्रक
दूरभाष सं. 24361116 इंटरकॉम सं. 157 30 .
इंटरकॉम सं. 552 श्री प्रदीप कुमार , उप सचिव
31. श्रीमती एस. घोष राय , उप सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24360772 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 707 32. श्री मोहम्मद मुअज्जम, उप सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24365218 इंटरकॉम सं. 505 33. श्री नारायण दास, उप सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24367631 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 527 34.
दूरभाष सं. 24368843 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 925 सुश्री गुर प्यारी अपर सलाहकार (आर्थिक)
35. श्री अनिल कुमार वैज्ञानिक ' घ '
दूरभाष सं. 24363819 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 607
दूरभाष सं. 24360806 इंटरकॉम सं. 177 36. डॉताशी वांग्डी अपर निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
37.
दूरभाष सं. 24362827 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 539 डॉएस. भौमिक अपर निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
इंटरकॉम सं. 745 38. श्रीमती ऊषा सुब्रामणियम अपर निदेशक
PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (4)
व्यापार और पर्यावरण , पीसी प्रभाग
अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सहयोग और सतत विकास- II ( आईसी और एसडी- II ) बजट प्रस्तावों की छानबीन - बजट अनुमानों को तैयार करना योजनागत बजट के संबंध में योजना समन्वय से विचार- विमर्श करना- पूरक अनुदान मांगों में समाविष्ट करने के लिए प्रस्तावों की संवीक्षा- मंत्रालयों की शक्तियों के अंदर और मंत्रालयों की शक्तियों के बाहर, दोनों के संबंध में, प्रस्तावों की पुनर्विनयोजन प्रक्रिया आरंभ करना- अनुदान मांगे तैयार करना व मुद्रण प्रारुप/ऑडिट पैरा पर क़ी गई कार्रवाई पर टिप्पण प्रस्तुत करना सरकारी कर्मचारियों को ऋण के अंतर्गत निधियों की संवीक्षा और आबंटन वेतन व अन्य भत्तों का संवितरण - सहायता अनुदान का संवितरण - आवधिक व्यय विवरण आदि प्राप्त करना, रोकड़ अनुभाग
गैर-सरकारी संगठन प्रकोष्ठ ( एनजीओसेल ) ( क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय (मुख्यालय) के प्रशासनिक मामलों सहित )
इंदिरा प्रियदर्शनी वृक्ष मित्र पुरस्कार
अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सहयोग और सतत विकास- । ( आईसी और एसडी-1 ) पर्यावरण नीति और कानून, एनईपीए पर्यावरण शिक्षा ( ईई )
आरटीआई अधिनियम और आंतरिक कार्य अध्ययन ईकाई (आईडब्ल्यूएसयू)
आर्थिक प्रकोष्ठ के नीतिगत मामले
राष्ट्रीय सूचना केन्द्र
सात भू- दृश्य वाले राज्यों में बाह्य सहायता प्राप्त परियोजना ( जैव विधिता संरक्षण और ग्रामीण आजीविका सुधार परियोजना ) नदी घाटी क्षेत्र और पन विद्युत परियोजना
राष्ट्रीय पर्यावरण सुरक्षा प्रशिक्षण और अनुसंधान संस्थान , हैदराबाद - राष्ट्रीय पर्यावरण फैलो कार्यक्रम 313
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
दूरभाष सं. 24360789 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 144
क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों द्वारा प्रस्तुत की गई मानीटरी रिपोटों का मूल्यांकन परियोजना प्रस्तावकों से प्राप्त द्विवार्षिक रिपोर्टों का तकनीकी मूल्यांकन
39. डॉके. सी. राठौर अपर निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
आईए प्रभाग की आंतरिक बैठकों सहित समन्वय गतिविधियां मंत्रिमंडल सचिव को मन्थली डी ओ , आरटीआई मामले और आंतरिक समन्वय बैठक
तटीय प्रबंधन जोन , नीतिगत मामले
दूरभाष सं. 24360694 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 744
40. डॉए. सेंथिल वेल अपर निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
41 . श्री एस. सी. गरकोटी अपर निदेशक
पर्यावरणीय प्रभाव आकलन अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत खनन क्षेत्र की परियोजनाओं का मूल्यांकन
दूरभाष सं. 24360171 satish [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 551
दूरभाष सं. 24360270 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 117
42. डॉ ( श्रीमती ) मंजू रैना अपर निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24366347 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 556
43. श्री आर. एन. जिंदल अपर निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
साझा बहिस्राव शोधन संयंत्र ( सीईटीपी ) जल प्रदूषण औद्योगिक प्रदूषण स्रोत संविभाजन अध्ययन माले घोषणा वायु प्रदूषण , ध्वनि प्रदूषण और मानको को निर्धारित करना , लाभप्रद कोयला , वायु अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अपीलें करना , प्रदूषण उपशमन पर वर्किंग ग्रुप , न्यायालय के मामले दूरभाष सं. 24361668 rk [email protected] . uk इंटरकॉम सं. 913
44. डॉ आर. के. सूरी अपर निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
निवारणात्मक कार्यनीतियों के माध्यम से प्रदूषण उपशमन ईको शहर भूरेलाल प्राधिकरण पारिस्थितिकी प्राधिकारण की क्षति
राष्ट्रीय पर्यावरणीय अपीलीय प्राधिकरण ( एनईएए ) 45.
पुरस्कार न्यायालय के मामले पर्यावरण में अनुसंधान ( आरई ) . जैव-विविधता पर बी.पी पाल फैलोशिप एवार्ड पर्यावरण पर पीताम्बर पंत फैलोशिप एवार्ड
दूरभाष सं. 24360379 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 557
श्रीमती सुजाता खापरडे अपर निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक)
46.
दूरभाष सं. 24360488 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 752
फांऊडेशन ऑफ रिवाईटालाईजेशन ऑफ लोकल हेल्थ ट्रेडीशन (एफआरएलएचटी ) से संबंधित मामले
श्रीमती संचिता जिन्दल अपर निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
- औषधीय पादपों पर संयुक्त राष्ट्र विकास कार्यक्रम ( यूएनडीपी ). परियोजना
मंत्रालय के अन्य प्रभागों के साथ औषधीय पादपों पर समन्यव स्थापित करना
क्षमता निर्माण औद्योगिक प्रदूषण प्रबंध परियोजना ( सीबीआईपीएमपी ) मानव और जैव- मंडल रिजर्व कार्यक्रम
47. डॉ एस. वी. रेड्डी अपर निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24366764 s.v.red [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 753 314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] (1) (2)
(3)
(4)
दूरभाष सं. 24367664
इंटरकॉम सं. 173 rita [email protected]
48. श्रीमती रीता खन्ना अपर निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
-सेमिनारों/परिसंवादों/कार्यशालाओं के लिए वित्तीय सहायता की मंजूरी व्यावसायिक सोसायटी/संस्थानों को सहायता अनुदान पर्यावरण पर प्रकाशनों के लिए वित्तीय सहायता की मंजूरी
पुस्तकालय से संबंधित सभी कार्य
- ग्लोबल लर्निंग एण्ड ऑबसेरवेशन्स टू बेनिफिट द एनवायरमेंट (ग्लोब) कार्यक्रम.
राष्ट्रीय हरित कोर ( एनजीसी ) ,
मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय , एनसीईआरटी और राज्य शिक्षा विभागों के साथ समन्वय सहित औपचारिक पर्यावरण शिक्षा
- व्यावसायिक पाठ्यक्रमों में पर्यावरण को सुदृढ़ बनाना इंदिरा गांधी राष्ट्रीय मुक्त विद्यालय के माध्यम से पर्यावरण एप्रिशियेशन पाठयक्रम
डॉएम सलाहुद्दीन दूरभाष सं. 24364595
- स्वच्छ प्रौद्योगिकी विकास और मध्यम/लघु स्तरीय उद्योगों को बढ़ावा देना
49. अपर निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक) इंटरकॉम सं. 743
अपशिष्टन्यूनीकरण
देश भर में न्यूनतम अपशिष्ट सर्कल्स स्थापित करना 50. डॉएस. सत्पथी संयुक्त निदेशक दूरभाष सं. 24361795 इंटरकॉम सं. 601
जलवायु परिवर्तन पर राष्ट्रीय कार्य योजना एनएपीसीसी जलवायु परिवर्तन के प्रभावों पर विशेषज्ञ समिति
उनके कार्यक्षेत्र से संबंति मंत्रीमंडल मामले/प्रधान मंत्री के संदर्भ संसदीय प्रश्न
आईपीसीसी, अनकूलन मुद्दे, जलवायु परिवर्तन से संबंधित सीएसडी, नेटकॉम उप -समूह
51. सुश्री प्रकृति श्रीवास्तव संयुक्त निदेशक दूरभाष सं. 24361795 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 717
वन्यजीव कन्वेंशन ऑन इंटरनेशनल ट्रेड ऑन इंडेन्जर्ड स्पीसीज (सीआईटीईएस ) , हाथी परियोजना , राष्ट्रीय उद्यान और अभयारण्य , - बर्ड फ्लू ( एवियन इनफ्ल्युन्जा)
गिद्य संरक्षण
पुरस्कारऔर फैलोशिप आदि
विश्व बैंक और खाद्य कृषि संगठन ( एफएओ ) परियोजनाएं
वन्यजीव का संरक्षण और प्रबंध पर थीमेटिक दल
औद्योगिक परियोजनाओं का पर्यावरण प्रभाव आकलन 52. श्री एच. एस. मालवीय अपरनिदेशक दूरभाष सं. 24367076 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 175
पर्यावरण सूचना प्रणाली ( एनविस ) केन्द्र
53. सुश्री मधुमिताबिस्वास संयुक्त निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24363960 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 750
54. श्री एल. के. बोकोलिया
दिल्ली, तमिलनाडु और पश्चिम बंगाल के राष्ट्रीय नदी संरक्षण संयुक्त निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24366017 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 626
योजना ( एनआरसीपी ) कार्य , पश्चिम बंगाल के राष्ट्रीय झील संरक्षण योजना ( एनएलसीपी ) कार्य 315 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
पर्यावरणीय स्वास्थ्य
55.
फ्लाई ऐश
श्री नीरज खत्री उप निदेशक
पारिस्थितिकीय रूप से संवेदनशीन क्षेत्र
दूरभाष सं. 24365199 इंटरकॉम सं. 146 [email protected]
दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के पारिअवक्रमित तंत्र के प्रबंधन हेतु उत्कृष्टता केन्द्र
हिंदी ( राजभाषा)
56. श्री बाबूलाल उप निदेशक
इंटरकॉम सं. 804/809 [email protected]
इन्दिरा गांधी पर्यावरण पुरस्कार जवाहरलाल नेहरु युनिवर्सिटी (जेएनयू) चेयर ऑन एनवायमेंटल लॉ और पंर्यावरण सूचना प्रणाली ( एनविस ) स्कीम के कार्य
57. डॉपी. एस. रावत उप निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24360974 इंटरकॉम सं. 502 [email protected]
58. श्री संजय कुमार सिंह उप निदेशक
उत्तर - प्रदेश , हरियाणा , राजस्थान , पंजाब , हिमाचल प्रदेश के एनआरसीपी कार्य जेआईसीए अध्ययन , जम्मू और कश्मीर के राष्ट्रीय झील संरक्षण योजना कार्य
दूरभाष सं. 24366978 इंटरकॉम सं. 127 Sanjaysing_sk@ rediffmail.com
59. श्री अजय राघव उप निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24363735 इंटरकॉम सं. 125 [email protected]
गंगा कार्य योजना ( जीएपी ) , एनआरसीपी का मूल्यांकन , यमुना कार्य योजना ( वायएपी ) -II का संपूर्ण कॉम्बीनेशन , प्रचार, पीपीएण्डए के सभी कार्य , मीडिया और सामान्य मामले, उत्तराखंड और गोवा के एनआरसीपी कार्य और उत्तराखंड और गोवा के एनएलसीपी कार्य
60. श्री एस. के. श्रीवास्तव उप निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24365199 इंटरकॉम सं. 147 [email protected]
राष्ट्रीय झील संरक्षण योजना समन्वय , जम्मू कश्मीर , उत्तराखंड और पश्चिम बंगाल को छोड़कर अन्य सभी राज्यों के राष्ट्रीय झील संरक्षण योजना कार्य, अनुसंधान और विकास परियोजनाएं, सैडीमेन्टस और विश्लेषणत्मक गुणवत्ता नियंत्रण सहित राष्ट्रीय नदी संरक्षण योजना के अंतर्गत नदियों की जल गुणवत्ता मानीटरिंग , सीवेज शोधन संयंत्रों की कार्यनिष्पादन मानिटरिंग
61. डॉ. श्रुति राय उप निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24360060 इंटरकॉम सं. 540 [email protected]
राष्ट्रीय रमभूमि संरक्षण कार्यक्रम ( एनडब्ल्यूसीपी ) के अंतर्गत नमभूमि ( उड़ीसा , केरल कर्नाटक , झारखंड, आंध्र प्रदेश , बिहार , मध्य प्रदेश , महाराष्ट्र, त्रिपुरा , उत्तराखंड , मेघालय , तमिलनाडु , गुजरात और चंडीगढ़ संघ शासित प्रदेश )
स्लीम अली सेन्टर फॉर ऑरनिथोलॉजी एण्ड नेचुरल हिस्ट्री (एसएसीओएन )
नमभूमियों से संबंधित विकास और अनुसंधान , एनडब्ल्यूसीपी से संबंधित बजट के मामले , रामसर कन्वेंशन और नमभूमियों अंतर्राष्ट्रीय में वार्षिक अंशदान का भुगतात
सीएस प्रभाग भारतीय प्राणि सर्वेक्षण ( जेडएसआई ) , भरतीय वानस्पतिक सर्वेक्षण ( बीएसआई ) और भारतीय गणराज्य का वानस्पतिक उद्यान ( बीजीआईआर )
62 श्री ई. थिरुनावाक्करसू उप निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24360806 इंटरकॉम सं. 177 [email protected]
तटीय विनियमन जोन अधिसूचना 1991 ( सीआरजेड ) (अवसंरचना और विविध परियोजनाएं, पत्तन , बंदरगाह हवाई अड्डा, मार्ग रोपवेज, साझा बहिस्राव शोधन संयंत्र ( सीईटीपी ) , विषैले पदार्थ निपटान सुविधा ( टीएसडीएफ )
13 GI/2010-3 316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 /PAUSA 26, 1931
(1)
(2)
(3) 63. श्री ओम प्रकाश उप निदेशक
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] (4)
गोआ , तमिलनाडू, आंध्र प्रदेश , केरल , महाराष्ट्र, छत्तीसगढ़ की खनन परियोजनाओं (गैर- कोयला ) का पर्यावरण मूल्यांकन
दूरभाष सं. 24361525
इंटरकॉम सं. 746
[email protected]
64. श्री डब्ल्यू. भारत सिंह उप निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24367257 इंटरकॉम सं. 549 [email protected] 65. श्री आर. श्रीधर उप-निदेशक
ताप विद्युत और नाभिकीय विद्युत परियोजनाएँ
दूरभाष सं. 24367622
[email protected]
66. श्री शरद उप निदेशक
जैव- चिकित्सीय अपशिष्ट ( प्रबंध और हथालन ) नियमावली , 1998 जैव- चिकित्सीय अपशिष्ट प्रबंध पर जागरुकता और प्रशिक्षण कार्यक्रमों को आयोजित करना , खतरनाक अपशिष्ट ( प्रबंध हथालन और सीमापारीय संचालन ) नियमावली , 1998 न्यायालय के मामलों की मानीटरी
दूरभाष सं. 24360792
[email protected]
67. श्री पंकज वर्मा उप निदेशक
रसायनिक आपदा प्रबंधन , रसायनिक दुर्घटना नियमावली , रसायनिक सुरक्षा , राष्ट्रीय अपदा प्रबंध प्राधिकरण , स्टॉकहोम कन्वेंशन अंतरराष्ट्रीय रसायनिक प्रबंध के प्रति रणनीतिक एप्रोच ( एसएआईसीएम ) , रॉटेरडैम कन्वेंशन , पूर्व सूचित सहमति ( पीआईसी ) प्रक्रिया के तहत परियोजना प्रस्ताव का मूल्यांकन, प्लास्टिक प्रबंध और उपयोग नियमावली जिसमें पेपर अपशिष्ट का आयात शामिल है , नगरपालिका ठोस अपशिष्ट ( प्रबंध और हथालन ) नियमावली , जनदायित्व बीमा अधिनियम/नियमावली , ईआरएफ स्कीम
वायु प्रदूषण , ध्वनि प्रदूषण , जल प्रदूषण/ साझा बहिस्राव शोधन संयंत्र ( सीईटीपी ) और औद्योगिक प्रदूषण
दूरभाष सं. 24363982
इंटरकॉम सं. 506
[email protected]
68. श्रीयोगेन्द्र पाल सिंह उप निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24360695
इंटरकॉम सं. 103
[email protected]
69. श्री मनोज कुमार ई ई (योजना)
दूरभाष सं. 24363248 इंटरकॉम सं. 734 [email protected] 70. श्री जफरुल इस्लाम अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24362612 इंटरकॉम सं. 603/910 [email protected] 71 . श्रीसी. उप्पीलि अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24363553 इंटरकॉम सं. 124 [email protected] 72. श्री डी. पी. सिंह अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24367158 इंटरकॉम सं. 180 73. श्री ओ. पी. जोशी अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 23318554 जे.पी. बिल्डिंग 74. श्री बी. बी. बब्बर अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24361722 इंटरकॉम सं. 703 वन्यजीव अनुसंधान /परामर्श दात्री , बर्ड फ्लू ( एवियन इनफ्ल्युन्जा ) , गिद्ध संरक्षण , पुरस्कार और फैलोशिप आदि विश्व बैंक और खाद्य कृषि संगठन ( एफएओ ) परियोजना , वन्यजीव का संरक्षण और प्रबंध और पशु कल्यांण पर थीमेटिक दल ।
सिविल निर्माण एकक (सीसीयू)
प्रदूषण नियंत्रण ( सीपी )
राष्ट्रीय नदी संरक्षण निदेशालय ( एनआरसीडी)
वन से संबंधित वित्त ( एफएफ )
पशु कल्याण ( एडब्ल्यूप्रभाग )
राष्ट्रीय वनीकरण पारि विकास बोर्ड ( एनएईबी ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
317 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
75. श्री अशोक बंसल
दूरभाष सं. 24367197
एकीकृत प्रभाग ( आईएफडी)
अवर सचिव
इंटरकॉम सं. 169
76. श्रीडी. सी. शर्मा
राष्ट्रीय नदी संरक्षण निदेशालय ( एनआरसीडी )
अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24364901 इंटरकॉम सं. 128
77. श्री एम. एल. वाधवानी दूरभाष सं. 24362909
कार्मिक-1 ( पी -1 )
अवर सचिव
इंटरकॉम सं. 915
78. श्रीमति प्रेमा मोहन
दूरभाष सं. 24366693
कार्मिक-2 (पी-2)
अवर सचिव
इंटरकॉम सं. 912
79. श्री यू. चटर्जी
एनआरसीडी
अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24361057 इंटरकॉम सं. 129
80. श्री वी. के. श्रीवास्तव
सर्वेक्षण और उपयोगिता ( एसयू)
अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 26101710 [email protected]
81. श्री मालती रावत
दूरभाष सं. 24363983
वन स्थापना ( एफई )
अवर सचिव
इंटरकॉम सं. 510 [email protected]
82. श्री एच. के. श्रीवास्तव
एनएईबी
अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24360353 इंटरकॉम सं. 718
83. श्री कमल किशोर
भारतीय वन सेवा -1 ( आईएफएस -1 )
अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24363983 इंटरकॉम सं. 511
84. श्री दीपक ग्रोवर
एनएईबी
दूरभाष सं. 24362513
अवर सचिव
इंटरकॉम सं. 714
85. श्री सी. एम. शर्मा
भारतीय वन सेवा ( आईएफएस-2 )
अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24364303 इंटरकॉम सं. 509
86.
दूरभाष सं. 24360419
आईएफएस -2
श्री जोसेफ लुईखाम
अवर सचिव
इंटरकॉम सं. 559
87. श्री बी. एस. भंडारी
पी-3 और पीजी प्रकोष्ठ
अवर सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 243622920 इंटरकॉम सं. 911
88. श्री एस. महापात्र
दूरभाष सं. 24363021
सामान्य प्रशासन ( जीए)
अवर सचिव
इंटरकॉम सं. 924
89. श्री जे . श्रीरमण
दूरभाष सं. 24360806
-एनएमएनएच और व्यापार
अवर सचिव
इंटरकॉम सं. 177
यूरोपीय संघ सहित अन्य देशों के साथ जलवायु परिवर्तन पर
द्विपक्षीय सहयोग
-प्रभाग में सामान्य समन्वय
- वरिष्ठ अधिकारियों की बैठक ( एसओएम)
- बजट अनुमानों की तैयारी और आर्थिक प्रभाग
-प्रभाग में वित्तीय और प्रशासनिक समन्वय
- भारत- यूरोपीय संघ और द्विपक्षीय मामले
90. श्रीमती रीटा तयाल
दूरभाष सं. 24367076
जीसी, संसद और प्रोटोकॉल
अवर सचिव
इंटरकॉम सं. 175 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
318
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम , 2005 की धारा 19( 1 ) के तहत अपीलीय प्राधिकरण के रूप में नामोद्दिष्ट अपर सचिव/संयुक्त सचिव/उप महानिरीक्षक/निदेशक/अपर निदेशक/उप सचिव स्तर के अधिकारी
पदनाम
दूरभाष सं.
क्रम सं.
(ग) (ख)
(क)
(3) (2)
(1)
1.
दूरभाष सं. 24362388
[email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 437 श्रीसौरभ चन्द्रा अपर सचिव/वित्तीय सलाहकार
2. श्री ए. के. गोयल संयुक्त सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24361774 फैक्स सं. 24367009 इंटरकॉम सं. 440 [email protected] 3. डॉबी. पी. नीलरत्न संयुक्त सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24361712 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 422 4. श्री रजनी रंजन रश्मि संयुक्तसचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24362281 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 408 5. डॉ रजनीश दूबे संयुक्त सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24363956 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 414 6. डॉएच. के. पाण्डेय संयुक्त सचिव
दूरभाष सं. 24362551 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 627
दूरभाष सं. 24360634 इंटरकॉम सं. 415 7. श्रीराजीव गोबा संयुक्तसचिव
8.
दूरभाष सं. 24362698 ansaral [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 115 श्री अंसार अहमद वन महानिरीक्षक (एफसी)
9. श्री आर. के. गोयल वन महानिरीक्षक
दूरभाष सं. 24367652 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 443 10.
दूरभाष सं. 23384428 [email protected] श्री राजेश गोपाल वन महानिरीक्षक और निदेशक ( एनटीसीए )
विषय सामग्री
(घ)
(4)
रोकड़ अनुभाग , वेतन एवं लेखा कार्यालय
क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों की स्थापना , ई - गवर्नेस कार्टिजेना प्रोटोकॉल सहित जैव- सुरक्षा , अनुवंशिक इंजीनियरी अनुमोदन समिति ( जीईएसी ) राष्ट्रीय जैव विविधता प्राधिकरण ( एनबीए ) , राष्ट्रीय जैव विविधता कार्यनीति और कार्य- योजना ( एनबीएसएपी ) , जैवीय विविधता पर कन्वेंशन ( सीबीडी ) , उड़ीसा , केरल , कर्नाटक , झारखंड , आंध्र प्रदेश, बिहार , मध्य प्रदेश , महाराष्ट्र, त्रिपुरा , उत्तराखंड, मेघालय , तमिलनाडु , गुजरात और चंडीगढ़ संघ शासित प्रदेश के अलावा अन्य राज्यों में नमभूमियों का संरक्षण और प्रबंध , रामसर कन्वेंशन, आईडब्ल्यूएसयू, आरटीआई अधिनियम , 2005
प्रवाल भित्तियां , कच्छ वनस्पति , फाउंडेशन ऑफ रिवाईटेलाईजेशन ऑफ लोकल हेल्थ ट्रेडिशन ( एफआरएलएचटी ) , ओजोन सेल और मॉन्ट्रीयल प्रोटोकॉल , सीईएस/ आईआईएससी , बंगलौर, हिन्दी (राजभाषा)
जलवायु परिवर्तन ( सीसी ) ( सीडीएम और यूएनएफसीसीसी सहित) , सतर्कता, मीडिया
स्वच्छ उत्पादन /स्वच्छ प्रौद्योगिकी, सतत विकास ( एसडी) जी.बी. पंत हिमालयी पर्यावरण एवं विकास संस्थान ( जी.बी.पी.आई. एच.ई.डी) , अंतर राष्ट्रीय समेकित पर्वतीय विकास केन्द्र ( आईसी आईएमओडी) , अंतर राष्ट्रीय सहयोग ( आईसी )
खतरनाक पदार्थ
प्रबंध प्रभाग ( एचएसएमडी ) ,
राष्ट्रीय झील संरक्षण योजना ( एनएलसीपी ) और पीएल वन संरक्षण ( एफसी ) , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय ( आर.ओ. )
बाह्य सहायता प्राप्त परियोजना ( ईएपी ) और पूर्वोत्तर राज्य प्रकोष्ठ राष्ट्रीय बाघ संरक्षण प्राधिकरण ( एनटीसीए ) से संबंधित सभी मामले 319
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
दूरभाष सं. 24360957
11.
हाथी प्रयोजना , भारतीय वन्यजीव संस्थान और वन्यजीव अपराध प्रकोष्ठ
इंटरकॉम सं. 113
श्री ए. एन. प्रसाद वन महानिरीक्षक व निदेशक
पुस्तकालय , ग्लोबल पब्लिक गुड्स पर्यावरणीय शिक्षा ( ईई ) 12.
दूरभाष सं. 24362840
श्री आर. मेहता सलाहकार
इंटरकॉम सं. 543
13.
दूरभाष सं. 24364594
सलाहकार डॉ. जी. वी. सुब्रामणियम (वैज्ञानिक)
gvsmoef2005@ yahoo.co.in इंटरकॉम सं. 548
पर्यावरण में अनुसंधान ( आरई ) , वानस्पतिक उद्यानों को सहायता, वार्गिकी में क्षमता निर्माण पर अखिल भारतीय समन्वित परियोजना, ( एआईसीओपीटीएएक्स ) , एनटिटिस ऑफ इनकम्पेयरेबल वैल्यू रेग्यूलेशन , राष्ट्रीय प्राकृतिक विज्ञान संग्रहालय ( एनएमएनएच ) 14.
उद्योग क्षेत्र से संबंधित प्रभाव मूल्यांकन , अवसंरचना , नदी घाटी , खनन क्षेत्र और तटीय विनियमन जोन ( सी आर जेड़ ) डॉ. नलिनी भट्ट सलाहकार
दूरभाष सं. 24360478 nalini . bhat@ nic.in इंटरकॉम सं. 541
दूरभाष सं. 24360467
15. डॉ. जी.के. पांडे सलाहकार
[email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 531
भवन निर्माण क्षेत्र से संबंधित प्रभाव मूल्यांकन कोयला खनन क्षेत्र का प्रभाव मूल्यांकन , पर्यावरणीय स्वास्थ्य, विश्व बैंक औद्योगिकीय विकास क्षमता परियोजना , रोटरडेम कन्वेंशन , स्ट्रेटेजिक अप्रोच टू ईंटरनेशनल केमिकल्स मेनेजमेंट ( एसएआईसीएम ) , स्टॉकहोम कन्वेंशन ( प्रभावी मूल्यांकन और पी ओ पी संवीक्षा समिति ) पारा सहित भारी धातुाएं। 16. डॉ सुबोध कुमार शर्मा सलाहकार
नेशनल कॅम्यूनीकेशन्स ( एनएटीसीओएम ) . आई पी सी सी ( जलवायु परिवर्तन पर अंतर- सरकारी पैनल ) और जलवायु परिवर्तन से संबंधित सभी अन्य वैज्ञानिक तकनीकी कार्य
दूरभाष सं. 24360861 suboodh [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 112
पीसी प्रभाग सहित आर्थिक प्रकोष्ठ के नीतिगत मामले 17. श्री आर.एस. अहलावत आर्थिक सलाहकार
दूरभाष सं. 24362663 इंटरकॉम सं. 908 [email protected]
इंटरकॉम सं. 906
18. श्री नीलकान्त घोष सांख्यिकीय सलाहकार
पर्यावरण एवं वन मंत्रालय की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट, ' पर्यावरण स्थिति ' रिपोर्ट , पर्यावरणीय सूचना ( इन्दिरा गांधी पर्यावरण पुरस्कर को छोड़कर ) , सांख्यिकीय प्रकोष्ठ, एनजीओ प्रकोष्ठ 19.
सर्वेक्षण और उपयोगिता , अंतर्राष्ट्रीय उष्ण कटिबंधीय इमारती लकड़ी संगठन ( आईटीटीओ ) , वानिकी सांख्यिकी विज्ञान सदन , आर. के. पुरम , दूरभाष सं. 26101178 arvindmsingh @yahoo.com
श्री अरविन्द एम. सिंह उप वन महानिरीक्षक (एसयू)
20. श्रीमती रंजना गुप्ता उप वन महानिरीक्षक
वन नीति, एन एफ ए पी , वन अंतरराष्ट्रीय सहयोग ( एफ आई सी ) और राष्ट्रीय वन आयोग ( एन एफ सी )
दूरभाष सं. 24360549 ranjanagupta2001 @yahoo. com. इंटरकॉम सं. 431
21 . श्री अनमोल कुमार उप वन महानिरीक्षक ( डब्ल्यूएल )
aka6 @ indiatimes.com विज्ञान सदन , आर . के. पुरम , टेलीफोन नं. 26101157 इंटरकॉम सं. 113
वन्यजीव , वन्यजीव क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय विश्व धरोहर कन्वेंशन , राष्ट्रीय प्राणि-विज्ञान उद्यान , केन्द्रीय चिड़ियाघर प्राधिकरण , राष्ट्रीय वन्यजीव बोर्ड, अन्तरराष्ट्रीय संरक्षण संघ से संबंधित मामले । प्रवासी प्रजातियों पर कन्वेंशन , यूनेस्को, वन्यजीव अनुसंधान/परामर्शदात्री सेवाएं । वन्यजीव कन्वेंशन ऑन इंटरनेशनल ट्रेड ऑन इंडेन्जर्ड स्पीसीज (सीआईटीईएस ) , हाथी परियोजना , राष्ट्रीय उद्यान और अभयारणय , बर्ड फ्लू ( एवियन इनफ्युन्जा)
गिद्य संरक्षण 320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26, 1931
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] (1) (2)
(3)
(4)
पुरस्कार और फैलोशिप आदि ।
विश्व बैक और खाद्य कृषि संगठन ( एफएओ ) परियोजनाएं वन्यजीव का संरक्षण और प्रबंध पर थीमेटिक दल ।
22. श्री अशोक पई उप-वन महानिरीक्षक
दूरभाष सं. 24362416 ashokepai @nic, in इंटरकॉम सं. 705
एन ए ई बी , एफ डी ए/ एन ए पी ( 12 राज्य ) वनीकरण से संबंधित नीतिगत मामले, 20 सूत्रीय कार्यक्रम , एम एण्ड ई , कम्यूनिकेशन एण्ड यूनाईटेड नेशन्स कन्वेशन टू काम्बैट डैजरटिफिकेशन ( यू एन सीसीडी) ।
दूरभाष सं. 24364791 इंटरकॉम सं. 108
23. श्री ए. आर. चड्डा उप-वन महानिरीक्षक (आर टी)
वानिकी अनुसंधान और प्रशिक्षण ( आरटी ) ,एशिया पेसिफिक फारेस्ट इनवेजन नेटवर्क ( ए पी एफ आई एस एन ) , इन्टरनेशनल नेटवर्क फार बैम्बू एण्ड रेटन ( आईएनबीएआर) , भारतीय वानिकी अनुसंधान और शिक्षा परिषद् ( आईसीएफआरई ) , देहरादून , भारतीय वन सर्वेक्षण ( एफएसआई ) देहरादून , इन्दिरा गांधी राष्ट्रीय वन अकादमी ( आईजीएनएफए ) देहरादून , वन शिक्षा निदेशालय ( डीएफई ) देहरादून के प्रशासनिक और वित्तीय मामले तथा भारतीय प्लाईवुड उद्योग अनुसंधान और प्रशिक्षण संस्थान ( आईपीआईआरटीआई ) , बंगलौर तथा भारतीय वन प्रबंध संस्थान ( आईआईएफएम ) भोपाल के सभी मामले ।
24. श्री ए. के. जौहरी उप-वन महानिरीक्षक
दूरभाष सं. 24362016 इंटरकॉम सं. 102 [email protected]
वन सुरक्षा प्रभाग ( एफपीडी ) और संयुक्त वन प्रबंध ( जेएफएम ) प्रकोष्ठ, जलवायु परिवर्तन पर संयुक्त राष्ट्र फ्रेमवर्क कन्वेशन ( यूएनएफसीसीसी) के अंतर्गत एलयूएलयूसीएफ , गैर- इमारती लकड़ी वन उत्पाद ।
सी पी प्रभाग , वाहनीय प्रदूषण
25. डॉ. रशीद हसन निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24360734 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 740
26. डॉ. एम. सुब्बा राव निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक )
-जैव चिकित्सा अपशिष्ट प्रबंध ( प्रबंध एवं हथालन ) नियमावली पोत भंजन मामले
दूरभाष सं. 24361410 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 738
- 1995 से लंबित पड़े हुए परिसंकटमय अपशिष्ट के प्रबंधन के संबंध में उच्चतम न्यायालय का मामला
-परिसंकटमय अपशिष्ट के प्रबंधन पर उच्चतम न्यायालय की मानीटरी समिति
- अपशिष्ट तेल/प्रयुक्त तेल और नॉन -फेरस मेटेलिक अपशिष्टों के रिसाईक्लर्स का पंजीकरण
-अपशिष्ट तेल/प्रयुक्त तेल का पुनः चक्रण
- सुरक्षित और पर्यावरणीय दृष्टि के अनुकूल पोत के पुनःचक्रण पर अंतरर्राष्ट्रीय कन्वेशन से संबंधित अंतर्राष्ट्रीय मेरीटाईम संगठन ( आईएमओ ) की समुद्री पर्यावरण सुरक्षा समिति ( एमईपीसी )
-एच एस एम डी का समन्वय
27. डॉ. ई. वी. मूले निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24364593 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 558
भारतीय वनस्पति सर्वेक्षण ( बी एस आई ) , भारतीय प्राणी सर्वेक्षण ( जेड एस आई ) , भारतीय गणराज्य का वानस्पतिक उद्यान ( बी जी आई आर)
28. डॉ. एस. कौल निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24360492 26178917 (आ.)
राष्ट्रीय नमभूमि संरक्षण कार्यक्रम ( एनडब्ल्यूसीपी ) के अंतर्गत नमभूमि (उड़ीसा, केरल कर्नाटक , झारखंड, आंध्र प्रदेश , बिहार, मध्य प्रदेश , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
321
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
(1)
(2)
(3 )
[email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 602 29. डॉ. सरोज
निदेशक (वैज्ञानिक)
दूरभाष सं. 24364067 Sarojmoef@ yahoo, com इंटरकॉम सं. 751 30. डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) चन्दा चौधरी दूरभाष सं. 24360662 निदेशक ( वैज्ञानिक) [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 741 31 . श्री एस. जगन्नाथन
निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24361613 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 116 32. श्री चंदन सिंह
निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24360678 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 104 33. श्री सतीश के. अग्रवाल , निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24368442 , 24362206 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 140 34. श्री विवेक सक्सेना
निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24362065 [email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 435 35.
दूरभाष सं. 23318553 श्री अंजनी कुमार निदेशक ( पशु कत्याण ) [email protected] [email protected] 36. श्री ए. के . लाल
दूरभाष सं. 24367077 निदेशक
इंटरकॉम सं. 503 aklal [email protected] (4)
महाराष्ट्र, त्रिपुरा , उत्तराखंड, मेघालय , तमिलनाडु , गुजरात राज्य और चंडीगढ़ संघ शासित प्रदेश )
सलीम अली सेन्टर फॉर ऑरनिथोलॉजी एण्ड नेचुरल हिस्ट्री ( एसएसीओएन )
नमभूमियों से संबंधित विकास और अनुसंधान , एनडब्ल्यूसीपी से संबंधित बजट के मामले , रामसर कन्वेंशन और नमभूमियों अंतर्राष्ट्रीय में वार्षिक अंशदान का भुगतान
-एच एस एम डी
-बेसल कन्वेंशन
-खतरनाक अपशिष्ट ( प्रबंध एवं हथालन ) , नियमावली , बैटरीज (प्रबंधन एवं हथालन ) नियमावली, खतरनाक अपशिष्टों की सीमापार आवाजाही के नियंत्रण पर बेसल कन्वेशन
-डीजीएफटी मामलों सहित खतरनाक अपशिष्टों का आयात - निर्यात -ई- अपशिष्ट पर कार्य बल सहित ई, अपशिष्ट
-लेड एसिड बैटरिज ( प्रबंध और हथालन ) नियमावली -अधिकतम दुर्घटना जोखिम ( एम ए एच ) इकाई में रासायनिक सुरक्षा
-परसिसटेन्ट ऑरगेनिक पॉल्यूटेन्ट्स ( पी ओ पी ) पर स्टॉकहोम कन्वेंशन
राष्ट्रीय रसायनिक प्रबंध प्रोफाइल
आई एफ ही ( पर्यावरण )
-वन स्थापना ( एफ ई ) पर्यावरण एवं वन मंत्रालय के कर्मचारियों के लिए शिकायत अधिकारी
राष्ट्रीय नदी संरक्षण निदेशालय ( एन आर सी डी) प्रशासन, आई सी और प्रशिक्षण बजट का समन्वय , वार्षिक योजना, संसदीय मामलों/समितियों का समन्वय , एनआरसीए की समितिया , संसद प्रश्नों सहित एन आर सी पी /जी ए पी का समन्वय कार्य , सामान्य प्रकृति के मामले जिनमें समन्वय की आवश्यकता है, यमुना कार्य योजना का समन्वय, प्रचार, जन भागीदारी और मीडिया के कार्य भारतीय वन सेवा अधिकारियों की वार्षिक गोपनीय रिपोर्ट प्रकोष्ठ और एजीएमयूटी संवर्ग का संवर्ग प्रबंध
पशु कल्याण प्रभाग और पर्यावरण और वन मंत्रालय की वेबसाइटों को अद्यतन बनाना/उनका विकास करना ।
एजीएमयूटी संवर्ग को छोड़कर भारतीय वन सेवा ( आईएफएस ) का संवर्ग प्रबंधन 322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
PART II -SEC. 3 (ii)] (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
37.
हिंदी ( राजभाषा)
दूरभाष सं. 24361952
श्री सुरेश प्रसाद चौबे, निदेशक
[email protected] इंटरकॉम सं. 625
पारिस्थितिकीय रूप से संवेदनशील क्षेत्र
38.
दूरभाष सं. 24360659 इंटरकॉम सं. 616
डॉ. एम.ए. हक , निदेशक
फ्लाई ऐश
अनुसंधान पर सामाजिक और आर्थिक मुद्दे
haque@nic. in
39.
राष्ट्रीय सूचना केन्द्र
डॉआर.के. पाठक , तकनीकी निदेशक
दूरभाष सं. 24360465 इंटरकॉम सं. 465 rkpathak@nic . in
वन , रा.व. पारि. विकास बोर्ड और वन्यजीव पर एकीकृत वित्त प्रभाग 40.
दूरभाष सं. इंटरकॉम सं. 917
श्री अश्विनी कुमार मिश्रा , उप सचिव
41.
प्रशासन ( पी-1 ,पी- II , और पी- III ) , लोक शिकायत प्रकोष्ठ Alokagarwal63@nic . in इंटरकॉम सं. 704
श्री आलोक अग्रवाल , उप सचिव
42.
सामान्य समन्वय , जीए , प्रोटोकॉल और संसद
दूरभाष सं. 24367631 इंटरकॉम सं. 527
श्री नारायण दास , उप सचिव
dass. narain@nic . in
43.
दूरभाष सं. 24360588
श्रीवी.के. जयसवाल , सुप्रि. इंजीनियर ( सीसीयू)
पर्यावरण और वन मंत्रालय और इसके विभागों , अधीनस्थ कार्यालयों और स्वायत्तशासी संस्थान जो सिविल निर्माण इकाई को सौपें गए हैं उनके कार्यों की योजना और निष्पादन से संबंधित/ संबद्ध मामले seccu -mef@ nic . in इंटरकॉम सं. 725
ऐसे सभी अधिकारी जिनके पास जानकारी है और जो मामलों का निपटान कर रहे हों , वे वस्तुतः जन सूचना अधिकारी होंगे । III . IV. मंत्रालय के लिंक अधिकारियों को नामोदिष्ट किये जाने की व्यवस्था , सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के तहत मामलों का निपटान कर रहे अपीलीय प्राधिकरणों/केन्द्रीय जन सूचना कार्यालयों को भी लागू होगी ।
V. यह अधिसूचना मंत्रालय की दिनांक 17 जुलाई , 2009 की पूर्व अधिसूचना संख्या 1/2/2007 आर.सी.का. अधिक्रांत करती है ।
[ सं. 1 / 1 /2009- आरसी ]
ए. के. गोयल , संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009
S.O. 161. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 ( 1 )/ Section 19 ( 1 ) of the Right to Information Act . 2005, the following officers of the Ministry of Environment and Forests are hereby designated as Central Public Information Officers/Appellate Authorities , etc. , in respect of the specific subject matters mentioned against their names .
1.The following Officers are designated as Central Public Information Officers under Section 5 ( 1 ) of the Act .:
Tele. No.
Subject Matter
Designation
S. No.
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
1 . Shri S.P. Yadav , DIGF
All matters relating to National Tiger Conservation Authority ( NTCA )
T. No. 23389883 [email protected]
2. Sh . B.K. Singh , AIGF
Forest Conservation ( Andhra Pradesh , Chandigarh , Delhi , Haryana, Karnataka , M.P. , Manipur , Meghalaya , Orissa , Pondicherry and Uttarakhand)
[email protected] Vigyan Sadhan , R. K. Puram T. No. 26101190
3. Sh. Umakant, AIGF
T. No. 26101127 [email protected]
Forest Conservation ( Andaman & Nicobar , Assam , Sikkim , Kerala , Maharashtra, Nagaland, Punjab, Tamilnadu , U.P. , West Bengal , Tripura ) 323 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/ पौष 26. 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(4)
(3)
(1) (2)
4. Ms. Shally Ranjan , AIG
T. No. 24361223 Intercom No.444 [email protected]
Work relatedto Externally Aided Project ( EAP ) North EastCell (NE Cell ) and Forest Protection Division (FPD), JointForest Management (JFM ) Cell , LULUCF under United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC ), Non -timber Forest Produce Research & Training ( RT) , Forest Policy ( FP) 5. Sh . Rajan Sehgal , AIG
6. Shri C.D. Singh , AIGF
T. No. 24362131 Intercom No. 109 [email protected] [email protected] Vigyan Sadhan, R.K. Puram T. No. 26101153
Forest Conservation (Arunachal Pradesh , Chhattishgarh , Dadra Nagar Haveli , Daman & Diu , Goa , Gujarat , H.P. Jharkhand , Mizoram , Rajasthan ) Administrative matter of FC Forest ( Conservation ) Act , 1980 Forest Advisory Committee
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority ( CAMPA )
7. Shri Vivek Saxena , Director
T. No. 24362065 [email protected] Intercom No. 435
G.B. Pant Himalayan Institute of Environment Development (GBPHIED ) & Intenational Centre for Integrated Mountain Development ( ICIMOD) T. No. 24362252 [email protected] Intercom No. 135
8. Shri R. K. Sethi , Director (Scientific)
Kyoto Protocol , Clean Development Mechanism ( CDM) including meetings of National CDM Authority , Issues relating to Mitigation , Technology Transfer and Energy Efficiency, Asia - pacific Partnership on Clean Develop- mentand Climate , Subsidiary Body on Scientific & Technical Advice (SBSTA) , Consultative Sub - group on CDM & related issues . RTI Matters .
Cabinet Matters /PMO references /Parliament Question relating to his area of work and other Parliamentary matters, Internet policy search on Climate Change .
Subsidiary Body of Implementation , Consultative Group onClimate Change including Political Sub-group , Sub- group, Climate Modelling Sub- group . Financing under UNFCCC, COP/ MoP and other UNFCCC related meeting. (EE) Environmental Education
9. Shri A. A. Rao , Director
T. No. 24361797 [email protected] Intercom No. 182
Centre for Environment Education Ahmedabad -CPR Environmental Education Centre , Chennai -Setting up new Centres of Excellence
National Environment Awareness campaign ( NEAC ) and Media Cell
National Bio -diversity Authority ( NBA ) . Convention on Biological Diversity ( CBD ) & National Bio - diversity Action Plan (NBAP )
T. No. 24361601 [email protected] Intercom No. 737
10. Dr. Sujata Arora, Director (Scientific)
National Environment Protection Authority (NΕΡΑ ) T. No. 24361487 Intercom No. 122
11. Sh. N. Muruganandam , Director
Amendments of EIA Notification and related matters T. No. 24362434 [email protected] Intercom No. 545
12. Dr. Satish Kumar Aggarwal, Director (Scientific)
T. No. 24363973 [email protected] Intercom No. 174
13. Dr. P. L. Ahuja Rai , Director (Scientific)
Environmental appraisal of industry projects Appraisal Committee for Mining ( non - coal ) Constitution of SEIAAs and SEACs and follow up Industrial Projects including of oil. Gas and Petroleum and Distilleries sector .
13 GI /2010-4 324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ) (2)
(3)
(1)
(4)
14.
Research proposals under National Natural Resource Management System (NNRMS)
T. No. 24367640 [email protected] Intercom No. 739
Dr. Jag Ram Director (Scientific)
ERC scheme Projects relating to Pollution Prevention , Control and Abatement
Social and Economic Thematic Group relating to Cost Benefit Analysis , Social Economic issues, Legal and Policy related matters
Thematic Expert Groups Pollution Prevention , Control and Abatement
15.
Co-ordination work of the Division , CEMDE E-Governance
Shri Surendra Kumar Director
T. No. 24361613 [email protected] Intercom No. 116
16.
T. No. 24360795 [email protected] Intercom No. 534
Shri Bharat Bhushan Director (Scientific)
Construction Projects Co-ordination of Parliament related matters , compilation of information for Senior Officers meeting and expenditure statement
17. Dr. T Chandni Director (Scientific)
T. No. 24363963 [email protected] . Intercom No. 172 Room No. 1027
Environment Impact Assessment of Coal Mining Project Centre ofMining Environment (CME ) , Dhanba Review of proposals for development of sector specific EIA Manual/ Guidelines and release of funds to Institutions
18.
T. No. 24367668 [email protected] Intercom No. 550
Environment Impact Assessment industrial project Accreditation of Environmental Consultant and co - ordination with QCI
Dr.P. B. Rastogi Director (Scientific)
19.
T. No. 24360492 [email protected] Intercom No. 602
Dr. S. Kaul Director (Scientific)
Conservation and management of Wetlands in States of other than Orissa , Kerala , Karnataka , Jharkhand , AP , Bihar , MP , Maharashtra , Tripura , Uttarakhand , Meghalaya , T.N. , Gujarat and UT of Chandigarh
Rainsar Convention
20.
T. No. 24363964 [email protected] Intercom No. 530
Dr.(Ms.) Ranjini Warrier, Director(Scientific)
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee ( GEAC ) Cartagena Protocol on Bio - safety Capacity Building Project on Bio - safety
21 .
T. No. 24363677 [email protected] Intercom No. 927
Dr. Naseem Ahmed, Director (Scientific)
Financial assistance for projects relating to Eco - system Research Programme Financial assistance for projects relating to Eastern and Western Ghats Progeamme
Thematic Expert Group (A) on Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Natural Resource ( to consider proposals on Eco- System Research and Eastern & Western Ghats)
22.
T. No. 24363962 [email protected] IntercomNo.546
Dr. J. R. Bhatt, Director (Scientific)
All India Taxonomy Capacity Building Project Financial assistance to state Governments for conservation of mangroves and coral reefs
Thematic Expert Group ( B ) on conservation & Sustainable Utilization of Natural Resources ( to consider proposals on Man and Biosphere . Mangroves & Coral Reefs , Wetlands , and Bio -diversity , etc.)
National Award for Taxonomy
Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Tradition (FRLHT)
AICOPTAX [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(3)
(1)
(2)
23. Shri Vijay Kumar Director(Vig)
T. No. 24366841 , [email protected] Intercom No.535
T. No. 24642176 , [email protected] 24. Dr. A Duraiswamy Director (Scientific)
T. No. 24367669 , [email protected] Intercom No.612 25. Dr. R. K. Rai Director (Scientific)
26. Dr. M. Hota Director
Intercom No. 914, [email protected] T. No. 24367663 27. Sh. Agrim Kaushal Director
T. No. 24364642 , Intercom No. 704 [email protected] 28 . Shri Pankaj Garg, Dy. Secretary
T. No. 24360686 [email protected] Intercom No. 918
T. No. 24361116 Intercom No. 157 29 . Ms. Renu C. Deshpande , Controller of Accounts
Intercom No. 552 30. Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Dy. Secretary
31. Smt . S. Ghosh Roy . Dy. Secretary
T. No. 24360772 Intercom No. 707 [email protected]
325
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/ पौष 26 , 1931
(4)
Vigilance matters
Ozone Cell & Montreal Protocol
Assistance to Botanic Gardens
Centre ofEcological Sciences , Bangalore , Biodiversity Conservation
UNDP Project on Biodiversity Conservation though Community participation
Strategic approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM)
Rotterdam Convention on Prior informed consent Procedure for certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade
Public Liability Insurance Act
Municipal Solid Wastes ( Management & Handling ) Rules
Recycled Plastic ( Management & Handling ) Rules .
Trade and Environment , PC Division
International Cooperation & Sustainable Development - II (IC & SD - II )
Scrutiny of budget proposals Preparation of budget estimates
Interaction with Plan Coordination regarding Plan Budget.
Scrutiny of proposals for inclusion in Supplementary Demands for grants .
Processing of Re - appropriation proposals both within the Powers of Ministry and beyond the Powers of Ministry.
Preparation and Printing of Demands for Grants .
Submission of Action Taken Notes on Draft/ Audit paras.
Scutiny and allocation of funds under loans to Government servants .
Disbursal of salaries and other allowances
Disbursal ofGrants - in - aid - Taking out periodical expenditure statement etc. Cash Section
Non Governmental Organization Cell (NGO Cell ) Regional Offices ( HQs ) ( including administrative matters ofRO ( HQ) IPVA
International Cooperation & Sustainable Development 1( IC & SD- I)
Environment Policy and Law, NEΡΑ 326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010 /PAUSA 26 , 1931
[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
32.
Environment Education ( EE)
T. No. 24365218 Intercom No. 505
Sh.Mohammad, Muazzam, Dy. Secretary
33.
RTI Act and Internal Work Study Unit ( IWSU ) Sh . Narain Dass , Dy. Secretary
T. No. 24367631 Intercom No.572 dass. narain@nic . in
34.
Policy matters of Economic Cell
Mr.GurPyari , Addl. Adviser (Eco .)
T. No. 24368843 Intercom No. 952 gurpvar i@nic. in
35.
National Informatics Centre
Sh .Anil Kumar , Scientist 'D'
T. No. 24363819 Intercom No. 607 anilkumar @nic . in
36.
T. No. 24360806 Intercom No.
Dr. Tashi Wangdi , Addl . Director ( S)
37.
Externally Aided project ( Biodiversity conservation and Rural Livelihood Improvement Project ) in seven Landscapes state. RiverValley and Hydro Electric projects .
T. No. 24362827 bhowmik @ nic.in Intercom No. 539
Dr. S. Bhowmik , Addl . Director (Scientifie)
Intercom No. 745
38. Smt. Usha Subramaniam, Add!. Director
-National Environment Protection Training and Research Institute , Hyderabad
-National Environment Fellows . Programme 39.
- Evaluation of the monitoring reports submitted by Regional Offices.
Dr. K.C. Rathore, Addl . Director (Scientifie)
T. No. 24360789 rathore [email protected] Intercom No. 144
Technical appraisal of the biannual reports received from project proponents
-Coordination activities , including the internal meetings of IA Division
-Monthly D.O. to Cabinet Secretary, RTI matters and internal CordMeeting
40.
Coastal Management Zone , Policy matters
senthil . vel@ nic . in Intercom No. 744 T. No. 24360694
Dr. A. Senthil Vel , Addl . Director (Scientific)
41. Sh . S.C. Garkoti , Addl . Director
Appraisal of mining sector projects under the environ- mental impact assessment notification
T. No. 24360171 Intrercom No.551 satish [email protected]
42. Dr.(Mrs) Manju Raina Addl . Director (Scientific)
T. No. 24360270 Mraina [email protected] Intercom No. 117
-Common Effluent Treatment Plants ( CETPs ) -Water pollution - Industrial Pollution -Recognition of Laboratory
43.
-Source Apportionment Studies -Male Declaration
T. No. 24366347 [email protected] Intercom No. 556
Shri R.N. Jindal , Addl . Director (Scientific)
Air Pollution , noise pollution and setting of standards . coal beneficiation , appeals under Air Act , working group on pollution abatement , court matters .
44.
abatement of Pollution through preventive strategies -Eco cities
T. No. 24361688 rk [email protected] . uk Intercom No. 913
Dr. R.K. Suri , Addl . Director (Scientific)
- Bhure Lal Authority
- Loss of Ecology Authority
-National Environmental Appellate Authorities (ΝΕΛΛ ) - Awards
-Court Matters 327
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/ पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
- Research in Environment ( RE )
45.
B. P. Pal Fellowship Award on Bio-diversity
- Pitamber Pant Fellowship Award on Environment Ms. Sujata Khaparde , Addl . Director (Scientific)
T. No. 24360379 khaparde sujata@ yahoo . co, in Intercom No.557
46.
-Matter relating to Foundation of Revitalization of Local Health Tradition ( FRLHT )
T. No. 24360488 Intercom No.752 Sansom [email protected] in
Mrs. Sanchita Jindal , Addl . Director (Scientific)
-United National Development Programme ( UNDP ) Projects on medicinal plants
Coordination on medicinal plants other divisons of the Ministry
-Capacity Building Industry Pollution Management Project (CBIPMP)
47. Dr.S. V. Reddy Addl . Director
-Man and Biosphere Reserves Programme
T. No. 24366764 Intercom No. 753 s.v.red 1958 2000@ yah co.com
Grantof financial assistance for Seminars Symposia Workshops
48. Mrs. Rita Khanna Addl . Director (Scientific)
Grants- in aid to Professional Societies/Institutions Grantof financial assistance for publications on Environment
T. No. 24367664 rita khann 2000@yahoo . com Intercom No. 173 Room No. 1028
Allwork related to Library .
Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Programme
-National Green Corps ( NGC )
-Formal Environment Education including Coordination withMinistry of Human Resources Development .
NCERT and State Education Departments
-Strengthening of Environment in Professional courses Environmental Appreciation courses through Indira Gandhi National Open University.
49.
-Clean Technology developments and promotion for medium/small scale industries -Wasteminimization
T. No. 24364595 [email protected] Intercom No. 743
Dr. M. Salahuddin , Addl . Director (Scientific)
-Establishment of Waste Minimization circles throughout the country
-National Action Plan or Climate Change ( NAPCC ) , T. No. 24361795 Intercom No. 601
50. Dr. S. Satpathy , Addl . Director
-Expert Committee on Impacts of Claimate Change ,
-Cabinet matters / PMO references/ Parliament Questions relating to his area of work
-IPCC , Adaptation issues , CSD pertaining to Climate Change, Netcom Sub-Group
-Wildlife , Convention on International Trade on
-Endangered Species ( CITES ) , Project Elephant , National Parks & Sanctuaries
51 . Ms.Prakriti , Srivastava Joint. Director
T. No. 24361795 Intercom No. 717 prakriti [email protected]
-Bird flu (Avian Influenza ) -Vulture conservation .
-Awards & fellowships , etc.
-World Bank & Food Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) projects
-Thematic Group on Conservation & Management of WildLife.
328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010 / PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART 11 SEC . 3 (ii) ) (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
52.
Environment impact assessment of industrial projects Sh . H. S. Malyiya , Addl . Director
Intercom No.175
T. No. 24367076 [email protected]
53 .
Environment Information System ( ENVIS ) Centres Ms. Madhumita, Biswas Joint. Director
T. No. 24363960 Intercom No. 750 mbiswas2000in@yahoo . com
54. Sh . L. K. Bokolia, Joint. Director
T. No. 24366017 Intercom No. 626 [email protected]
National River Conservation Plan (NRCP ) works ofDelhi . Tamil Nadu & West Bengal , National Lake Conservation Plan(NLCP) works of West Bangal
-Environmental Health
55. Shri . Neeraj Khatri , Dy.Director
T. No. 24365199 Intercom No. 146 [email protected]
-FlyAsh -Ecologically sensitive areas
-Centre for Excellence for Mangement of eco - Degraded system of Delhi University
Hindi (Official language)
56. Sh .Babulal, Ry. Director
Intercom No. 804/809 [email protected]
57 . Dr. P. S. Rawat , Dy. Director ( S )
T. No. 24360974 [email protected] Intercom No. 502
Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar Jawaharlal Nehru University ( JNU) Chair on environmental law and some work ofEnvironment Information System (ENVIS ) Scheme
NRCP work of U. P. , Haryana, Rajasthan , Punjab , H.P. JICA Study , NLCP works of J & K
58. Sh Sanjay Kumar, Singh Dy. Director
T. No. 24366978 Intercom No. 127 Sanjaysingh sk@ rediffmail.com
59. Sh .Ajay Raghav , Dy. Director
T. No. 24362735 Intercom No. 125 [email protected]
Evaluate ofGanga Action Plan ( GAP ) , NRCP , complete combination of Yamuna Action Plan ( YAP ) -II , all works ofPublicity, PP & A. Media and General matters NRCP works of Uttarakhand and Goa NLCP works of Uttrakhand and Goa
60. Sh . S. K. Srivastava , Dy. Director
T. No. 24365199 Intercom No. 147 [email protected]
NLCP Co - ordination NLCP Co - ordination and works of NL.CP for all states other than J & K, Uttrakhand & West Bengal
R & D projects , Water Quality Monitoring of rivers under NRCP including sediments and Analytical Quality Control, Performance Monitoring of SYPs .
61. Dr. Shruti Rai , Dy.Director
T. No. 24360060 Intercom No. 540 [email protected]
Wetlands under National Wetland Conservation Programme ( NWCP ) ( in the States of Orissa . Kerala , Karnataka, Jharkhand . A.P. , Bihar , M.P. , Maharashtra . Tripura , Uttrakhand , Meghalaya , T. N. , Gujrat and U.T. of Chandigarh ) .
Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History (SACON) .
R & D relating to Wetlands , Budget matters related to NWCP, Payment of annual contribution to Ramsar Convention and Wetlands International
CS Division Zoological Survey of India (ZSI ) , Botanical Survey of India ( BSI ) & Botanical Garden of India Republic (BGIR) 329 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
62. Sh . E. , Thirunavakkarsu Dy.Director
T. No. 24360806 Intercom No. 177 [email protected]
Coastal regulation zone notification 1991 ( CRZ), Infrastructure and miscellaneous projects Ports , harbours , airports , roads , ropeways , common effluent treatment plants ( CETP) , toxic substances disposal facility (TSDF)
Environment appraisal of mining projects (non - coal ) Goa , Tamil Nadu , AP, Kerala, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh 63. Sh . Om Prakash , Dy. Director
T. No. 24361525 Intercom No. 746 opkasana@rediffmail . co m
Thermal & Nuclear power projects
64. Sh . W. Bharat Singh , Dy. Director
T. No. 24367257 Intercom No. 549 w.Bharat@nic . in
65. Dr. R. Sridhar , Dy.Director
T. No. 24367622 Intercom No. 544 [email protected]
Bio-medical Waste ( Management and Hanling ) Rules , 1998 Conducting awareness and training programmes onBio -Medical Waste Management Management Hazardous Waste ( Management Handling and Trans- boundary Movement ) Rules, 1998 Monitoring of Court Cases
66. Sh . Shard , Dy.Director
T. No. 24360792 Sharad [email protected]
Chemical Disaster Management, Chemical Accident Rules , Chemical Safety , National Disaster Management Authority . Stockholm Convention
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Manage- ment ( SAICM) , Rotterdam Convention , Appraisal of Project Proposal under Prior Informed Consent ( PIC ) Procedure , Plastic Management and Usage Rules includ- ing Import of paper wastes , Municipal Solid Waste (Mgt. and Handling ) Rules , Public Liability Insurance Act/Rules , ERF Scheme
AirPollution , Noise Pollution , Water Pollution/ Common Effluent Treatment Plant ( CETPs ) and Industrial Pollution 67. Sh . Pankaj Verma , Dy.Director
T. No. 24363982 Intercom No. 506 [email protected]
T. No. 24360695 Intercom No. 103 yogi friends @yahoo.co.in
68. Sh. Yogender Pal , Singh, Dy. Director
WildlifeResearch/consultancies , Bird flu ( Avian Influenza ) , Vulture conservation , Awards & fellowships, etc. World Bank & Food Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) Projects , Thematic group on conservation & Management of Wild- Life and Animal Welfare Civilconstruction Unit ( CCU ) .
69. Sh . Manoj Kumar, EE(Planning)
T. No. 24363248 Intercom No. 734 [email protected]
Control ofPollution (CP)
70. Sh . Zafrul Islam, Under Secretary
T. No. 24362612 Intercom No. 603/910 Zafar [email protected]
National River Conservation Directorate ( NRCD ) 71 . Sh. C. Uppili , Under Secretary
T. No. 24363553 Intercom No. 124 [email protected]
ForestFinance ( FF)
T. No. 24367158 Intercom No. 180
72. Sh. D.P. Singh , Under Secretary
Animal Welfare ( AW) Division
T. No. 23318554 JPBuilding
73 . Sh . O. P. Joshi , Under Secretary
National Afforestation Eco - Development Board ( NAEB ) T. No. 23361722 Intercom No. 703
74 . Sh . B. B. Babbar, Under Secretary 330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
(1) (2)
(3)
75.
T. No. 24361797 Intercom No. 169 Sh . Ashok Bansal , Under Secretary
76.
T. No. 24364901 Intercom No. 128 Sh . D. C. Sharma, Under Secretary
77. Sh. M. L. Wadhwani , Under Secretary
T. No. 24362909 Intercom No. 915 [email protected] 78. Smt. Prema Mohan , UnderSecretary
T. No. 24366693 Intercom No. 912 [email protected] 79.
T. No. 24361057 Intercom No. 129 Sh. U. Chatterjee , Under Secretary
80. Sh . V. K. Srivastava , Under Secretary
T. No. 26101710 [email protected] 81 . Smt . Malti Rawat , Under Secretary
T. No. 24363983 Intercom No. 510 [email protected] 82.
T. No. 24360353 Intercom No. 718 Sh . H.K. Srivastava , Under Secretary
T. No. 24363983 Intercom No. 511 83. Sh. Kamal Kishore , Under Secretary
84. Sh. Deepak Grover , Under Secretary
T. No. 24362513 Intercom No. 714 Bb [email protected] 85 .
T. No. 24364303 Intercom No. 509 Sh . C. M. Sharma, Under Secretary
86. Sh. Joseph Luikham , Under Secretary
T. No. 24360419 Intercom No. 559 [email protected] 87. Sh . B.S. Bhandari , Under Secretary
T. No. 24362290 Intercom No. 911 Bs. [email protected] 88. Sh. S. Mahapatra. Under Secretary
T. No. 24363021 Intercom No. 924 Satyamaha2006@ yahoo . co.in
89. Sh . J. Sriraman, Under Secretary
T. No. 24360806 Intercom No. 177 [email protected] 90.
T. No. 24367076 Intercom No. 175 Smt. Rita Tayal Under Secretary
[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (4)
Integrated Finance Division ( IFD )
National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD) Personnel- I ( P.1 )
Personnel - II ( P.II)
NRCD
Surveys and Utilization ( SU )
Forest Establishment ( FE)
NAEB
Indian Forest Service - I ( IFS - I )
NAEB
Indian Forest Service . II ( IFS - II )
IFS.11
P. III & P.G. Cell
General Administration ( GA)
NMNH and Trade & Environment- Bilateral cooperation on Climate Change with other countries including EU . -General coordination in the Division
-Senior Officer Meeting ( SOM) .
-Preparation of Budget Estimates and coordination with Economic Division
-Financial and administrative coordinate in the Division -India- EU and bilateral matters
GC, Parliament and Protocol [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
331
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
Officer of the level of AS/JS/DIG/Director/Addl . Director/Dy. Secretary designated as Appellate Authorities under Section 19 ( 1 ) of the RTI Act 2005
Tele.No.
S. No. Designation
(3)
(2)
(1)
1. Shri Saurabh Chandra , AS & FA
SubjectMatter
(4)
Cash Section, PAO
T. No. 24362388
Intercorn No. 437
[email protected]
2. Shri A. K. Goyal JointSecretary
T. No. 24361774
FaxNo. 24367009
Intercom No. 440
[email protected]
3.
Establishment of Regional Offices , e - Governance , Bio- safety including Cartagena Protocol, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee ( GEAC ) , National Bio - diversity Authority (NBA) , National Bio-diversity Strategy & Action Plan (NBSAP),Convention on Biological Diversity ( CBD) , Conservation and Management of Wetlands in States of Other than Orissa , Kerala , Karnataka, Jharkhand, AP, Bihar, MP , Maharashtra, Tripura, Uttarakhand , Meghalaya, T.N. Gujarat and UT of Chandigarh Ramsar Convention , IWSU, RTI Act , 2005
Tel . No. 24361712
[email protected]
Dr. B. P. Nilaratna, Joint Secretary
Coral Reèfs , Mangroves , Foundation of Revitalization ofLocal Health Tradition ( FRLHT) , Ozone Cell & Montreal Protocol , CES/ IISC , Bangalore
Intrcom No. 422
4.
Climate Change (CC) ( including CDM & UNFCCC ) Vigilance, Media
T. No. 24362281
Intercom No. 408
[email protected]
Shri Rajani Ranjan Rashmi , JointSecretary
CleanProduction/Clean Technology, Sustainable Development (SD)
T. No. 24363956
[email protected]
5. Dr. Rajneesh Dube , JointSecretary
Intercom No. 414
T. No. 24362551
6.
Intercom No. 627
Sh . H. K. Pande , JointSecretary
G.B. Pant Himalayan Institute ofEnvironment Development (GBPHIED) & International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development ( ICIMOD) , International Cooperation ( IC)
[email protected]
7.
T. No. 24360634
Intercom No. 415
Shri RajivGauba, Joint Secretary
8. Shri Ansar Ahmed , IGF
Hazardous Substances ManagementDivision ( HSMD) , National Lake Conservation Plan (NLCP ) & PL Forest Conservation ( FC) , Regional Officers (ROS )
T. No. 24362698
Intercom No. 115
[email protected]
9.
Externally Aided Project ( EAP ) & NE Cell
T. No. 24367652
Intercom No. 443
Sh . R. K. Goel IGF
[email protected]
10.
Allmatters relating to National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA )
T. No. 23384428
[email protected]
Shri Rajesh Gopal , IGF & Director (NTCA)
11. Shri A. N. Prasad , IGF & Director
Project Elephant , Wildlife Institute of India and Wildlife Crime Cell
T. No. 24360957
[email protected]
Intercom No. 113
Library, Global Public Goods Environmental Education ( EE)
T. No. 24362840
12. Shri R. Mehta , Adviser
[email protected]
Intercom No. 543
13 . Dr. G. V. Subrhamaniam Adviser
Research in Environment ( RE ) , Assistant to Botanical Gardens , All India Coordinated Project on Capacity Building in Taxonomy (AICOPTAX), Entities of Incomparable Value Regulations , National Museum of National History (NMΝΗ )
T. No. 24364594
Intercom No. 548
gvsmoef2005@
yahoo.co.in
14. Dr. Nalini Bhatt, Adviser
T. No. 24360478
[email protected]
Intercom No. 541
13 G1/2010-5
Impact Assessment relating to Industry sector , Infrastructure, River Valley , Mining Sectors and Coastal Regulation Zones ( CRZ) 332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 16, 2010 /PAUSA 26 , 1931
(2)
(3)
(1)
15. Dr. G. K. Pandey, Adviser
T. No. 24360467 [email protected] Intercom No. 531 16. Dr. Subodh Kumar Sharma, Adviser
T. No. 24360861 [email protected] Intercom No. 112 17. Sh . R. S. Ahlawat Economic Adviser
T. No. 24362663 Intercom No. 908 [email protected] Intercom No. 906 18. Sh . Nil Kanth Ghosh Statistical Adviser
19. Sh. Arvind M. Singh , DIGF ( SU)
Vigyan Sadhan , R. K. Puram T. No. 26101178 arvindmsingh@ yahoo.com 20. Smt . Ranjana Gupta DIGF
T. No. 24360549 ranjanagupta2001 @yahoo.com Intercom No. 431 21 . Sh . Anmol Kumar, DIGF (WL)
[email protected] T. No. 24360740 Intercom No. 106 22. Shri Ashok Pai , DIGF
T. No. 24362416 [email protected] Intercom No. 705 23 . Shri A. R. Chadha , DIGF
T. No. 24364791 Intercom No.108
[PART 11 SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] (4)
Impact Assessment relating to Building Construction Sectors , Impact Assessment of Coal Mining Sector . Environmental Health , World Bank Industrial Development Capacity Project , Rotterdam Convention . Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management ( SAICM ), Stockholm Convention ( Effective Evaluation and POPS Review Committee) , Heavy Metals including Mercury National Communications ( NATCOM ) IPCC ( Inter - Govern- mental Pane on Climate Change ) & all other Scientific/ Technical works related to Climate Change Policy matters of Economic Cell including PC Division Annual Report of the MoEF , ' State of Environment ' Reports , Environmental Information ( excluding Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar ) , Statistical Cell, NGO Cell Survey & Utilization , International Tropical Timber Organization ( ITTO) , Forestry Statistics
Forest Policy, NFAP , Forest International Cooperation ( FIC) & National Forest Commission (NFC )
Wildlife, Wildlife Regional Offices , World Heritage Convention , National Zoological Park , Central Zoo Authority , National Board of Wildlife, matter relatingto International Conservation Union, Convention on Migratory Species , UNESCO, Wildlife research/Consultancies . Wildlife , Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species ( CITES ), Project Elephant , National Parks & Sanctuaries
-Bird flu (Avian Infuenza) -Vulture conservation , -Awards &fellowships , etc. -World Bank & Food Agriculture -Organization ( FAO ) projects -Thematic Group on Conservation &
-Management of Wild Life. NAEB , FDA /NAP ( 12 States ), Policy matters related to Afforestation , 20 Point Programme , M& E , Communication & united Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
Forestry Research and Training (RT ) , Asia - Pacific Forest Invasion Network ( APFISN ) , International Network for Bamboo and Rattan ( INBAR ), Administrative and Financial matters of Indian Council Forestry Research and Education ( ICFRE ) , Dehradun, Forest Survey of India ( FSI ) , Dehradun , Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy ( IGNFA ) , Dehradun , Directorate of Forest Education (DFE ) , Dehradun and all matters of Indian 333
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1921
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(2)
(1)
(3)
24. Shri A. K. Johari , DIGF
T. No. 24362016 Intercom No. 102 johari60@yahoo .
25.
T. No. 24360734 [email protected] Intercom No. 740 Dr. Rashid Hasan , Director (Scientific)
T. No. 24361410 wowsubbarao@ yahoo . co.in
26. Dr. M. Subba Rao , Director (Scientific)
Intercom No.738
T. No. 24364593 [email protected] Intercom No.558 27. Dr. E. V. Muley Director (Scientific)
28. Dr. S. Kaul Director (Scientific)
T. No. 24360492 26178917( R) [email protected] Intercom No.602
T. No. 24364067 29.
[email protected] Intercom No. 751 Dr. Saroj Director (Scientific)
T. No. 24360662 30.
Intercom No. 741 Dr. (Mrs) Chanda Chaudhary Director (Scientific)
(4)
Plywood Industries Research and Training Institute (IPIRTI ) . Bangalore and Indian Institute of Forest Management ( IIFM ) , Bhopal .
Forest Protection Division ( FPD ) & Joint Forest Management (JFM ) Cell , LULUCF under United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC ) , Non- timber Forest Produce
CP Division , Vehicular Pollution
Biomedical Waste Management ( Management & Handling) Rules
Ship breaking matters .
Supreme court case regarding management of hazardous waste pending since 1995 .
Superme Court monitoring Committee on management of Hazardous Waste .
Registration of recyclers of waste oil / used oil and nonferrous metallic wastes .
Recycling of waste oil/used oil .
MarineEnvironment Protection Committee ( MEPC ) of International
Maritime Organization ( IMO ) regarding International Convention on Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling.
-Coordination of HSMD.
Botanical Survey of India ( BSI ) , Zoological Survey of India (ZSI ), Botanic Garden of Indian Republic ( BGIR) Wetlands under National Wetland Conservation Programme (NWCP ) ( in the states of Orissa , Kerala Karnataka , Jharkhand , AP , Bihar, MP , Maharashtra , Tripura, Uttarakhand , Meghalaya , T.N. , Gujarat and UT ofChandigarh).
Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History (SACON).
R& D relating to Wetlands , Budget matters related to NWCP, Payment of annual contribution to Ramsar Convention and Wetlands International HSMD
Basel Convention
Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling ) Rules , Batteries(Management & Handling) Rules , Basel Convention on control of trans - boundary movement of hazardous waste
importExport of Hazardous Waste including DGFT matters.
E-waste including task force on Ewaste
LeadAcid Batteries (Management & Handling ) Rules . Chemical Safety in Maximum Accident Hazard (MAH) Unit
Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants (POP)
National chemical management profile 334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 16, 2010/PAUSA 26, 1931
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] (1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
31.
IFD ( Environment)
Shri S. Jagannathan Director
[email protected] Intercom No. 116 T. No. 24361613
32. Shri Chandan Singh Director
Forest Establishment ( FE) GrievancesOfficer for employees of the MoEF.
T. No. 24360678 [email protected] Intercom No. 104
33. Shri S. K. Aggarwal Director
T. No. 24368442 24362206 [email protected] Intercom No. 140
National River Conservation Directorate ( NRCD ) Administration Co - ordination of IC & Training Budget , Annual Plan , Co - ordination of Parliamentary matters/ Committees , Committees of NRCA , Co - ordination work of NRCP / GAP including Parliament Questions , Matters of general nature requiring co - ordination , Co - ordination of YAP, Works of publicity, public participation
34. Shri Vivek Saxena Director
ACR Cell of IFS Officers & Cadre Management of AGMUT Cadre .
T. No. 24362065 [email protected] Intercom No. 155
35.
Animal Welfare Division and updation/ development of theMoEF'swebsites .
Sh .Anjani Kumar Director( AW)
T. No. 23318553 [email protected] [email protected]
36. Sh . A. K. Lal Director
CadreManagement of Indian Forest Service ( IFS ) , except AGMUT Cadre .
T. No. 24367077 Intercom No. 503 [email protected]
Hindi (Official language)
37. Shri Suresh Prasad Choubey Director
T. No. 24361952 [email protected] Intercom No. 625
38. Dr.M.A. Haque Director
Ecologically Sensitive Areas Fly ash
T. No. 24360659 Intercom No. 616 [email protected]
social and economic issues on research National Informatics Centre
39. Dr. R. K. Pathak Tech . Director
T. No. 24360465 Intercom No. 611 [email protected]
Integrated Finance Division on Forests . NAEB & Wildlife
T. No. Intercom No.917
40. Shri Ashwini KumarMishra Dy. Secretary
Administration ( P. I , P.II & P.III) , Public Grievance Cell [email protected] Intercom No. 704
41 Shri Alok Agarwal Dy. Secretary
General Co - ordination , GA , Protocol and Parliament .
42. Sh . Narain Dass Dy. Secretary
T. No. 24367631 Intercom No. 527 [email protected]
T. No. 24360588 [email protected] Intercom No. 725
43. Shri V. K. Jayaswal SupdtEngineer (CCU)
Matters concerning/ pertaining to Planning and execution of the works of Ministry of Environment & Forests and its Departements , Subordinate Offices and Autonomous Institutions which are entrusted to Civil Construction Unit
III . All Officers in possession of information and dealing with the matters above will be defacto PIOs .
IV. The arrangement of designating Link Officers in the Ministry will also be applicable to the Appellate Authorities / CPIOs for dealing with matters under the RTI Act.
V. This supersedes the earlier notification No. 1 / 2 / 2007- RCdated 17th July , 2009 of this Ministry .
VI . Hindi version follows .
[No. 1 / 1 /2009 -RC ]
A. K. GOYAL , JL . Secy.
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 11 जनवरी , 2010
का. आ. 162.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा ) से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप- नया सम्बलपुर-रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और , केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमिं, जिसके नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन कियाजाए;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , 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 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 बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप - नया सम्बलपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क, भुवनेश्वर- 751009 ( उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला - ढेन्कानाल
तहसील- ओडपडा
राज्य-उड़ीसा
क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर
प्लाट नं.
(5)
(2) (3) (4) ( 1)
00
04 97
1048
कोरेहिगाडिआ
34
832
00 04
00
00 31
1046
00
00 90
833
00 05 94
831
00
63
830
01
56
835
60
836
00 02
846
00 03 52
87
00
05
844
335
(3)
(1)
(2)
(4) (5)
00
843
03 56
00
00 29 842
858
00 32
00
04 861
12
00
00 96
00
862
860
00 04 09 868
00 00 55
00 05 93 867
00
866
01 57 870
00 03 39
35
00 02 871
00
646
03 67
00 00 99 645
00 08 86 644
00 01 76 651
00
642
07 57
00
04 05 641
638
00 02 49
25
00 06 632
00
05 57 635
24
00
01
634
00
421
05 92
00
636
00 19 422
00
22
01
06
00 01 423
15 424
00
06
00 10
00
1100
427
00
02 33
25 425
00
00 426
00 01 10
00
419
01 90
00
418
01 12 430
01 76
00
00
14 34 1065
00 05 78
145
00 40
00
146
00 03 41 144
00 01 00
143
00
142
02 53
00
11 55
138
00 00 91
134
00 04 37 133
00
03 05 1049 336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 /PAUSA 26 , 1931
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
(1)
385
00 02 95
पालसुधा
पालसुघा
441
00 00 10
00
337
00 10
336
00 05 33
335
00 03 38
442
00
02 93
316
00
27
01
393
00
00 22
314
00
00 10
306
00
45
02
इन्दिपुर
307
00 04 30
312
00
00 42
308
00 13 69
310
00 00 10
309
00
72
03
251
00 01 88
246
00 00 10
00
250
64
01
252
00 46
00
249
00 00 16
253
00
11 34
260
00
00
10
254
00 03 87
258
00 00 82
392
00
01 20
256
00 02 28
03
204
00
09
209
00
00 10
205
00
84
02
206
00
00
54
202
00
00
96
00
207
03 15
00
199
00 39
201
00 03 68
160
13
00
200
02 05
00
163
02 31
00
192
00 20
164
00 02 59
162
10
166
87
165
76
167
00 01 21
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
(3)
(2)
(4) (5) 179
00 00 20 168
00 00 22 178
00 03 76 177
00 02 54 182
00 02 09 397
00 01 73 175
00
00 10 183
00 00 92 184
00
08 92 4331
00 02 43 2515
00 00 20 4332
00
04 80 2407
00
02 52 2405
00 01 32 4328
00
02 00 2512
00
00 10 2419
00
02 35 2420
00 00 10 2418
00 13 55 2421
00
12 05 2422
00 00 10 2426
00 01 53 2427
00 02 00 2439
00 04 35 2434
00
02 43 2433
00 01 45
00
4447
03 21 2463
00
04 86 2435
00 03 61
00
00 10 2462
2442
00 05 42 2441
00 07 36
00
2377
01 87
00
1153
01 48 1154
00
02 36 4236
00
02 06
00
1155
03 34 1160
00
07 44 1161
00 40
00
1159
00 03 78 1175
00
06 21 4047
00 06 36 1217
00 01 48 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
(1)
1218
00
06 84
इन्दिपुर इन्दिपुर
00
1219
00 40
60
00 00
4302
00
4301
00
10
06
1220
00
00
42
00 02
1221
1222
00 01 37
00
07
1224
63
4205
00 01 12
00 21
1231
00
00
86
1223
01
1232
00 02 79
1236
00 00 19
04
1235
00
92
00 00 24
1234
1266
38
00 00
1265
00 04 55
4435
00 02 02
00
1268
04 51
1267
00
00 10
1269
00
00 30
00
80
1284
00
25
1270
00
00
1283
00 02 40
1285
00
00 95
1282
00
02 12
1286
00 04 21
00
00 48
1330
नुणि
1331
03 46
00
1329
00
05 27
1328
00
00 52
00
1336
03 70
1340
00
00
10
00 05 25
1339
1338
94
1386
00 02 39
75
00
00
124
1387
00 02 02
1367
46
125
00 00 47
4233
00 01 61
123
20
122
337 (2)
(3) (4) (5)
26 120
00
00
126
00 00 60
06
119
00
17 135
00
00 40
00
00
121
10
00
55 4417
00
00
118
03 20
00
4429
00
72 4209
54
00 02
75 137
00 00
84
00
04 87
02 12 83
00
82
00
05 71
00 43 22
00
25 24
04
00
23
00 00 10 74
00 03 90 25
00 04 48 34
00 02 31
00
00 50 33
00
35
03 63 39
00
01 03 36
00 01 01
00
38.
09 34
00
37
00 10 12
00
14 73
00
13
00 20 82
00 00 53
00
81
00 10 83
00 05 15 86
00 94
00
85
00
02 59 84
00 01 41 92
00 03 77 93
00
01 11
00
100
01 37 96
00
00 44 99
00
72
01
97
00 10
00
98
00 02 09 109
00 01 66
00
00 87 108
79 110
00
00 338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 / PAUSA 26 , 1931
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
(1) (1)
00 10
111
00
नुणि ( जारी )
नुणि (जारी )
97
107
00 01
112
00 05
71
00 01
113
116
00
10
00
11
114
00 01
80
00 01
115
00 00 10
133
132
04 15
00
42
00 02
131
00
129
00
10
डेंगबोरेइ
70
130
00 00
00
00 10
134
05
00
17
135
125
66
00 00
13
00
139
138
00 79
00
00 02 06
140
141
00 00 10
बेडा
00
148
02 92
21
00 01
142
00 02 53
144
49
00
1121
01
00
146
00
39
145
00 02
03
00
89
155
85
00 01
157
156
00 01 48
00 17
167
00
00
168
02 02
00 00 48
1131
48
00 00
164
252
00 00 41
00
169
02 02
31
00 02
170
02 58
00
250
01 59
00
171
00
02
02
249
00
00
248
10
14
247
00
187
00 83
00 01 33
185
00 01 62
186
188
00 00 19
00 02 31
192
00
00
31
191
[PART 1 SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (2)
(4)
(3)
(5)
00
01 89 216
00
217
02 08
98
00
213
00
00
206
00
10
01 69 207
00
208
00 02 28
43 212
00 01
00 02 02 211
00
41 209
00
00 01 62 210
220
00 00 82 1473
00 00 10 1472
00 02 93
00
1469
02 33 1468
00 00 32
00
00
1471
56
02 02 1470
00
00
1467
02 01
00
73 1461
03
00
00
10 1460
328
05 45
00
00
327
02 99
01 17
00
321
00
727
02 40 325
00 01 82
00 14 728
00
00
324
84
00
19
00
294
05
00
333
01 11
00
289
01 63
25
00
01
293
00 01 17 290
291
00
01 20
00 33
00
292
283
00 01 32
00
284
02 87 285
00 01 99
71
00
387
00
385
01 23
00
46
00
00
388
389
00
01 33
00 01 76 391
00
00 10 393
392
00 01 79
00
02 02 399
400
00 01 21
00
00 21 401
02 78
00
402
421
00 01 87 339
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(3) (4) (5)
(2)
(1)
16
(4) (5)
(2)
(3)
(1)
00 08 37
1838
काण्डबिन्धा (जारा )
422
00 01 बेडा (जारी)
00
00
02
423
29
424
00
00
10
00
461
00
02
00 03
460
01 70
459
00
00
84
463
00
00 01 10
458
00 01 17
464
93
478
34
477
00
00
06 53
479
00
574
91
03 26
00
480
01 94
573
00
572
00 02 50
10
486
00 00
00 01 18
485
00 10 12
484
66
487
00 22
489
00
96
00 05
490
00 55
00
491
496
00
91
02
53
495
00
00
494
02 13
00
20
493
00 00
59
530
00 02
00 01 91
529
00 02 80
528
51
02
527
00
00 24
00
526
10 50
00
525
07 88
00
524
00
539
16
00
08 51
00
523
03
00
56
1822
काण्डबिन्धा
68
00 03
1826
45
01
00
1825
00 02 73
1827
84
1824
42
1829
00 02
00
42
02
1841
00 02 24
1842
00 03 48
1843
17
1840
00 00 24
1844
1839
00 01
30
1837
00 01 13 GI/2010-6
42
00
00
1834
00 08 09
1836
5338
00 10
00
03 78 5337
00
00
00 19 5339
ΟΙ
00
55
1874
00 02 63
1875
05 41
00
1879
00 00 80
1881
04 80
1882
00
1883
00 03 55
00 00 82
5728
89
5729
00 03
00 00 61
5312
76
00 03
1955
00 18
00
1961
00
33
1954
03
00 00 88
1949
00 01 90
1953
00
02 34
1950
00 00 10
1948
00 03 47
1952
03 65
1951
00
00 00 67
1965
22
00 02
5678
00 00 86
1931
29
04
2517
00
00
01 64
2518
62
00
00
2519
00 01 08
2520
00 06 36
2522
00
2523
00 21
00 71
2498
00
00 03 23
2496
2497
00 02 10
00 10
00
2486
00
00 86
2487
52
00
00
2495
02 77
2488
00
00 13
00
2494
00 01 10
2489
00
62
2490
10
2492
00
00 20
5786
00 71
00
2491
46
00
2469
00
03 21
2468
00 340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010 /PAUSA 26 , 1931
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
2447
00
01 काण्डबिन्धा ( जारी )
19
2467
00
21
01
2466
00 02 10
2534
00
14
03
2663
00
00 66
2464
00
42
02
2465
00 01 21
2721
00
58
00
00
00
2722
40
2723
00 00 20
2463
00
00 48
2724
00 04 23
2228
00 01 43
00
2727
01 98
2726
90
00
2729
03 83
2730
01
00
03
2731
00 02 37
2710
72
2709
00
57
02
2732
90
2734
00
00 28
2745
00
02 08
2749
00
01 01
2750
00 00 42
2762
00
00 34
2748
00
00 16
2801
58
00 02
2800
00
31
02
2802
23
2799
00 02 75
2798
00 01 08
2796
00 01 12
2784
00
10
00
2797
28
00
2795
01 62
2811
00 00 61
2794
00 01 62
2793
00 01 10
2812
10
00
00
2818
00
12 45
2828
00 04 07
2829
00 00 88
2833
43
00 05
2836
00
00 51
2835
50
5548
00
01 26
2834
00
05 22
2855
29
00 01
5722
00
02 13
PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] (1)
(3)
(2)
(4) (5)
00 01 31
5721
काण्डबिन्धा ( जारी )
5723
00
00 59
2846
00 02 50
2845
00 01 38
2842
00
00 64
2843
00 05 06
00
2844
02 41
3294
00 01 21
3295
00
06
08
3296
00
03 92
3538
00 01 65
5357
00 02 45
3549
00
00 10
00
3548
04 17
5356
00 00 59
00
3539
06 51
3540
00
00 52
5550
00 01 18
5551
002 01 62
3512
00 01 66
00
5552
02 03
3510
00 01 00
00
00
3513
10
3509
00 03 81
3508
89
00
15
3504
00
00 46
3505
00
02 99
3507
00 05 82
3497
00
76
01
3551
00 08 53
3588
00 00 18
5997
94
00
00
3593
00 01 60
3594
00
01 41
3595
00
02 01
3604
00
02 21
3603
00
00 70
00
3605
02 36
3602
00
00 10
3606
00 03 40
3607
00 01 65
3608
00
01 04
3669
00
20
01
3656
00
81
00
10
3609
00
00
3610
00
01 31
00
3657
00 48
00
3658
22
00
3655
00
03 23
(X)
00 37
3611 341
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
(5)
(3) (4)
(2)
(5)
(1)
(2)
(3) (4)
(1)
00 20
00
4233
10
00 00
कान्डबिघा (जारी )
3613
काण्डबिन्धा (जारी)
43
00 01
4231
00
04
3612
01
00
08 13
4227
00 22
3621
00
58
4230
00 03
64
3654
00 03
06 56
00
4229
96
3622
00 03
00
00 65
4228
00 00 48
3624
07
00
11
4240
58
3623
03
00
15
00
4245
04
00 10
00
3642
4246
00 08 86 00
09 75
3643
00
02 09
4247
01 69
00
3647
4263
00
00 35
00 42
00
3644
00
00 06
4254
62
00 01
3645
00
02 74
4248
09
3646
00 01
00
02 09
4250
00 07 43
3745
00
02 26
4251
00 63
3746
00
08 49
4252 00
00 02 86
3744
00
18
01
4253
00 57
5238
00
40
03
2882
00
5237
00 03 85
बलरामपुर
00
01 49
3728
2811
00
12 61
00 66
3742
00
00 15 08
2812
79
00 02
6029
00 09 03
2813
72
47 00 00
00
2862
3727
03
00 23
00
3725
00 06 80
2863
03 68
82 00
2861
09 3790
00
03 56
00
2865
00 00 78 3791
00
07 03
05 25
2866
3722
00
53
04
00 62 5605
00
00
2857
05 86
5604
00
39 06
00
2868
00 01 11
00
54 3799
13
2870
74
00
00
5608
02
02 27
2878
00 10
5603
00
00
07 16
2877
62
00
5609
07 03
2876
03
00
02
00
09 15 3838
2875
(0)
3563
00
00 20
08 20
2874
00
00
3858
20 76
09 00
2873
05 00 00 13
00
27 3847
2872
00 50 97
3846
20 21
00
2880
10
00
00
4196
00
05 41
2904
00
12 34
4197
(X)
28
2905
34
4200
00 06
68
00 35
2909
47
00 01
4199
06 37
00
2910
00 06 08
4198
00
1 55
2911
63
00 01
4181
15
96
00
2912
00 08 79
4210
00
26 70
2937
14 31
00
4211
00
13
13
2934
08 26
00
4212
00 06 32
2932
4235
00 08 50
4234
00 02 27
[सं. आर-25011/24/2009-ओ.आर. ।
45
00 01
4232
बी. के . दत्ता , अवर सविच 342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010 /PAUSA 26 , 1931
PART 11 SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) New Delhi , the 11th January, 2010
871
35
00
Korehigadia-Contd.
02
646
00
03 67
645
00
00 99
644
00
08 86
651
00
01
76
642
00
07
57 S. O. 162. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the Public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh ) & Ranchi ( Jharkhand) , "Paradip - New Sambalpur - Raipur Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
00
641
04 05
638
00
02 49
632
00
06
25
00
635
05
57 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 described in the schedule annexed to this notification;
634
00
01
24
421
00
92
05
636
00
00 19
422
00
22
01 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
423
00
01
06
424
00
06 15
00
1100
00
10
427
00
02 33
425
00
00 25
426
00
01
10
419
00
01
90
418
00
01
12
430
00
01 76 Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan, Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip -New Sambalpur - Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline Project , 1295 , Forest Park , Bhubaneswar- 751 009 , ( Orissa) .
1065
00
34
14
145
SCHEDULE
00
05 78
146
00
00 Tehsil: ODAPADA District : DHENKANAL State: ORISSA
40
144
00
03- 41 PlotNo.
Area
Name of the Village
00
00
143
01 Hectare Are Sq.mtr .
142
00
02 53
00
138
4
2
55
3
11
5
134
00
00 91 1048
00
04 97
Korehigadia
133
00
37
04
00
832
04
34
1049
00
03 05 1046
00
00 31
Palasudha
385
02 833
95 00
00 90
00
441
00
831
05
94
00
10 830
63
337
00
01
00
00 10
00
00
835
56
336
00
05 33 836
00
02 60
335
00
03 38 846
00
03 52
442
00
02 93 00
844
05 87
316
00
01 27 843
00
03 56
00
393
00
22 00
842
00 29
314
00
00 10 858
00
32
00
00
306
02 45 00
861
04
12
307
00
04 30 862
00
00
96
312
00 42 860
00
04 09
308
00
13 69 868
00
00
55
00
310
00 10 867
00
05 93
309
00
03 72 00
866
01
57
251
00
01 88 00
870
03
39 343
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(1)
(5)
(3) (4)
(2)
(1)
INDIPUR - Contd
10
00
246
00
Palasudha Contd.
64
250
00
01
46
00
00
252
16
00
00
249
34
00
11
253
10
00
00
260
03 87
254
00
82
00
00
258
20
00
01
392
28
02
00
256
09
03
204
00
00
10
00
209
84
02
205
00
00 54
00
206
96
00
00
202
03 15
00
207
00 39
00
199
68
03
00
201
13
00
00
160
05
00
02
200
31
02
163
00
00
00
20
192
02 59
00
164
00 10
00
162
87
00
00
166
76
00
00
165
01 21
00
167
20
00
00
179
00 22
00
168
76
03
00
178
54
177
00
02
09
00
02
182
73
00
01
397
00 10
00
175
00 92
00
183
92
08
00
184
00
02 43
4331
INDIPUR
20
00
00
2515
04 80
00
4332
52
02
00
2407
32
01
00
2405
00
00
02
4328
10
00
2512 00
35
00
2419
02
10
00
00
2420
55
13
00
2418
05
12
00
2421
10
00
00
2422
(5)
(3) (4)
(2)
53
01
00
2426
00 00
02
2427
35 2439
00 04
02 43
00
2434
45
01
00
2433
03 21 4447
00
04
00
86 2463
03
00
61 2435
10
00
00
2462
42
05
(X)
2442
07
00
36 2441
87
00
01
2377
48
00
01
1153
02 36
00
1154
00
02 06 4236
03 34
00
1155
07 44
00
1160
00
00
1161
40
78
03
00
1159
21
00
06
1175
06 36
00
4047
48
01
00
1217
84
00
06
1218
00
00
1219
40
60
00
00
4302
10
00
4301
00
00
00
06
1220
02 42
00
1221
01 37 1222
00
63
00
07
1224
12 4205
01
00
21
00
00
1231
86
00
1223
79
02
1232
00
19
00
1236
00
04 92
00
1235
24
00
00
1234
00
00 38 1266
55
00
04
1265
02
00
02
4435
51
04
00
1268
10
00
00
1267
00
00
1269
30
80
00
00
1284
00
25
00
1270
02
00
1283
40
00 95
00
1285
12
00
02
1282 344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 16, 2010/PAUSA 26, 1931
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
(1) .
1286
00
04
INDIPUR -Contd.
21
NUNI
1330 00
48
00
1331
00
03 46
1329
00
05 27
1328
00
00 52
03
1336 00
70
1340
00
00
10
1339
00
25
05
00
1338
00 94
1386
00
02 39
124
00
00
75
00
1387
02 02
1367
00
00 46
125
00
00
47
4233
00
00
10
123
00
01 61
122
00
00 20
00
120
00
26
126
00
00 60
119
00
06
17
135
00
00
40
00
121
00 10
4417
00
00 55
118
00
03 20
4429
00
00
72
4209
00
02 54
137
00
00
75
84
00
04 87
83
00
02 12
82
00
71
05
22
00
00
43
24
00
04 25
23
00
00 10
74
03
00
90
25
00
04 48
34
00
31
02
33
00
50
00
35
00
03 63
00
39
01 03
36
00
01
01
38
00
34
09
37
00
00 10
00
12
14 73
13
00
00 20
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] (2)
(3) (4) (5) 82
00
00
53 81
00
00
10 83
00
05
15 86
00
00 94 85
00
02 59 84
00
01 41 92
00
03
93
00
01
11 100
00
01 37 96
00
44
00
99
00
01
72 97
00
00
10 98
00
02 09 109
00
01 66 108
00
00
87 110
00
00
79 111
00
00
10 107
00
01 97 112
00
05 TI
00
113
01
71 116
00
00
10 114
00
01
11 115
00
01
80 133
00
00
10 132
00
15
04
131
00
02 42 00
129
00
10 130
00
00
70 134
00
00
10 135
00
05
17 125
00
00 66 00
139
01
13 00
00
138
79 140
00
02 06 141
00
00 10 148
00
02 92 00
142
이
21 144
00
02 53 00
1121
01 49 00
146
00
39 145
00
02
155
00
03 89 157
00
85
01
156
00
01
48 345
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(5)
(3) (4)
(2)
(1).
(5)
(3) (4)
(2)
(1)
00 17
167
00
00 84
324
00
BEDA-Contd.
NUNI-Contd.
19
05
02
168
00
02
00
294
01
11
00 48
00
00
1131
333
00 48
01
00
63 164
00
289
00
41
25
01 252
00
00.
293
02
17
01 00
02
00
169
290
31
20 00
02
01 170
00
291
58
00
02
00 33 250
00
292
59
32
01
171
00
01 00
283
02 02
87
00
02 249
00
284
00
99 00
10
248
00
01
285
14
71 247
00
00
00
00
387
83
23 187
00
00
00
01
385
33
46 00
01
00 185
00
388
01
62
33 00
00
01
389
186
00
19
76
01 00
00
188
391
02 31
10 00
00
00
192
393
31
79
00
01 00
00
191
392
01 89
00
02 216
00
399
02
08
21
02
217
00
00
01
400
98
00
213
00
00
00. 21
401
00
10
78 00
02
00
206
402
00
69
87
00
01 207
421
28
16
02
01 208
00
422
00
43
00
02 00 00
01
212
423
00
02 02
00
29 00
211
424
41
00
10 00
209
00
00
461
01
62
02 210
00
00
460
03
82
00
00
70
00
01
459
220
10
00
84 1473
00
00
00
463
DENGABOREI
93
1472
02
00
01
10 00
458
00
33
17
02
01 1469
464
00
32
00
00
00 93 1468
478
00
00
56
00 00
34 1471
477
00
00
02 02
06
00
53 1470
479
01
91
02
00 1467
00
00
574
73
26 00
03
03
00
480
1461
94
00
01
573
10
00
00
1460
50
00
02
572
45
05
328
00
BEDA
00
10
486
00
99
02
00
327
18
01
485
00
17
00
01
321
10
12
00
484
40
00
02
727
00 66
00
487
82
00
01
325
00
489
00
14
728
00 346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) Beda Contd.
490
00
05 96
491
00
00 55
496
00
02 91
495
00
00 53
494
00
02 13
493
00
00
20
530
00
02 59
529
00
01 91
528
00
02 80
527
00
51
02
526
00
00 24
525
00
10 50
524
00
88
07
539
00
00
16
523
00
08 51 Kandabindha
1822
00
56
03
1826
00
03 68
1825
00
45
01
1827
00
02 73
1824
00
00 84
1829
00
42
02
1841
00
42
02
00
02 24
1842
Kandabindha ( Contd. )
1843
00
03 48
1840
00
00
17
1844
00
00
24
1839
00
01
1837
00
01 30
1838
00
08 37
1834
00
00 42
1836
00
08 09
5338
00
00
10
5337
00
78
03
5339
00
00
19
1874
00
01 55
00
1875
02 63
00
1879
05 41
1881
00
00
80
1882
00
04 80
1883
00
03 55
5728
00
00 82
5729
00
03 89
5312
00 61
00
1955
00
76
03
[ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (2)
(1)
(3) (4) (5)
00
Kandabindha ( Contd. )
00 18
1961
1954
00
03 33
1949
00
00 88 1953
00
01
90 1950
00
02 34 1948
00
00
10
00
1952
03
47 1951
00
03 65 1965
00
00
67
00
5678
02 22 1931
(00
00 86 2517
00
04 29 2518
00
01 64
00
2519
00
62 2520
00
01
08 2522
00
06 36 2523
00
00
21
00
2498
00
71 2496
00.
03
23 2497
00
02 10 2486
00
00
10 2487
00
00
86 2495
(0)
00
52 2488
00
02 77 2494
00
00
13 2489
00
10
01
2490
00
01
62 2492
00
10
00
5786
00
20 2491
00
00
71 2469
(X)
00 46 2468
00
03 21 2447
(X)
01
19 2467
01
21 2466
00
02
10 2534
00
03
14 2663
(X)
00 66 2464
00
02 42 2465
00
01
21
00
2721
00
58 2722
00
00
40
00
2723
00
20
00
2463
00
48 2724
23
04 347
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(1)
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
43
01
00
Kandabindha (Contd. )
2228
Kandabindha ( Contd . )
98
01
00
2727
90
00
00
2726
83
03
00
2729
03
00
01
2730
37
02
00
2731
00 72
00
2710
57
02
00
2709
90
00
00
2732
28
00
00
2734
08
00
02
2745
01
01
00
2749
42
00
00
2750
34
00
00
2762
16
00
00
2748
58
02
00
2801
31
02
00
2800
23
00
00
2802
-75
02
00
2799
08
01
00
2798
12
01
00
2796
10
00
00
2784
28
00
2797 00
62
01
00
2795
61
00
00
2811
62
01
00
2794
10
01
00
2793
10
00
00
2812
45
12
00
2818
07
04
00
2828
00 88
00
2829
05 43
00
2833
51
00
2836 00
00 50
00
2835
26
00
01
5548
22
05
00
2834
29
01
00
2855
13
02
00
5722
31
01
00
5721
59
00
00
5723
50
02
00
2846
38
00
01
2845
64
00
00
2842
06
05
00
2843
13 G / 2010-7
(5)
(4)
(2)
(3)
41
02
00
2844
21
01
00
3294
06
08
00
3295
92
03
00
3296
65
01
00
3538
45
02
00
5357
10
00
00
3549
17
04
00
3548
59
00
00
5356
51
06
00
3539
52
00
00
3540
18
01
00
5550
62
01
00
5551
66
01
00
3512
03
02
00
5552
১
00
01
00
3510
10
00
00
3513
81
03
00
3509
89
15
00
3508
46
00
00
3504
99
02
00
3505
82
00
05
3507
00
01 76 3497
53
08
00
3551
00 18
00
3588
94
00
00
5997
60
01
00
3593
41
01
00
3594
01
02
00
3595
21
02
00
3604
70
00
00
3603
36
02
00
3605
10
00
00
3602
03 40
00
3606
65
01
00
3607
04
01
00
3608
20
01
00
3669
81
00
00
3656
10
00
00
3609
31
이
00
3610
48
00
00
3657
22
00
00
3658
23
03
00
3655
37
00
00
3611 348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 16, 2010 / PAUSA 26 , 1931
(1)
(2) (3 ) (4) (5)
00
Kandabindha (Contd.)
00
3613
10
3612
00
01
04
3621
00
00
22
3654
00
03 64
3622
00
03 96
3624
00
00 48
3623
00
03 58
3642
00
00 10
3643
00
09 75
3647
00
01 69
3644
00
00 42
3645
00
01
62
3646
00
01 09
3745
00
07 43
3746
00
00 63
3744
00
02 86
5238
00
00 57
5237
00
03 85
[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] (1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(4)
00
Kandabindha ( Contd)
01
4232
45
4233
00
00 20
4231
00
01 43
4227
00
08 13
4230
00
03
58
4229 00
06 56
4228
00
00
65
4240
00
07
4245
00
04
15
4246
00
08 86
4247
00
02 09
4263
00
00 35
4254
00
06 00
4248
00
02
74
4250
00
02 09
4251
00
02 26
4252
00
08 49
4253
00
01
18
00
2882
Balarampur
3728
00
01
49
3742
00
00
66
6029
00
79
02
3727
00
00
72
3725
00
00 23
3790
00
03 68
3791
00
03 56
00
3722
07 03
5605
00
04
53
5604
00
05 86
3799
00
01 11
5608
00
02
74
5603
00
00
10
5609
00
00 62
3838
00
02 03
3563
00
00 20
3858
00
76
20
3847
00
00 13
3846
00
50 97
4196
00
00
10
4197
00
12 34
4200
00
06
34
4199
00
01 47
4198
00
06 08
4181
00
01 63
4210
00
08
79
4211
00
14 31
4212
00
08 26
4235
00
08 50
4234
00
27
02
03 40
2811
00
12 61
2812
00
15 08
2813
00
09 03
2862
00
03
47
2863
00
06 80
2861
00
09 82
2865
00
00
78
2866
00
05 25
00
2857
00
62
2868
00
06
39
2870
00
13
54
2878
00
02 27
2877
00
07
16
2876
00
07 03
2875
00
09
15
2874
00
08 20
2873
00
09 00
2872
00
05 27
2880
00
20 21
2904
00
05 41
2905
00
04 28
2909
00
35 68
2910
00
03 37
2911
00
01 55
2912
00
15 96
2937
00
26 70
00
2934
13 13
2932
00
06 32
[No. R- 25011 /24/2009 -OR - 1 ]
B. K. DATTA, Under Secy .
349 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
(2)
(3)
(5)
(1)
(4) नई दिल्ली , 11 जनवरी , 2010
देपडा
00
1173
00
23
00
04
77
1138
00
08
30
1115
00
12
45
1114
का.आ. 163. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा ) से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप- नया सम्बलपुर-रायपुर-राँची पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
97
1113
00
02
00
00
24
1124
1126
00
00
10
00
64
09
1112
1093
00
04
38 और, केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि, जिसके नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
1094
00
08
11
00
1095
75
00
00
02
1101
38
00
07
58
1096
00
1097
01
35 अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
82
00
00
1098
00
00
17
1099
00
04
37
1088
00
2591
15
माणिपुर
2590
00
04 36
00
1903
07
39
2706
00
05
03
2586
00
07
32
07
00
1910
02 कोई 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 बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पारादीप - नया सम्बलपुर - रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क , भुवनेश्वर- 751009 ( उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
35
2707
00
02 अनुसूची
2585
00
00
10 तहसील-डेन्कानाल
जिला-डेन्कानाल राज्य- उड़ीसा
1912
00
92
17 गाँव का नाम
00
क्षेत्रफल
1926
02
18 प्लाट नं. हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर
00
2797
56
03
1925
00
08
22 (2)
(1)
(3) (4) (5)
00
1927
10
00 1237
00
02
देपडा
95
00
45
1924
02 00
20
1191
02
00
05
1935
83 1190
00
00
17
00
06
00
1936
00
1188
07
45
19
04
00
1937
1187
54
02
00
00
00
84
1941
1186
00
88
02
00
66
1940
02
14
00
00
1185
32
00
1939
03 00
00
15
1183
00
01
1942
33 1184
07
00
78
00
02 53
1734
00
1212
04
04
00
01
1735
51 1178
00
62
02
00
06
11
1733
01
1177
00
31
00
04
17
1731
00
23 00
36
2721
01 1176
06 350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] (1)
(2)
(3) (4)
(3)
(5)
(1)
(2)
(4) (5) 1730
00
03
27
1150
00
मणिपुर (जारी)
05
64
मणिपुर (जारी)
00
1729
48
03
00
1149
71
00 1741
00
00
31
1144
00
05
81
00
1727
00
10
1166
00
00
20 1742
00
15
11
00
1143
01
65 1744
00
03
86
00
04
1142
20
00
1745
00
10
00
01
52
1141
1743
00
01
02
1140
00
00
10
00
04
1675
13
2807
00
82
04 1677
00
00
10
1134
00
02 14 1676
00
72
01
15
1126
00
05 1680
00
04
28
1132
00
02
85 1673
00
04
94
00
00
1131
20 1672
00
64
07
1128
00
00
20 1683
00
00
10
00
1127
03 21 2826
00
04
31
06
1121
00
06 1505
78
04
.00
00
00
2726
20
00
1492
25
08
00
04
42
2672
1504
00
10
00
00
1009
09
13 1503
07
00
74
21
1008
00
03
00
04
1502
96
1007
00
16
67
35
1501
00
03
982
00
01
89
85
1511
00
00
00
14
981
13
05
1510
00
32
00
975
04
54
00
1512
00
65
976
00
66
05
04
1513
00
11
00
00
30
977
1514
00-
08
63
16
974
00
29 1516
00
00
90
918
00
05
22 1515
00
26
07
00
20
920
00 1517
00
61
03
00
919
00
80 1543
00
02
48
916
00
05
62
00
00
1385
10
2875
00
05 66 1384
00
06
88
2874
00
02
68 1383
00
02
11
915
00
05
35 1382
00
00
10
2734
00
02
99
पातराभाग
1372
00
00
42
00
2733
09
78
00
1373
00
10
2732
00
05
09 1381
00
03
44
57
3020
00
01 1377
00
01
73
(0
3022
04
76
00
1376
02 02
2740
00
03 01 1152
00
02
58
2741
00
00
000
10 1156
10
00.
00
2704
03
00
1154
02
23
89
04
00
00
00 1153
05
2743
10
00
2703
05 04
00
1155
26 351
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[भा II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(1)
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
70
पातराभाग (जारी)
11
00
2702
पातरभाग (जी)
64
04
00
2700
10
00
00
2699
06
94
00
2698
81
04
2696
00
27
00
08
2692
45
00
13
2691
76
00
01
2685
00
75
00
2634
74
02
00
2635
50
00
00
2637
23
00
02
2636
00
10
00
2625
97
01
00
2624
11
00
00
2638
05
51
00
2622
2
47
03
00
2623
21
10
00
00
2621
53
00
01
2650
10
67
02
00
2649
12
00
00
2651
59
00
01
2662
00
02
00
2648
55
01
00
2663
13
04
00
2664
35
03
00
2665
39
00
00
2660
45
03
00
2807
00
10
00
2666
41
00
09
2659
02
02
00
2658
13
03
00
2506
04
00
01
2505
41
07
00
2502
93
06
00
2501
34
00
00
2500
08
10
00
2499
24
02
00
2496
31
03
00
2491
70
04
00
2495
02 20
00
2492
06
15
00
2493
14
77
00
2484
00
13
00
2482
85
00
02
1998
28
00
02
1914
(5)
(3) (4)
(2)
75
00
03
1986
20
00
00
1915
10
03
00
1916
62
11
00
1985
91
00
02
1917
37
00
01
1921
53
00
03
1919
52
00
02
1920
68
00
14
1908
87
02
00
1881
06
02
00
1882
44
00
06
1880
06
00
11
1883
12
00
13
1876
85
24
00
1875
06
01
00
1843
49
00
04
1842
12
03
00
1841
04
80
00
1844
09
00
02
1839
28
01
00
1840
25
00
00
2837
00
36
00
1768
08
59
00
1760
12
04
00
1766
03
11
00
1765
46
00
00
1633
26
00
03
1764
20
00
01
1763
06
34
00
1636
17
00
06
1637
27
00
06
1638
00
01 40 1639
05
05
00
1640
00
00
10 1642
02
00
01
1641
87
00
02
1647
13
00
01
1646
00
03
00
1645
00
33
00
1644
01
82
00
2885
68
03
00
1658
00
33
00
1660
76
03
00
1659
92
00
00
2818 352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] (1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) 2817
पातराभाग (जारी )
00
00
74
2903
00
पातराभाग (जारी )
02 61 1614
00
01
72
1236
00
01
01 1661
00
01
76
00
2910
05
72 1601
00
01
30
1219
00
02
27 1602
00
01
10
1221
00
03
43 1600
00
09
61
1222
00
04
60 1599
00
00
95
1196
00
00
15 1585
00
01
53
1192
00
01
20 1584
00
08
00
1193
00
이
40 1583
00
00
62
1195
00
02
47 1564
00
00
29
1190
00
00
10 1582
00
00
16
1194
00
06
58 2902
00
06
71
1186
00
03
87 1588
00
04
48
1200
00
01
94 1589
00
00
31
1201
00
00
10 1565
00
00
52
1184
00
03
23 1566
00
00
15
1185
00
03
20 1567
00
00
10
1183
00
00
10 1570
00
08
64
1164
00
00
79 1569
00
01
20
1162
00
01
45 1568
00
04
60
1161
00
06 36 1558
00
00
95
2858
00
00
10 1557
00
00
10
2892
00
02 40 1550
00
00
99
2891
00
01
87 1551
00
10
81
1160
00
01
05 1528
00
00
60
2890
00
03 40 1522
00
06
65
1151
00
08
39 1523
00
06
40
00
1316
02
78 1524
00
05
68
2866
00
03
48 1525
00
06
31
1148
00
00
10 1282
00
06
76
1147
00
05 68 1283
00
05
84
2889
00
01
70 1298
00
09
54
1320
00
01
92 1280
00
00
90
1308
00
00
70 1279
00
00
90
1307
00
06
70 1252
00
01
14
2888
00
01
63 1251
00
07
16
1145
00
07
73 1253
00
00
12
00
1146
10 40 1257
00
08
02
2887
00
00
10 1256
00
00
10
1143
00
03
47 2849
00
02
46
1144
00
03
54 1258
00
00
97
कमनिण्ण
816
00
00
53 2819
200
01
18
814
00
03
05 1235
00
03
38
429
00
01
01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
353
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
(2)
(3)
(1 )
(4) (5)
(1)
00
04
42
813
कमनिण्ग (जारी )
सप्तसज्या 812
00
02
72
00
811
03
06
810
26
00
02
809
00
00
10
18
808
00
01
798
10
00
00
799
00
01
09
800
00
36
03
00
801
01
72
802
00
02 21
803
00
02 15
804
00
02
37
805
00
04
36
758
00
00 63
807
00
00
10
434
00
07
86
00
14
435
37
438
00
00
10
13
345
00
03
00
864
05
87
344
00
06
98
00
10
39
322
317
00
11
98
318
04
00
82
00
320
00
22
319
00
05
23
00
305
22
68
304
00
03
31
297
70
00
04
296
00
04
63
274
00
54
10
273
00
12
47
898
09
00
51
07
897
00
91
07
00
896
38
258
00
13 93
250
01
00
31
256
00
07
33
17
00
251
15
252
00
71
12
242
00
41
26
243
00
03 62
916
00
02 92
(3)
(2)
(5)
00
1495
04
71 1496
00
10
07
00
1497
03
28
00
03
21 1498
1499
00
02
99 1500
47
00
02
00
1441
00
79 1638
00
05
43 1440
06
48
00
00
1419
05
10 1416
00
04
83 1413
00
05
37 1412
00
82
02
1423
00
17
15 1409
03
51
100
00
1408
02
54
00
05
1407
60 1406
04
00
14
00
09
45 1363
1639
00
04
26 1360
002
71
16
1364
00
00
53 1359
00
05
04 1358
00
05
20
00
1661
03
57 1662
00
06
06 1350
00
04
28 1357
00
00
20 1311
00
04
10
00
04
1312
42
00
1313
01
70 1314
00
07
72 1319
76
00
00
40 1296
00
00
00
1308
10
00
1529
00
01
65 1530
00
01
80 1320
00
02
11 1287
00
00
30 1531
00
01
65 1532
01
00
% 1533
00
90
01
1534
00
04
20 1535
00
01
50 354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
(3)
(5)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(1)
00
71
1536
00
सप्तसज्या (जारी )
[PART II-SEC . ii) ]
(3)
(2)
(4)
T 708
00
05
सप्तसज्या (जारी )
30
00
00
1537
00
00
40
1538
00
03
83
1290
00
01
70
1291
00
60
1292
00
00
10
1272
00
00
05
18
1271
09
1270
00
66
00
04
48
1269
44
1268
00
00
04
1267
16
00
00
1266
01 87
01
1265
00
96
1264
03
00
02
1263
00
01 35
652
10
00
00
10
656
00
00
13
00
657
00
17
660
00
00
18
661
00
00
662
55
00
01
00
29
663
01
01
92
00
664
01
59
665
00
00
20
668
00
24
667
00
00
00
01
38
666
00
686
01
83
मंगलपुर 684
00
00
27
01
60
685
00
00
29
00
683
00
17
687
03
00
16
682
00
681
00
10
00
00
10
680
00
00
21
09
689
54
03
1570
00
07
693
00
02
00
08
69
1543
10
14
1542
00
05
00
82
1541
03
00
1540
52
05
1569
04
00
6 707
00
19
65
709
G
00
710
00
(9
03
712
00
00
713
21
787
00
784
15
00
786
00
02
00
785
00
00
720
56
00
718
07 이 717
00
18
716
00
56 15
00
725
19
00
726
00
02
10
00
03
30
00
04
29
28
00
07 32
00
06
27
00
31
31
11
(0)
13
43 10
00
21
50
00
1621
21
4
03
00
5
00
35
00
84
1
63
00
6
11
50
08 3361
45
00
73
00
13
3358
00
81 972
00
07
00
67 970
01
02
00
971
00
00 969
02
968
01
31
00
00
00
70 961
73 962
00
08
00
964
00
10
00
25
01
963
00
21 951
09
00
00
950
52
00
02
20 952
40 953
00
00
00
07
07 925 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
(1)
(4) (5)
(3)
(2)
(1)
18
00
00
355
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
00
64
03
93
मंगलपुर ( जारी )
927
मंगलपुर (जारी )
65
15
924
00
56
00
00
923
50
00
03
893
43
02
894
00
46
06
00
896
00
10
00
876
44
00
01
897
89
00
02
898
46
02
00
899
12
01
00
875
मजुरि
48
02
874
00
86
01
00
873
88
01
864
00
72
00
09
863
00
15
00
865
86
00
11
859
52
02
00
739
46
00
765
00
10
52
00
757
00
28
00
756
86
00
00
752
91
00
02
758
00
00
10
759
82
07
00
749
07
05
750
00
17
04
00
748
10
00
00
745
00
78
00
746
33
01
00
747
05
00
24 3414
31
00
00
3413
60
00
09
481
70
01
00
520
07
00
06
483
00
00
82 491
01
40 484
00
30
09
00
485
17 487
00
02
40
00
00
488
00
09
92 424
35
01
00
423
92
09
00
91
14
00
90
00
13 GI /2010-8
70
00
10
86
00
05
37 84
82
07
85
00
08
00
05
81
00
00
51 82
17
00
03
3509
09
10
00
3566
07
00
07
76
01
28
00
00
20
32 213
27
00
09
198
00
40
02
197
94
00
01
196
57
00
04
195
00
03
05 190
00
02
02
232
47
00
00
200
00
00
10 201
05
00
03 245
83
00
06
188
72
01
00
189
10
00
08 176
04
02
00
175
03
67
00
174
84
00
03
173
01
75
00
237
73
00
03
111
05
00
01
247
60
00
03
110
00
49
00
229
03
19
00
99
00
96
00
108
94
05
00
100
00
72
00
253
48
00
03
101
00
00
10 102
10
00
00
107
67
00
00
80
97
00
02
79
40
00
76
62
01
00
21
01
00
227
48
00
01
75 356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 /PAUSA 26, 1931
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) 74
00
04
91
मजुरि (जारी )
745
00
76
18
कन्कडाहाड (जारी)
72
00
01
03
687
00
03
32
78
73
00
03
00
688
00
10 62
00
01
00
39
691
29
09 66
00
01
692
00
05
00
47 65
679
00
00
03
13
01
55
610
00
00
00
03 05 64
34
63
678.
00
00
02
56
00
10
677
00
00
40 47
04
00
17
609
46
00
00
00
10
04
87
611
00
05
15 44
00
01
21
618
00
00
31
60
43
00
00
619
00
00
94 45
00
57
02
620
00
03
23 40
00
01
36
676
00
00
10 38
62
00
00
626
00
26
00 39
00
02
31
621
00
03
22 37
00
00
10
625
00
01
00
96
224
00
00
00
00
623
15 32
00
00
89
624
00
09
9% 223
76
00
00
586
00
00
52 00
20
68
02
23
627
00
00 22
00
00
10
00
584
05
38 218
14
00
01
585
00
40
04 13
00
01
98
580
00
00
36 00
12
05
73
00
556
06
81 21
00
01
27
579
00
00
10
66
11
00
00
555
00
15
02 9
00
02 73
557
00
02
23 244
00
02
61
558
00
02
58 8
00 . 03
16
562
(X)
00
10 7
00
70
05
550
00
01
74 6
00
00
10
2004
00
10
00 5
00
06
09
549
15
00
40 4
00
81
03
548
00
70
01 3
00
00
10
547
00
00
45 238
00
03
82
00
128
02
26 2
00
02
52
127
(X)
07 40 1
04
00
29
25
126
00
06 798
कन्कडाहाड
00
00
17
123
00
00
37 749
00
66
01
125
00
13
52 1999
00
00
37
124
00
00
10 750
00
02
10
[सं. आर-25011/25/2009- ओ. आर 11 748
00
05 36
बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव 1998
00
00
57 357
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/ पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2010
00
08
30
1115
Depada-Contd.
45
12
00
1114
97
00
1113
02
00
24
00
1124
00
10
00
1126
S.O. 163. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh ) and Ranchi ( Jharkhand ) , "Paradip -New Sambalpur - Raipur- Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
64
1112
00
09
04
00
38
1093
00
08
11
1094
75
00
00
1095
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 described in the Schedule annexed to this notification.
00
02 38
1101
07
58
00
1096
35
01
00
1097
00
82
00
1098
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962, (50 of 1962 ) the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein .
17
00
00
1099
04
37
00
1088
00
15
2591
Manipur
04
36
00
2590
39
07
00
1903
05
03
00
2706
00
07
32
2586
00
07
02
1910
35
00
02
2707
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan , Competent Authority , Indian OilCorporation Limited, Paradip , New Sambalpur, Raipur , Ranchi Pipeline Project , 1295, Forest Park , Bhubaneswar- 751009 , ( Orissa ) .
00
10
2585
00
SCHEDULE
92
17
1912
00
Tehsil : Dhenkanal District: Dhenkanal State: Orissa
00
18
1926
02 Name ofthe
00
03
56
2797
Plot No.
Area Are
Hectare
Village
08
00
1925
Square Metre
10
00
00
1927
(5)
(2)
(3) (4)
(1)
45
00
02
1924
02
00
95
1237
Depada
05
00
83
1935
20
00
02
1191
00
06
1936
00
17
00
00
1190
04
19
00
1937
45
00
07
1188
84
00
00
1941
54
00
02
1187
00
02
66
1940
88
00
02
1186
00
32
03
1939
14
00
00
1185
01
00
33
1942
00
15
00
1183
53
02
1734
00
07
00
78
1184
00
51
01
1735
00
04
04
1212
11
00
1733
06
62
00
02
1178
17
00
04
1731
00
31
01
1177
01
23
200
2721
36
06
00
1176
27
00
03
1730
48
03
00
1729
23
00
00
1173
31
00
00
1741
04
00
1138 358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
(5)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(4)
(5)
00
00
10
00
81
1144
05 Manipur-Contd. 1727
Manipur-Contd.
1742
00
11
15
1166
00
00
20 00
1744
03
86
00
1143
01
65 00
10
1745
00
1142
00
04
20 00
01
1743
02
00
1141
ΟΙ
52
04
13
1675
1140
00
00
00
10 1677
00
00
10
2807
00
04
82 1676
00
01
72
00
1134
02
14
28
1680
00
04
00
1126
05
15
94
00
04
1673
1132
00
02
85
07
1672
00
64
1131
00
20
00
00
1683
00
10
00
00
1128
20 2826
00
04
31
00
03
21
1127
1505
78
06 00
06
1121
000
04
25
1492
00
08
2726
00
20
00
00
10
1504
00
00
04
42
2672
00
07
74
1009
1503
00
09
13 00
96
04
03 1502
00
21
1008
35
00
00
16
67
03
1007
1501
00
00
85
982
1511
00
01
89
05
32
13 1510
981
00
14 00
00
00
65
00
54 1512
975
04 1513
04
976
00
11
00
66
05 1514
00
08
63
977
00
00
30 1516
00
00
90
974
00
16 29 00
26
918
00
05 1515
07
22
61
1517
00
03
920
20
00
00 00
02
48
919
80
00
00 1543
00
00
916
00
1385
62
10
05
06
00
1384
00
88
2875
05
66 1383
00
02
11
2874
00
02
68
00
00
10
915
00
35 1382
05
42
00
00
00
99
2734
1372
02
Patarabhaga
00
00
10
78
2733
00
09 1373
00
1381
03
44
09
00
05
2732
00
57 1377
00
01
73
01
3020
00
76 1376
00
02 02
3022
04 00
02
2740
1152
58
03 01
00
00
00
00
10
2741
10 1156
00
02
23
00
1154
2704
03
89
04
00
2743
00
1153
05
00
10
05
00
26
1155
00
2703
00
04
64
00
1150
05
70 00
2702
71
00
00
2700
00
04
64 1149 359
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(1)
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
10
00
00
Patarabhaga 2699
Patarabhaga
-Contd.
06 94
2698
00
-Contd.
81
04
2696
00
27
08
00
2692
45
13
00
2691
76
00
01
2685
75
00
00
2634
74
2635
00
02
50
00
00
2637
02
23
2636
00
00
10
2625
00
00
97
01
2624
00
00
11
2638
05
51
00
2622
00
47
03
2623
00
10
00
2621
53
00
01
2650
67
00
02
2649
00
12
2651
00
01
59
00
2662
00
02
00
2648
55
2663
00
01
13
04
00
2664
03
35
00
2665
00
00
39
2660
03
45
2807
00
00
10
2666
00
41
09
00
2659
00
02
02
2658
03
2506
13
00
04
00
01
2505
41
07
00
2502
06
93
00
2501
34
00
00
2500
08
10
2499
00
24
00
02
2496
03
31
00
2491
70
04
00
2495
20
00
02
2492
06
15
2493
00
77
14
00
2484
00
00 13
2482
00
85
02
1998
28
00
02
1914
(5)
(3) (4)
(2)
03
75
00
1986
20
00
00
1915
10
03
1916
00
62
00
11
1985
00
02 91 1917
01
37
00
1921
53
00
03
1919
52
00
02
1920
14
00
68 1908
00
87
02
1881
02
06
00
1882
44
06
00
1880
00
06 1883
11
12
13
00
1876
00
24
85 1875
00
06 01 1843
49
04
00
1842
12
00
03
1841
80
00
04
1844
09
00
02
1839
28
00
01
1840
00
25 2837
00
00
36
00
1768
59
08
00
1760
04
12
00
1766
00
03
11 1765
46
00
00
1633
00
26
03
1764
20
00
01
1763
00
06
34 1636
00
17
06
1637
27
00
06
1638
40
01
00
1639
05
(X)
05
1646
10 1642
00
00
01
02 1641
(0)
87
00
02
1647
00
01
13 1646
00
000
03
1645
00
00
33 1644
82
01
00
2885
68
00
03
1658
00
33 1660
00
76 1659
(X)
03 360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] (1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(5)
(4) 2818
00
00
92
1235
00
Patarabhaga
03 38
Patarabhaga
-Contd.
00
00
74
2817
-Contd.
2903
00
61
02 1614
00
72
01
1236
00
01
01 00
76.
1661
01
2910
00
05
72 00
1601
01
30
1219
00
02
27 1602
00
01
10
1221
00
03
43 1600
00
61
09
1222
00
04
60 00
1599
00
95
00
00
15
1196
1585
00
01
53
1192
00
01
20 1584
00
08
00
00
1193
40 1583
00
00
62
1195
00
47
02 1564
00
00
29
1190
00
00
10 1582
00
00
16
1194
00
06
58 2902
00
06
71
1186
00
05
87 1588
00
04
48
00
1200
01
94 1589
00
00
31
1201
00
00
10 1565
00
52
00
23
1184
00
03 1566
00
00
15
00
1185
03
20 1567
00
00
10
1183
00
10
00 1570
00
08
64
00
1164
00
79 1569
00
01
20
00
1162
45
01 1568
00
04
60
00
36
1161
06 1558
00
00 95
2858
00
00
10 1557
00
00
10
00
2892
02
40 1550
00
00
99
00
2891
01
87 00
81
10
1551
1160
00
01
05 1528
00
00
60
2890
00
03
40 1522
00-
65
06
1151
00
08
39 00
06
1523
1316
40
02
00
78 1524
00
05
68
2866
00
03
48 1525
00
06
31
1148
00
00
10 1282
00
06
76
1147
00
68
05 1283
00
05
84
2889
00
70
01 1298
54
00
09
1320
00
92
01
1280
00
00
90
1308
70
00
00 1279
00
00
90
1307
00
06
70 00
1252
01
14
2888
00
01
63 1251
00
07
16
1145
00
07
73
00
12
1253
00
1146
01
00
40 1257
00
02
08
2887
00
00
10 00
1256
00
10
1143
00
03
47 2849
00
02
46
03
1144
00
54 1258
00
00
97
816
00
00
53
Kamaning
2819
00
01
18
814
00
03
05 361
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(3)
(5)
(4)
(2)
(1)
(4) (5)
(3)
(2)
(1)
04
71
00
1495
01
01
00
Shaptasajya
429
Kamaning-Contd.
10
07
00
1496
42
00
04
813
00
28
03
1497
72
00
02
812
21
00
03
1498
06
03
811
00
02 99
00
1499
26
02
810
00
02
47
00
1500
10
00
00
809
00
79
00
1441
18
00
01
808
00
05
43
1638
00
00
10
798
00
06
48
1440
01
09
00
799
05
00
10
1419
36
800
03
00
04 83
1416
00
72
00
01
801
05
37
00
1413
02
21
00
802-
00
82
02
1412
00
15
803
02
17
15
00
1423
00
02
37
804
00
03
51
1409
04
00
36
805
00
54
02
1408
00
00
63
758
00
60
05
1407
10
00
00
807
04
14
00
1406
00
07
86
434
09
45
00
1363
14
37
435
00
00
04
26
1639
00
00
10
438
16
71
1360
00
13
03
00
345
53
00
00
1364
05
87
00
864
05
04
00
1359
06
98
00
344
05
00
20
1358
39
322
00
10
57
00
03
1661
00
11
98
317
00
06
06
1662
00
04
82
318
00
04
28
1350
22
00
00
320
00
00
20
1357
00
23
05
319
10
04
00
1311
68
00
22
305
04
00
42 00
03
31
1312
304
70
00
00
01
70
13.13
297
04
00
04
63
00
07
72 296
1314
10
54
00
274
00
00
76
1319
47
273
00
12
00
00
40
1296
09
00
51
898
00
10
00
1308
91
00
07
897
65
1529
00
01 00
38
896
07
01
80
00
1530
93
00
13
258
11
00
02
1320
01
00
31
250
00
30
00
1287
07
33
00
256
00
01
65
1531
15
00
17
251
00
01
96
1532
71
252
00
12
90
(X)
01
1533
41
00
26
242
00
04
20
1534
62
03
243
00
01
50
00
1535
92
02
00
916 362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) | (1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
(3)
(2)
(4)
(1)
( 5) 00
00
1536
71
05
708
00
77 Shaptasajya
Shaptasajya
1537
00
00
30
(Contd.)
707
00
19
05
(Contd.)
1538
00
00
40
709
00
66
65 1290
00
03 83
710
53
00
09 1291
00
01
70
712
00
36
03 1292
00
00
60
713
00
21
00 1272
00
10
00
787
00
00
1271
05
18
784
00
15
26 00
1270
09
66
786
00
02
01
48
1269
00
04
785
00
00
83 1268
00
00
44
720
00
87
56 1267
00
04
16
718
00
07
01 1266
00
87
00
717
18
70
01
1265
00
96
716
56
(X)
85 1264
00
02
03
00
00
725
10 1263
00
01
35
726
00
02 40 652
00
00
10
30
00
03
19 656
00
00
29
10
00
04
75 657
00
00
13
28
00
07
32
00
660
00
17
27
00
06 61 661
00
00. 18
00
31
34
31 662
00
01
55
42
11
00
13 663
00
01
29
10
00
21
43 664
00
01
92
1621
00
21
50 665
00
01
4
59
47
00
03 668
00
00
20
5
28
00
35 667
24
00
00
00
1
84
68 00
666
01
38
6
00
50
11 686
00
01
3361
00
45
83
98
Mangalpur
684
00
00
27
3358
00
73
13 685
00
01
60
972
00
81
00 683
00
00
29
970
00
07
67 687
00
03
17
00
971
01
02 682
00
00
16
969
00
02
00 681
00
00
10
968
00
31
01 680
00
00
10
961
00
00
70 689
00
21
09
962
00
08 73 1570
00
54
03
964
00
00
10 693
00
07
02
25
963
(0)
01 1543
00
08
69
951
00
21
09 00
1542
14
10
950
00
00
52 1541
00
05
82
952
00
02
20 1540
00
03
52
953
00
00
40 1569
00
04 05
925
00
07
07 363
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(3)
(5)
(2)
(4) (3)
(5)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(1)
00
93
64
03
00
18
00
927
Mangalpur
10
70 00
65
86
00
15
924
(Contd.)
Mangalpur (Contd.)
00
37
05
84
00
56
923
00
07
00
82
85
893
03
00
50
08
00
05
81
43
00
894
02
00
00
51 00
06
46
82
896
00
03
17 876
00
00
3509
10
09
00
10
3566
01
44
897
00
76
00
07
07 898
00
02
89
28
46
00
02
00
01 899
00
20
32 875
00
01
12
213
Majuri
00
27 00
48
198
09 874
02
00
40 00
01
197
02 873
86
94
00
01 00
01
88
196
864
04
00
57 00
09
72
863
195
05
00
865
00
00
190
03
15
00
02
02
86
232
00
859
11
47
00
00
200
52
739
00
02
00
10
201
00 765
00
00
46
05
00
03 00
10
52
245
757
06
83
188
00
00
756
28
00
01
72
00
752
00
86
189
00
00
10
08
176
00
02
91
758
00
175
00
04
02 00
10
759
67
00
174
03 749
00
07
82
00
03
84 00
07
173
750
05
00
237
00
01
75
17
748
04
73
03
00
111
00
00
10
745
05 746
00
78
247
00
01
00
60
03
00
110
747
01
33
00
00
49
24
229
00
00
05
3414
00
03
19
99
31
00
00
3413
00
00
%
09
60
481
00
108
05
100
00
01
70
00
520
00
00
06
253
00
07
483
48
03 00
00
101
00
491
82
00
00
102
00
01
40
484
10
00
00
107
00
09
485
30
67
00
00 00
17
80
487
02
97
00
00
00
79
02
40
488
00
00
40
09
76
00
92
424
62
00
01 423
00
35
01
21
00
01 00
92
227
91
09
00
48
75
01 00
00
14
90
13 GI /2010-9 364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
[ PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
(1)
(2)
(6) (4) (5) 74
00
04
91
Kankadahada
745
00
18
76 Majuri (Contd.)
72
00
01
03
687
(Contd.)
00
03 32 73
00
03
78
688
00
00
10 62
00
01
39
691
00
09
29 66
00
01
00
692
05
00
47 65
00
03
13
679
00
55
01 64
00
00
34
610
00
03
05 63
00
00
10
678
00
02
56 47
00
04
17
677
00
00
40 46
00
04
87
609
00
00
10 44
00
01
21
611
00
05
15 43
00
00
60
618
00
00
31 45
00
02
57
619
00
00
94 40
00
01
36
620
(X)
23
03 38
00
00
62
676
00
00
10 39
00
02
31
626
00
00
26 37
00
00-
10
621
00
03
22 224
00
00
96
625
00
01
00 32
00
00
89
623
00
00
15 223
00
00
76
624
00
09
% 20
00
02
68
586
00
52 22
00
00
10
627
00
00
23 218
00
01
14
584
00
05 38 13
00
01
98
585
00
04
40 12
00
05
73
580
00
00
36 21
00
01
27
556
00
06
81 11
00
00
66
579
00
00
10 9
00
02
73
555
00
02
15 244
00
02
61
557
00
02 23 8
00
03
16
558
00
02
58 7
00
05
70
562
00
00
10 6
00
00
10
550
00
01
74 5
00
06
09
2004
00
00
10 4
00
03
81
549
00
15
40 3
00
00
10
548
00
01
70 238
00
03
82
547
(00
00
45 2
00
02
52
128
00
02
26 1
00
04
29
127
00
07 40 Kankadahada
798
00
00
17
126
00
06
25 749
00
66
01
123
00
00
37 1999
00
00
37
125
(X)
13
52 750
00
02
10
124
00
00
10 748
00
05
36
[No. R- 25011 / 25/2009 -OR- 11 1998
00
00
57
B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010 /पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 11 जनवरी , 2010
365
4 2
3
1
88
0.089
6. घोघड़िया कलां
92
0.069
96
0.06
0.020 338/6
7. अम्बा
29
0.010
8.
देवली कलां
0.471 362/2/2
318
0.053 171/2
0.060
0.067 300
139
0.050
0.095 140
0.120 24/2
9. सावनखेड़ी
0.025 22
10. रानीपुरा
का.आ. 164.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2618 , तारीख 15 सितम्बर , 2008 जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 20 सितम्बर , 2008 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार संस्थापन से मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक कच्चे पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए वाडीनार- बीना पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत ओमान रिफाईनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
1.040 208/1/4
11 .
गोल्याबे
0.060
1/4
12. भोजपुरिया
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 4 दिसम्बर , 2008 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;
0.250 361
13. पाडल्याखेड़ी
0.210 244/3
14.
सिन्दुरिया
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, भारत ओमान रिफाइनरी लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्य : मध्य प्रदेश तहसील : राजगढ़ जिला : राजगढ़
सर्वे नंबर
क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में क्र. सं. ग्राम का नाम
4 2
3
0.020
800
1. खजूरी
0.225
696
0.060
361/4
42
0.035
39/2
0.253 2. तुमड़िया खेड़ी
0.377
327
3. गोरखपुरा
0.020
163
4. किशन पुरिया
391/1
5. पीपल्बे पुरोहित
1.317
391/2
[सं. आर-31015/19/2008- ओआर -11 ]
ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th January , 2010
S.O. 164. Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2618 dated the 15th September, 2008 , 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 ), published in the Gazette of India dated the 20th September , 2008 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of Crude Oil through Vadinar- Bina Crude Pipeline Project from Vadinar in the State of Gujarat to Bina in the State of Madhya Pradesh by Bharat Oman Refineries Limited ;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 4th December , 2008 ;
And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government :
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land, specified in the Schedule , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;
366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 /PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]
बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 16 मार्च , 2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration, in Bharat Oman Refineries Limited, free from all encumbrances .
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोअपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
SCHEDULE
Tehsil: Rajgarh District: Rajgarh State: Madhya Pradesh
S. No. Name ofVillage Survey No. Area in Hectare
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;
1
2
3
4
1.
800
Khajuri
0.020
696
0.225
361/4
0.060
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;
2.
0.035
Tumadiya Khedi 42
39/2
0.253
327
0.377
3. Gorakhpura
4.
163
0.020
KisanPuriya
5.
391/1
Piplabe Purohit
391/2
1.317
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, भारत ओमान रिफाइनरी लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 6.
0.089
Ghoghadiyakalan 88
अनुसूची
92
0.069
तहसील : ब्यावरा
जिला : राजगढ़ ( ब्यावरा )
96
राज्य : मध्य प्रदेश
0.06
7. Amba
338/6
0.020
क्र. सं. ग्राम का नाम सर्वे नंबर
क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में 29
8. Dewali Kalan
0.010
3
1 2
4 362/2/2
0.471
318
0.053
12/2
0,450
1. कनाड़िया खेड़ी
171/2
0.060
2. नापानेरा
181/5
0.200 300
0.067
614/2
0.490 139
0.050
64
3. पीपल्या पेड़त
140
0.100
0.095
9. Savan khedi
24/2
0.120
30/3
0.150
4. देहरी खेड़ा
2/2
0.025
10. Ranipura
319/30
0.230 11. Goliabe
208/1/4
1.040
5.
भूकनी
11/2
0.170 1/4
0.060
12. Bhojpuriya
11/3/1
0.130 361
0.250
13. Padliyakhedi
11/4/1
0.129 244/3
0.210
14. Sinduriya
11/4/2
0.127 [No. R- 31015/19/2008 -OR - II ]
11/4/3
0.126
11/4/5
0.128 A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .
11/4/6
0.129 नई दिल्ली , 11 जनवरी , 2010
30/3
0.253
6. गुलजारपुरा
34/2
0.097
142
0.010
7.
बांकपुरा
158/1
0.010
253/156
0.070
37
0.200
8.
लालपुरा
157
9. बरखेड़ी
0.051
19
0.144
10. भगवानपुरा
[सं. आर-31015/3/2009- ओआर -11 ] का.आ. 165.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 373 , तारीख 5 फरवरी , 2009 जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 14 फरवरी , 2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार संस्थापन से मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक कच्चे पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए वाडीनार - बीना पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत ओमान रिफाईनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन
ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 11th January , 2010
367
4
3
2
11/4/2
0.127
11/4/3
0.126
0.128
11/4/5
0.129
11/4/6
0.253
30/3
6. Guljarpura
34/2
0.097
0.010
142
7. Bankpura
0.010
158/1
0.070
253/156
37
0.200 8. Lalpura
S.O. 165. Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 373 dated the 5th February , 2009, issued under sub - section ( 1) of Section 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 14th February , 2009 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of Crude Oil through Vadinar - Bina Crude Pipeline Project from Vadinar in the State of Gujarat to Bina in the State of Madhya Pradesh by Bharat Onam Refineries Limited;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 16th March , 2009;
And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government ;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land , specified in the Schedule , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;
And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Bharat Onam Refineries Limited,free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Biora District: Rajgarh State: Madhya Pradesh S. No. Name of Village Survey No. Area in Hectare
4
3
1
2
0.450
12/2
1. Kanadiya Khedi
0.200
181/5
2. Napanera
0.490
614/2
64
0.100 3. Pipliya Pedat
30/3
0.150 4. Dehari Kheda
319/30
0.230
11/2
0.170 5. Bhukani
11/3/1
0.130
11/4/1
0.129
157
0.051 9. Barkhedi
19
0.144 10. Bhagwanpura
[No. R- 31015/3 /2009 - OR - IF ]
A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली , 11 जनवरी, 2010
का.आ. 166. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 372 तारीख 5 फरवरी, 2009 जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 14 फरवरी , 2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार संस्थापन से मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक कच्चे पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए वाडीनार- बीना पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत ओमान रिफाईनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 10 मार्च, 2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
अनुसूची
तहसील : सारंगपुर जिला राजगढ़ ( ब्यावरा ) राज्य : मध्यप्रदेश क्र. सं. ग्राम का. नाम सर्वे नंबर
क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में 1 2
4
3
675/2
1 . सेमली लोड़ा
0.061
734
2. निपान्या तुला
0.132
732
0.085
786/3
0.060
786/2
786/1
0.060
795
0.020
796/3
0.023
796/2
0.030
797
0.020
682/3
0.232 3. भ्याना
275/1
0.101
280/1
0.050
280/2
0.050
282/1
0.070
278/1/1
0.300 4. दंदला
482/1
0.030
482/2
0.030 5. शामगी घाटा
525/1
0.180
[PART II S3 (ii) | in the State of Gujarat to Bina in the State of Madhya Pradesh by Bharat Onam refineries Limited:
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 10th March, 2009:
And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government . after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decidedto acquire the right of user therein:
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land , specified in the Schedule , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Bharat Oman Refineries Limited, free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
Tehsil: Sarangpur
385/5
0.540 6. पठारी
328/3
0.015
299/3/1
0.150
180/1
0.018 7. बरखेड़ी खुर्रम
180/2
0.013
329/1
0.014
329/2
0.014
329/3
0.014
329/4
0.014
334/1
0.150
1/5/1
8. खंजरपुर
0.230
1/5/2
0.030
1/5/26
0.015
32/1
9. खजुरिया घाटा
0.090
[सं. आर-31015/2/2009- ओआर -11 ]
District: Rajgarh State:Madhya
Pradesh S.No. Name of Village Survey No. Area in Hectare 1
2
3
4 1. Semliloda
675/
0.061
734
0.132 2. Nipaniyatula
732
0.085
786/3
0.060
786/2
786/1
0.060
795
0.020
796/3
0.023
796/2
0.030
797
0.020
682/3
0.232
275/1
0.101 3. Bhyana
ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 11th January , 2010
280/1
0.050
280/2
0.050
282/1
0.070
278/1/1
0.300
482/1
4.
Daidala
0.030
482/2
0.030
525/1
0.180 5. Samgi Ghata
385/5
0.540 6. Pathari
S.O. 166. Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 372 dated the 5th February , 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) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 14th February , 2009 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of Crude Oil through Vadinar - Bina Crude Pipeline Project from Vadinar
328/3
0.015
299/3/1
0.150 7. Barkheda Khurram 180/1
0.018
180/2
0.013 369
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4 329/1
0.014
0.011
401/2
2. नरखेड़ाताल
329/2
0.014
0.026
3. कस्बासिरोंज
1130
0.014
329/3
[सं. आर-31015/41/2008- ओआर -11 ] 329/4
0.014
0.150
334/1
ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव 1/5/1
0.230
8. Khanjarpur
New Delhi , the 11th January, 2010 1/5/2
0.030
1/5/26
0.015
0.090
9. Khajuriya Ghata 32/1
[No. R-31015/2/2009 - OR - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली , 11 जनवरी , 2010
S.O. 167. Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 137 dated the 20th January , 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) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 24th January, 2009 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of Crude Oil through Vadinar - Bina Crude Pipeline Project from Vadinar in the State ofGujarat to Bina in the State of Madhya Pradesh by Bharat Oman Refineries Limited;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 17th June , 2009;
And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act . submitted report to the Central Government ;
का.आ. 167. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 137 तारीख 20 जनवरी , 2009 जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 24 जनवरी , 2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार संस्थापन से मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक कच्चे पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए वाडीनार - बीना पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत ओमान रिफाईनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the Said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein:
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 17 जून , 2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby decalres that the right of user in the said land , specified in the Schedule , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of thisdeclaration, in Bharat Oman Refineries Limited, free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
Sironj District: Vidisha
Tehsil:
State:Madhya Pradesh
Area in Hectare
S. No. Name of Village Survey No.
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
2
4
1
3
अनुसूची
146
0.816
1. Devi Tori
तहसील : सिरोंज जिला : विदिशा
राज्य : मध्यप्रदेश
401/2
2. Narkhedatal
0.011 सर्वे नंबर
क्र. सं. ग्राम का नाम
क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में
3.
1130
0.026
Kasba Sironj
1
2
3
4
[No. R-31015/41 /2008 - OR - II ] 1. देवीटोरी
0.816
A. GOSWAMI , Under Secv .
146 370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010/PAUSA 26, 1931
[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 11 जनवरी , 2010
का. आ. 168.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 2488 दिनांक 09.09.09, 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 महम जिला रोहतक राज्य हरियाणा की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी,
और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 10.11.2009 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 लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
तहसील : महम
जिला : रोहतक
राज्य : हरियाणा
खसरा/ किला
मुस्ततिल
क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम
हदबस्त संख्या संख्या
हेक्टेयर
संख्या
वर्गमीटर
एयर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5) (6) (7) 1. चान्दी
93
233
16
00
01
77
25/2
00
09
36
224
21
00
12
39
22
00
01
26
229
1
00
01
01
2
00
06
32
3
00
11
38
4
00
00
25 371
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
6
7
8
15
26
11
228
12
17
18/1
18/2
18/3
19
23/1
24
25
21
227
1
252
5
251
(6)
(7) (5)
60
08
00
12
90 00
53 00
02
79
03
00
81
05
00
15
13
00
28
03
00
27
02
00
55
04
00
57
06
00
57
06
00
09
08
00
25
00
00
38 00
11
13
11
00
26
01
00
03
03
00
75
00
00
[फा. सं. आर. - 31015/6/2009 ओ.आर.- II ]
ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव
New Delhi . the 11th January, 2010
S. O. 168. 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. 2488 dated the 9th September, 2009 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Productsfrom Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for implementing the "GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " in Tehsil Maham , District Rohtak, in Haryana State;
And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 10.11.2009.
13 GI/2010-10 372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JANUARY 16 , 2010 PAUSA 26 , 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 thatthe right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is acquired;
And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest from the date of publication of this declaration , in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
State : HARYANA
District : ROHTAK
Tehsil : MAHAM
Area Nameof Village
Mustatil No.
Hectare Are Hadbast No.
Khasra / Killa No.
Square Metre
(7)
(6)
(4)
(5)
(3)
(1)
(2)
77
00
01
233
16
93
1.CHANDI
00
36
09
25/2
12
39
00
21
224
26
00
01
22
00
01
01
1
229
32
00
06
2
11
38
00
3
BB 25
4
00
00
60
00
08
6
90
12
00
7
53
00
02
8
79
15
00
03
0581
26
00 373 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010 /पौष 26, 1931
[भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(6)
(7)
(4)
(5)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
13
15
228
11
03
12
28
00
0227
17
00
00
04
55
18/1
18/2
00
0657
57
18/3
00
06
00
08
09
19
00
25
00
23/1
38
11
24
00
13
11
25
00
26
01
227
00
21
30
03
03
00
252
1
75
00
00
5
251
[F. No. R-31015 / 6 / 2009 - O.R ... II ]
A.GOSWAMI . Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 11 जनवरी , 2010
का. आ. 169.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 2871 दिनांक 15.10.09, 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 से भटिंडा (पंजाब राज्य में ) तक, पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा "जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना रमन मंडी से भटिंडा पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील भटिंडा जिला भटिंडा राज्य पंजाब की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी,
और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 26.11.2009 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 374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 / PAUSA 26 , 1931
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) ]
अनुसूची
तहसील : भटिंडा
जिला : भटिंडा
राज्य : पंजाब
क्षेत्रफल
गाँव का नाम
हदबस्त संख्या
मुस्ततिल संख्या
खसरा/ किला संख्या हेक्टेयर
वर्गमीटर
एयर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) (5)
(7)
(6)
63
1527/1
00
16
1. गहरी देवीनगर
69 57
247
2. कोट समीर
14
09
00
36
17
00
11
13
24
00
10
09
286
4
00
04
04
305
24
00
01
51
344
4
00
04
55
7
00
06
83
14/2
00
56
05
17
00
55
04
24
03
00
03
365
4
00
01
51
14
00
03
54
17
00
00
25 62
00
52
3. कटारसिंह वाला
05
06
119/1
00
01
01
00
119/2/2 00
25
00
119/2/3
02
53
128
00
00
25
130
00
00
25
141/1
00
02
53
141/2
00
09
61
142
00
04
80
176/1/1
00
00
25
177
00
25
55 375 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3( ii) ]
(6)
(7)
(5)
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
26
05
00
179
00
50 ВЛ
00
180
00
08
85
956/182/1
00
06
57
956/182/2
312
00
04
04
96
17
00
351
83
06
354
00
27
32
00
359/3
75
21
360/2
00
00
50
404
00
30
04
00
405
17
45
00
406
05
00
81
478
[फा. सं . आर. - 31015/ 40/2009 . आर. - || ]
ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 11th January , 2010
S. O. 169. 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. 2871 dated the 15th Oct. 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 to Bhatinda in the State of Punjab by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for implementing the " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bhatinda " in Tehsil Bhatinda , District Bhatinda , in Punjab State;
And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 26.11.09.
And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , has submitted his report to the Central Government .
And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is acquired;
And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest from the date of publication of this declaration , in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .
376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010 / PAUSA 26 , 1931
[ Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : BHATINDA
District : BHATINDA
State : PUNJAB
Area
Name of Village
Hadbast No.
Mustatil No.
Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are
Square Metre (2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
(7)
(5)
(6)
63
1. GAHRI DEVINAGAR
1527/1
00
16
69 57
2. KOT SAMIR
247
14
00
09
36
17
00
11
13
24
00
09
10
4
286
04
00
04
305
24
00
51
01
344
4
00
04
55
7
00
06
83
14/2
00
05
56
17
00
04
55
00
24
03
03
365
00
4
01
51
14
00
54
03
17
00
00
25 3. KATARSINGH WALA 62
52
06
00
05
00
01
119/1
01
00
00
25
119/2/2
119/2/3
00
02
53
128
00
00
25
130
00
00
25
141/1
00
02
53
141/2
00
09
61
142
00
04
80
00
176/1/1
00
25
177
00
25
55 377 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
(7)
(6)
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
05
00
26
179
00
50
00
180
85
08
00
956/182/1
57
00
06
956/182/2
04
00
04
312
96
00
17
351
83
00
06
354
27
32
00
359/3
75
21
00
360/2
50
00
00
404
30
405
00
04
17
45
406
00
81
05
00
478
[F. No. R- 31015 / 40 /2009 - O.R. - II ] A.GOSWAMI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 जनवरी , 2010
का. आ. 170.- पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) के नियम 2 (क ) के अन्तर्गत , मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (आर.जी.टी. आई.एल. ) के द्वारा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने हेतु सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कार्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए , भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की, भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 22 जनवरी, 2005 को प्रकाशित, अधिसूचना का 0 आ0 259 दिनांक 18 जनवरी , 2005 द्वारा प्राधिकृत , में , डी. एस . धोत्रे , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियमावली , 1963 के नियम 4 के उप -नियम ( 1 ) के नीचे दी गई व्याख्या ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत अधिकारों के अनुपालन में, मैसर्स आश्जी.टी.आई.एल . , जिसमें यथास्थित, उस क्षेत्र में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार निहित किया गया है और उस क्षेत्र में पाइपलाइन का स्वामित्व निहित है , के परामर्श से, सलंग्न अनुसूची के स्तंभ 4 में महाराष्ट्र राज्य के लातुर और उस्मानावाद जिले में यथा उल्लेखित प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने के प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों की घोषणा करता हूँ । 378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 / PAUSA 26 , 1931
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
अनुसूची
तहसिलः निलंगा
जिला: लातुर
ग्राम का नाम
क्र. स.
1
2
1
1301
नेलवाड
2695 2904(अ) 2
औंढा
1301
2695
2904(अ) 3
1301
हलसी(हतरगा)
2695
2904(अ) तहसिल: उमरगा
राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख
धारा 6 (1 ) की का . आ . संख्या एवं दिनांक
3
4
दिनांक
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
दिनांक
20/09/2007
दिनांक
06/12/2008
दिनांक
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
दिनांक
20/09/2007
दिनांक
06/12/2008
दिनांक
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
20/09/2007
दिनांक
06/12/2008
दिनांक
जिला: उस्मानाबाद
नारंगवाडी
1301
4828 2695 2904(अ) 2
पेठसांगवी
4828
1301 2695 तहसिलः लोहारा
राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
दिनांक
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
11/12/2006
दिनांक
20/09/2007
दिनांक
दिनांक
06/12/2008
दिनांक
08/04/2005
30/09/2007
11/12/2006
दिनांक
20/09/2007
दिनांक
जिला: उस्मानाबाद
1
राजेगांव
1301
4828 2904(अ) 2
1301
चिंचोळीरेवे
2695 2904(अ) 3
भातागळी
1301 2695 2904( अ) 4
कानेगाव
4828
1301 2695
2904(अ) 5
अरनी
1301 4828 2695
2904(अ)
राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
दिनांक
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
11/12/2006
दिनांक
06/12/2008
दिनांक
08/04/2005
दिनांक
15/12/2008
20/09/2007
06/12/2008
दिनांक दिनांक
दिनांक
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
दिनांक
20/09/2007 06/12/2008
दिनांक
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
दिनांक
11/12/2006
दिनांक
दिनांक
20/09/2007
06/12/2008
दिनांक
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
दिनांक
11/12/2006
दिनांक
दिनांक
20/09/2007
06/12/2008
दिनांक
निरंतर... 4 [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2
1
तहसिलः उस्मानाबाद
379
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931-
4
3
जिला: उस्मानाबाद
1301 1
नांदुर्गा
2695 2
महादेववाडी
1301 2695 2904(अ) 3
आनसुर्डा
1301 2695 2904(अ) 4
1301
रूईभर
1301
वडगांव
5
2904(अ) 6
1301
गावसुद
2695
2904(अ)
राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
30/09/2007 08/04/2005
दिनांक
20/09/2007
दिनांक
15/12/2008 08/04/2005
दिनांक
20/09/2007
दिनांक
06/12/2008
दिनांक
15/12/2008 08/04/2005
दिनांक
20/09/2007
दिनांक
06/12/2008
दिनांक
17/05/2007 08/04/2005
दिनांक
15/12/2008 08/04/2005
दिनांक
06/12/2008
दिनांक
15/12/2008 08/04/2005
दिनांक
20/09/2007
दिनांक
06/12/2008
दिनांक
पट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, १ ९ ६२की धारा १७ के अंर्तगत संरचित पट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम , १९ ६३ के नियम ४ के अंर्तगत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र के प्रकाशनार्थ
[फा. मं. एल-14014/ 50/2009 - जी.पी.। स्नेह पी. मदान, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 8th January, 2010
S. O. 170.- In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 in sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules , 1963 , I , D.S. Dhotre , authorised by Government of India , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide Notification S.O. 259 dated 18th January, 2005 (published in the Gazette of India on 22nd January, 2005 ) under Section 2 (a) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) to perform the functions of Competent Authority for laying natural gas pipelines by M/ s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited (RGTIL) in the State of Maharashtra, in consultation with M/ s RGTIL , to whom the Right of User in land in that area has been vested and in whom the ownership of pipeline in that area vests , hereby declare the dates , mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule annexed herewith , as the dates of termination of RoU operation in Districts Latur and Osmanabad in the State of Maharashtra .
13 GI /2010-11 380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 PAUSA 26. 1931
Part 11 Sec . ) Schedule
Tahsil: Nilanga
Village
Sr. No.
1
2
1
Nelwad
1301
2695
2904( E) 2
Aundha
1301
2695
2904( E) 3
1301 Halsi( Hatarga)
2695
2904( E) Tahsil : Umarga
1
1301
Narangwadi
4828
2695
2904( E) 2
1301
Peth.Sangvi
4828
2695 Tahsil: Lohara
1
1301
Rajegaon
4828
2904(E) 2
Chincholi Rebe
1301
2695
2904(E) 3
1301
Bhatagali
2695
2904(E) 4
1301
Kanegaon
4828
2695
2904( E) 5
Arni
1301
4828
2695
2904( E) District: Latur
State: Maharashtra
S.O. No. & Date of Notification Under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6
Date of Termination of Operation 3
4
Date
08/04/2005
15/12/2008 Date
20/09/2007
Date
06/12/2008
Date
08/04/2005
15/12/2008 Date
20/09/2007
Date
06/12/2008
Date
08/04/2005
15/12/2008 Date
20/09/2007
Date
06/12/2008
District: Osmanabad
State: Maharashtra Date
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
Date
11/12/2006
20/09/2007
Date
Date
06/12/2008
Date
08/04/2005
30/09/2007
Date
11/12/2006
Date
20/09/2007
District: Osmanabad
State: Maharashtra Date
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
Date
11/12/2006
Date
06/12/2008
Date
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
Date
20/09/2007
Date
06/12/2008
Date
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
Date
20/09/2007
Date
06/12/2008
Date
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
Date
11/12/2006
Date
20/09/2007
Date
06/12/2008
Date
08/04/2005
15/12/2008
Date
11/12/2006
Date
20/09/2007
Date
06/12/2008
Cont'd... 3 381 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
4
3
2
1
State: Maharashtra
District: Osmanabad
Tahsil : Osmanabad
30/09/2007
08/04/2005
Date
1301
1
Nandurga
20/09/2007
Date
2695
15/12/2008
08/04/2005
Date
1301
Mahadevwadi
2
20/09/2007
Date
2695
06/12/2008
Date
2904(E)
15/12/2008
08/04/2005
Date
1301
Ansurda
3
20/09/2007
Date
2695
06/12/2008
Data
2904(E)
17/05/2007
08/04/2005
Date
1301
Ruibhar
4
15/12/2008
08/04/2005
Date
1301
5
Wadgaon
06/12/2008
Date
2904( E)
15/12/2008
08/04/2005
Date
1301
Gaosud
6
20/09/2007
Date
2695
06/12/2008
Date
2904(E)
To be published under Rule 4 of the P & MP (ARUL)
Rules1963 ,framed under Section 17 of P& MP ( ARUL) Act, 1962 in official Gazette of India .
[F. No. L -14014/50/2009-G.P. ] S.P.MADAN , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 जनवरी , 2010
का. आ. 171. - पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) के नियम 2 (क ) के अन्तर्गत, मैसर्स रिलायन्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (आर.जी.टी.आइ.एल ) के द्वारा गुजरात राज्य में प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने हेतु सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कार्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की, भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 11 मार्च, 2006 को प्रकाशित , अधिसूचना का. आ . 960 दिनांक 07 मार्च, 2006 , द्वारा पदस्थापित, मैं, वी.आइ. गोहिल, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियमावली , 1963 के नियम 4 के उप नियम (1 ) के नीचे दी गई व्याख्या (1 ) के अन्तर्गत अधिकारों के अनुपालन में , मैंसर्स आर.जी.टी.आइ.एल. जिसमें यथास्थित, उस क्षेत्र में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार निहित किया गया है और उस क्षेत्र में पाइपलाइन का स्वामित्व निहित है, के परामर्श से, संलग्न अनुसूचीके स्तम्भ 4 में गुजरात राज्य के वलसाड जिले में यथा उल्लेखित प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने के प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों की घोषणा करता हूं । 382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 /PAUSA 26 , 1931
[Part II--Sec . 3 (ii )]
अनुसूची
तहसील: वलसाड
जिला: वलसाड
राज्य: गुजरात अ.नं.
गाँव का नाम
प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख
का. आ. नंबर और धारा 6 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना कीतारीख
1
2
3
4 नवेरा
1
08.12.2009
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
3073 (अ) 30.11.2009
2
अंजलाव
08.12.2009
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
3073 (अ) 30.11.2009
3
गाडरीया
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
08.12.2009
286 तारीख 01.02.2007
3073(अ) 30.11.2009
4
कांजनहरी
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
08.12.2009
286 तारीख 01.02.2007
3073(अ) 30.11.2009
5
ठक्करवाडा
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
08.42.2009
3073(अ) 30.11.2009
6
कलवाडा
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
08.12.2009
3073(अ) 30.11.2009
7
कोचवाडा
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
08.12.2009
3073 (अ) 30.11.2009
8
फणसवाडा
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
08.12.2009
3073(अ) 30.11.2009
धनोरी
9
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
08.12.2009
286 तारीख 01.02.2007
3073(अ) 30.11.2009
तीघरा
10
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
08.12.2009
3073 (अ) 30.11.2009
गोरगाम
11
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
08.12.2009
3073 (अ) 30.11.2009
383 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
जिला: वलसाड
तहसील: वलसाड
राज्य: गुजरात गाँव का नाम
अ.नं.
प्रचालन समाप्तिकी तारीख
का.आ.नंबर और धारा 6 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना की तारीख
4
3
1
2
08.12.2009 वाघलधरा
1916 तारीख 26.05.2005
12
286 तारीख 01.02.2007
3073(अ) 30.11.2009
[पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 17 के अतर्गत संस्थापित पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) नियम, 1963 के नियम 4 के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में प्रकाशनार्थ।
[फा. सं. एल-14014/ 51/2009- जी.पी. स्नेह पी. मदान, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 8th January, 2010
S. O. 171. In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation (I ) in sub rule ( I) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules , 1963 , I , V.I.Gohil appointed by Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide Notification S.O.960 dated 07th March , 2006 ( Published in the Gazette of India on 11th March ,2006) under Section 2( a) of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) to perform the functions of Competent Authority for laying natural gas pipelines by M / S Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited ( RGTIL) in the State of Gujarat, in consultation with M / S RGTIL, to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been vested and in whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests , hereby declare the dates , mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule annexed herewith , as the dates of termination of RoU operation in District Valsad in the State of Gujarat .
384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) |
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Valsad
District : Valsad
State: Gujarat Sr.No.
Village S.O.No. and Date of Notification under sub- section ( 1) of Section 6
Date ofTermination of Operation
4
3
1
2
Navera
1916 Date.26.05.2005
08.12.2009
1
3073( E) Date.30.11.2009
2
1916 Date.26.05.2005
08.12.2009
Anjlav
3073(E) Date.30.11.2009
1916 Date.26.05.2005
3
08.12.2009
Gadriya
286 Date.01.02.2007
3073 ( E) Date.30.11.2009
1916 Date.26.05.2005
4
08.12.2009
Kanjanhari
286 Date.01.02.2007
3073 (E) Date.30.11.2009
Thakkarwada
5
1916 Date.26.05.2005
08.12.2009
3073( E) Date.30.11.2009
Kalwada
1916 Date.26.05.2005
6
08.12.2009
3073 ( E) Date.30.11.2009
1916 Date.26.05.2005
7
Kochwada
08.12.2009
3073 ( E) Date.30.11.2009
1916 Date.26.05.2005
8 Fanaswada
08.12.2009
3073 (E) Date.30.11.2009
1916 Date.26.05.2005
08.12.2009
Dhanori
9
286 Date.01.02.2007
3073 ( E) Date.30.11.2009
1916 Date.26.05.2005
08.12.2009
10 Tighara
3073 (E) Date.30.11.2009
1916 Date.26.05.2005
08.12.2009
11 Gorgam
3073 (E) Date.30.11.2009
1916 Date.26.05.2005
08.12.2009
12 Waghaldhara
286 Date.01.02.2007
3073( E) Date.30.11.2009
To be published under Rule 4 of the P &MP (ARUL) Rules 1963 , framed under Section 17 of P&MP ( ARUL) Act , 1962 in official Gazette of India]
[F. No. L -14014/51/2009 -G.P. ]
S.P.MADAN , Under Secy.
385 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 8 जनवरी , 2010
का. आ. 172.- पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) के नियम 2 (क ) के अन्तर्गत, मैसर्स रिलायन्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (आर.जी.टी.आइ.एल ) के द्वारा गुजरात राज्य में प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने हेतु सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कार्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की, भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 11 मार्च, 2006 को प्रकाशित , अधिसूचना का.आ. 960 दिनांक 07 मार्च, 2006, द्वारा पदस्थापित, मैं, वी. आइ. गोहिल , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियमावली, 1963 के नियम 4 के उप नियम (1 ) के नीचे दी गई व्याख्या (1 ) के अन्तर्गत अधिकारों के अनुपालन में, मैंसर्स आर.जी.टी.आइ.एल. जिसमें यथास्थित, उस क्षेत्र में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार निहित किया गया है और उस क्षेत्र में पाइपलाइन का स्वामित्व निहित है, के परामर्श से , संलग्न अनुसूची के स्तम्भ 4 में गुजरात राज्य के वलसाड जिले में यथा उल्लेखित प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने के प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों की घोषणा करता हूं ।
अनुसूची
जिला: वलसाड
राज्य: गुजरात तहसील: वलसाड
गाँव का नाम
अ.नं.
प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख
का.आ. नंबर और धारा 6 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना की तारीख
4
3
2
1
30.06.2009 कांजणहरी
1
तारीख 24.06.2009
1569 (अ )
08.12.2009 2
तारीख 24.06.2009
जुजवा
1569 (अ)
तारीख 30.11.2009
3072 (अ)
30.06.2009 अटकपारडी
3
बारीख 24.06.2009
1569 (अ)
[पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 17 के अतर्गत संस्थापित पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में प्रकाशनार्थ]
[फा. सं. एल-14014/51/2009 - जी.पी. ]
स्नेह पी. मदान, अवर सचिव 386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JANUARY 16, 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , the 8th January, 2010
S. O. 172.- In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation (I) in sub rule( I) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules , 1963 , I , V.I.Gohil appointed by Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide Notification S.O.960 dated 07th March ,2006 (Published in the Gazette of India on 11th March ,2006) under Section 2(a) of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) to perform the functions of Competent Authority for laying natural gas pipelines by M / S Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited (RGTIL) in the State of Gujarat, in consultation with M / S RGTIL , to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been vested and in whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests, hereby declare the dates , mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule annexed herewith , as the dates of termination of RoU operation in District Valsad in the State of Gujarat .
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Valsad
District: Valsad
State: Gujarat
Sr.No.
Village S.O.No. and Date of Notification under sub- section ( 1) of Section 6
Date ofTermination of Operation
1
2
3
4
1
Kanjanhari
1569 (E) Date.24.06.2009
30.06.2009
2
1569 ( E) Date.14.06.2009
Jujwa
08.12.2009
3072 ( E) Date.30.11.2009
3
1569 ( E ) Date.24.06.2009
Atakpardi
30.06.2009
[To be published under Rule 4 of the P& MP (ARUL) Rules 1963 , framed under Section 17 of P & MP (ARUL) Act, 1962 in official Gazette of India]
[ F. No. L-14014/51/2009-G.P. ] S.P.MADAN , Under Secy.
387 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931 नई दिल्ली, 8 जनवरी , 2010
का. आ. 173. - पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) के नियम 2 (क ) के अन्तर्गत , मैसर्स रिलायन्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (आर.जी.टी.आइ.एल ) के द्वारा गुजरात राज्य में प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने हेतु सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कार्यो का निर्वहन करने के लिए, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की, भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 11 मार्च, 2006 को प्रकाशित, अधिसूचना का.आ. 960 दिनांक 07 मार्च, 2006 , द्वारा पदस्थापित , मैं, वी.आइ. गोहिल, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियमावली, 1963 के नियम 4 के उप नियम (1 ) के नीचे दी गई व्याख्या (1 ) के अन्तर्गत अधिकारों के अनुपालन में , मैंसर्स आर.जी.टी.आइ.एल. जिसमें यथास्थित, उस क्षेत्र में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार निहित किया गया है और उस क्षेत्र में पाइपलाइन का स्वामित्व निहित है, के परामर्श से, संलग्न अनुसूची के स्तम्भ 4 में गुजरात राज्य के भरुच जिले में यथा उल्लेखित प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने के प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों की घोषणा करता हूं ।
अनुसूची
तहसील: हांसोट
राज्य: गुजरात
जिला: भरचं
प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख गाँव का नाम
अ.नं.
का.आ.नंवर और धारा 6 (1) के अधीन
अधिसूचना की तारीख
4
3
1
2
08.12.2009 गेहीद
1
2064 तारीख 03.06.2005
3074(अ ) तारीख 30.11.2009
08.12.2009 2
वालनेर
2064 तारीख 03.06.2005
3074 (अ) तारीख 30.11.2009
08.12.2009 3
शहेरा
2064 नारीख 03.06.2005 2987 तारीख 31.10.2008
3074 (अ) तारीख 30.11.2009
13 GI/2010-12 388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010 /PAUSA 26, 1931
[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] तहसील: भरुच
जिला: भरुच
राज्य: गुजरात.
अ.नं.
गाँव का नाम
प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख
का.आ.नंवर और धारा 6 (1 ) के अधीन
अधिसूचना कीतारीख
1
2
3
4 1
भाडभुत
08.12.2009 2064 तारीख 03.06.2005 2987 तारीख 31.10.2008 3074(अ) तारीख 30.11.2009
2
चोलाद
08.12.2009 2064 तारीख 03.06.2005 3074(अ) तारीख 30.11.2009
तहसील: वागरा
जिला: भरच
राज्य: गुजरात अ.नं.
गॉव का नाम
प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख
का.आ. नंबर और धारा 6 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना की तारीख
2
1
3
4 1
भेरसम
08.12.2009 2064 तारीख 03.06.2005 3074 (अ) तारीख 30.11.2009
पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 17 के अतर्गत संस्थापित पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार को अर्जन) नियम, 1963 के नियम 4 के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र के प्रकाशनार्थ
[ फा. सं . एल-14014/28/2009-जी.पी. ] स्नेह पी. मदान , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 8th January, 2010
S. O. 173. In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation ( I ) in sub rule ( I ) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Rules , 1963 , I , V.I.Gohil appointed by Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide Notification S.O.960 dated 07th March , 2006 ( Published in the Gazette of India on 11th March ,2006) under Section 2( a) of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) to perform the functions of Competent Authority for laying भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
389 natural gas pipelines by M / S Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited (RGTIL) in the State of Gujarat , in consultation with M / S RGTIL , to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been vested and in whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests , hereby declare the dates , mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule annexed herewith , as the dates of termination of RoU operation in District Bharuch in the State of Gujarat .
SCHEDULE State: Gujarat
District : Bharuch
Tehsil : Hansot
Sr.No.
Village S.O.No. and Date of Notification under sub section (1) of Section 6
3
2
1
Rohid
1
2064 Date.03.06.2005 3074 ( E) Date.30.11.2009 2 Valner
2064 Date.03.06.2005 3074 ( E) Date.30.11.2009
2064 Date.03.06.2005 Shahera
3
2987 Date.31.10.2008
3074 ( E ) Date.30.11.2009 Date of Fermination of Operation
4
08.12.2009
08.12.2009
08.12.2009
State: Gujarat
District: Bharuch
Tehsil : Bharuch
Sr.No.
Village
S.O.No. and Date of Notification under sub- section (1) of Section 6
3
2
1
2064 Date.03.06.2005 Bhadbhut
1
2987 Date 31.10.2008
3074 ( E) Date.30.11.2009
2064 Date.03.06.2005 Cholad
2
3074 ( E) Date.30.11.2009 Date of Termination of Operation
4
08.12.2009
08.12.2009
State:Gujarat
District: Bharuch
Tehsil : Vagra
Sr.No.
Village S.O.No. and Date of Notification under sub- section ( 1) of Section 6
3
2
1
2064 Date.03.06.2005 Bhersam
1
3074( E) Date.30.11.2009 Date of Termination of Operation
4
08.12.2009
To be published under Rule 4 of the P& MP ( ARUL) Rules 1963 , framed under Section 17 of P & MP (ARUL) . Act , 1962 in official Gazette of India [ F. No. L- 14014/28/2009 -G.P. ] S.P.MADAN . Under Secy.
390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 16 , 2010 /PAUSA 26, 1931
PARE 11 -SPC 3 (ii ) ]
Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009
"Whether the action of the management of Lovabad Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL in not regularising Sri Chhota Zamic Mia as pump operator in cat. IV is justified? II not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?" का.आ. 174.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 263/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
2. This reference case was received in this Tribunal on 25-9-2000 . Thereafter, notices were sentto the parties to file writtern statement by the sponsoring union workmen. In spite of notices sent by speed post no written statement has been filed by the workmen till 8-6-09 . It , therefore . appears that neither the concerned workmen nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case.
[सं. एल-20012/100/2000 - आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी
In such circumstances . I render No Dispute Award in this reference case .
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009
H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009
S.O. 174. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 263/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. - 1 Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009.
का.आ. 175. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई.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.। धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 109/1989 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[No. L- 20012/ 100 /2000-1R ( C - 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
[सं. एल-20012/ 78 /88 D- 4 ( A ) आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009 BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, - NO . I, DHANBAD
Inthe matter of reference under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) & 2( A) of Industrial Disputes Act . 1947
Reference No. 263 of2000
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/ s . BCCL
AND
S.O. 175. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 109/1989 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No. - 1 Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Ms. E.C.L and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009.
Their Workmen
Present: Sri H.M.Sri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer
No. 1. - 20012/78/ 88 D - 4 ( A ) -IR ( C - 1) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer : None
For the Employers
ANNEXURE
For the Workmen
: None
State : Jharkhand
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - NO. I , DHANBAD Industry: Coal Dated 4th Dec. 09
AWARD
In the matter of reference under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) & 2 ( A) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947
Reference No. 109 of 1989
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Hariyajam Colliery of Mis . E.C.L. Ltd. By order No. L -20012/ 100 /2000 / IR ( C - I) , Dated 14-9-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1) and sub - section (2A) of section 10 of Industrial [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
AND
Their Workmen
Present : Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer
Appearances :
: Shri B.M. Prasad, Advocate .
For the Employers
: None
For the Workmen
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated the 7th December , 2009
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/ 78 / 88 - D -4 (A ) Dated 15-9-1989 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management ofHariajam Colliery in not regularising S /Shri Sagar Soren and 10 other concerned workmen is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ? " 2. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the workmen stating that Sagar Soren and 10 other concerned workmen have been working as underground stone cutters since 1977 continuously with unblemished record of services . The concerned workmen have been performing permanent nature of job in underground under the direct control and supervision of the management . The concerned workmen have been performing prohibited category ofjob and they have been rendering services and producing goods for the benefits of the colliery management . The management , however , sometime engaged them in other in other permanent nature of job besides stone cutting job . All the implements for execution of the job are being supplied by the management. In spite of the aforsaid facts the management has been disbursing their wages in the name of some intermediary only to camouflage the system of exploitation. The disbursement of wages through intermediaries is nothing but legal camouflage . The concerned workman and the union represented before the management several times for their regularisation but without any effect . Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised before the A.L.C. ( C ) , Dhanbad which ended in failure due to adamant attitude of the management. Thereafter the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The action of the management in not regularising the concerned workmen as stone cutters and not paying them the wages as per NCWAs is illegal , arbitrary , unjustified and against the provision of the law . The concerned workmen were stopped from duty without following the mandatory provision of Sec. 25F of the L.D. Act. All the concerned workmen have put in 240 days attendance in each calendar year.
391
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
It has been prayed that an award passed in favour of the workmen by directing the management to regularised the concerned workmen after reinstatement .
3. The management has filed written statement stating that the reference order is vague in as must as the names of so called 10 other concerned workmen have not beengiven in the reference order . There was at no time any employer-employee relationship between the persons concerned and the management . The present reference has tobe confined only to one person , viz . Sagar soren and no proceeding can be held in regard to others . The union raised a similar issue earlier before the ALC ( C ) , Dhanbad and after failure of conciliation proceedings , the Central Govt. came to the conclusion that it is not a fit matter for reference to adjudication . It has been submitted that the management does not have continuous jobs such as those entrusted to the contractors , nor does the management require as regular work force . The contractors workmen have no right to claim employment under the management and there is absolutely no question of claiming regularisation of such persons by this management . It has been stated that Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is a Central Govt. udertaking wholly financed by the Central Government and it is a" State " for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution . Such being the case , equal opportunity in the matter employment has to be given to the different citizen of the country. It has been submitted that the management does not require the services of the persons concerned and the management cannot provide employment to the concerned persons .
It has been prayed that an award be passed in favour ofthe management by holding that the concerned persons are not entitled to any relief.
4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contends of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statement .
5. The concerned workmen produced WW -1 - Sagar Soren who has proved Exts . W- 1, W- 2 and W - 2/ 1 .
The management has produced MW- 1 - K.P.Pal, who has proved document as Ext . M - 1 .
6.Main argument on behalf of the management is that since more than 30 years has been passed the detailed particulars has not been filed by the concerned workmen for which application has been moved by the management. The workmen were not present in spite of the fact registered notice has been given on 8-5-2009 .
7. Learned counsel of management argued that WW- 1 stated in cross - examination at page 2 that " We have no paper to show that the management engaged us . There is also no paper to show that the other workmen and I have been doing the job of stone cutting . I do not know if every regular workmen of Hariajam colliery is provided with 392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]
311/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No. - 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009.
[No. L - 20012/ 109/ 2000 - IR (C - 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL/ LABOUR COURT ( NO.1 ) DHANBAD
In the matter of a reference U/ s 10( 1 )( d ) & ( 2A) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947
Reference No. 311 of 2000 Identity Card . It is not a fact that the management of Hariajam colliery engage contractor in underground mine for executing jobs accoding to the requirement of the management from time to time, He also stated in cross- examination at page 3 that I did not keep any record of our attendance showing that in each year we have put in 240 days attendance . There is nothing in writing to show that we get our wages from the counter of the management . We made representation to the management inwriting demanding wages as per NCWA . We did it over 7/8 years ago . We have not filed any document suportive ofthe fact. This statement of the workman shows that they have never worked under the control of the management and they have not received any wages from the management and they have not worked for 240 days in each calendar year which may support any document . No reliable document has been filed by the concerned workmen.
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Madhuband Colliery of M/ s . BCCL
And
Their Workmen
Present : Sri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer
Appearances :
Forthe Employers None
For the Workmen None
In this respect MW - 1 has stated that some work has been taken from the concerned workmen on contractual basis . Contractual work is given for a term of 15 days to one month and every contract work is completed within a space of 15 days to 30 days . Contractors engage their own workmen and supervise their jobs . Work implements for working of the contractors ' workmen are supplied by the contractors themselves . Contractors pay their own workmen . It shows that the concerned workmen have never worked with the management and so they cannot be regularised.
State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal
Dated , 3rd December.2009
AWARD
8. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above , I hold that the action of the management ofHariajam Colliery in not regularising S /Shri Sagar Soren and 10 other concerned workmen is justified and accordingly, the concerned workmen are not entitled to anyrelief.
This is my Award.
ByOrder No. L-20012/ 109 /2000/ ( C - 1 ), Dated 18-10-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section( 1) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-
H.M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009
"Whether the following demands raised by the R.C.M.S. against the management of Madhuband Collieryunder Barora Area of M/ s . BCCL are justified ?
1. Implementation of the agreement arrived at between the rep . of RCMS and the Management of Barora Area in regard to the revision of tramming rates of new pit of Madhuband Colliery.
का.आ. 176. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 311/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -20012 / 109/2000- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ]
2. Payment of full back wages to the concerned workers along with the payment of salary:
स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी
3. Immediate payment of full back wages to the workers due since Oct. 1999 .
New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009
4. Payment of actual lead and lift and pushing allowance to the miners /loaders . If so , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled? " S.O. 176. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.
393
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2. This reference case was received in this Tribunal on 21-11-2000 . Thereafter , notices were sent to the parties to file written statement by the sponsoring union/ workmen . In spite of notices sent by speed post no written statement has been filed by the workmen till 15-9-09. It, therefore , appears that neither the concerned workmen nor the. sponsoring union is interested to contest the case .
In such circumstances , I render No Dispute Award in this reference case .
H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 177. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 127/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -20012/463/99- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ]
स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009 S.O. 177. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 127/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. - 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009 .
[No. L- 20012/463 /99 - IR ( C - 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD In the matter of reference U /s 10 ( 1 ) (d) & (2A ) of I.D. Act. Reference No. 127 of 2000
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of West Jharia area of M/ s . B.C.C. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen
Present: Sri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers : Shri D.K. Verma Advocate
None
For the Workmen :
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, 1st December , 2009
AWARD
Byorder No. L-20012/463 / 99 ( C- 1 ), Dated 23-2-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section( 1) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . BCCL West Jharia Area in not accepting the resignation under VRS ( Female) ofthe concerned workmen, Smt . Biroda Harin & providing employment to her dependant under the scheme is just and proper ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman and / or her dependant entitled ? "
2. This reference case relates to the year 2000 and inspite of the notices being sentby speed post no one turned up for filing written statement on behalf of the workman even on 15-9-2009 . It , therefore , appears that neither the concerned workman nor sponsoring union is interested to contest the case .
Under such circumstances , I render a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present reference case .
H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 178. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. -1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 238/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/167/90- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009 S.O. 178. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 238/90 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mrs. B.C.C.L and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009.
[No. L - 20012/ 167/90-1R ( C - 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer 394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD In the matter of reference U/ s 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) & ( 2A ) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947
Reference No. 238 of 1990
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Moonidih Project of M/ s . BCC . Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen
Present: Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer Appearances :
:
Forthe Employers
[ PART II SIC. 3 ( ii ) | was not found satisfactory as such it was decided to hold a departmental enquiry and the supdt . of Mines , Moonidih Project appointed the Dy. Personnel Manager to conduct the enquiry on the basis of the charge - sheet dated 25-5-88 issued to the concerned workman under Sec . 17( 1 ) ( 0 ) of the Certified Standing Order . The Project Officer has further stated in the order of dismissal that he had carefully considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and the findings of the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of those documents the Project Officer dismissed the concerned workman from the service of Moonidih Project of BCCL . It has been submitted that neither the charge - sheet nor the enquiry order nor the order of dismissal was issued by the appointing authority of the concerned workman and as such the order of dismissal is without jurisdication , arbitrary and illegal .
Shri D. K. Verma ,Advocate
Forthe Workmen
: None
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated , the 8th December , 2009
AWARD
By Order No. L- 20012 ( 167 ) / 90 - IR ( Coal - I ) , dated 1-10-1990 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of Noonidih Project under M / s . Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in dismissing Shri Shyamlal Mahato , P.R. Mazdoor , Token No. 7305 under dismissal order No. MND / PO / Dismissal / 39/ 89/997 dated 12/ 14-4-89 is justified ? If so , to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 2. The concerned workman was employed in the post ofpiece rated mazdoor in Moonidih Project of M / s . BCCL in February 1987. The appointment of the concerned workman is covered by Land Looser Scheme , meaning thereby that employment is provided to the dependents of such person whose Agricultural land has been taken over by BCCL for their mining and allied purpose . The appointment was done by the General Manager , Moonidih Area vide his letter dated 22/ 23-2-1987 . He received a charge- sheet dated 25-2-88 issued by the Superintendent ofMines , Moonidih Project. The workman submitted the explanation dated 1-3-88 to the said charge - sheet . Thereafter the management without considering the reply submitted by the workman and without holding a proper departmental enquiry issued an order of dismissal dated 12/ 14-4-89 under the signature of Project Officer , Moonidih Project. For the first time in the dismissal letter the Project Officer mentioned in the order of dismissal that the reply ofthe charge-sheet submitted by the concerned workman It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award holding that the action of the management of Moonidih Project of BCCI . in dismissing the concerned workman is not justified and he shouldbe reinstated in service with full back wages .
3. The management submitted written statement stating that the concerned workman got employment in February, 1987 as temporary miner / loader by making false declaration and swearing in a false affidavit to the effect that he is the son of Nakur Mahato of village Tetangabad, P.O. Kari Tand, P.S. Putki , Dist . Dhanbad , whose land situated in Plot No. 673 of Mouza singda , was acquired by the management . In the course of verification of records it was detected that the concerned workman is the son of Hingu Mahato whose land had not been acquired by the management . A charg - sheetdated 25-2-88 was issued to him for giving false information regarding his father's name and entering in to the service of the management against the Scheme for employment of Land Looser indicating that his father's land was acquired by the management . The concerned workman submitted his reply dated 1-3-88 admitting that his father's name is Hingu Mahato. He stated that his father was having another name . Nakul Mahato and his father- in - law name is also Nakul Mehto. It has been submitted that the land of Nakul Mehto, the father- in - law of the concerned workman was acquired and to land of Hingu Mahato was acquired . The management appointed Sri S. Jha, Dy . Personnel Manager of Moonidih Project as Enquiry Officer and Sri R.K. Jha, the Personnel Officer as Presenting Officer by letter dated 30 /31-3-88 for conducting departmental enquiry relating to the charge- sheet issued to the concerned workman . The departmental enquiry was fixed on number of dates and was conducted inpresence of the concerned workman and his co -worker. The concerned workman was given full opportunity to cross - examine the management witnesses , to give his own statement and to produce his defence witness . The enquiry was conducted fairly and properly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 2-3-89 holding the concerned 395 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/ पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
Mahato . The paper filed by the concerned workman , Ext . M- 9 shows that he has filed Mukhiya's certificate stating his father's name Hingu Mahato. There is no mention of alias name of Nakul Mahato as per affidavit given by Nakul Mahato dated 15-10-87 . It shows that he is not resident of village- Tatangabad, P.S. Putki . The concerned workman . shyamlal Mahato , has given his father's name , Nakul Mahato , whom land has been acquired by the management to get employment .
workman guilty of the misconduct charged against him . The matter was examined by the General Manager /Chief Mining Engineer of Moonidih Area and apporval for his dismissal was obtained from him. Thereafter he was dismissedfrom his service . It has been submitted that the very basis of his employment was based on false declaration and according to the terms of his service contained in his appointment letter and declaration , he was liable to be removed from his service in case any of his declaration would be found incorrect apart from being misconduct under the Certified Standing Order . Accordingly , he was dismissed from service .
It has been prayed by the management that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award holding that the action ofthe management is legal andjustified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
In rejoinder to the written statement of the workman , the management has stated almost same things as have been stated in the written statement .
4. The concerned workman has filed rejoinder to the written statement ofthe management in which he has denied some contents made by the management in its written statement .
8. Argument has been advanced on behalf of the workman that no second show cause notice has been given to him. But enquiry has been held fair and proper and the Enquiry Officer has recommended for dismissal of the concerned workman on the ground of getting employment on false ground . Another argument advised on behalf of the workman that Nakul Mahato had given information to the management that he has only dependent , the concerned workman and he should be given employment under land looser scheme . But this does not in any way help to the concerned workman because of the fact that he got employment under land looser scheme being the son of Nakul Mahato whose land was acquired by the management , but his father's name is Hingu Mahato whose land was not acquird by the management and Nakul Mahato is his father - in - law .
5. The enquiry was held to be fair and proper by this Tribunal vide order dated 24-12-94 .
Considering the facts and circumstances , I hold that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.
The management has examined Surendra Jha as MW- 1. The documents filed by the management have been marked as Exts . M - 1 to M - 11 by waiving of formal proof.
9. Accordingly, I render the following award - The action of the management of Moonidih Project under M/ s B.C.C.Ltd. in dismissing Shri Shyamlal Mahato , P.R. Mazdoor, Token No. 7305 under dismissal order No. MND/PO/Dismissal /39 / 89 /997 dated 12/14-4-89 is justified and hence the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2009
6. The concerned workman has been dismissed from service on the ground that he has shown him in getting employment as son of Nakul Mahato , vill -Tatangabad, P.O. Karitand, Distt . Dhanbad on the ground that his land situated at plot No. 673 of Mouza Singda was acquired by the management . On verification of records it was detected that he is the son of Hingu Mahato whose land had not beenacquiredby the management . He was chargesheeted for giving false information regarding his parentage, though later on he admitted in his reply that his father's name is Hingu Mahato . He stated that his father was having another name Nakul Mahato. In this respect has given an affidavit.
का.आ. 179.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एवं सिंद्ध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , । चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 100/90) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/ 88/90 आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस . पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi, the 18th December , 2009
S.O. 179. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 100/90 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court - I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation 7. It has been argued on behalf of the management that there is no impersonation regarding father's name but papers filed by the management , Ext . M -2 shows that Hingu Mahato has given his affidavit showing his alies name Nakul Mahato , resident of village - Tatangabad , P.S. Putki , Dist . Dhanbad. But as per affidavit given by the concerned workman on 23-3-87 shows that he has affirmed that Shyamlal Mahato S/o Nakul Mahato . He has not given any alias name of Hingu Mahato and has not given address Tatangabad , P.S. Putki , Dist . Dhanbad and Nakul Mahato has also given affidavit showing the concerned workman as his son, but he has not given any alias name of Hingu
13 GI/2010-13 396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-12-2009.
[No. L-20012/88/90 - IR B - II) ]
U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No : - ID No. 100/90
Shri Ajit Singh C/ o Shri Tek Chand Sharma, 25, Sant Nagar, Civil Lines , Ludhiana - 141001 .
proceedings , enquiry report and the proceedings before the disciplinary authority and appellate authority on the ground of violation of principle of naturral justice . In so many garlanding words and in very lengthy statement of claim the workman has challenged the power ofthe Officer concern who has given the cahrge sheet to him , has appointed the equiry officer and the powers of the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry. The workman has also challenged the powers of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority . It is also challenged by the workman thatwithout applying the mind enquiry officer has given the enquiry report and disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment . The appellant authority has summarily rejected the appeal without going through the materials on record,
Applicant
Versus
The Personnel Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank, Head Office , 21 , Rajendra Palace , New Delhi - 110008 .
Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman:
Shri T.C. Sharma
For the management :
Shri J.S. Sathi
AWARD
Passed on:-7-12-09
Onthe other hand, the management of respondent bank has denied the allegations of the workman with the contentionthat on allegations of fraud and embezzlement ofthe public money from the bank , workman was charge sheeted thrice . A fair and proper enquiry was conducted. The workman was afforded the full opportunity of being heard. The enquiry officer has ensured the opportunity of hearing at every stage . The charge no . 1, was admitted by the workman . In spite of it, the charge No. 1 , 2 & 3 were proved before the enquiry officer by independent evidence. No right of hearing was denied . Punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to the committed misconduct . Appellate authority has also afforded the opportunity and applied his mind before disposing of the appeal.
Parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence. Evidence was recorded . Entire enquiry file is on record . The opportunity for hearing was given to the parties. Parties argue the case orally and preferred to file the written arguments . I have gone through the written arguments ofthe parties as well .
After perusing the pleadings and evidence of the parties , I am of the view that following issues are to be answered/ adjudicated by this Tribunal: -
(1) Whether a fair and proper enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer?
This unfortunate reference is placed before me for award . The reference is unfortunate in the sense that it was received by this Tribunal in the year 1990 and was pending adjudication for long 19 years . Industrial Disputes Act, requires the adjudication of any reference within three months . That is the intention of the legislature too . If it isnot possible for the Tribunal to answer the reference within three months , the same should be adjudicated within a resonable time . 19 years at the initial stage , in any case , cannot be a resonable time and in my view the parties have denied timely justice . Whatever may be the result of thisreference, it may be answer in positive or in negative but it is a case of denying timely justice . For adjudication ofthe reference after abnormal delay of 19 years , as the Presiding Officer of this Court, I regret the parties on behalf of the Tribunal.
(2) Whether enquiry officer has rightly reached to the conclusion for proving all the charges against the workman?
Government of India vide notification No. L- 12012/ 88/90 - IR ( B - II) , dated 3-6-90 referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal :-
(3) Whether disciplinary authority has complied with the principle of natural justice before awarding the punishment to the workman?
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ajit Singh, Cleark is justified? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "
(4) Whether the punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to the committed misconduct.
(5) Relief, if any .
After receiving the reference, parties were informed. They appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The workman in his pleadings has challenged enquiry , enquiry
Firstofall , it is made clear that workman was working as clerk at the time of the alleged misconduct . He was not 397 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
haging any supervisory or managerial power and any such function to discharge . Accordingly , this Tribunal has jurisdiction to answer this reference . The Manager concern who issues the charge sheet and suspended the workman was competent , as per the provisions of the bipartite settlement , applicable to the parties . Disciplinary authority has rightly appointed the enquiry officer as per the provision of the bipartite settlement and there seems to be no illegality in appointing the enquiry officer, issuing the charge sheet and conducting the enquiry .
The workman was charge sheeted on three counts for fraudulently withdrawn of public money from the saving bank account of different account holders .
Singh, MW8 conducted a preliminary enquiry . In his chamber, in presence of other bank employees , the workman admitted the withdrawal of amount and he also agreed to deposit Rs. 5,000 next day and rest Rs . 3,000 after sometime . The workman was also charge sheeted for making the fictitious entries to balance that amount , he fraudulently withdrew. It is true that the deposition of Rs . 5,000 by the workman has not been proved but it is proved that Rs . 5,000/- was deposited by some person known to the workman. Admission made before Shri Teja Singh , M8 is proved before the enquiry officer . Rest of the witnesses also proved the fictitious entries and fraudulently withdrawal from the saving bank account of four persons namely Shri Shangara Singh , S. Hazoor Singh , S. Hazoor Singh , Shangara Singh , Hazoor Singh , Jitinder Kaur, Gurdiattar Singh , Smt . Pritam Kaur . The admission ofthe workman is well proved . It is also proved that in consequent to the admission Rs . 5,000 was deposited in the bank.
After charge sheet , the workman was afforded the opportunity to reply the charge sheet . He replied the two charge sheets but not third one . Dissatisfying with the reply, the enquiry officer was ordered to be appointed . On transfer of the first enquiry officer , socond enquiry officer was appointed . The enquiry was conducted very slowly and the proceedings shows that enquiry officer was very liberal for adjourning the proceedings of the enquiry either at the request of the workman , his defence representative or the Presenting Officer of the bank . Apart from the adjournment sought the opportunity was given to the workman for appearing before the enquiry officer and to participate in the proceedings . There is no dispute for providing the copies of the documents relied by the management of the bank . In his oral cross - examination , Shri Ajit Singh has admitted that he was represented by the defence representative Shri S.K. Sharma through out the enquiry. Full opportunity for cross - examination of management witness was given to his defence representative . He was heard properly before given the enquiry report . The proceedings of enquiry also prove that enquiry was conducted as per the rules of the department . Adequate and proper opportunity of being heard was given to the workman and his defence representative .
Thus , I am of the view that enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and there has been no violation of any rules of the principle of natural justice. Accordingly , the issue no . I is disposed off.
On issue no . 2 , I am of the view that enquiry officer has rightly reached to the conclusion for proving all the charges against the workman . I am giving these findings on the basis of the followings: -
The proceedings before this Tribunal are altogether different then the proceedings before the Civil Courts . The charge against the workman , before the Tribunal and in the departmental proceedings has to be proved on the basis of the equity , justice and good conscious . The provisions of Indian Evidence Act have no application . Any statement and evidence which has credibility and nexus with the commission of the act said to be misconduct can be relied upon even though the Indian Evidence Act , might have not permitted. The workman admitted before MW8 . I have gone through the , statement of PW8 and other witnesses recorded by the enquiry officer . This charge is proved beyond shadow of doubt . The act of admission coupled with the deposition of Rs . 5,000 is proved by the statement of witnesses . The fabrication of documents is also proved before the enquiry officer . Thus , there is no occasion for me to interfere in the findings of the enquiry officer made on charge no . 1. I am of the view that enquiry officer has rightly given the finding on this charge sheet .
(ii) Charge No. 2 , dated 20-10-81 is also relatingto the fraudulently withdrawn an amount of Rs . 20,000 and Rs . 1.000 on 20.01.81 and 19-02-81 from Saving Bank Account No. 2417 in the name of Shri Hira Singh who died on 07-05-80 . The enquiry officer elaborately (i ) On Charge Sheet No. 1 , dated 07-08-81 , the enquiry officer has recorded the evidence of 8 management witnesses . It was the charge sheet regarding fraudulently withdrawal of Rs . 8,000 from the bank account of different persons , shown in the charge sheet . It is the case of the management that on applying mind by the . person from whose saving bank A/c , the money was withdrawn , the then manager Shri Teja 398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
recorded the statement of six witnesses . Opportunity for cross - examination was given to the workman . I have gone through the statement of all the witnesses MW1 to MW6 recorded by the enquiry officer during enquiry. Properopportunity for cross - examination was given to the workman and his defence representative . In this charge , how he withdrew the amount , fabricated the documents and occasion to do it, is established by the witnesses . I have gone through the enquiry report and its proceedings . I am of the view thatenquiry officer has rightly given the finding onCharge No. 2 to be well proved and there is no occasion for me for any inference in the decision making of the enquiry officer on Charge No. 2 as well.
( iii) Charge Sheet No. 3 , dated 25-05-83 is also relating to the fraudulently withdrawal of amount of Rs . 2,000/ - with forged signatures of Shri Sohan Singh , from Saving Bank Account No. 793 and fabrication of documents to balance the fabricated amount . Likewise , in this charge sheet he was also charged for fraudulently withdrawal the amount of Rs . 3000from Account No. 790 of S. Sohan Singh on 01-09-90 and fabrication of document to make the balance good in the official records of the bank . As more as , statement of 8 witnesses were recorded for this charge . For Head No. 1 of this charge , the withdrawal form was also misplaced, whereas , on Head No. 2 the withdrawal forms were available . The statement ofdaftri MW1 shows that workman use to visit to the place where the withdrawal forms were kept . He suspected the workman Shri Ajit Singh to misplace the withdrawal forms , no doubt , he has not seen him . The cause for doubt which MW1 shows was that in another case the workman Shri Ajit Singh has deposited Rs . 5,000/- . In my view this cannot be a cause for doubting the workman Shri Ajit Singh for misplacing the withdrawal form. Nobody has seen him misplacing the withdrawal form from the office and the only evidence available is that PWI is doubting the workman for misplacing the withdrawal form on the ground that he has deposited Rs . 5,000 in another case which he has fraudulently withdrew . It cannot be a good cause for holding the guilty of the workman for misplacing the withdrawal form .
But fraudulently withdrawing the amount and opportunity and occasion for withdrawing the amount was proved by rest of the witnesses . It was also proved that withdrawal form was
[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] not signed by the then Manager but Shri Ajit Singh himself to get the withdrawal form signed and passed under the forged signature . After going through the entire evidence of witnesses and perusing the documentary evidence , I am ofthe view that enquiry officer has rightly held the Charge No. 3 well proved against the workman except the charge of misplacing the withdrawal form of Rs . 2,000.
Thus , on the basis of the above observation , I am of the view that enquiry officer has not only conducted the enquiry in a fair and proper manner but he has rightly given his findings on all the charges being proved against the workman . On perusal of proceedings . I am of the view that disciplinary authority has afforded the opportunity of being heard to the workman. In his oral cross - examination , the workman has admitted that show cause notice was given to him and he was heard by the disciplinary authority . There is no dispute that copy of the enquiry report was not given to him . Accordingly, the disciplinary authority has conducted the disciplinary proceedings as per the rules of the department and there has been no violation of the principle of natural justice by the disciplinary authority as well . Show cause notice with purposed punishment was given. Workman was heard properly before awarding the punishment . Workman preferred an appeal which was dismissed after considering all the facts and circumstance ofthe case by the appellant authority. Accordingly. Issues No. 2 and 3 are answered .
The charges proved against the workman are fraudulently withdrawn of public money from the account ofcertain account holders . Whatever may be amount there should be no lineancy for this type of misconduct . Integrity and honesty of the person is inherent in the institutions like bank where the only business is flow of public money. By the acts which are proved to be the misconduct of the workman, certainly not only the confidence of the public in the financial institution is at a stake but the institution also lost the faith in the workman . Thus , the punishment of termination of the workman from the services is proportionate to the committed misconduct and there is no occasion for this Tribunal to interfere in the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority to the workman . Accordingly Issue No. 4 is answered .
Onrelief clause , I am of the view that on the basis of thediscussion and the decisions taken by this Tribunal on Issue No. 1 , 2, 3 & 4 the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Ce The reference is accordingly answered . Let Government be informed for publication of award . and thereafter , file be consigned to record room .
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer 399
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/ पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
AWARD
नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2009
This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act challenging the findings in the domestic enquiry and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority .
का. आ. 180.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय एरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 112/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल -12011 / 256/2002- आई आर ( बी- II) ]
यू. एस. पाण्डेय, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 18th December , 2009
2. When the matter came up for evidence the union raised a preliminary objection regarding validity of enquiry. That aspect was considered as a preliminary issue and it was found by order dated 21-10-2008 that the enquiry is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice . Since the enquiry was set aside the case was posted for fresh evidence for the purpose of proving the charges . But despite several adjournments at the instance of Management they have not adduced any evidence . Today the management and counsel are absent. There is not even a representation for them . This is a reference made in 2003. There is no meaning in keeping the case pending indefinitely. Since there is no material on record to prove the charges , the punishment also cannot stand. Both findings and punishment are liable to be set aside.
S. O. 180. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 112 / 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-12-09.
In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in termination the service of workman Shri Salim Rajkumar is illegal and unjustified and he is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits from the date of termination .
[No. L- 12011 /256/2002 - IR (B - II) ] U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .
Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 26thday of February , 2009 .
P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .
Appendix--Nil
नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2009 Present : Shri P. L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Thursday the 26th day of February , 2009 / 7th Phalguna , 1930)
I. D. 112/2006
(I.D. 31/2003 of Labour Court , Ernakulam )
Union
का. आ. 181. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
: The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Union , Shanthi Theatre Annexe , 44,Mount Road , Chennai - 600 002 .
By Adv . Shri Davis P. I.
[ सं. एल-12011 / 21/2009- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 18th December , 2009 Management : The Deputy General Manager , Syndicate Bank , Sasthakripa , Office Complex , Sasthamangalam , Trivandrum - 695010 By Adv. Shri M.P. Ashok Kumar .
S. O. 181. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government here by publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 40/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the annexure in the This case coming up for hearing on 26-02-2009, this Tribunal- cum - Labour Court on the same day passed the following.
400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ]
advocates and filed their Claim, Counter and Rejoinder Statements as the case may be .
Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 18-12-09,
[ No. L- 12011 / 21 /2009- IR (B - II) ]
3. The case of the petitioner in the Claim Statement briefly reads as follows :
U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 8th December , 2009
Present : Shri A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 40/2009
[ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause( d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of Indian Bank and their Workman]
BETWEEN
The General Secretary
I Party/Petitioner
: Indian Bank Employees Union , No. 6 , Moore Street , Mannady Corner , Chennai - 600001
Vs.
The General Manager
2nd Party/ Respondent
Indian Bank Head Office
66, Rajaji Salai Chennai -600001
APPEARANCE
:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
Shri J. Thomas Jeyaprabhakaran
For the 2nd Party/Management : Ms. Cynthia Yvonne Noronha
AWARD
V. Vijaykumar, Clerk at the Alwarpet branch of the Respondent/Bank was alleged of having had executed a guarantee agreement in favour of Bank of Baroda for housing loan of one V.R. Rajan. He tendered his salary slip for November , 2003 with copy ofthe bank's ID Card, Rajan did not repay the monthly dues promptly, Bank of Baroda reported to the Indian Bank and requesting to procure asssistance of Vijaykumar . Salary details and salary slip were found forged and manipulated. The employee had not received salary for that month. In the reply of the employee dated 22-4-2006 he stated that he never submitted any salary details and that everything respecting him is forged and at the request of a known person he consented to be a guarantor for Rajan . The employee was accordingly charged for making false statement , doing act prejudicial to the interests ofthe bank and incurring excessive debts under minor misconduct while the former two are under gross misconducts . The forgery is by someone on the back ofthe employee . In the enquiry held, originals of the documents or the official concerned were not produced . The charge of excessive borrowing was held proved. The punishment imposed is harsh . The conclusion of the EnquiryOfficer is subjective . The employee who acted in good faith cannot be faulted with for some misdeeds done behind his back . Even if the employee is to be punished, it is to be only under minor misconduct . The punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and is unjust and illegal . For the minor misconduct ofincurring excessive borrowings if at all proved, he isonly liable to be warned or censured or adversely remarked against or his increment stopped not exceeding 6 months . The evidence may be reappreciated and it may be found that no major misconducts are proved and the same maybe set aside.
TheCentral Government , Ministry of Labour vide its OrderNo. L- 12011 /21 /2009 - IR ( B - II ) dated 20-5-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
4. In the Counter Statement , the contentions raised briefly read as follows:
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in reducing the pay of Sri V. Vijayakumar , Clerk/ Shroff, Alwarpet Branch , Chennai by one stage for a period of two years with cumulative effect as punishment , is legal , fair and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled to ?"
2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 40/2009 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearing through their
High sense of honesty and integrity is excepted from the petitioner as bank staff. The pay - slip furnished by the workman to Bank of Baroda was manipulated inflating his salary and signature in the pay- slip was forging that of the Manager of Kodambakkkam branch at that time . The concerned workman had not drawn any salary from August 2003 to March 2004. The pay - slip bears the date as 28-11-2003 . The salary for November 2003 of the branch was paid on 27-1-2003 . The reply of the 401
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/ पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
employee as to this dated 22-4-2006 was evasive and pre-varicating . The order of punishment is fully justified and valid . Section - 11A ofthe ID Act would not apply . On any ground the punishment is not bad in law and is not liable to be interfered with . That the fraud was committed behind the back of the workman is totally unacceptable . The claim may be dismissed.
5. In the Rejoinder Statement over and above the already reserved contentions in the claim statement, the further contentions raised are as follows :
Documents had been forged at his back by the borrower colluding with Bank of Baroda . The workman was bent on criminal proceeding against them . Bank of Baroda did not verify the workman's credentials with the Respondent/Bank before sanctioning the loan . The Enquiry Officer rightly found absence of proof that salary slip was signed by him . For fabrication at the back of workman , he is not to be held liable .
6. The evidence consists of Ex . W1 to Ex . W21 on the petitioner's side and Ex. M1 to Ex . M3 on the side of the Respondent , all marked on consent . No oral evidence was adduced on either side .
7. Points for consideration are :
(i) Whether the reduction of pay of the workman by one stage for a period of two years with cumulative effect is legal , fair and justified?
(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
Point Nos . 1 and 2
8. Heard both sides . Persued the enquiry proceedings and the report . The challenge is predominantly against the quantum of punishment . The enquiry is not virtually assailed . The conclusion ofthe Enquiry Officer is attacked as being subjective . The petitioner seeks re- appraisal of the evidence and reduction of the punishment as one for minor misconduct for incurring excessinve borrowings if at all proved and setting aside the punishment for the so- called major misconduct of alleged making of false statements and doing act prejudicial to the interests of the bank. The Respondent points out that Section- 11A of the ID Act is not applicable because the punishment herein is not one of dismissal , removal or discharge from service . The case of the petitioner that the fraud was committed behind the back of the workman is not at all approvable , Respondent contents . No oral evidence has been adduced on either side . The documents on either side have also been marked on consent .
good faith and cannot be faulted with for some misdeeds done behind his back . The charge is that the workman fabricated false statement and forged signature in salary slips . True in the enquiry it is found that there is absence of proof that salary slip was signed by the workman . At thisjuncture it is pertinent to consider the absence of proof of the workman having signed the salary slip , per se is a circumstance to take away his liability of being a fraudster or at least a conniver for the false statements and for the other charge against him . The case of the petitioner is that he was just giving a consent to be a guarantor for Rajan at the request of some known person who was a tuition master ofhis son . This is a crucial circumstance from which it has to be judged whether the workman has or has not been responsible for the false statements , forgery and the fraud by himself being the perpetrator of the said acts or at least by conniving for the commission of the same . The fact that he consented to be a guarantor for V.R. Rajan is admitted by him . It is also admitted that he had disclosed his salary details and address details for the transaction. To prove the direct involvement of the workman , there is no evidence . But the fact that the workman while was expressing consent to be a guarantor for a third person not known to him to incur a huge loan of Rs . 16,00,000 through some persons known to him was not diligent enough in the said transaction is discernibly a matter against normal course of natural events and normal course of human conduct. The petitioner , if he himself has not had been a party to the forging of signature that per se does not mean that he could not have connived in bringing about it in order to obtain a loan for the borrower . Here the relevant consideration is whether the workman has not had the intention of colluding with the borrower to accomplish the purpose of obtaining the loan , with or without some economic advantage for him over the said transaction. While it is against human conduct to consent to be a guarantor to an unknown person through some so - called known persons , the manner in which the workman explains away his unbelievable conduct, has to be taken as a circumstance to hold whether he is or not responsible for the forgery and fraud practiced for obtaining the loan. The fact is logically probative to a prudent mind to hold that without the involvement and connivance from the workman , the manipulation could not have been brought about . The emerging facts are capable of being perceived by the senses and they constitute a relevant fact , if not a fact in issue and the same is logically probative so as to cogently lead to a conclusion that without the involvement or connivance of the workman the manipulation leading to the procurement of the loan by the borrower could not have been brought about . Hence he cannot disown responsibility. This act of the workman therefore amounts to making false statements , doing acts prejudicial to the interests ofthe bank and incurring excessive debts charged against him. The finding of the Enquiry Officer being the same, it is only legal , fair and justified and the same does not call for interference , The petitioner is therefore not
entitled to any relief.
9. Now the question is whether the petitioner is not responsible for the fraud committed. According to the petitioner , he just gave a consent to be a guarantor for a loan for V.R. Rajan . Further according to him he acted in 402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
10. The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the PA, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 8th December , 2009)
A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined: -
None
Forthe I Party/Petitioner
None
For the II Party/Petitioner :
Documents Marked:
Onthe Petitioner's side
Date
Ex. No.
Description
Ex.WI 13-03-2006 Show Cause Notice Ref: COCH: IRC: CSR: 24969/2006/2 dated 13-03-2006 issued to Shri V. Vijayakumar
Ex.W2 22-04-2006 Shri V. Vijayakumar's replyto the General Manager's Show Cause Notice dated 13-03-2006 Ex. W3 01-11-2006 Letter Ref: CO : CH : VIG :V579 dated 01-1-2006 of General Manager / Disciplinary Authority appointing the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer enclosing the list of documentary exhibits .
Ex.W4 20-12-2006 Enquiry proceedings held on 20-12-2006 , 19-01-2007 , 22-02-2007, 14-03-2007 and 10-04-2007 conducted by Mr. М. Harihara Subramanian , Manager , Circle Officer , Chennai 24-01-2006
Ex.W5
Letter Ref: PBBANN/ 8 dated 24-01-2006 received from Bank of Baroda
Ex. W6 07-02-2006 Letter Ref: PBBANN/Adv ./7 / 174 received from Bank of Baroda Ex.W7 21-02-2007 Letter Ref: PBBANN/ AD 592 received from Bank of Baroda 24-12-2003
Ex. W8
Bank of Baroda form No. F No. 135- Application by Guarantor for advances
Ex.W9
Postal acknowledgement card addressed to Sri V. Vijayakumar 24-12-2003
Ex.W10
Bank of Baroda general form of guarantee dated 24-12-2003 Ex.W11
Presenting Officer's brief in the enquiry held against Sri V. Vijayakumar
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Ex.W12 05-06-2007 Defence summing up in the enquiry held against Shri Vijayakumar V. Ex.W13 23-06-2007 Letter Ref: COCH : VIG : V : 579 from Chief Manager , Circle Officer , Chennai enclosing the copy ofthe Enquiry Officer's findings dated 21-06-2007
Ex.W14 28-06-2007 Sri V. Viajayakumar's comments on the findings of the Enquiry Officer
Ex.W15 26-07-2007 Show Cause Ref: COCH : VIG : V : 579 by the Disciplinary Authority proposing the punishment of Reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years with cumulative effect .
Ex.W16 06-08-2007 Sri V. Vijayakumar's reply to the Show Cause dated 26-07-2007 Ex.W17 08-08-2007 Letter Ref : COCH: VIG :V: 579 by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the proposed punishment 13-09-2007
Ex.W18
Appeal submitted by Sri V. Vijayakumar to the General Manager ( PS ) / Appellate Authority
29-01-2008
Ex.W19
Order of the General Manager / Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal vide HRM:DPC:060:2008 Ref:
Ex.W20 19-04-2008 Industrial Dispute raised by the IBEU before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( C) , Chennai vide Ref: IBEU/808 /2004-2006 Ex.W21 02-09-2008 Rejoinder submitted by the Union vide Ref: I BEU/ 891 /2004-2006 On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date
Description
Ex.MI 21-02-2003 Punishment order for excessive borrowing and unauthorized absence
Ex.M2 09-02-2005 Punishment order for excessive borrowings and unauthorized absence
ExM3 22-04-2006 Reply submitted by the petitioner to the subject matter charge sheet dated 13-03-2006 403 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर , 2009
The Central Government , Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L - 12012 / 93 / 2007 - IR( B - 11 ) dated 28-11-2007 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
का. आ. 182.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 79/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in imposing the punishment of " dismissal without notice " on Sri J. Jacob Selvam is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled "?
[ सं. एल -12012/93/2007- आई आर ( बी- II) ]
यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 22nd December , 2009
2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as I D 79/2007 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statements as the case may be.
3.The case in the Claim Statement briefly is as follows :
S. O. 182. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 79/2007 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-12-09 .
[No. L- 12012/93 /2007- IR (B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 15th December , 2009
Present : Shri A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 79/2007
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , between the Management of Indian Bank and their Workman)
BETWEEN
Sri J. Jacob Selvam
IParty/Petitioner
Vs.
2nd Party/Respondent
The General Manager
Indian Bank
Personnel Department HeadOffice 66Rajaji Salai Chennai -600001
APPEARANCE
The petitioner while was Clerk/ Shroff at Egmore branch of the Respondent/ Bank was suspended on 25-07-2002 for alleged misappropriation . On 29-11- 2002 show cause notice was issued alleging fraudulent withdrawals , fraudulent authorization of vouchers , signing of pay - in - slip as a customer , etc. pertaining to 8 different transactions . In spite of his repeated letters asking time for furnishing detailed explanation , declining to grant time , the enquiry was ordered commencing from 05-05-2003 to 16-07-2003 which was concluded within 2 months . Charges 1 to 5 were held proved. Ignoring his submission on the report , Disciplinary Authority concurred with the finding and confirmed the proposed punishment of dismissal on 27-03-2004. Appeal preferred was dismissed on 22-02-2005 . The Enquiry Report was based on his letters dated 24-07-2002 and 25-07-2002 treating them as confession in disregard of the fact thatthe confession was under compulsion and letters ofadmissions were obtained under duress . The report is perverse which is not based on evidence . It is against the admission of MWI Investigating Officer that he had written the letter who also deposed that petitioner had not accepted the admission . Even a single witness among the 12 witnesses has not pinpointed him as involved in the transactions . The evidence in favour of the petitioner was not taken into account by the Enquiry Officer . The enquiry is not fair or proper and is against the principles of natural justice . The Enquiry Officer acted on surmises and conjectures . The enquiry is sham . There is no application of mind . The appeal order is not a speaking one . The punishment is not commensurate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct . Hence the prayer.
: Shri J. Vaidyanathan
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
4. The contentions raised in the Counter Statement briefly read as follows:
For the 2nd Party/Management : M/s . T.S. Gopalan & Co.
13 GI/ 2010-14 404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010/PAUSA 26, 1931
[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
Points for consideration are :
(i) Whether the dismissal of the petitioner is legal andjustified?
( ii ) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
Points 1 & 2
OneM. Abdul Wahab having NRE SB A/c No. 12034 died on 24-01-1986 leaving a balance of Rs . 5,75,380.95 as on 02-02-2002 . His another account no . NRI / RIP for Rs . 24,95,500 had matured on 04-04-1988 . On a claim of the amount by the legal heirs when verified the SB NRE Account No. 12034, itwas found that fraudulent withdrawals were made leaving a balance on 22-07-2002 to be only Rs . 550.70 um instead of Rs. 5,75,380.95 which account had remained inoperative for a long period . On a probe it transpired that on 13-03-2002 the seen credit of Rs . 476 was made to make . It appear that it was an operative account . In March 2002, the name of SB A/ c holder was altered from M. Abdul Wahab to M. Jagannathan in the computer through Customer MasterModification and new signature was scanned through the computer on 16-03-2002 . By means of cheque leaves , amounts were withdrawn on Stor17-03-2002, 26-03-2002 , 28-03-2002,3-04-2002, mb10-04-2002 and 03-05-2002. A Cheque Book with 20 leaves was found entered in Cheque Book Register Son 14-03-2002 , The first cheque for Rs . 1,310.25 was drawn in favour of Standard Chartered Bank Card alb and other cheques in favour of M.D. Mohammad and last cheque presented on 03-05-2002 was in favour of Rajan . On investigation by Senior Manager , the cheques were found drawn by a single person. The petitioner admitted to have had debited the cheques in Abdul Salam Node when Abdul Salam was not there in his Node . He also admitted having hadwritten the token numbers on all the instruments . On 24-07-2002 , he admitted guilt and also gave a letter giving details of the withdrawals . He remitted Rs . 20,000 on 25-07-2002 and assured to pay the balance. His wife Jasmine and Brother- in- Law B. Pros Jebaraj Mahildas who were present signed as nowitnesses other than Abdul Salam , Felix David, Staff Members. By 02-08-2002 , the petitioner made good the entire money with a request for correct appropriation . He was charge sheeted on 29-11-2002. In his reply dated 29-01-2003 , he replied that he was made a scapegoat . Enquiry was held in which he participated. The letters given by him were not under coercion . The confession was voluntary and genuine. The petitioner not only admitted the unauthorized withdrawals but also disclosed how he spent the money . Now his attempt is to wriggle out of the confession statement and its consequences . The claim is to be dismissed . nog oft no sidesqz
5. The evidence consists of Ex . WI to Ex . W35 on the petitioner's side and Ex.M1 to Ex.M50 on the side of the Respondent , all marked on consent . No oral evidence was adduced on either side . wollol zabest yfisind
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was forced to admit the misconduct of a certain misappropriation of money whereupon his father- in-law was paying the money in instalments . This has led the Management to perceive misconduct against the petitioner. He continued to argue that payment of money orthe mere admission of the misconduct cannot ipso facto be taken as proved misconduct . Before the commencement of enquiry there was confession of the guilt by the petitioner . During the enquiry the liability was disputed. He would further argue that admission of guilt prior to enquiry is not to be decisive to find the petitioner guilty. He continued to contend that under bipartite - settlement extenuating circumstances could have been taken into account by the bank and to have had avoided capital punishment in view of the fact that Section - 11A of the I. D. Actis not to become redundant. He would again point out that during the enquiry the petitioner did not admit the guilt.He invited this Court's attention to the ruling reported in CORK INDUSTRIES , MADRAS AND FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT & ANOTHER ( 1991-1- LLN -817) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that "Labour Court though held that enquiry against the workman was valid and proper held that charge against workman was not satisfactorily proved and hence directed hisreinstatement with full backwages - On a writ petition, High Court, held that award of Labour Court cannot be interfered with and that Labour Court under S.11A of Industrial Disputes Act is clothed with such power" . The same Court in the decision in S.K. RAMAN AND THE MANAGEMENT OF KUNDAH RURAL COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY LTD . REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER & ANOTHER ( 1987-1 - LLJ -487) held that "whether the employee admits the misconduct or not , the employer must conduct an enquiry to substantiate the misconduct on the basis of which employer dispenses with the services of the employee , and in the absence of such an enquiry , the order of dismissal , would be invalid ". In 2 THE MANAGEMENT OF SHOLAYAR ESTATE VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER , LABOUR COURT. COIMBATORE & ANOTHER ( 1999-1 -CTC - 608 ), Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that " he has further observed that the Labour court has failed to take into account all the relevant , facts and mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioner when considering the question whether the quantum of punishment was proportionate to the misconduct and whether the petitioner deserved a lenient punishment and hence remitted the matter to reconsider the entire matter afresh and award suitable punishment " . In the case of THE MANAGEMENT OF ASIA TOBACCO CO.LTD . VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER , LABOUR COURT , VELLORE- 5 405
SAD HT
१८९ ० भारत का राजपत्र जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(2006-2- CTC -470 ) the High Court of Madras held that " it is well established principle in law that in a given circumstance it is open to the Industrial Tribunal acting under Section 11 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic enquiry for good and valid reasons".
arrived at that conclusion . The departmental authorities are, ifthe enquiry is otherwise properly held , the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based , the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in proceeding for a writ under Art . 226 " In KULDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS ( 1996-10- SCC - 665 ) , the Apex Court held that " strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable in departmental enquiry . The only thing is that evidence must be relevant . How it was obtained is immaterial " . In THE MANAGEMENT OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. AND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , MADRAS ( 1999-2 - LLJ- 194), the High Court of Madras held that " the past conduct of the employee viz. that he has not suffered any penalty earlier is not by itself sufficient to hold that the Order of dismissal should not have been passed. Reference to the past record of service in the Bipartite Settlement is not meant to a trap to render ineffective , order of termination passed as a consequence of grave misconduct having been proved". 10n ai se 150 indi
8. The learned counsel for the Respondent further contended that the fraud or confession made in this case is not disputed. The petitioner has not come forward to give any evidence in contra . He was satisfied with the enquiry . The payment coupled with confession would amount to confession of guilt . There is also evidence adduced elaborately against the petitioner . The charges are serious and past record of service is immaterial . There is no scope for interference with the findings or on the punishment under Section - 11A of the I.D.Act.
9. On a consideration of the rival contentions , I am led to the conclusion that this is a case in which the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of exoneration from the guilt . The fact of initial confession though retracted at the stage of enquiry , coupled with the repayment of misappropriated amounts is discernibly a material logically probative to a prudent mind to hold the petitioner guilty . In industrial adjudication , the same degree of proof rendering preponderance of probabilities is adequate to warrant such a finding . But regarding the punishment lofty and idealistic notions of real justice persuade me to think that the petitioner ought to have been visited with a lesser punishment than the one imposed . In this case the petitioner initially confessed the guilt though he retracted from it at the stage of enquiry . Having regard to the common course of human conduct and natural events I am emboldened to presume lawfully that too statutorily that the petitioner initially confessed guilt which he later retracted at the enquiry stage only for the reason that he had the legitimate expectation of his not being terminated from service once he confessed the rnisconduct and made good the loss but for which he might not have made the confession . But the fact which turned out otherwise by way ofhis termination is really shocking to him , not only to him but also to many other persons truly not interested in him in the given circumstances of the confession made by 7 The arguments on behalf of the Respondent are that in Ex.M 16- Confession Statement apart from Ex.M1 the petitioner has confessed his misconduct and has admittedly signed it . In this case apart from confession of guilt there has been repayment of the misappropriated money on behalf of the petitioner . That the admission was the outcome of coercion upon the petitioner is not true . With clean past records , there is no scope for Interference . This is not a case where the Court has to be miscarried by sympathy, it being a case of misappropriation ? If money defrauding the bank in which the petitioner was employed . The learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE , NEW DELHI AND NARENDER SINGH (2006-3- LLN - 1 04) wherein the Apex Court held that " the scope of Art . 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this court . Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sree Rama Rao [A.I. R. 1963 S. C 1723 ] . First , there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer guilty of misconduct charged against him , the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction ofthe Court must be applied . If that rule be not applied by a domestic tribunal of enquiry the High Court in a petition under Art . 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid . The High Court is not a Court of appeal under Art . 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant . The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty ofthe charge , it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence . The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to the influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it also wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have 406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 /PAUSA 26 , 1931
him. It is also worthy to note that but for the confession made by the petitioner there could hardly be any evidence of preponderating nature adduced in the enquiry held against him . So viewed, there is a betrayal of confidence as against the legitimate expectation of the petitioner since the capital punishment of dismissal from service was against his contemplation of some benign consideration ofa favour with regard to the punishment emanatingfrom hisemployer . Discernibly, the enquiry cannot be found to have gone much against him with nobody pinpointing him as the sole fraudster . Therefore , the only logically probative material leading to be finding as to be being the guilty is confession alone . Hence the petitioner ought to have been givena sanction with some lesser punishment in the interest ofjustice. Under Section - 11A of the ID Act , as cited in the decisions supra , this Tribunal is clothed with authority to alter or reduce the punishment appropriately for various valid and good reasons other than the disproportionate nature of punishment to the gravity of the misconduct . There is nothing bad in his past record of service. Though that , per se , is not a ground to award a lesser punishment thanthe one proposed the same fact cumulatively reckoned with other facts and circumstances discussed by me above , I am of the well considered view that the petitioner's punishment needs to be suitably reduced by replacing the punishment ofdismissal with discharge keeping in view of the fact that by doing so the petitioner may well become entitled to terminal benefits , if applicable , which he would not receive otherwise .
10. The charges against the petitioner stand well establishment but the punishment is liable to be interfered with in the light of my foregoing discussion . The action of theManagement is not a legal and justified to the extent as above.
11. Resultantly, the dismissal is set aside . The Respondent is directed to convert the punishment of dismissal from service to discharge thereby allow him to receive the consequential service benefits and the like that might accrue or might have accrued to his credit .
12. The reference is answered accordingly .
(Dictated to the PA , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day the 15th December , 2008 ) .
A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer WitnessesExamined : -
:None
For the I Party/ Petitioner
:None
For the II Party/ Respondent
Documents Marked : -
On the Petitioner's Side :
Date
Ex. No.
Description
(2)
(1)
(3)
Ex. W1
Names of staff who had debited, passed and paid the instruments (Computer Screening slips) .
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] (2)
(1)
(3)
Ex. W2 10-4-02 Node allotted to the petitioner .
Ex. W3 10-4-02 Node allotted to Abdul Salam .
Ex. W4
Thasildar Certificate .
Ex.W5
Sports Certificate of the Petitioner .
Ex . W-6 25-07-2002 Suspension order .
Ex. W7 29-11-02 Show cause notice .
Ex.W8 22-12-02 Representation of the petitioner .
Ex. W9 29-1-2003 Representation of the petitioner .
Ex. W10 25-02-2003 Representation of the petitioner .
Ex . W11 24-04-2003 Representation of the petitioner .
Ex. W12 05-05-2003 Enquiry proceedings .
Ex . W13 18-06-2003 Enquiry proceedings .
Ex. W14 15-07-2003 Enquiry proceedings .
Ex . W15 16-07-2003 Enquiry proceedings .
Ex .W16 06-11-2003 Respondent's/ letter to the petitioner with Enquiry Report.
Ex. W17 06-12-2003 Reply to the petitioner on the enquiry report .
Ex . W18 27-03-2004 Letter of the Respondent imposing punishment.
Ex. W19 18-03-2004 Petitioner's reply to Show Cause notice in Tamil .
Ex . W20 18-03-2004 Petitioner's reply to Show Cause notice in English .
Ex. W21 10-05-2004 Representation of the petitioner in English.
Ex. W22 02-05-2004 Appeal to the Appellate Authority in English .
Ex . W23 13-03-2003 Charge Sheet .
Ex. W24 10-05-2003 Representation of the petitioner to theBank.
Enquiry Officer's Report .
Ex . W25 26-08-2003
Ex. W26 26-09-2003 Defence Summing up .
Ex . W27 16-02-2004 Show Cause Notice proposing the punishment.
Ex . W28 02-05-2004 Appeal to the Appellate Authority .
Ex. W29 23-02-2005 Order of the Appellate Authority .
Ex.W30 12-03-2002 Pay in slip for USD- 10 .
Ex . W31 13-03-2002 F.B.P. Debit Voucher .
Ex. W32 13-03-2002 Credit Voucher
Ex.W33 31-03-2002 Cheque No. 331822 .
Ex . W34 9-04-2002 Cheque No. 331831 .
Ex. W35 9-04-2002 Cheque No. 331832 .
407
USAD BET
भारत का राजपत्र जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
(3)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
Ex.M25
On the Management's side :
Manual ledger extract of SB /NRE A/c No. 12034 (ΜΕ. 64).
Ex. MI
Ex.M26 11 / 13-02-03
24-07-2002 Letter by petitioner to the respondent.
Letter from Vigilance Department of Respondent Bank to petitioner .
Ex. M2
Debit Voucher for Rs . 30,000 .
ExM27 27-07-2002
23-07-2002 Letter by Egmore branch to the AGM CircleOffice (ME 1).
EX.M28 26-07-2002
Ex. M3 25-07-2002 Letter by Egmore branch to the AGM Circle Office (ME 2 ) .
MT No. 448017 for Rs . 30,000 from Pallavaram branch and Scribling Sheet regarding MT No. 448017 .
Credit voucher for Rs . 30,000 .
Ex.M4
Ex.M29 27-07-2002
25-07-2002 Letter by Egmore branch to the AGM Circle Office (ME 3 ) .
Credit Voucher for Rs . 50,000 .
ΕΧ.Μ30 28-07-2002
Ex. M5
Credit Voucher for Rs , 5,000 .
30-07-2002
EX.M31
30-07-2002 Letter by Egmore branch to the AGM Circle Office (ME 5).
26-07-2002
Ex M32
Ex. M6
Xerox copy of Canara Bank Demand Draft for Rs . 5,000 .
31-07-2002 Letter by Egmore branch to the AGM Circle Office (ME 6) .
Credit Voucher for Rs . 75,000 .
30-07-2002
EX.M33
Ex . M7
29-07-2002
EX.M34
02-08-2002 Letter by Egmore branch to the AGM Circle Office (ME 7) .
Letter from Mr. D. David John to theManager, Indian Bank, Egmore .
ni Ex. M8
Cash Voucher for Rs . 98,000 .
31-08-2002
Ex.M35
06-08-2002 Letter by Egmore branch to the petitioner (ME 8 ) .
Cash Voucher for Rs . 98,000 .
01-08-2002
Ex.M36
Ex.M9
31-07-2002
Ex.M37
31-12-2002 Letter by circle office to the petitioner (ME 10).
Letter from D. David John to Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Egmore with courier cover.
Cheque No. 331821 (ME . 13 ).
Ex. M10 17-03-2002
Ex.M38
Cheque No. 331824 (ME . 14) .
17-03-2002
Ex. M11
Xerox copy of Central Bank of India Demand Draft for Rs . 47,000 .
Cheque No. 331825 (ME. 15) .
26-03-2002
Ex .M12
Xerox copy of Central Bank of India Demand Draft for Rs . 45,000 Cheque No. 331830 (ME . 16) .
28-03-2002
Ex. M13
Cheque No. 331835 ( ME . 20 ) .
03-05-2002
Ex .M14
Xerox copy of Central Bank of India Demand Draft for Rs. 5,000 .
Ex.M15
Ex.M39 02-08-2002
Extract of Cheque book issue register folio page 101 (ME . 43 ) .
Copy of TT /ES Payable Section DayBook .
Letter by petitioner (ME. 44 ) .
24-07-2002
Ex .M16
Ex.M40 25-07-2002 Copy of Sundry Deposit Section DayBook.
Letter by petitioner ( ME . 45 ) .
20-05-2002
Ex . M17
Ex.M41
FBP Register Folio-33 .
16-07-2002
Ex . M18
Ex.M42
Work allocation from November 2001.
Sanction accorded in respect of claim preferred by LR's of Mr. Abdul Wahab (ME.47) .
Ex.M43
Ex.M 19
Attendance Register copy for March, 2002.
Claim papers filed by LR's ofMr. Abdul Wahab (ME . 48).
Credit Voucher for Rs . 60,000 .
02-08-2002
Ex.M44
Ex.M20
Credit Voucher for Rs . 10,000 .
02-08-2002
Attendance Register for March 2002 (ΜΕ . 52 ) .
Ex.M45
Cheque No. 310025 for Rs . 31025 .
02-08-2002
Ex.M46
Ex.M21
Attendance Register for April 2002 (ΜΕ . 53 ).
Credit Voucher for Rs . 50,000.
02-08-2002
Ex.M47
ExM22
Telegram received on 01-08-2002.
01-08-2002
Ex.M48
Attendance Register for May 2002 (ΜΕ . 54) .
Ex.M49
Locker No. 48 Sheet in the name of Abdul Wahab.
Ex.M2 3 Attendance Register for July 2002 (ΜΕ . 55) .
Ex.M24
Ex.M50 25-07-2002 Letter from Chief Manager , Indian Bank to Deputy Manager , Indian Bank (C.O) - North, Chennai .
Investigation report submitted by K. Visvanathan (ME. 56) .
408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26, 1931
[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii)] नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
AWARD
This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act challenging the action of the management in denying employment to 10 employees belonging to the first union .
का.आ. 183.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन रेयर अर्थस लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , इर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-29011/6/2009- आई आर ( एम ) ]
2. Summons was issued to both unions and management . Though both sides entered appearance initially, when the case was posted for claim statement, both unions remained absent . There was ado no representation also . No vakalat is seen filed. In the circumstances it has to be presumed that there no existing dispute for adjudication.
0002 कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd December, 2009
In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in denying employment to 10 employees is legal and justified and the employees are not entitiled for any relief.
The award will come into force one month after its publication inthe Official Gazette .
S.O. 183. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 32/2009 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-2009 .
Ditated to the Personai Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 1stday of December , 2009 .
[No. L- 29011 /6/2009 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
P. L. NORBERT, Presding Officer Appendix-Nil
ANNEXURE
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : Shri P. L. Norbert, B. A. LLB. , Presiding Officer (Tuesday the 1st day of December , 2009/ 10th Agrahayana , 1931 )
I. D. 32/2009
का.आ. 184.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोचीन रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , इर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Union :
[सं. एल-30011/38/2007- आई आर ( एम) ]
कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी 1. The General Secretary , Kerala Minerals Employees Congress , Chavara P. O. Distt . Quilon , Chavara (Kerala)
New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009 2. The Secretary, IRE Bagging Contract Workers Welfare Forum, Karithura Chavara P. O. Distt. Kollam ( Kerala) .
Management : The Head, Indian Rare Earths Limited, Chavara P. O. Distt . Kollam , Kollam (Kerala)-691583 . By Adv . M/ s Menon & Pai .
S.O. 184. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 25/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kochi Refineries Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-2009 .
This case coming up for hearing on 01-02-2009 , thisTribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed thefollowing.
[ No. L -30011/38 /2007 - IR ( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ⅱ) ]
TommANNEXURE to lidad Ja IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT tempos bomu ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : Shri P. L. Norbert, B. A. LLB. , Presiding Officer (Wednesday the 2nd day of December , 2009/ 11th Agrahayana , 1931 )
I. D. 25/2007
Union :
1. The Cochin Refinery Worker ' Association . (CRWA), Ambalamughal , Kochi Refinery, Kochi (Kerala) - 682 302 .
By Adv . K. S. Madhusoodanan .
2. The Gerneral Secretary , Cochin Refinery Employees Union , Ambalamughal , By Adv . C. Anilkumar .
Management : 2. The General Manager ( HRM ), Kochi Refineries Limited, Ambalamughal , Cochin - 682 302 By Adv . M/ s Menon & Pai .
This case coming up for hearing on 02-12-2009 , this Tribunal - cum - Labour Court on the same day passed the following: teadail
AWARD
This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act regarding fixation of pay on promotion.
20 2. Though both sides entered appearance and filed their pleadings when the matter came up for evidence mangement and counsel remained absent and there was no representation . The witness of the union was present and filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination . The unions produced nine documents . The proof affidavit and the documents are marked as WW1 and Exts . W1 to 9. The documentary and oral evidence of the unions prove their claim that the pay ofworkers on promotion is to be fixed in accordance with the long term settlement , Ext . W8 . The evidence of the unions stands unchallenged .
In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in fixing the basic pay of workmenon promotion to managerial position of first line supervisors , at a rate less then what they were drawing before their promotion is unfair and unjustified and the workers are entitled to get their pay fixed in accordance with clauses 13 (c) and 14 of Ext. W8 long term settlement . Liveboi .
409
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931 ANAD BUT
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.in
Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 2nd day of December , 2009 .
P.L. NORBERT , Presding Officer
Appendix-Nil
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2009
का.आ. 185.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. पी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ, संख्या 181/2003 एवं 37/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -30012/57/2001 - आई आर ( एम) ] [सं. एल-30012/38/2003 - आई आर ( एम ) ]
कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी
drod New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009
S.O. 185. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 181 / 2003 & 37 / 2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court- 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BPCL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-2009 .
[No. L-30012/57/2001 - IR ( M ) ]
[No. L - 30012/38/2003 - IR ( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , P anem YCHANDIGARH yibzw namitow adr Case No. I.D. No. 181/2003 & 37/2005
1. Shri Manbir Singh C/ o Shri Karan Singh , Secretary Bharti Mazd Sangh , Lal Bati Chowk, G.T. Road , Panipat . wife stol
2. Shri Ved Parkash S/ o Sh . Babu Ram , C/ o BMS biche Office, Lal Bati Chowk , G.T. Road, Panipat . s
Applicants
Versus
1. The Manager , Bharat Petroleum Corpn . Ltd. , Village Dadlana, Teh . & Dist. Panipat ( Haryana) 7510 410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
2. The Executive Director, BPCL, Panipat Despath Unit , Panipat (Haryana)
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Tribunal . On behalf of the management , one Officer of Corporation in each file filed the affidavit and he was cross- examined by learned counsel of the workman .
Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Workmen in person with representative Sh . Karan Singh For the Management Sh . G.D. Maheshwari & Sh. Vivek Kaushal , Advocates .
AWARD
Passed on 2-12-09
This Award shall dispose of two references of different workman referred by Central Government by different notifications . The references which are being disposed ofby this Award are as follows :-
1. No. L - 30012/ 57 /2001 / IR ( M) Dated 30-10-2003 (Sh. Manbir Singh )
2. No. L -30012/ 38 / 2003 / IR ( M) Dated 29-08-2005 (Sh . Ved Parkash )
Commonquestions of law and facts are involved in both the references , hence , the reference are disposed of by a single Award . In both references , the nature of work claimed to be worked by each workman is also similar .
In both the references , the workmen have claimed that they worked with the management for more than 240 days as Operator Shilling ( RTW ) / Security Guard respectively in the preceding year from the date of termination . They were directly appointed by the management of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , Panipat . Their services were retrenched by the management without payment of retrenchment compensation. No notice before their retrenchment was given . On the basis of these facts, both the workmen have prayed for declaration of their retrenchment , as illegal being against the provisions ofthe Act and for their reinstatement into the services with fullbackwages.
The management of respondent appeared and contested the claim of each workman by filing written statement . It is contended by the management that none of the workman was directly appointed by the management. The services of the workmen were provided through the contractor . The management also challenged the employer and employee relationship with the workman .
Onperusal ofpleadings of the parties , it is evidently clear that the main issue for adjudication before this Tribunal is : whether workmen are employees of the management of Bharat Petroleum CorporationLtd. , Panipat ? The consequential question to be answered is whether their termination from the services is illegal and the relief to be given to the workmen , if any ?
Opportunity for adducing evidence was given to the parties. Statement of every workman was recorded by this Parties were heard at length . Learned counsel for the workman argued that both the workmen were engaged/ appointed by the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation . If their appointments and rendering the services have been shown through contractor , it is illegal being against the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970. It is also submitted by learned counsel of the workmen that both the workmen were directly under the administrative control for the management . They were paid wages by the management ofthe Bharat Petroleum Corporation and in fact, they were the employees of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and that of not any contractor .
On the other hand learned counsel for the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation submitted that all the workmen worked through a contractor, hence , there is no master - servant relationship between them. Different contractors provided with the services to the management. The contractor was paid the wages and accordingly, contractor paid the wages to the workmen . None of the workman was under the administrative control ofthe management .
The issue of employer - employee relationship between the management . of Bharat Petroleum Corporation and the workmen is a mixed question of facts and law, and accordingly, shall be adjudicated on the basis of evidence and pleadings of the parties .
In both the references , it is admitted fact that no appointment letter was issued by the management . It is denied by the workmen that the payment of wages were made good by the contractors , but on perusal of the documents filed by the management , it is evidently clear that the payment to the workmen were made good by the respective contractors and not by the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation . Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008 LLR- 801 , GM ONGC Silchur Vs ONGC Contractual Workers Union had laid down the criteria to establish the direct employee - employer relationship between the workmen and the management of any organization . If the ratio of GM ONGC Silchur's case ( supra) is applied in the instant references , the workmen have to prove - the following facts to establish the employee - employer relationship :
1. That there existed a relationship of master and servant.
2. That there was no contractor appointed by the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
3. The management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , used to supervise the alleged work assigned to individual workers .
411 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4. That the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. took disciplinary action and called for explanation from the workers .
The management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation has also apprised this Tribunal that there is the procedure for recruitment of workmen for a particular work . No workman was recruited/ appointed as per the rules of the department . Their services were provided with by a contractor on outsourcing.
5. That the workers were paid wages by the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , directly and not through the contractor.
Onperusal of all the evidence , oral and documentary , given by the workmen/ officer of the management of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation, I am of the view that payment ofwages to all the workmen were made good by the contractor and not by the management of Indian Oil Corporation.
6. At the cost of repetition, the wages were paid directly to the workers by the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , and the acquaintance roll were prepared by the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , to make the payment to the workers .
The above discussion proves that neither the workmen were appointed/engaged by the management of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation nor they were under the administrative control of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation . They were also not paid the wages by Bharat Petroleum Corporation . Hence , there existed no master - servant relationship between the management of Indian Oil Corporation and the workmen .
Ifthe above mentioned ratio of GM ONGC , Silchur's case (supra) is applied in both of the references , it is clear that workmen have failed to prove that they were appointed/ engaged by the management of Bharat Petroleum . Corporation . There is no iota of evidence on record to prove that they were directly under the administrative control of the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation . No doubt , it is contended by the workmen thattheir attendance were marked by the officers / officials ofmanagement ofBharat Petroleum Corporation , but it will not be sufficient to prove the administrative control over them.
The documents also prove that the Agency who provided with the services to the Corporation paid the wages to the workmen . In none of the case the management has paid the wages directly to the workman. It is admitted that no appointment letter was given to any ofthe workman . None of the workman applied for the post on which they claimed to work. They were supposed to file / adduce some cogent evidence like sanction of leave application , disciplinary action, if any, taken by the management etc. to prove the administrative control of the management over them. Few instances by filing copy of certain challans have been shown by the workmen and in my view this is not the sufficient evidence to prove the administrative control over workmen.
Almost in both the references , it is also contended by the workman that the contract , if any , shown by the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation was camouflage and shame . In ONGC Silchur's case ( supra) the conditions under which a contract can be treated camouflage and shame are mentioned. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has relied upon the law laid down in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water workers and Others AIR 2001 SC - 3527 . The question before this Tribunal is under what circumstances the contract between management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation and the workmen can be held to be shame and camouflage ? In case the contract has been held to be shame and camouflage, the contract labour working under the management of principal employer are held to be the employees of Bharat Petroleum Corporation . It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case , whether the contract executed in between management and the contractor is camouflage and shame ? It is also an issue of facts and has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case . Whether there is a genuine contractor , and whether there is a proper master - servant relationship in between. the management of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and the workmen also depends on the facts and circumstances of each reference ? The Court/ Tribunal has to apprise whether these facts emerged in reality or there was some paper arrangement to make the payment good to the workmen through contractor ?
Almost in all the references , the nature of contract is challenged by the workmen . No doubt , in almost all the references it is not mentioned in the pleadings that there was a contract between the contractor and the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation . But the documents provided with and filed by the management of Indian Oil Onthe payment of wages , the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation has filed the documentary evidence , which proves that consolidated amount on the basis of number of days worked by the workmen were paid to the contractor and the contractor on the other hand used to pay wages to the workmen. The management has filed all the relevant documents , such as , attendance sheet signed by the officers of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation , order of payment passed on attendance of the workmen to the contractor , and thereafter , the payment of wages by.the contractor to the workmen . Moreover , the management has also filed the detailed description of pay rolls containing all the details of payment of wages made good to its workmen , employees and officers. The name of workmen did not find place in these pay rolls .
13 GI/2010-15 412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26, 1931
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
judgments , and the ratio of both of the judgment is that if there is any violation of Section 7 and Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, then only penal provisions of Section 23 and Section 25 of the said Act are attracted. Hence , it is nowhere provided that such employees , employed through the contractor would become employees of the principal employer .
Corporation proved that the workmen were having the notice and knowledge that their services are being taken through a contractor . On the basis of the documents , I am ofthe view that prior to raising the Industrial dispute; the workmen were having the knowledge and notice that their services were provided_to the management of Indian Oil Corporation through contractor , but there is no mention of this fact in pleadings except in two references . It is contended by the workmen that the contract is shame and camouflage and void being against the provisions of Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970. Unless and until the terms and conditions as laid down in GM ONGC's case ( supra ) are not fulfilled , no workman can be treated as the direct employee of Indian Oil Corporation.
Accordingly, I am of the view that none of the work- men was the employee of the management . There was no relationship of master - servant and the employer and employee between the workmen and the management of IndianOil Corporation. Thus , no question for termination ofthe services of the workmen by Indian Oil Corporation arises . Both of the references are answered accordingly, and the workmen are not entitled for any relief. Let Central Government be approached for publication of the award , and thereafter , the file be consigned to record room.
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर , 2009 The next issue for the disposal before this Tribunal iswhether the workmen will be deemed to be in the services ofthe management of Indian Oil Corporation on account of violation of any of the provisions of Contract Labour- (Regulation and Abolition) , Act 1970 ? It is issue of law and has limited concern with the facts . On the issue of facts , I have already given my view that the workmen are not employees of the management of Indian Oil Corporation, but their services were provided with to the management by the different contractors . As this issue of law is also raised by the parties , it is the duty of this Tribunal to decide it as well . On this issue , I am of the view that there may be three circumstances :-
का.आ. 186.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. कानहुपुर स्टोन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. -1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 225/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
1. There may be a case where the practice of contract labour is prohibited by the appropriate Government under Section 10( 1 ) of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 .
[सं. एल-29012/22/2000- आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009 2. There may be an issue regarding the registration of establishment of principal employer under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
3. There may be an issue regarding the license by the contractor under Section 12 of Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
S.O. 186. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 225/2000 ) 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 . Kanhupur Stone Mines. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-2009 .
The issue to be decided is whether in the case of violation of any of the provisions mentioned under Section 10 ( 1 ) , Section 7 and Section 12 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970 , the contract labour shall be deemed to be an employee of the principal employer ?
[No. L - 29012 / 22 /2000 - IR ( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . 1. DHANBAD
Inthe matter of a reference under section 10 ( 1) ( d ) & ( 2A) ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947
Reference No. 225 of 2000 This issue has been settled by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd.'s case (supra) .More- over, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Food Corpora- tion of India and others Vs. Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court - I , Chandigarh and others 2008 LLR 391 , has decided this issue after relying the ratio of Steel Authority of India Ltd. , case (supra) . Without mentioning the relevant paras of Steel Authority of India Ltd. , case (supra ) and of Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court- l's case ( supra ) , I am relying the ratio ofboth ofthe
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Kanhupur Stone Mines and Their workmen [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Present : Sri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer
For the Employers: None .
Forthe Workman : None .
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated 10th November , 2009
AWARD
By Order No. L- 29012 / 22/ 2000 /IR ( M ) dated . 23-6-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has in exereise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
" Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Kanhupur Stone Mines in terminating the services of their workman Sh . Badradoja Sheikh w.e.f. 9-11-97 is justified ? It not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? " 2. This reference case was received in this Tribunal on 11-8-2000. Thereafter , notices were sent to the parties to file written statement by sponsorisng union/workman . In spite of notices sent by speed post no written statement has been filed by the workman till 20-7-09. It, therefore , appears that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case .
In such , circumstances , I render No Dispute Award in this reference case .
H. M. Singh Presiding Officer .
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 187.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल एयरपोर्ट ऑथोरिटी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -11012/8/ 2007- आई आर ( एम ) ]
कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 23rd December , 2009 S.O. 187. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Airport Authority and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-2009 .
[No. L- 11012/ 8 /2007 - IR (M) ]
KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
413
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/ पौष 26 , 1931
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT NO. 1, NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX , DELHI I. D. No. 57/2007
Vijender Kumar S/o Shri Ashloof, C/o Delhi Labour Union, Aggarwal Bhawan , G. T. Road, TisHazari ,
New Delhi - 110054 .
....Workman
Versus
The Chairman ,
National Airport Authority RajivGandhi Bhawan , Safdarjung Airport , NewDelhi .
Management
AWARD
VijenderKumar joined services with the management as peon on 26-7-90 . Later on he was assigned duties of driverw.e.f. 25th of July , 1991. He served the management till 31st of March , 2004. His last drawn wages were Rs. 4000 per month . On 20th of April , 2004 his services were dispensed with . He was not served with notice or given pay in lieu thereof. No retrenchment compensation was paid to him. He raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal vide order No. L- 11012/ 8 /2007 - IR ( M ) New Delhi , dated 9th of July , 2007 with following terms :-
"Whether the demand of Delhi Labour Union in respect ofVijender Kumar S/o Shri Ashloof Ex Driver, for reinstatement of regularization in Project Division ofNationalAirport Authority of India , New Delhi is just, fair and legal ? Ifyes , to what relief the workman isentitled to and from which date ? "
2. Claim statement was filed by the workman pleading therein that he was engaged by the management w.e.f. 26-7-90 as a peon . Subsequently duties of driver were assigned to him w.e.f. 25-7-91 . He served the management to their entire satisfaction till 31-3-2004. He had unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to his credit . His last drawn wages were Rs . 4500. His services were dispensed with on 21-4-04 in violation of the provisions of section 25-F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act) . No notice pay and retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time of termination of his services . No domestic 414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
When conciliation proceedings failed the dispute was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication: Atthe time of termination of his services no notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to him . Retrenchment compensation was also not paid to him . He served the management continuously from July , 1990 , till April , 2004 without any break .
enquiry was conducted against him and his termination amounts to retrenchment . Action of the management amounts to unfair labour practice . He is unemployed since the date of termination of his service . He raised notice of demanddated 3-9-04 which was replied by the management vide letter dated 14-12-04 , wherein it was claimed that he was never employed by the management . He has documents in his possession to prove his employment with the management . He claimed reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .
7. Vijender Kumar unfolds that legal notice of demand, served on the management , is Ex . WWI / 1 . It was sent by registered post . Vide letter dated 26-7-90 he was employed by the management , copy of which is Ex. WWI / 2. On perusal of Ex. WW1/ 2 it came to light that Vijender Kumar was appointed as a peon for a period of one year . Therefore, it is clear that in July , 1990, Vijender Kumar was appointed by the management to serve as a peon for a period of one year .
3. Notice of the claim statement was sent to the management on 28-7-09 . Ms. Deepa Rai authorized representative appeared on behalf of the management and sought time to file written statement . Case was adjourned time and again, subject to payment of cost, to afford an opportunitytothe management to file its written statement . Neither cost was paid nor written statement was filed . Hence defence ofthe management was struck off vide order dated 21-10-09.
4.Workman entered the witness box to testify facts . Anopportunity was given to Ms. Deepa Rai , authorized representative, to purify testimony of workman by an ordeal of cross examination . She has not availed that opportunity. Workman had closed his evidence .
8. Certificate Ex . WW1/ 3 was issued by Shri S. K. Chandalia Assistant Engineer , Delhi Project Division of the management , wherein it has been specified that Vijender Kumar was working as a driver with the management and was drawing his salary@ Rs.1800/- PM . Letter Ex.MWI/ 4 makesit clear that Vijender Kumar worked as a M.T.driver with the management w.e.f. 2-8-91 till 28-6-93 . He again started working as a driver from 1-1-94 to 23-8-95 . He was again taken onjob as Driver on 1-11-95 and he continuously served the management till 25-7-97 , the date when the said certificate was issued.
5. Arguments were advanced at the bar . Shri Md. Faruk, authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the workman . Ms. Deepa Rai , authorized representative, presented her points of view on behalf of the management . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows :-
9. Certificate Ex .WW1/ 5 projects that Vijender Kumar worked as a driver in Engineering Wing of the management from 7-3-97 to 30th of September , 98. He again worked with the management from October , 98 till November, 99, which fact emerge out of certificate Ex . WWI/ 6. He was again engaged on 7th of December , 99 and he workedwith the management till 16th of June , 2000 which fact has been confirmed by Pardeep Kumar , Executive Engineer, through certificate EX.WW1 / 7 . The workman projects that he filed his claim statement before the Conciliation Officer wherein it was mentioned that he continuously served the management w.e.f. 25-7-91 till 31-3-04 as a driver . The management filed its reply before the conciliation officer which is Ex . WWI/ 10 , wherein it was claimed that he was never engaged by the management . Shri Faruk argued that in Ex. WW1 / 10 management had not disputed claim ofthe workman that he was initially engaged as a peon and subsequently assigned duties of a driver . He argued that the documents referred above belies the stand taken by the management in its written statement Ex. WW1 / 10 , filed before the Conciliation Officer . When facts projected by Vijender Kumar and those detailed by themanagement in Ex. WW1 / 10 are closely perused , it came to light that the management has taken a wrong stand in its written statement filed before the Conciliation Officer .
6. Vijender Kumar deposed that he joined services with the management on 22-7-90 as a peon . After one year of his service , he was assigned duties of driver with the management . Initially he was paid wages @ Rs . 1250 p.m. When duties of driver were assigned to him his wages were increasedto Rs . 2500/-p.m. He served continuously with the management upto 20th of April, 2004 At the time oftermination of his service his wages were Rs . 4000/- per month. Since his son was to be married on 27-4-04 , he applied leave for ten days . His leave application was not accepted. He was orally told that his ten days leave has beensanctioned . After availing leave for 10 days he went to attend his duties on 1st of March 2004 , but he was not allowed tojoin his duties . He was told that he should go on leave for one month more . He went to join his duties on 1-6-2004 . At thatjuncture he was told that he would not be taken back on duties . He went to the office of the ConciliationOfficer at Curzon Road, New Delhi . Conciliation Officer wrote a letter to the management but the management opted not to attend conciliation proceedings .
415
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
Documents Ex . WW1 /2 , Ex . WWI/3 , Ex. WWI/4 , Ex . WW1/5 , EX.WWI/6 and Ex . WW 1/7 made it clear that the workman was engaged by the management initially as a peon and subsequently as a driver . The workman deposed that he served the management as a driver till 20-4-2004, when his services were dispensed with . Facts projected by him were not assailed by the management at all . Therefore , it is evident that unassailed facts testified by the workman are to be accepted as true . It has come over the record that services of the workman were dispensed with by the management in April, 2004.
find out whether the workman has actually worked for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calandar months immediately preceding the retrenchment . Therefore, to rackon continuous service of240 days the period of service rendered by the workman in preceding 12 calendar months shall be taken into account , from the date of termination of his services . As testified by the workman he , rendered continuous service since 2-8-91 till the date of termination ofhisservice viz , 20-4-04 . To count his continuity ofservice from 20-4-04 period of 12 preceding calendar month has been taken into account and it came to forefront that the workman had rendered more than 240 days continuous service in preceding 12 calendar month, from the date of termination of his service .
12.Whenworkman had rendered more than 240 days continuous service in preceding 12 months from the date oftermination of his service , provision of Section 25 - F of the Act is applicable to his case. The workman deposed thatneither notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him.. Consequently it is evident thathis retrenchment is in violation of the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act.
10. Services of the workman were dispensed with on20th of April , 2004. The management has not been able to establish that the services of the workman were done away by way of punishment, after a disciplinary inquiry. It has not been shown that the workman sought voluntary retirement or he was superannuated on reaching the age of superannuation. It has also not been shown that his services were dispensed with on account of non renewal of the contract of employment or on the ground of continued ill health . Therefore, it is evident that termination of the services of the workman amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act . Services of the workman were dispensed with on 20-4-04 . He presents that he served the management continuously since 2-8-91 till 20-4-04. For the purpose ofcontinuous service for period of one year , the Tribunal had to consider as to whether the workman has been able to show a continuity of service as provided in Section 25 - B of the Act .
13. Services of the workman were retrenched without payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation. It is well settled that in a case of wrongful retrenchment , dismissal or discharge , the normal rule is to award reinstatement . But where a case falls in any of the exception to general rule, the industrial adjudicator has discretion to award reasonable and adequate compensation, in lieu of re - instatentent . Section 11A of the Act vests the industrial adjudicator with discretionary jurisdiction to give " such other relief to the workman " in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require , where for some valid reasons it considers that reinstatement with or without conditions will not be fair or proper .
14. Workman projects that he is unemployed these days . As and when he got labour job he performed it. Facts projected by the workman were not controverted by the management . Consequently it emerges over the record that the workman remained unemployed since the date of termination of his service . However he did labour job as and when he could get . Taking into account all these facts I am of the considered opinion that for the period of unemployment workman is entitled at least 30% of his wages . In view of the foregoing reasons it is ordered that the management shall reinstate the services of the workman with continuity and 30% of his wages . An Award is accordingly passed.
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Delhi ,
27th November , 2009
11. " Continuous Service " has been defined by Section 25B of the Act . Under sub - section ( 1 ) of the said Section "continuous service for a period " may comprise of two period viz . ( i ) uninterrupted service , and ( ii ) interrupted service on account of ( a) sickness , (b) authorized leave , ( c) an accident , ( d) a strike which is not legal , ( e ) a lock - out, and (f) a cessation of work that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman, shall be included in the " continuous service . " Sub - section (2) of the said Section introduces a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in " continuous service " within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months , he shall be deemed to in continuous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked for the days specified in clauses ( a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo ( 1968 Lab.I.C.1180 ) it was held that one year's period contemplated by sub- section (2) furnished a unit of measure and if during that unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days , then he can be considered to have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose of the Section . The idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had put in at least 240 days of service , then he must get the benefit conferred by the Act . Consequently , an enquiry has to be made to 416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26, 1931
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 188.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल.आई. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -17011/3/2006- आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009 S.O. 188.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.4 /2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Ajmer now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 22-12-2009 .
[No. L- 17011 / 3/2006 - IR ( M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
अनुबन्ध
श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, अजमेर सीआईटीआर नं. 4/07
[रेफरेंस संख्या एल -17011/3 /2006- आईआर ( एम )
दिनांक 11-5-07 ]
दी प्रेसीडेंट , ऑफ इण्डिया शिड्यूल कास्ट/शिड्यूल ट्राइब एण्ड बुद्धिष्ट, एल आई सी एम्पलोयिज वेलफेयर एसोसिऐशन , द्वारा एल आई सी रीजनल आफिस , रानाडे मार्ग , अजमेर
-प्रार्थी यूनियन
बनाम
एल आई सी ऑफ इण्डिया , दी सीनियर डीवीजनल मैनेजर , एल आई सी ऑफ इण्डिया , डीवीजनल आफिस, जीवन प्रकाश , रानाडे मार्ग , पीबी. 2, अजमेर
-अप्रार्थी-नियोजक
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] समक्ष : श्री मिथिलेश कुमार शर्मा , आर एच जे एस प्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री डी. डी. , एडवोकेट
अप्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री कृष्ण अवतार , एडवोकेट
अवार्ड
दिनांक 12-11-09
श्रम मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार , नई दिल्ली से प्राप्त रेफेरेंस इस प्रकार है कि: -
"Whether the action of Sr. Divisional Manager , LIC Divisional Office, Ranaday Marg, Ajmer in deducting two increments permanently from the Salary of Sh . Omparkash Singh S/o Sh . Puran Singh in a bid to recover of loss of Rs . 1928 occurred to the corporation isjust and legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entiled to ? "
नोटिस के उपरांत प्रार्थी पक्ष उपस्थित आये । प्रार्थी की ओर से अपना मांग पत्र प्रेषित कर उसमें कथन किये गये हैं कि श्रमिक ओमप्रकाश को अप्रार्थी ने एक आरोप पत्र दिनांक 8-3-02 को देते हुए उस पर यह आरोप लगाया कि उसने दिनांक 3-3-02 को मण्डल कार्यालय , अजमेर में निगम की सम्पति को नुकसान पहुंचाते हुए तीन कांच जो मुख्य द्वार उसके सामने के द्वार एवं कैंटीन के कांच तोड़ दिये और स्वागत कक्ष पर लगे कम्पयूटर के तार भी तोड़ दिये और कम्पयूटर को नुकसान पहुंचाने का प्रयास किया गया । उक्त आरोप पत्र के सम्बन्ध में अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही को अमल में लेते हुए उसके विरुद्ध विभागीय कार्यवाही आरंभ की गई और श्रमिक के विरुद्ध पूर्वाग्रसित और बायज्ड होते हुए प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों के विपरीत दिनांक 11-7-03 को दण्डादेश पारित किया गया । जिसमें उसकी दो वेतनवृद्धियां स्थाई रूप से घटाये जाने तथा 1928 रुपये की वसूली निगम को हुए नुकसान बाबत वसूली किये जाने की शासित प्रदान की गई ।
श्रमिक की ओर से आगे कथन किये गये हैं कि उक्त दण्डादेश के विरुद्ध अपीलीय अधिकारी के समक्ष अपील भी पेश की थी जिस पर श्रमिक को बिना व्यक्तिगत रूप से सुने तथा बिना अभिलेख का अवलोकन किये 31-3-04 को अपील को निरस्त कर दी । जिसके विरुद्ध श्रमिक ने एक मेमोरियल याचिका भी दिनांक 1-11-04 को श्रीमान अध्यक्ष , जीवन बीमा निगम के समक्ष पेश की गई जिस पर भी प्रार्थी को ना तो सुनवाई के लिये व्यक्तिगत रूप से अवसर दिया और ना ही अभिलेख का अवलोकन किया और प्रार्थी श्रमिक को दिया गया दण्डादेश दिनांक 11-7-03 को बहाल रखा । आगे उसने अपने मांग पत्र/क्लेम में यह वर्णित किया है कि दिनांक 3-3-02 को रविवार को क्रिकेट मैच के पश्चात् लंच के दौरान श्रमिक और एक अन्य सहकर्मी श्री सतीश बाकोलिया के मध्य हाथापाई व गाली गलौच होना कहा है जिसमें उक्त घटना के दौरान मण्डल कार्यालय, अजमेर की सम्पति में कांच के द्वार तोड़े जाना और कम्पयूटर के तार 417
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
के अनुरूप ही दण्डादेश पारित किया गया । प्रार्थी की मांग करने पर दस्तावेजात की प्रतियां उपलब्ध करा दी थी । उसके विरुद्ध किसी प्रकार की प्रीज्यूडिस एवं बायस होकर दण्डादेश पारित नहीं किया गया । उसका यह भी कथन है कि प्रार्थी ने कभी 26-3-02, 12-4-02 एवं 26-4-02 के पत्रों की प्रतियों की मांग नहीं की और उसे लिखित शिकायत की प्रति तो पूर्व में ही दे दी गई थी । उनका यह भी कथन है कि जांच अधिकारी द्वारा साक्ष्य का विवेचन कर आरोप प्रार्थी पर पूर्णतया सिद्ध पाया गया है । उनका यह भी कथन है कि प्रार्थी पर लगाई गई शास्ति की वसूली उसके वेतन से सही कटौती की गई है । अंत में अप्रार्थी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी को जो दण्डादेश पारित किया है वह नियमानुसार प्रार्थी पर आरोप सिद्ध पाये जाने पर ही दण्डादेश पारित किया है इस वजह से प्रार्थी का क्लेम सव्यय खारिज किये जाने की प्रार्थना की है ।
प्रार्थी की ओर से अपने दस्तावेजात के समर्थन में वरिष्ठ मण्डल प्रबंधक को प्रेषित शिकायत की प्रति , आरोप पत्र की प्रतिलिपि, विभागीय कार्यवाही के संबंध में मांगे जाने वाली कमेंट्स की प्रति , जांच रिपोर्ट की प्रति , एवं दण्डादेश की प्रति प्रस्तुत की है जबकि अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत किये गये दस्तावेजात में जांच पत्रावली व उससे सम्बन्धित कार्यवाहियों के दस्तावेज की प्रति दण्डादेश व अपीलीय आदेश की प्रतियां पेश की हैं ।
उपरोक्त तथ्यों के अभिवचनों एवं दस्तावेजात पर दोनों पक्षों कोसुना गया तथा उभय पक्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुप्त लिखित बहस का अवलोकन किया ।
विद्वान अभि. प्रार्थी की दलील है कि प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध झूठे आरोप लगाये गये हैं । जिस दिन की घटना बतलाई है उस दिन रविवार का अवकाश था । इस कारण कोई कार्यालय संबंधी कार्य प्रार्थी करने के लिये बाध्य नहीं था , सतीश बाकोलिया ने प्रार्थी के साथ मारपीट की और उसके चोटें भी आईं किन्तु प्रार्थी की शिकयत पर कार्यवाही नहीं की और गलत रूप से जांच कर एक पक्षीय कार्यवाही की जिसे अपास्तकरने की दलील दी है ।
तोड़े जाने का एवं निगम को हानि पहुंचाने का प्रयास करने बाबत शिकायत उक्त जांच कार्यवाही के दौरान दिनांक 16-7-02 को प्रार्थी की ओर से उक्त जांच कार्यवाही में प्रस्तुति अधिकारी द्वारा प्रस्तुत हुई । प्रार्थी पक्ष का यह भी कथन है कि उनके द्वारा प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध की गई शिकायत पत्र दिनांक 3-3-02 की प्रति एवं अप्रार्थी को दिये गये प्रत्रांक 26-3-02 , 12-4-02 एवं 26-4-02 की मांग की किन्तु श्रमिक पक्ष को उक्त दस्तावेजात उपलब्ध नहीं करवाये गये । उसका यह भी कथन है कि इस मामले में जिस चौकीदार मंगल सिंह के हाथ की रिपोर्ट होना बताया गया है तहरीर पर प्राप्ति की दिनांक , सील और प्राप्ति अधिकारी के हस्ताक्षर और उनका कोई रिमार्क जो कार्यालय के साधारण अनुक्रम में प्रत्येक पत्र पर अंकित होता है नहीं होने के कारण उक्त कथित तहरीरी शिकायत को संशयपूर्ण बताया है । उसका यह भी कथन है कि उसने 4-3-02 को इस प्रकरण में दोषी व्यक्तियों के विरुद्ध शिकायत पेश की थी किन्तु उसके विरुद्ध कोई कार्यवाही न करते हुए प्रार्थी पर गलत रूप से कार्यवाही की है । उसका कथन यह भी है कि इस मामले में अप्रार्थी पक्ष ने एक भी चश्मदीद गवाह को पेश नहीं किया है और ना ही ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति का नाम जांच अधिकारी ने अपनी जांच में या आरोप पत्र में ही उल्लेखित किया है । श्रमिक पक्ष का यह भी कथन है कि इस घटना की शिकयत मंगल सिंह नामक चौकीदार ने की है जिसमें यह बताया गया है कि उस समय अनुराग मिश्रा , ओ. पी. पाण्डे , जितेन्द्र कुमार एवं नागर की उपस्थिति में यह घटना हुई थी किन्तु उक्त गवाहान को परीक्षित करने का अवसर प्रार्थी को नहीं दिया गया है । प्रार्थी पक्ष का यह भी कथन है कि श्री प्रदीप कृपलानी की साक्ष्य जांच में ली गई है जिसका नाम ना तो शिकायत पत्र में है और ना ही उक्त व्यक्ति का नाम चौकीदार ने अपनी शिकयत में चश्मदीद गवाह के रूप में वक्त दुर्घटना होना दर्शित किया है । ऐसे में इस गवाह के बयान विश्वसनीय नहीं माने जाने के कथन अपनी मांग पत्र में वर्णित किये हैं । अंत में प्रार्थी पक्ष ने अप्रार्थी द्वारा दिया गया दण्डादेश निरस्त करते हुए उसकी रोकी गई दो वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धियों को बहाल करने व 1928 रु. की शास्ति का दण्डादेश निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की है ।
विद्वान अभि. प्रार्थी की यह भी दलील है कि प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध जारी आरोप पत्र के जवाब का पूर्ण अवसर नहीं दिया गया । उसे सम्बन्धित दस्तावेजात की प्रतियां नहीं दी गई जो घटना के गवाहन बताये गये हैं उनको परीक्षित नहीं करवाया गया है और जांच प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों के अनुरूप नहीं कर दुर्भावना से प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध जांच की गई जिसे अपास्त करने की दलील दी है ।
विद्वान अभि. प्रार्थी की यह दलील है कि जिस मैत्री मेच का आयोजन करने का तथ्य कहा है उसके दोपहर के भोजन में मांस व मंदिरा का प्रयोग किया गया जो कि आयोजकों के द्वारा गलत कार्य किया गया था और प्रार्थी ने जब उसका विरोध किया तो उसके विरुद्ध कार्यवाही गलत रूप से की गई इस आधार पर की गई विभागीय जांच को दोषपूर्ण घोषित किये जाने की प्रार्थना की है ।
अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी का क्लेम का जवाब पेश करते हुए अपने जवाब मांग पत्र में यह वर्णित किया है कि प्रार्थी ओमप्रकाश अप्रार्थी संस्थान में सहायक के पद पर कार्यरत है किन्तु वह श्रमिक की श्रेणी में नहीं आता है । उनका यह भी कथन है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा जो मण्डल परिसर में तोड़ - फोड़ की गई उसके सम्बन्ध में नियमानुसार अनुशासनिक कार्यवाही अमल में लाई गई । उनका यह भी कथन है कि प्रार्थी को अपनी जांच में बचाव का पर्याप्त अवसर दिया गया और उसके बाद ही आरोप सं . 2 सिद्ध पाये जाने पर दण्डित किया गया और दो वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धियां रोके जाने एवं 1928 रुपये की शास्ति आरोपित की गई । अप्रार्थी पक्ष का यह भी कथन है कि प्राथी ने जो अपील की थी उसे नियमानुसार खारिज की गई । उनका यह भी कथन है कि प्रार्थी को बचाव का पर्याप्त अवसर दिया गया प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों 418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26, 1931
विद्वान अभि. अप्रार्थी की दलील है कि प्रार्थी के द्वारा जो अनुशासनहीनता की गई थी उसके लिये उसे आरोपपत्र जारी किया गया था । प्रार्थी को आरोप पत्र की प्रति दी गई, शिकायत की प्रति दी, प्रार्थी जांच के दौरान उपस्थित हुआ । अप्रार्थी की ओर से जांच के दौरान जो गवाह जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष पेश किये गये उनसे प्रार्थी को जिरह का अवसर दिया गया । प्रार्थी के द्वारा किन्ही दस्तावेजातों कीमांग नहीं की गई और प्रार्थी ने ऐसा कोई प्रार्थनापत्र भी पेश नहीं किया जिसके द्वारा दस्तावेजात मांगे गये हो । प्रार्थी की ओर से यह भी स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया है कि किस दस्तावेजात के नहीं मिलने से उसका बचाव किस प्रकार प्रभावित हुआ और जांच कार्यवाही में प्रार्थी की सक्रिय भागीदारी होने की दलील देते हुए जांच प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों के अनुरूप होने की दलील दी है ।
विद्वान अभिभाषक अप्रार्थी की यह भी दलील है कि मैत्री मेच अवकाश के दिन अवश्य था लेकिन एन आई सी आफ इण्डिया स्टाफ रेगूलेशन , 1960 के नियम 24 के अनुसार इस प्रकार के मैच आयोजन किये जाते हैं जिनमें कर्मचारियों के सक्रिय रूप से भाग लिये जाने के कारण उस दिन की वेतन देय होने के कारण वह कार्य पर उपस्थित माने जाते हैं । इस कारण प्रार्थी के द्वारा किया गया कृत्य गंभीर अनुशासनहीनता की दलील देते हुए दिया गया दण्ड उचित होने तथा की गई विभागीय जांच फेयर एण्ड प्रोपर होने की दलील दी है । जवाबी बहस में विद्वान अभि. प्रार्थी की दलील है कि प्रार्थी के साथ अन्य कर्मचारी द्वारा मारपीट किये जाने के कारण उसके चोटें आईं थी लेकिन उसके द्वारा जो पुलिस में केस दर्ज कराया था वह दबाव में लेकर वापस करवा दिया गया और इस आधार पर प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध दुर्भावना से कार्यवाही करने की दलील दी है ।
उपरोक्त दलीलों के संदर्भ में मैंने पत्रावली का अध्ययन किया तो पाया कि प्रार्थी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये दस्तावेजात में एक प्रार्थनापत्र प्रार्थी के द्वारा दिनांक 4-3-02 को वरिष्ठ मण्डल प्रबंधक अजमेर के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया गया है जिसमें दिनांक 3-3-02 को 7-8 कर्मचारियों के द्वारा एकराय होकर प्रार्थी के साथ मारपीट करने तथा कार्यालय केंटीन में बंद करने का तथ्य वर्णित किया गया है । इसी दस्तावेजात की प्रति प्रदर्श एम -64 व उसके साथ संलग्न परिवाद सी- पेश किया गया है । जो एम-63 के रूप में है और एम-62 कार्यालय टिप्पणी भी अप्रार्थी ने पेश की है जिसमें यह वर्णित है कि- "दिनांक 3-3-02 को रविवार को स्टाफ क्लब की ओर से क्रिकेट मैच के पश्चात् लंच का आयोजन किया गया था । लंच समाप्ति के पश्चात् करीब 3 बजे तक अधिकतम उम्मीदवार अपने घर रवाना हो चुके थे उसके पश्चात् शाम करीब 5 बजे मंगल सिंह चौकीदार जो ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित था , ने फोन पर सूचना दी कि प्रार्थी ने झगड़ा कर लिया है । जो सतीश बाकोलियों से किया है । आफिस में लगे गेट के शीशे तोड़ दिये हैं । जब मुआयना किया तो मेन गेट के शीशे , कैंटीन गेट के
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] शीशे , स्वागत काउंटर के पीछे वाले शीशे टूटे हुए थे एक कुर्सी गेट के पास उल्टी पड़ी हुई थी । चौकीदार ने यह भी बताया कि उक्त तोड़ फोड़ श्री सिंह ने की है और उसने शराब भी पी रखी थी । वह सतीश से झगड़ा कर रहा था । लोग उसे आफिस से बाहर लाने की कोशिश कर रहे थे लेकिन वह किसी की मान नहीं रहा था । "
उपरोक्त तथ्यों का आरोप पत्र जिसमें शीशे आदि तोड़ने के साथ कम्पयूटर के तार भी तोड़ने का तथ्य वर्णित किया है । प्रदर्श एम-60 प्रार्थी को जारी किया गया । उस पर प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 26-3-03 को एक प्रार्थनापत्र वरिष्ठ मण्डल अधिकारी के समक्ष दिया ( एम -59 ) जिसमें आरोप पत्र में अंकित पत्र । प्रारम्भिक जांच कार्यवाही की प्रति , व जवाब देने के लिये समय की मांग की जिसका जवाब वरिष्ठ मण्डल प्रबंधक ने 4-4-02 ( एम-58 ) के जरिये प्रार्थी को दिया । उक्त तथ्यों से स्पष्ट होता है कि प्रार्थी को आरोप पत्र प्राप्त हो गया था और उसके पश्चात् प्रदर्श एम -57 पत्र दिनांक 8-4-02 पत्र प्रदर्श एम -55 दिनांक 20-4-02 के द्वारा प्रार्थी को जवाब प्रस्तुत करने के लिये लिखा गया । जिस पर प्रार्थी के द्वारा कोई जवाब नहीं दिया जाकर एक पत्र प्रदर्श एम-13 प्रेषित किया । जिसमें यह वर्णित किया कि उसे आभास होता है कि उसके विरुद्ध अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही का दृढ मानस है और जांच को आरंभ में ही प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों के विपरीत होना कहा है ।
यहां यह उल्लेखनीय है कि प्रार्थी उसके विरुद्ध जारी आरोप पत्र का जवाब पेश करने के लिए स्वतंत्र था और जवाब के माध्यम से अपने दस्तावेजात की भी मांग कर सकता था लेकिन ऐसा उसके द्वारा नहीं किया गया है । पत्र प्रदर्श एम -47 के द्वारा रघुबीर सिंह प्रबंधक विधि एवं आचार को जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त किया गया जिसकी सूचना भी प्रार्थी को दी गई और जांच अधिकारी ने प्रार्थी को सूचित भी किया लेकिन प्रार्थी के द्वारा कोई उत्तर प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया । प्रदर्श एम-22 जांच कार्यवाही दिनांक 25-8-02 की प्रतिपेश की है । जिसमें जांच अधिकारी , प्रस्तुत अधिकारी , आरोपित कर्मचारी व सहायक कर्मचारी उपस्थित थे । जिसमें प्रश्न नं. 3 में पूछा गया कि क्या वह आरोपों को स्वीकार करता है तो उसने आरोपों को अस्वीकार किया । आगामी प्रश्न में दस्तावेजों की सूची प्राप्त होने का तथ्य स्वीकार करने व शिकायती पत्र प्राप्त होने की बात भी उसने स्वीकार की है और आगामी पेशी 8-8-02 साक्ष्य के लिये नियत की गई । जिसकी सूचना भी प्रार्थी को दी गई । जो प्रार्थी के प्रार्थना पत्र पर बदली जाकर आगे की पेशी नियत की गई । इसी दौरान प्रार्थी की ओर से एक पत्र दिनांक 3-2-02 ( डब्ल्यू-34 ) जो कि जवाब के रूप में भी था प्रार्थी ने पेश किया जिसमें आरोप लगाये गये कि आयोजन जिसमें मांस मदिरा , अश्लील चुटकले, हंसी मजाक का खुलकर उपयोग किया जाता है उसमें जीवन बीमा निगम के रेगूलेशन लागू नहीं होते हैं और इस आधार पर कार्यवाही समाप्त करने की प्रार्थना कीहै । 419 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
तो प्रार्थी के कथित कृत्य के लिए आयोजक भी उतने ही दायित्त्वाधीन है जितना कि प्रार्थी । अतः निगम का सतर्कता विभाग इस तथ्य की जांच करे यह न्यायालय द्वारा अपेक्षा की जाती है ।
आगामी जांच कार्यवाही की प्रति प्रदर्श एम -30 जो प्रार्थी की उपस्थिति में की गई में जांच के दौरान मंगल सिंह के बयान लिये गये । जिसने अपने बयान में कहा है कि ओ. पी. सिंह केंटीन से निकलकर आये और सतीश से आपस में गाली- गलौच की । ओ. पी . सिंह ने छुडाके कांच में लात मारी और कांच तोड दिया । कम्पयूटर के तार तोड दिये, कुर्सी उठाकर पीछे कांच में फेंक दी और यह घटना अपने सामने होना गवाह कहता है । इस गवाह से प्रार्थी ने जिरह की और जिरह में शिकायती पत्र प्रार्थी ने स्वंय अपने हस्तलेख में होना कहा है । पृष्ठ -3 पर प्रार्थी ने मंगल सिंह से कोई अन्य प्रश्न पूछने से इंकार किया है । प्रदीप कृपलानी का बयान भी लेखबद्ध किया गया है । जो प्रार्थी की उपस्थिति में लेखबद्ध किया गया है और बचाव पक्ष ने अपनी साक्ष्य के लिये तारीख नियत करवाई ।
चूंकि जांच फेयर एण्ड प्रोपर घोषित की गई है और दण्ड के बिन्दु पर सुने जाने के पश्चात् मै इस नतीजे पर पहुंचता हूं कि प्रार्थी को जो दण्ड दिया गया वह इसके कृत्य को देखते हुए माफी योग्य तो नहीं है लेकिन निगम अधिकारी जो कि आयोजक थे उनके द्वारा जांच के दौरान दोपहर के भोजन के जो तथ्य हैं आये हैं उन्हें दृष्टिगत रखते हुए नर्मी का रुख अपनाया जाना उचित है और दो वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धियां जो संचयी प्रभाव से रोकी गई हैं को असंचयी प्रभाव से रोका जाकर अन्य दण्डयथावत रखना यथोचित है और तदानुसार विवाद का उत्तर प्रेषित किया जाना उचित है ।
आदेश
प्रेषित विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि वरिष्ठ मण्डल प्रबंधक जीवन बीमा निगम कार्यालय रानाडे मार्ग , अजमेर के द्वारा श्री ओमप्रकाश सिंह पुत्र श्री पूरण सिंह को दिये गये दण्ड में दो वार्षिक वेतनवृद्वि संचयी प्रभाव से रोके जाने के दण्ड में परिवर्तित किया जाकर दो वार्षिक वेतनवृद्वि असंचयी प्रभाव से रोके जाने एवं प्रार्थी ओमप्रकाश से 1928 रुपये सम्पति की क्षति के रूप में वसूल किये जाने का दण्ड उचित है । अन्य कोई अनुतोष प्रार्थी प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
अवार्ड की प्रति केन्द्र सरकार को नियमानुसार प्रकाशनार्थ भिजवाई जावे ।
अवार्ड आज दिनांक 12-11-09 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखवाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।
मिथिलेश कुमार शर्मा, न्यायाधीश
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
इसके पश्चात् दिनांक 5-12-02 की कार्यवाही में आगे की पेशी नियत की गई और दिनांक 16-12-02 को जो कार्यवाही हुई उसमें अप्रार्थी ने स्वंय अपना बयान दिया । जिसमें जो तथ्य कहे हैं वह जांच को असत्य साबित करने के लिए काफी नहीं है । प्रार्थी ने ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य भी पेश नहीं की है जिससे अप्रार्थी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत गवाहान जो प्रार्थी की उपस्थिति में परीक्षित किये गये , को असत्य बताया जा सके । प्रार्थी को जांच अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित जांच रिपोर्ट की प्रति भी दी गई थी और उस पर प्रार्थी को सुनवाई का अवसर भी दिया गया । लेकिन अनुशासनात्मक अधिकारी ने जो पत्र दिनांक 16-6-03 प्रदर्श एम -8 प्रार्थी को दिया और उसका जो जवाब प्रार्थी के द्वारा प्रदर्श एम -5 प्रस्तुत किया है उसके संबंध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रार्थी ने पेश नहीं की है । जिन दस्तावेजात की मांग प्रार्थी द्वारा की गई उनसे जांच किस प्रकार प्रभावित होती है ऐसा कोई प्रश्न गवाहान से नहीं पूछा गया । जांच कार्यवाही के दौरान वह स्वयं उपस्थित हुआ है । बयान उसके समक्ष लिये गये हैं । अनुशासनात्मक अधिकारी ने जांच रिपोर्ट की प्रति प्रार्थी को देकर उसे सुनवाई का अवसर दिया गया है । ऐसी सूरत में जांच न्याय के प्राकृतिक सिद्धांतों के अनुरूप फेयर एण्ड प्रोपर होना पाई जाती है ।
का.आ. 189.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. केरल सेरामिक्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय इर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 256/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29011/51 / 2006- आई आर ( एम) ]
कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 23rd December, 2009
S.O. 189. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central जहां तक दण्डादेश का प्रश्न है । जीवन बीमा निगम रेगूलेशन 1960 के नियम 39 ( 1 ) में जो दण्डादेश वर्णित किये गये हैं उन दण्डादेशों में प्रार्थी को दिया गया दण्ड अधिक गहन नहीं माना जा सकता है । यहां यह तथ्य गंभीर रूप से विचारणीय है कि जीवन बीमा निगम के अधिकारियों के द्वारा जिसं मैत्री मैच का आयोजन किया गया था उसमें प्रार्थी के द्वारा शराब का सेवन करना दर्शाया गया है । प्रार्थी ने अपने जवाब पत्रों के माध्यम से बार - बार जांच अधिकारी को यह लिखा है कि दोपहर के भोजन के समय भोजन में मांस मदिरा परोसी गई । इस तथ्य की कोई जांच वरिष्ठ अधिकारियों ने नहीं की । यह एक ऐसा विषय है जिस पर विभाग के वरिष्ठ अधिकारियों के द्वारा (सतर्कता विभाग द्वारा ) जो कि मुख्यालय अजमेर में पदस्थापित अधिकारियों से वरिष्ठ है द्वारा की जानी अपेक्षित थी क्योंकि यदि मैत्री मैच के दोपहर के भोजन में मांस , मदिरा यदि उपलब्ध कराई गई थी
13 GI/2010-16 420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010 /PAUSA 26 , 1931
Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 256/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s. Kerala Ceramics Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-2009 .
[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
[No. L- 29011 /51 /2006- IR ( M) ]
KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present: Shri P. L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Wednesday the 18th day of November , 2009/27th Kartika, 1931)
I.D. 256/2006
Union
: The General Secretary, Kerala Ceramics Workers Union Kundara, Kollam ( Kerala) 691501 .
By. Adv . Sri . N. R. Roy .
Management The Managing Director, M/ s . Kerala Ceramics Ltd. , Kundara P.O. , Kollam ( Kerala)-691501 By Advs . M/ s . Menon & Pai .
This case coming up for hearing on 13-11-2009 , this Tribunal - cum - Labour Court on 18-11-2009 passed the following.
AWARD
This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1)( d) of Industrial Disputes Act. The reference is:
"Whether the demand for the Kerala Ceramics Workers Union , Kundara, Kerala that the 29 workers as listed in the Annexure should be regularised from the date they were working on casual basis justified? If so , what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ?"
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :-29 casual laboure... of Kerala Ceramics Ltd. , Kundara are claiming regularisation in service from the date of entering into service as casual labourers . The management regularised their service w.e.f. 28-01-1977 in pursuance to a long term settlement of 1979. The workers are not satisfied with the date of regularisation. They say that they were in service from 1967 onwards on different dates and they have completed 240 days of continuous service every year and hence they are entitled to be regularised from the date of initial entry into service as casual workers . Hence thedispute.
3. According to the union which has espoused the cause of 29 workers the management has not properly counted the total number of days worked by each worker prior to 1977. Hence they were not given benefits of gratuity, increment, weightage, pension, seniority etc. for the service prior to 1977. The workers had completed continuous service of 240 days every year since the date of their joining service as casual labour . Hence they are entitled to be regularised from the date they entered into service .
4. According to the management the dispute is stale as itwas raised after a period of 29 years from the date of their regularisation . The worker as well as union are bound by long term settlement dated 14-08-1979 based on which workers were regularised. The union cannot challenge the terms of settlement . None ofthe workers have worked more than 179 days in a calendar year prior to 28-01-1977 . As and when work was available these employees were engaged for casual work on daily wage basis prior to 28-01-1977 . All the workers were taken through employment exchange. The authentic record of employees containing date of joining service , date of leaving service etc. maintained as per the Mines Act , is Form - B and it is prepared and signed by employees themselves . Hence the workers are not eligible for regularisation prior to 1977 or for any other benefits .
5. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration :
1. Whether regularisation in service was made in pursuance to long term settlement of 1979 ?
2. Are the workers entitled for regularization from the date ofjoining service as casual labourers ?
6. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WWI and the documentary evidence of Exts . W1 to 5 on the side of the union and MW1 and Exts . M1 to M3 series on the side of the management .
7. Point Nos . 1 & 2 :- It is an admitted fact that 29 workers involved in this case and mentioned in the annexure to the reference , entered service as causal labourers through employment exchange on different dates from 1969 onwards . The dates of such entry into service as causal labourers are mentioned in Ext . W1 ( Ext.M1 ) seniority list of01-12-1976. What is disputed by the union is the total number of days of service as causal labour during the period prior to the date of regularisation on 28-01-1977. The total period of service prior to 1977 are mentioned in the seniority list . However the union disputes its correctness . No doubt MWI has admitted during cross examination that union had raised such a dispute . But according to the management the workers have admitted the date of their entry into service in Form- B . Ext.M2 series are Form- B containing details of service of each worker , the date of regularisation in service and other particulars . It is prepared and signed 421 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931 )
regularisation . It is so held in Secretary , State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 .
9. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the union that the same issue of regularisation was raised before Industrial Tribunal , Kollam in ID 118/90 and an award was passed directing the management to regularise the service of casual workers from the date ofjoining service as casual labour . Ext. W5 is the award in ID 118/90 . It relates to 38 workers. But they were contract labourers and not casual workers . Whereas in the present case all the workers were taken as casual labourers through employment exchange . If the contract is found to be sham the workers are entitled for regularisation in view of the decision in Steel Authority Case [ Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers , (2001 ) 7 SCC 1 ] . Thus the issues in both cases are not the same . The status of workers at the time ofjoining service was different . Hence Ext. W5 has no application to the facts of this case .
10. As already mentioned the long term settlement is binding on the union which is a party to the settlement . Even if they are not parties to the settlement , being a settlement under Section 18 ( 3 ) of ID Act it is binding on all workers. It is held in Burmah S. W. Union v . State of Kerala , AIR 1960 Kerala 190 that an agreement signed by the union under Section 18 ( 1 ) of ID Act is binding on them and the terms under the agreement cannot be questioned by raising an industrial dispute under Section 10 of ID Act . In Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v . Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ( 1991 ) 1 SCC 4 it is held that a settlement arrived in course of conciliation proceedings and signed under Section 18 (3 ) of ID Act is binding on all the workmen ofthe establishment including those belonging to minority unionwho had raised objection to the settlement. Therefore there is no right for the union for questioning the terms of the long term settlement which was accepted by the union after negotiation with the management .
by each worker . The date of regularisation of all the 29 workers is 28-01-1977. Assuming that Ext . W1 seniority list which was prepared on 01-12-1976 admittedly for the purpose ofregularisation of casual workers, does not reflect the correct number of days of service as causal labour , still Form -B signed by the workers leave no room for objection regarding total service . That apart there was a long term agreement ( LTA) , Ext . W2 on 14-08-1979 . It is based on LTA that workers were regularised w.e.f. 28-01-1977 (giving retrospective effect to the settlement) . In annexure - I of Ext.W2 (page - 17) the dates ofjoining regular service in the Kaolin Division of The Kerala Ceramics Ltd. , Kundara are mentioned. All the 29 workers were regularised in service on 28-01-1977 and the decision to fix the date of regularisation as 28-01-1977 is one of the terms ofsettlement . The union is a party to the settlement . WWI has admitted . thisfact repeatedly in pages 1 , 2 and 4 of his deposition . It was signed in the presence of Conciliation Officer and it is a settlement under Section 18 ( 3 ) of I.D.Act and hence it is binding on all unions and all workers . The union has not challenged the settlement under Section 10 of ID Act in order to vary or set aside the settlement . Since the settlement is binding on all they cannot also do so. Having accepted the position that the date of regularisation is 28-01-1977 at the time of signing LTA in 1979 a dispute is raised now in 2006 ( after 27 years ) regarding date of regularisation . Ext . Wl seniority list was published by the management . If the union was aggrieved by the seniority list they should have taken up the matter before the concerned authority on time. The seniority list was drawn in 1976 , presumably, after consultation with the union . The long term agreement was signed in 1979. The union were aware and the workers too were aware of the seniority list. With open eyes the union agreed to the suggestion of fixing the uniform date of regularisation of service as 28- 01-1977. They cannot turn round and challenge the same: Moreover the settlement is not under challenge in the reference . If so, its terms also cannot be challenged separately , namely , regularisation.
11. It was argued by the learned counsel for the management that there is inordinate delay in raising the dispute. Ext . W2 long term settlement was signed in 1979 . The date of regularisation was fixed as per the settlement . The union was the 2nd union in the settlement . They slept over the matter for long 27 years and hence the claim has become stale . No doubt the union was was prompt in questioning and raising the dispute regarding the date of regularisation, assuming that the settlement is not binding on them . WW 1 stated that the union had made representations to the management sufficiently early . But it was not in writing and no records are produced to show that there was any such representation . The long delay has created hurdles for the management to meet the claim . After usual period of retention the records will be destroyed . Even if old records are still there in the record room it will be very difficult to trace out records so old as 25 to 30 years . In Ratam Chandra Sammanta & Ors . v. Union 8. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the union that the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Regional Labour Commissioner had by their order Exts . W3 and 4 directed the management to pay gratuity counting their service as causal labour prior to 28-01-1977 . But it is to be noted that even casual labourers are entitled for gratuity under Gratuity Act if they have worked continuously for a period of 240 days in an year and rendered not less than five years ' service . But for regularisation that is not a criteria . It is the prerogative of the management to consider a casual employee for regularisation , taking into account the availability of vacancies , the age and educational or technical qualification of the candidate etc. Continuous service however long of a casual employee , will not confer on him a right for 422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/ PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
Exhibits for the Management
M1-True copy of the seniority list published on 1-12-1976 in respect of 139 casual workers which includes 29 workmen concerned in the above dispute .
M2-Copies ofForm B pertaining to 29 workmen concerned inthe dispute.
M3 Series Settlement of accounts in respect of the 20 workmenwho left the service either on superannuation or onresignation .
नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर , 2009 ofIndia & Ors . JT 1993 (3 ) SC 418 and Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty (2000) 2 SCC 455 it is held that long delay deprives the person of the remedy available in law. A person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time looses his right as well . The delay in this case is long and inordinate and the dispute is stale. That apart the union has no right to raise the dispute as it is one of the terms of long term settlement and the workers have no right for regularisation w.e.f. any date prior to 28-01-1977 . It is held inDivisional Manager , APSRTC v. P.Lakshmoji Rao AIR 2004 SC 1503 that employees , selected and appointed on daily wage basis does not after selection automatically become regular employees from day one even if they perform duties similar to regular employees . The direction for regularisation of bus conductors right from the date of their initial appointment as daily wage employees was set aside . For all the above reasons I hold that the workers are not entitled for regularisation from a period prior to 28-01- 1977 and their demand is unjustified.
का.आ. 190.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन रेयर अर्थस लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है. जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
In the result an award is passed finding that the demand of the union , for regularisation of 29 workers mentioned in the annexure to the reference from a date prior to 28-01-1977 , is not legal and justifiable and the workers are not entitled for any relief.
[सं. एल-29011/2/2008- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009 The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 18th day ofNovember , 2009 ) .
P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer
Appendix.
Witness for the Union
S.O. 190. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 21/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-2009.
WWI- 14-07-2008-Y. Titus
[No. 1-29011 /2 /2008 - IR ( M ) ] Witness for the Management
KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer MWI- 14-08-2009- Μ . A. Subramanian
Exhibits for the Union
ANNEXURE
W1-Seniority list of casual workers of Kaolin Division as on 1-12-1-976.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI
W2-Agreement between The Kerala Ceramics Ltd. , Kundara and their workers .
Monday, the 7th December , 2009
Present : A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 21/2008 W3-Notice for payment of Gratuity dated 30-04-2007 of theAssistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Trivandrum to the Managing Director , M/ s . Kerala Ceramics Ltd. , Kundara .
W4- Order of Assistant Labour Commissioner and Regional Labour Comimissioner .
W5-Award in I. D. 118/90 of Industrial Tribunal , Kollam .
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and their Workmen) 423
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
BETWEEN
1stParty/ Petitioner Union
: The President ,
MineralWorkers Union,
C/o Indian Rare Earths Ltd, Manavalakurichi- 629252 .
by any law . The Management is the correct person to decide the manpower for running the plant . There is no violation of Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act in engaging Security Guards through Contractor . Contract workers are excluded from the purview of Certified Standing Orders. There is no unfair labour practice committed. The claim is only to be dismissed.
Vs
4. Points for consideration are:
2nd Party/
The General Manager ,
Respondent
Indian Rare Earths Ltd. , Manavalakurichi - 629252
(i) Whether the refusal of the management to the demand of the Petitioner, Union to appoint departmental Security Guards instead of outsourcing is legal , fair and justified?
APPEARANCE
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
(ii) To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ?
M/s. S. Arunachalam , Associates
Points 1 & 2
M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam &
For the 2nd Party/:
Associates
Management
AWARD
5. When the reference stood posted for enquiry on behalf of the Petitioner Union , a memo was filed seeking permission to withdraw the ID . submitting that the subject matter under dispute was discussed and it was decided not to pursue the same . The memo is recorded accordingly .
TheCentral Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-29011 / 2/2008 - IR (M ) dated 07-04-2008 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the refusal of the management of Indian Rare Earths Limited, Manavalakurichi to the demand of the Mineral Workers ' Union , to appoint departmental Security Guards instead of outsourcing is legal , fair and justified ? If not , to what relief the Union representing the workmen are entitled to ?"
6. In the result the question as to the legality , fairness and justifiability of the refusal to the demand of the Petitioner Union to appoint departmental Security Guards instead of outsourcing does not call for actual decision and, therefore , it is left open. The mere fact that the Petitioner Union has withdrawn the dispute is not a ground to hold that the refusal of the management is legal , fair and justified. The withdrawal of the dispute does not mean that the conduct of the management is legal , fair and justified . Still in the absence of evidence adduced the same is not open to challenge yet it is not possible to decide either way . Therefore, the points of reference are left open .
7. The reference is answered accordingly .
2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 21/2008 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statements as the case may be.
(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 7th December, 2009) .
A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer 3. The case of the petitioner union in the Claim Statement in a nutshell is as follows :
Witnesses Examined
None
Forthe Ist Party/Petitioner :
None For the 2nd Party/Management :
Documents Marked on the petitioner's side
Date
Description
Ex. No.
Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the Management provides Ex - Servicemen for appointment to the category of Security Guards who had sacrificed their lives in the defence service . Recruitment of 12 Security Guards w.e.f. 01-04-2006 is violative of the rules under the settlement dated 06-03-1989 as amended on 21-02-2002 . It is prayed thatan adjudication may be rendered on the reference .
Nil
3. In the Counter Statement, the contentions raised precisely are as follows:
On the Management's side
Date
Description
Ex. No.
Nil
The Management is not prohibited to engage Security Personnel on contract . The dispute under reference is not maintainable . Outsourcing is not prevented 424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 16 , 2010 /PAUSA 26, 1931
[ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर, 2009
Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the follwing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the Airports Kamgar Union against the management of Airort Authority of India for permanent absorption of Shri Rushikesh C. Kolambekar and 13 other workmen (List attached) justified ? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"
List of workers as per annexure:
का.आ. 191.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या-सीजीआईटी -2/26/ 2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को22-12-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
1. Shri Rushikesh C. Kolambekar
[सं. एल-11011/55/2004- आईआर ( एम ) ]
2. Shri Amol R. Tambe
कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी
3 . Shri Z. Z. Ahmed
New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009
4. Shri Madan K. Vengurlekar
5. Shri Manoj V. Tanpure
6. Shri P. P. Yernalekar
7. Shri P. Velmurugan
8 . Shri R. S. Owale
9 . Shri S. V. Shendge
10. Shri S. H. Solse
11 . Shri D. R. Khawale
S.O. 191. In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.CGIT - 2 / 26/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No.2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airport Authority of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-09 .
12 . Shri Vinod H. Jadhav
13 . Shri S. V. Mane
[No. L - 11011 / 55/ 2004 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
14 . Shri S. G. Gawade .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , MUMBAI
2. After receipt of the reference , notices were sent to union which was served to union vide Ex - 4 and again videEx- 10 . No body appeared on behalf of the union to file claim statement . Number of opportunity was given to union. Hence the order .
Present : A. A. Lad , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT - 2/ 26 of 2007
ORDER
Employers in relation to the Management of Airport Authority of India
Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution . Date: 05-10-2009
The Airport Director ,
Airport Authority of India ( IAD) ,
A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Mumbai Airport ,
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2009 Mumbai -400 099 .
AND
Their workmen
The President,
Airport Kamgar Union , CPWD Office Compound,
Bamanwada,
Mumbai -400 059 .
का.आ. 192.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. प्रो. रासो सेख 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 224/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
APPEARANCES :
Forthe employer: Ms. Savita Shetye , Representative .
[सं. एल-29012/ 26/2000- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी For the workmen : No appearance
New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009 Mumbai , dated 5th October , 2009 AWARD
1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , by its Order No. L. - 11011 / 55 / 2004 - IR ( M) dated 09-02-2007 in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
S.O. 192. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No.224/ 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, No.1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010 /पौष 26 ,
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
to the management of M/s . Prop . Rasho Sheikh and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-09.
[No. L-29012/26/2000 - IR (M)]
KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under section 10 ( 1 ) (d) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Reference No. 224/2000
Parties : - Employers in relation to the Management of M/s. Rasho Sheikh . And Their workman
Present : Shri Hari Mangal Singh, Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :
:None
For the Management
:None
For theUnion
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal Dated the 20th November , 2009
AWARD
By Order No. L. - 29012 / 26 / 2000 - IR (M ) dated 23-06-2000 , the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d)of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the follwing dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :--
SCHEDULE
425 1931-0
अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 226/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -29012/25/2000- आईआर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009
S.O. 193.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.226 /2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , No.1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M /s . Khan Brothers and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-09 .
[No. 1. - 29012 / 25/ 2000 - IR ( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT NO . 1 , DHANBAD
Inthe matter of a reference under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) ( 2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .
Reference No. 226/2000
Parties : - Employers in relation to the Management of M/s . Khan Brothers And
Their workmen
Present: Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
"Whether the action of the management of M /s . Prop. Rasho Sheikh in terminating the services of their workman Sh. Maghu Sheikh w.e.f. 31-12-98 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " For the Workmen
State : Jharkhand
2. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 11-8-2000 . Thereafter notices were sent to the parties for filing written statement by the concerned workman . But inspite of notice sent to the sponsoring union by speed post neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union appeared before this Tribunal nor has filed written statement. It, therefore , appears that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case.
In such circumstances I render " No Dispute " Award in the present reference case .
H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 193.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. खान ब्रोदर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच ,
Industry: Coal
Dated 9th November , 2009
AWARD
By order No. L. 29012 / 25 / 2000 - IR ( M ) dated 23-06-2000 , the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the follwing dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management ofM/ s . Khan Brothers in terminating the services of their workmen Sh . Khestu Sheikh , Munfir Sheikh and Fajlehak Sheikh w.e.f. 31-12-98 is justified ? If not, to what relief they are entitled to ?"
2. This reference case was received in this tribunal on 11-8-2000 . Thereafter notices were sent to the partiesto 426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
file written statement by the sponsoring union/ workmèn . In spite of notices sent by speed post no written statement has been filed by the workmen till 20-7-09 . It , therefore appears that neither the concerned workmen nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case.
In such circumstances I render "No Dispute " Award inthis reference case .
H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 24th ofMarch 2009 , referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal: -
"Whether the action of the Assistant General Manager , Oriental Bank of Commerce Regional Office , Bathinda in terminating the employment w.e.f. 19-03-2008 of Shri Anil Kumar S /o Shri Ashok Kumar employed as a sweeper in civil line branch Bathinda is legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "
2. The workman has moved an application along with affidavit to the effect that he does not want to pursue with the present reference and withdraw the same as he has no grievance against the management of the bank. In view ofthe application of the workman along with affidavit , the present reference is returned to the Govt . as withdrawn . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned .
Chandigarh
8-12-09
का.आ. 194.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरियंटल बैंक ऑफ कामर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/97/2008 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009 S.O. 194. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.4/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , No. 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-12-09.
[No. L - 12012/97 /2008 - IR (B - II) ] U. S. PANDEY , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA . PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
CASE NO . I.D. 4 OF 2009
Sh . Anil Kumar S/ o Sh . Ashok Kumar , R/ o Sl . No. 1 Janta Nagar, Near Kabir Das Mandir , Bathinda (Punjab ) .
....Applicant
Versus
The A.C. M. Oriental Bank of Commerce , Regional Office , First Floor , Civil Lines Branch , Bathinda .
..Respondent APPEARANCES
Forthe Workman
:None
:None
For the Management
AWARD
Passed on 8-12-2009
Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L. 12012 / 97/ 2008 - IR ( B - II ) dated
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
का.आ. 195.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/19/2007 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009 S.O. 195. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.35/ 2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-12-09 .
[No. L - 12012/ 19/2007 - IR ( B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI
Thursday , the 17th December , 2009 Present : A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 35/2007
(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of theIndustrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of Indian Bank and their Workman ) 427 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
BETWEEN
:
Petitioner/ I Party
Sri K. R.Ramanathan
TheAsstt. General Manager ( HRM) : Respondent/ II Party
Indian Bank Rajaji Salai , Chennai- 600001
APPEARANCE
: For the 1st Party/ Petitioner M/sK. M. Ramesh
For the 2nd Party /Management : M/s T. S. Gopalan& Co.
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 12012 / 19 /2007 - IR (B - II) dated 06-07-2007 referred the following Industrial Disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication .
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
per report dated 30-01-2004 with a copy to the petitioner hewas asked to explain. He submitted report denying proof ofcharges. Thereafter show - cause notice dated 24-07-2004 proposing dismissal from service without notice was issued to which he submitted his reply dated 25-08-2004 pleading that he is made a scapegoat . After a personal hearing, the disciplinary Authority on 11-10-2004 imposed the punishment ofdismissal without notice . The appeal filed was rejected without bestowing a proper perspective by a cryptic one line order dated 31-03-2006 . It is unjust and in victimization and unfair labour practice . The charge proceeds on assumption and presumption . The finding is also not based on any evidence but is based on surmises , suspicion and conjectures . The finding is perverse, biased , prejudiced and one- sided . The order of Disciplinary Authority suffers from the vice of non - application of mind. Same is the case with Appellate Authority . Under section- 11A of the ID Act , the evidence is to be re - appreciated for anindependent decision by this Tribunal . The factum of encashment of his share of the Provident Fund amount from his SB Account cannot be put against him. Hence the reference.
" Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank, Chennai in terminating the services of Sri K. R. Ramanathan vide order dated 24-07-2004 isjustified ? Ifnot , what relief the dismissed workman is entitled to ?"
4. In the Counter Statement , the contentions raised briefly read as follows:
2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 35/2007 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim and Counter Statements as the case may be .
3. The case of the petitioner in the Claim Statement briefly reads as follows :
The petitioner who joined service under the Respondent/Bank as Sub - Staff on 23-03-1976 at Triplicane branch while was Clerk/ Shroff on promotion at Kodambakkam branch was alleged of commission of shortage of cash of Rs . 10,000 on 05-01-2002, that he had paid Rs . 7,000 of the same to the debit of his SB Account on that day that he had entered a payment of Rs . 10,000 made to SB Customer Mrs. Rajalakshmi that day in his machine which later was found to be against the actual payment in cash made by Mr. A. R. Arunachalam at the request of Mrs. Vijayalakshmi , another Staff. In reply to the memo dated 20-02-2002, he stated that on 05-01-2002 , a Saturday there was heavy rush in his counter having had to attend to 160 payments receiving a sum ofRs . 7,00,000 , inward remittance of Rs . 17,00,000 from T. Nagar Currency Chest and that in making the payment of Rs . 10,000 he complied with the formalities and that there is no shortage . He further stated that on that day Arunachalam requested for hand loan of Rs . 7,000 to make good shortage of Rs . 10,000 tendering a withdrawal slip on his SB Account. He submitted explanation to a show - cause notice and he submitted a detailed explanation and denied the allegation. But he was charge sheeted on 20-9-2002 accusing falsification of records and enriched to have himself at the costofanother staff amounting to gross misconduct . There was an enquiry held from 03-01-2003 to 17-03-2003 examining MWI to MW3 on the culmination ofwhich as
The petitioner had an SB Account and another SB AccountNo. 35085 in the joint name of his wife Smt . Amudha and himself. On 26-04-2000 for a credit of Rs . 4,000 to the joint account while clearing and posting the balance was wrongly added as Rs . 40,000 to the then existing balance of Rs . 1,13 , 446.80 with an excess credit of Rs . 36,000 . In spite of that awareness the amount was withdrawn . On 17-05-2000 when the petitioner was questioned about it , he remitted the excess amount on 20-05-2000 and 22-5-2000 with interest . On 19-06-2000 an order of caution was issued to him . On 14-09-2000 while he was in SB - 3 counter and on 03-10-2000 when he was working in SB- 4 counter , the petitioner was found to have had allowed withdrawal of. Rs . 5,000from SB Account No. 30804 of Smt. Kamala G. Menon and Rs . 15,000 from SB Account No. 30804 even though Counter Clerk of SB - 3 was very much available . The two withdrawals were found fraudulent for which the petitioner had issued token debiting the accounts to the SB Account and entering the token numbers when not accompanied by Pass Book, petitioner made good the loss . Hewas then charge sheeted on 14-08-2004 with misconduct . On 05-01-2002 Rajalakshmi a joint account holder of SB Account No. 29694 with one N. Rajasekaran presented a self cheque with No. 00870191 for Rs . 10,000 drawn by Rajasekaran affixing his signature on the reverse of the cheque . The cheque was tendered at the Counter and Token No. 247 was issued. The account was debited at 10.46 AM and cheque was passed at 10.47 AM . Due to heavy rush on that Saturday Rajalakshmi arranged to collect and collected the amount through a Staff, Vijayalakshmi from the Counter of A.R. Arunachalam tendering the Token No. 247. Arunachalm released the token with other tokens without asking for the cheque for which payment was made . In the meantime, the said very cheque had come to the 13 GI/ 2010-17 428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 /PAUSA 26, 1931
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
assumptions and presumptions . The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in D. Wilson Vs. The Director of Government Examinations . Nungambakkam ( WLR - 1987-69 ) , the decision of the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Others (2006-5 - SCC -446) and a catena of other decisions . Going by the decisions it is seen that the dictum of the decisions has no application to the facts of the present case . They are not , therefore , relevant to the decisions in this case .
counter ofthe petitioner who entered in the systemat 12.53 PM showing that payment made . There was found a shortage of Rs . 10,000 in the Cash Counter ofArunachalam. Not being able to locate the mistake , Arunachalam made good the amount with a sum of Rs . 3,000from his SB Account and borrowing Rs . 7,000 from the petitioner . On 07-01-2002 , Vijayalakshmi brought to notice of Arunachalam payment of Rs . 10,000 against Token No. 247 but he took to himself as his mistake due to payment without the instrument . While so , an anonymous letter dated 12-01-2002 was received by the Chairman of the Bank professed to be by the staff of the bank reporting the indulgence of the petitioner in various malpractices but with no action taken against him due to his clout with the Union or his money power . It was probed . Show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was not replied to . On 29-02-2002 the petitioner was charge sheeted . An enquiry was held . Only one document was marked on the petitioner's side . The petitioner was found guilty in the enquiry report . On 05-02-2004 . he was given a copy of the report to which he replied on 09-03-2004 . On 24-07-2004 notice proposing punishment of dismissal was issued to which he replied on 25-08-2004. He was personally heard on 22-09-2004 . Thereafter on 11-10-2004 he was dismissed . As against the time of payment noted as 12.53 PM the case of the petitioner is that payment was made immediately but due to pressure of work entry was made only at 12.53 PM . Circumstances show probability that it wasArunachalam who paid Rs . 10,000 against Token No. 247 and that the petitioner could not have made the payment . The findings are based on sound reasoning and the same is not liable to be interfered with . There is credible circumstantial evidence pointing to the misconduct of the petitioner . It is prayed that the dismissal may be upheid .
5. On the side of the petitioner WW1 was examined and ExW1 to Ex . W8 were marked and on the side ofthe Respondent Ex . Ml to Ex . M47 marked , all on consent .No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the Respondent .
6. Points for consideration are :
(i) Whether the dismissal of the petitioner by the
Respondent/Bank is justified ?
(ii ) To what relief the petitioner is entitled to ?
Point No. 1 & 2
7. Heard both sides and perused the records . In the reference the findings in the domestic enquiry is challeged . The petitioner was examined as WW1 . His testimony is that he is not guilty and is innocent . The arguments on behalf of the petitioner are that Ex. M38 letter of Rajalakshmi , Ex . M39 letter of P. Vijayalakshmi and Ex. M40 cheque do not show any culpable involvement of the petitioner . Rajalakshmi has not been examined. Letter is dated 14-02-2002 which is after the anonymous letter . Ex. M38 isberefit of details . Same is the case of Ex . M39 letter ofVijayalakshmi which also suffers the same infirmity . No reliance can be placed on them . Ex. M40 cheque in question shows payment to have been made at 12.53 PM tending to exonerate the petitioner. The finding is assailed as erroneous and perverse as being based o surmises and
8. The learned counsel for the Respondent pointed outthat the circumstantial evidence available is enough to conclusively hold that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct. The circumstances speaking well against the petitioner have been narrated. In the report of the Enquiry Officer there is discernibly a correct conclusion arrived at on a logical transition of thought fully commensurate with the circumstances appearing against the petitioner pinpointing the fact that the petitioner has committed the misconduct of appropriating the sum of Rs . 10,000 and he got himself enriched at the cost of A.R. Arunachalam , the other Cashier who at the intervention of Vijayalakshmi . another staff was paying the cheque amount to R. Rajalakshmi without actually insisting for the production ofthe instrument before him but the token of which he had come into his possession already . This is not to be found as an unusual practice obtaining in banks when known or intimate customers might be preferentially treated by a certain member/ members of staff and the casualty as the one supervened in the transaction done by Arunachalam ofmaking the payment without the instrument itself when he is obliging to the request of his another colleague , Vijayalakshmi on whom he may repose confidence . It was while so that in the meantime the instrument reached the hand of the petitioner who claims to have effected the payment of Rs . 10,000 thereunder at 12.53 PM on the same day. At this juncture it is worthwhile to take note of the following uncontroverted facts for consideration : The Kodambakkam branch of the Respondent/Bank was computerized in 2000. Every staff member was given a node and ID number with which the concerned staff can make entries in the system in transactions handled by him . When anaccount holder wants to draw cash from his account , he has to use a withdrawal slip or a self- cheque invariably affixing the signature on the reverse of the cheque as an advanced acknowledgement for the receipt of the amount. Onpresentation of the cheque to the counter staff, token isto be issued by him who will debit the personal account and thereafter forward to an Officer who after verifying the signatures of the drawer passes the instrument for payment . The debiting staff will make an entry in the system of his initial . When the instrument is passed the ID of the Passing Officer and time of passing would be entered into the system . The token will be issued to the Account Holder with Token Number on the face of the cheque . The instrument then goes to the Cashier . The Cashier when calls the Token Number , token holder will tender the same to him and collect the cash . At that time , on the back of the instrument if the signature of the account holder has not 429 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
Therefore , there need not any hesitation to confirm the finding of guilt against him . In Sri J. D. Jain and the management of State Bank of India and Another ( 1982-1- LLJ - 54 ) , the Apex Court held as follows " the law is well settled that the strict rules of evidence are not applicable in adomestic enquiry " .
beenaffixed already, the Cashier must then obtain the same before payment. The Cashier will note down the denomination of payment . During occasions of pressure of work or in the case of a known customer Cashier may pay the cash in precedence of other payments against the surrender of his Token and in such a case he will retain the Token till he gets the instrument which is passed for payment . This procedure is not seen scrupulously followed both by the petitioner as well as Arunachalam . According to the petitioner when he noted the time of payment as 12.53 PM his case is that in spite of that he had made the payment immmediately after the cheque was passed for payment . According to Vijayalakshmi , the payment was made only by Arunachalam and not by the petitioner .
9. When, to Arunachalam it is a bona fide mistake on his part of having effected payment of the amount of Rs. 10,000 without the instrument itself being before him and on finding a shortage of Rs . 10,000 in his Counter he himselfpocketing the guilt made good the loss by a sum of Rs . 3,000from his own SB Account and borrowing Rs . 7,000 from the petitioner . It is pertinent to note that A.R. Arunachalam has no grievance against the petitioner at all . The anonymous letter raised this controversy upon which a probe was launched and the petitioner was proceeded against and in the enquiry he has been proved to be guilty of having enriched himself with a sum of Rs . 10,000 at the cost of his counterpart A.R. Arunachalam by means of circumstantial evidence though direct evidence is not there to that point . The circumstances could be found to be cogent and conclusive enough to prove thatthe petitioner is guilty of the misconduct .
10. The learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the decision of- the Supreme Court in Cholan Roadways Ltd. Vs. G Thirugenanasambandam (2005-1 - LLJ - 569 ) wherein the Apex court has held " In this case , further more, the misdirection in law committed by the Industrial Tribunal was apparent insofar as it did not apply the principle of res ipsa loquitur which was relevant for the purpose of this case and, thus , failed to take into consideration a relevant factor and further more took into consideration and irrelevant fact not germane for determining the issue, namely , the passengerspasseng of the bus were mandatorily required to be examined. The Industrial Tribunal further failed to apply the correct standard of proof in relation to a domestic enquiry, which is ' preponderance of probability ' and applied the standard of proof required for a criminal trial . A case for judicial review was , thus , clearly made out" . The non - examination of R. Rajalakshmi , the customer is not at all material to affect the enquiry in this case .
12. In the light of my foregoing discussion , I hold that the finding of guilt against the petitioner is legal and justified. But regarding his punishment of dismissal , I am constrained to differ in a little way . Though, as to what shall be the punishment on a proved misconduct is in the discretion and prerogative of the Disciplinary authority under Section - 11A of the ID Act power is vested with this forumto interfere with the same in appropriate cases in the background of the concept of justice , equity and good conscience . While this Tribunal is reminded to itself that misplaced leniency or sympathy has no role to play in the matter of awarding punishment to the delinquents for provedmisconduct still it should provoke to itself thoughts as to how in a given or particular circumstances the realm ofpunishment should be dealt with in a most balanced and efficacious manner viewed from the angle of the delinquent and the employer . While a capital punishment of dismissal from service entails in the career death of the punished, it is normally an economic death as well to most of them . Apart from this , there is also the loss of one's reputation when one quits the service by way of dismissal is with a "Stigma of being sent out " . In the eye of the public at large hemay be looked down upon . He may cease to enjoy the ease and comfort he had hitherto been enjoying . With such adismissal one is thus punished in several ways . So viewed should the punishment be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, the Management ought to have been led by some benign considerations to impose a bit lesser punishment than the one imposed. While taking judicial notice of the fact that in various cases of similar nature with similar gravity of misconduct cominitted instead of awarding the capital punishment of dismissal many a disciplinary authorities have been found pleased to opt to award a lesser punishment of discharge , removal or compulsory retirement from service of the delinquent instead of the capital punishment . In the case on hand there is a departure from that soft touch in the matter of punishment imposed on the petitioner . This shows lack of consistency regarding the as pect of punishment . It appears that the quantum of punishment depends upon the subjective impression of the authority imposing the punishment at the spur of the time of passing the actual order. Though this process of punishmnet is on the basis of a discretion, the said discretion is seldom exercised in a judicious manner . Very often the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances are not totally balanced when punishmnet is conclusively decided . Most often the authorities are over influenced by misconduct of the delinquent and are urged by emotion to visit them with more than proportionate punishment viewed from the point of the gravity of the misconduct . To fact that there are authorities who impose lesser punishments in similar cases 11. In an industrial adjudication what is required is only evidence ofthe nature of preponderance of probability. The circumstances obtaining in this case centering around the transaction furnish application of the principle of res ipsa loquitor and speak for themselves as to what actually transpired. They are sufficient and crucial materials logically probative to a prudent mind to hold that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct charged against him.
430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010/PAUSA 26 , 1931
of misconduct with the same degree of gravity of the misconduct shows lack of uniformity in the area . Therefore , I am fortified in holding that the punishment imposed is to be suitably modified and reduced and such a view is not out of place in this context. Hence it is deemed just and proper that in the broader interests of justice equity and good conscience that the petitioner may be given a lesser punishment of compulsory retirement in lieu of dismissal from service and there by let him enjoy the terminal benefits so as not to deprive him his right to decent living though he happened to commit a grave misconduct. Therefore , it is held that the dismissal of the petitioner from service is notjustified.
13. The Respondent is therefore directed to replace the order of dismissal into an order of compulsory retirement.
14. It is further orderd that the petitioner shall make good the liability ofRs . 10,000 by which he stood wrongfully enriched by the impugned misappropriation on 05-01-2002 with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the said date till date of payment before the terminal benefits are disbursed to him in the event of the same becomes payable and are due as per the modification of the punishment herein made. The amount so recovered together with interest shall thereafter be reimbursed to A.R. Arunachalam, the loser ofthe amount made good by himselfowing to the shortage of the amount which necessitated the credit of the sum of Rs . 10,000 at his Counter on 05-01-2002 .
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 day the 17th December , 2009)
A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined
WWI Sri K. R. Forthe 1st Party/ Petitioner
Ramanathan
None
For the 2nd Party/ Management :
Documents Marked Onthe Petitioner's side
Date
Ex.No.
Description
Ex.W1
11-09-2003 Defence Summing Up Statement filed by the Petitioner Before the Enquiry Officer
Ex. W2
03-09-2004 Findings of the Enquiry Officer
Ex. W3
11-10-2004 Order issued by the Respon- dent/Bank imposing upon the Petitioner the punishment of Dismissal without notice Ex.W4
12-11-2004 Petitioner's appeal to the Executive Director of the Respondent/Bank
Ex.W5 31-03-2006 Order of the Respondent/ Bank rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] Ex.W6 12-04-2006 Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section - 2A of the ID Act, 1947 before the Assis- tantCommissioner of Labour (Central) , Chennai
Ex.W7 4-09-2006 Reply filed by the Respon- dent Bank before Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central ), Chennai
Ex.W8 11-10-2006 Rejoinder filedby the Peti- tioner before the Assistant Commissioner or Labour (Central) , Chennai
On the Petitioner's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
29-05-2000 Investigation Report of Mr. S. Ramachandran regarding wrong balance of Rs . 36,000 in SB A/ c of Petitioner and his wife.
Ex.M2 19-06-2000 Order of " Caution " issued to petitioner
Ex.M3
03-02-2001 Investigation Report of Mr. S. Ramamurthy on the complaint of Mrs. Kamala G. Menon- Fraudulent withdrawals totaling to Rs . 20,000 Ex.M4 24-01-2003 Show Cause Notice issued to Petitioner
Ex.M5
6-02-2003
Petitioner's reply to show cause notice dated 24-01-2003 Ex.M6
14-08-2004 Charge Sheet issued to petitioner on the complaint of Mrs. Kamala G. Menon- Fraudulent withdrawals of Rs. 20,000
Ex.M7
12-01-2002 Anonymous complaint letter addressed to Chairman of the respondent/Bank
22-01-2002
Ex.M8
Letter from Circle office of the bank to Branch Manager ofKodambakkam Branch ofthe bank enclosing anonymous complaintletter
Ex.M9
25-01-2002 Report from the Branch Manager , Kodambakkam to the Circle Office of the bank , Chennai -8
Ex.M10 22-06-2002 Show Cause Notice issued to the Petitioner
Ex.M11 20-09-2002 Charge Sheet and Notice of Enquiry issued to Petitioner 431
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
25-08-2004
Ex.M27
28-09-2002
Ex.M12
petitioner'sreply to the second show cause Notice Reply of Petitioner to show cause notice dated 22-06-2002
11-09-2004
Ex.M28
enclosing copy of his reply dated01-07-2002
Notice of personal hearing Fixing personal hearing on 22-09-2004
12-10-2002
Ex.M13
22-09-2004
Ex.M29
Letter of petitioner to Enquiry Officer to defer the Enquiry
Proceedings of personal hearing
31-10-2002
Ex.M14
11-10-2004
Ex.M30
Letter from Respondentto Petitioner directing him to attend the enquiry
Punishment Order - Dismissal from service issued to the petitioner by the Bank 4-10-2002 Proceedings of enquiry
Ex.M15
12-11-2004 Appeal to the petitioner
Ex.M31
-do-
16-10-2002
05-01-2006
Ex.M32
-do-
3-01-2003
Proceedings of the personal hearing of the Appellate Authority
-do-
27-01-2003
Ex.M33 31-03-2006
-do-
17-02-2003
Orders of the Appellate Authority
-do-
10-03-2003
Ex.M34 21-06-1990
-do-
17-03-2003
8-08-2003
Ex.M16
Presenting Officer's submission
SBAccountOpening From and Specimen signature Card of M/ s. M. Rajasekaran and Rajalakshmi E ( or ) SB A/ c No. 29694
11-09-2003
Ex.M17
10-07-2002
Ex.M35
Defence representative's submission
30-01-2004 Inquiry Officer's findings
Letter from petitioner to DGM/ Disciplinary Authority of the Bank
Ex.M18
5-02-2004
-do-
Ex.M19
28-09-2002
Ex.M36
25-01-2002
Ex.M37
Letter from Branch Manager, Kodambakkam to AGM (South)
Letter of respondent sending Enquiry Officer's Report and calling for the comments of the petitioner on the findings of Enquiry Officer
14-02-2002
Ex.M38
9-03-2004
Ex.M20
Petitioner's post dated reply received on 20-03-2004
Letter given by Mrs. R. Rajalakshmi regarding SB A/ c No. 29694
13-02-2002
10-03-2004
Ex.M39
Ex.M21
Letter given by P. Vijayalakshmi
05-01-2002
Ex.M40
Letter from Respondent to Petitioner directing him to submit his comments before 17-03-2004
Cheque . No. 870191 dated 05-10-2002 and the reverse of it
14-02-2002
24-07-2004
Ex.M41
Ex.M22
Second Show Cause Notice issued to the Petitioner
Letter from Branch Manager, Kodambakkam to AGM -CO , Vigilance Deptt , Chennai - 8 02-08-2004
Ex.M23
20-02-2002
Ex.M42
Letter from AR Arunachalam to AGM - Vigilance Deptt . , C.O. , Chennai -8
Letter from petitioner to GM/ Disciplinary Authority to adjourn the personal hearing fixed 04-08-2004
Ex.M43
14-08-2004
Ex.M24
Letter from Branch Manager , Kodambakkam to AGM (South), CO ,, Chennai -8
20-02-2002
Ex.M44
Letter from GM/Disciplinary Authority to petitioner granting time upto 17-08-2004 to submit his reply
Letter from petitioner ofAGM- Vigilance Deptt, CO. , Chennai-(S) 14-08-2004
Ex.M25
26-02-2002
Ex.M45
Letter from Branch Manager , Kodambakkam to AGM - C.O , South
18-03-2002
Ex.M46
Letter from petitioner toGM/ Disciplinary Authority requesting to fix personal hearing at the end of August 2004
Letter from Branch Manager, to AGM-C.O , Chennai -8 25-08-2004
Ex.M26
05-01-2002
Ex.M47
Indian Bank , Kodambakkam Branch - combined Transaction Log for 05-01-2002 Petitioner's letter to GM/ Disciplinary Authority to adjourn the personal hearing on 28-08-2004 432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 16, 2010 /PAUSA 26, 1931
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii ) ] नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
2. Case repeatedly called . Workman is not present for his evidence despite knowledge . He is not appearing for his evidence for the last many dates . Counsel for the workman also pleads no instructions . In view ofthe above as the workman appears to be not interested to pursue the present reference . In view of the above , the present reference is returned as such to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution. Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned.
का. आ. 196. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय -1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 135/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Chandigarh
03-12-09
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
[ सं. एल -12012/182/ 96- आई आर ( बी- II) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd December, 2009
का. आ. 197.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एवं सिंद्ध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 89 ऑफ 99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
S. O. 196. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 135/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court. I, Chandigarh now as shown in the annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on23-12-2009 ,
[ सं. एल -12012/ 119/98 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी [No. L.12012/ 182/ 96- IR(B - II ] U.S. PANDEY , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009 BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- I , CHANDIGARH
Case No. I.D. 135/97
Shri Vinod Kholi , C/o H.S. Arora , H.No. 2299 , Sector.4.C, Chandigarh
Applicant
S. O. 197. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 89of 99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- I , Chandigarh now as shown in the annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on23-12-2009 .
Versus
[No. L - 12012/ 119 /98 - IR ( B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY , Section Officer The Regional Manager , Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Kapurthala, Punjab
ANNEXURE
Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman:
Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj .
Shri N.K. Zakhmi
For the management :
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- I , CHANDIGARH
AWARD
Case No. I.D. 89 of 99
Passed on 03-12-09
Sh . Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal C / o Sh. Tek Chand Sharma , 25 Sant Nagar , Civil Lines , Ludhiana .
The Central Government vide notification No. L.12012 /182/ 96- IR ( B.II ) , dated 23-06-97 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
Applicant
Versus
Punjab & Sind Bank, The Chief Manager , Pb .& Sind Bank, ZonalOffice Civil Lines , Ludhiana.
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Kapurthala in terminating the services ofShri Vinod Kohli is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from whatdate?"
.Respondent 433
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
ANNEXURE
APPEARANCES
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , None
Forthe workman:
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- I , For the management : None
CHANDIGARH
AWARD
Case No. I.D. 1/2009
Passed on 14-12-2009
Shri Balwinder Kumar S / o Shri Manphool Chand, H.No. 46, St , No.3 Balmiki Basti , Near Telephone Exchange, Bedi Barradari , Patiala (Punjab)
Applicant The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , vide Notification No. L.12012 / 119 / 98-1R( B.II ) dated 4-3-1999 referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to thisTribunal .
Versus
The Executive Engineer , C.P.W.D. Central Division.I . Kendriya Sadan , Sector.9.A . Chandigarh - 160001
Respondent
APPEARANCES
"Whether the action of the management of the bank Zonal Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank , Zonal Office Civil Lines , Ludhiana in voluntarily retiring Sh. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal w.e.f. 10-6-95 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ? "
None
For the workman:
Shri Anish Babbar
For the management:
AWARD
Passed on 7-12-2009
2. Case repeatedly called . None appeared on behalf ofthe workman dispite notice . It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his case . In view of the above as the workman is not appearing to pursue his case , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned.
The Central Govt . vide Notification No. L.42012/ 79 / 2008 - IR ( DU ) , dated 20-3-2009, has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
Chandigarh:
dated 14-12-2009
G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
"Whether the contract between the management of CPWD and their contractor with regard to employment ofShri Balwinder Kumar is sham and bogus ? If yes , whether the action of the management in terminating hisservices w.e.f. 5-2-2007 is legal and justified and to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the workman .Management filed written statement along with affidavit, Workman is not present for his evidence . It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference . In view of the above , the present reference is returned as such to the Central Govt . for want ofpresecution. Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned .
का. आ. 198.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण न. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Chandigarh 7-12-09
[ सं. एल-42012/79/2008- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2009 New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009
का. आ. 199.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यागिक अधिकरण न. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1034/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
S. O. 198. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court 1, Chandigarh shown in the annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.P.W.D. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-12-2009.
[ सं. एल-40012/139/95 - आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी [No. L- 12012/ 79/2008 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer 434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010 /PAUSA 26 , 1931
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009
Shri Ramesh Kumar is proper , legal and justified ? If not , to whatreliefthe workman is entitled to ? "
S. O. 199. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1034/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court.I, Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-12-2009.
[No. L-40012/139/95 - IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- L, CHANDIGARH
Case No. I.D. 1034/2005 ( 7496)
Shri Ramesh Kumar S/ o Shri Mir Singh Village Wazirabad, Near Chatriwala, Teh . & District Gurgaon
.Applicant
Afterreceiving the reference parties were informed. Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The case of workman in nutshell is that he was appointed by the management of Telecommunication Department as a Peon on 23-9-1993 on daily wage basis . He served the department continuously up to 18-9-1994 . He had worked more than 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination. His services were illegally terminated on 10-10-1994 . From 18-9-1994 to 30-9-1994 his wages were released in the name of Naresh Kumar , whereas , from 1-10- 1994 to 10-10-1994 his salary were released in the name of Ramesh Kumar. His services were terminated without retrenchment notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and lawful terminal dues . This renders his termination illegal and void being against the provisions of the Act. It was also the contention of the workman that he was also denied the benefit of the scheme of the department of telecommunication 1989 regarding grant of temporary status and regularization of services of casual and daily wage workers . On the basis of above facts , the workman has requested for setting aside his termination order and consequential order for reinstatement of his services along with all the benefits .
Versus
DGM, Telecom, Main E - 10 - B , Exchange , Delhi Road Gurgaon
.Respondent
The management of respondent appeared and denied the contention of the workman . Master servant relationship was denied by the management . It was specifically stated that the workman was never appointed by the management in any capacity.
APPEARANCES
Forthe workman:
Sh . Hoshiar Singh , Advocate
For the management: Deepali Puri , Advocate
AWARD
Passed on 16-12-2009
This reference, which was referred by the Central Government in the year 1996 is placed before me for award today. Central Government in its reference desired to answer this reference within three months from the date of receiving the same. I am answering it after 14 years . It is an abnormal delay and certainly a case of denial timely justice . Reasons may be many. The Tribunal might have lying vacant for a considerable period and so many other constraints , but theultimate sufferer has been the workman , who is a member of socio -economic backward class of Indian democracy . I cannot do anything at this stage except to honour my inner conscience by apologizing the workman on behalf of this Tribunal for denying timely justice .
Government of India vide Notification No. L -40012/ 139/95 - IR ( DU ) dated 26-7-1996 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 of this Tribunal :-
Bothofthe parties were afforded the opportunity of adducing evidence . Statement of workman was recorded , whereas, on behalf of the management , one Govind Singh , AccountsOfficer , filed his affidavit and was cross - examined by learned counsel for the workman . Certain documents were summoned by the workman from the custody of the management . But the management denied the custody of the documents . Workman also filed the photo copies of certain documents , which are marked Ex . 3 onwards . These are 28 page documents , which the workman has filed. Parties were heard at length . Main issue before this Tribunal is whether there existed any employer.employee relationship between the management and the workman ? The management has totally denied any such relationship . It is stated bythe management that workman Ramesh was never engaged by the management in any capacity . When cross- examined, the witness of the management Shri Govind Singh did not doubt the genuineness of the documents filed by the workman . He could only manage to deny the name of the Officer , who signed the documents . He once again specifically stated that original documents , photocopies of which have been filed by the workman , are not in the possession of the management . If the documents filed by the workman are perused properly , it is evidently clear that workman has worked with the management for the period mentioned in statement of claim . The document marked W.3 is a document regarding engagement of the "Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department , Gurgaon in terminating the services of 435 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16, 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
of wages are also on record . Thus , there is no doubt to hold that workman was appointed by management as daily wage worker and he worked for the period mentioned in the claim.
It is a clear case of withholding of the documents by the management to prevent the workman for exercising and enjoying his lawful right under the provisions of the Act . Under such circumstances , where the management was supposed to file all the documents and he failed, adverse inference shall be taken. The nature of inference for me should be the workman shall be considered and presumed to work for the entire period he claimed in the statement of claim .
workman with effect from 23-9-1993 . The endorsement of telecommunication department is very well clear on the appointment of workman and the circumstances under which the workman was appointed on daily wage basis are also mentioned . Documents at page No. 45 of the file make it clear that three persons including the workman were working with the management of telecommunication. The rates of daily wage and the period of work is also mentioned in the document . In rest of the documents filed by the workman , it is clearly established that workman was working under telecommunication department . The letter at page No. 47 of the file reveals that three part- time Mazdoors were working with Telecommunication Department, Gurgaon. Name of the workman figure in the letter and it is also mentioned about the change of labour to avoid the day'sproblem for the telecommunication department.
Accordingly, on the basis of presumption and proof, I am of the view that the services of the workman were terminated by the management and workman has completed 240 days work in the preceding year from the date of his termination .
The contents ofthis letter , which is written by SDOP , Gurgaon to the AO (TR), C/ o GMTFEBD , Gurgaon dated 30-9-1994 makes it clear that work was available with the management oftelecommunication department . It was due to avoid the day's problem for the telecommunication department, the labour was changed. This letter is enough to show the unlawful labour practice adopted by the department . If the work was available and the workman is ready to work, he could not be replaced. This letter itself shows that the services of the workman were terminated (by replacing the labour) just to frustrate the provisions of the Act, regarding the lawful protection conferred upon the workman . The provisions of law creates the embargo of protection that the services of the workman cannot be terminated, otherwise than the procedure established in the Act.
It isadmitted case that no notice or one month wages in lieu of notice or terminal dues were paid to the workman . The provisions ofthe Act does not prohibit the termination of the services of any daily wage worker through retrenchment , but it regulates the termination . The termination of the workman is regulated in the way that management has to give a notice of 30 days or pay 30 days wages in lieu of the notice and lawful terminal dues for termination of the services of daily wage worker . Notice and lawful terminal dues are the conditions precedents for termination ofthe services of the daily waged worker . This condition precedent was violated by the act of management . Terminating the services of the workman without notice and without terminal dues renders the termination of the workman void and illegal .
When the services of any workman are declaredto be void, unlawful and illegal , there are two possible remedies available . The first remedy is the reinstatement of the workman into services and another remedy is the reasonable compensation . It is the settled law of service jurisprudence that priority should be given for reinstatement ofthe services of the workman because the law prefers to protect the right of work of a workman . In exceptional cases , the workman may also be compensated by a reasonable amount of compensation .
The facts and circumstances of the case are peculiar . Inspite of having the services of the workman for more than 240 days in the preceding year from the date of termination, the management denied any relationship with the workman . The documents filed by the workman proved chataffidavitfiled by the witness of management was false . The management not only denied any relationship , but it also denied and failed to file any documents regarding the services of the workman . All the document in the view of this Tribunal are lying in the custody of the management . because from the very document , the workman has obtained the photocopies . The genuineness of the photo copies have not been challenged by the management . There It is strange in this case that the management has totally denied any relationship with the workman . The workman has worked for a considerable period with the management . He has filed. certain photo copies of documents to prove that he was working with the management . The genuineness of these documents has not been challenged by the management. The management firstly denied that the workman had ever worked with the management and also stated that documents are not lying in its custody, whereas , the correspondence between the officers of the management, filed by the workman shows that to prevent the workman to exercise his lawful claim and right under the provisions of the Act, his services were terminated . Management was supposed to file the original documents , but they denied having the custody. It also shows that management has deliberately failed to file the documents to prevent the workman to enjoy his lawful right . The workman was fortunate enough to have certain photo copies of documents , which he filed before this Tribunal . Documents prove that there existed a master- servant relationship between the workman and the management .nent. He was paid wages by the management. He was appointed by the management vide letter Ex . W.3 and administrative control over the workman was of the management . Attendance sheets have also been filed by the workman and some documents regarding the payment
13 1/2010 18 436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16 , 2010/PAUSA 26, 1931
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- I , CHANDIGARH
Case No. I. D. 268 of 2001
Sh .Ajit Singh S/ o Sh . Gurdit Singh , Viil . Gharana Masand, P.O. Chowki , Jamwaja, Hamirpur ( Distt. ). 177001 ,
.Applicant.
Vs.
1. The Divisional Engineer , Telecom Project . Hamirpur, HamirpurDistt.
is one more peculiar circumstance of this case that this Tribunal took 14 years to answer this reference . I cannot term it as the state wrong for denying timely justice by a quasi Judicial Administrative Tribunal . But it was not the fault ofthe workman that long 14 years time was taken by this Tribunal for answering and adjudicating the reference. Accordingly , I am of the view that reinstatement of the workman into the services is the appropriate remedy in this case . Law, which includes the judicial pronouncements does not disapproves the reinstatement of the services of the workman, rather prefers the protection of right to work . Accordingly , the management of respondent telecommunication department is directed to reinstate the services of the workman within one month from the date of publication ofthis award . The workman will also be entitled for the back wages , because he suffered for a long time for his no fault.
2. The Sub - Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project , Hamirpur,Hamirpur Distt.. 177001.
.Respondent.
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: None.
: None.
For the management
AWARD
Passed on 9-12-2009 .
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide notification No. L -40012/ 23 /2001-1.R. ( D.U ) dated 9th July, 2001 , referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .
The workman has also requested for benefit of scheme of management for granting temporary status and regularization of services of daily waged worker . The documents , which has been narrated by me in the body of this award and which are at page 47 of the file proves that to preventthe workman his lawful claim , his services were terminated. It is the unlawful labour practice adopted by the management . Accordingly , the management is also directed to give benefit of the scheme as narrated by the workman, if he is otherwise eligible for temporary status and regularization of the services strictly as per the terms ofthe circular letter . Accordingly , the reference is answered . LetCentral Government be approached for publication of award, and thereafter , the filed be consigned to record room.
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
"Whether the action of the management of the Divisional Engineer Telecom Projects , Hamirpur and SDE, Telecom Project , Hamirpur in terminating the services of Sh . Ajit Singh S/ o Sh . Gurdit Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2000 is just and legal ? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled to ? "
का. आ. 200.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 268/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared on behalf ofthe workman. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his case. In view of the above as the workman is not appearing to pursue his case , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned.
Chandigarh:
[ सं. एल -40012/ 123/ 2001- आई आर ( डीयू) ]
Dated 9-12-2009
सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009
नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
का. आ. 201.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 330/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
S. O. 200. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 268 / 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. - I , Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-12-2009.
[No. L-40012/ 123 /2001 - IR ( DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
[ सं. एल-40012/235/2001- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी 437
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009
246/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल-40012/90/2001 आई आर ( डीयू) ]
सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009 S. O. 201. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 330/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. - 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-12-2009 .
[No. L -40012/235 / 2001 - IR (DU) ]
SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
S. O. 202. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 246/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. -1 , Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-12-2009.
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
[No. L-40012/90/2001 - IR ( DU )] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- I ,
CHANDIGARH
ANNEXURE
Case No. I. D. 330 of 2001
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- I ,
Applicant
Sh. Davinder Kumar C/ o Sh. N.K.Jeet, 27349 , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda.
CHANDIGARH
Vs.
Case No. I. D. 246 of 2001
Sh. Ravi Kumar
C/ o Sh . N.K.Jeet .
Respondent.
The General Manager, Telecom, Bhatinda (Punjab).151001 .
27349, Lal Singh Basti Road,
APPEARANCES
Applicant .
Bhatinda.
: None.
Vs.
For the workman
: Sh. G.C.Babbar .
For the management
The General Manager ,
AWARD
Telecom , Bhatinda
Respondent.
Passed on 9-12-2009.
(Punjab). 1 001.
APPEARANCES
: None
Forthe workman
: None
For the management
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , vide notification No : L - 40012/ 235 /2001 R. ( D.U ) dated 6th November, 2001 , referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .
Passed on 9-12-2009 .
"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom , Bhatinda in terminating the services of Sh . Davinder Kumar S/ o Sh. Chhotu Ram isjust and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "
The Government of India . Ministry of Labour , vide notification No. L -40012/90/2001-1.R. ( D.U) dated 14th June, 2001 , referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .
"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom, Bhatinda in terminating the services of Sh . Ravi Kumar Sto Sh. Moti Ram just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared on behalf ofthe workman. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his case. In view of the above as the workman is not appearing to pursue his case, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned .
Chandigarh:
G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer
Dated 9-12-2009
नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared on behalf ofthe workman . It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his case . In view of the above as the workman is not appearing to pursue his case , the present referenceis returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt .be informed . File be consigned.
Chandigarh:
G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Office:
Dated 9-12-2009
का. आ. 202.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 438
12 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2010/ PAUSA 26, 1931
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2009
2.Case repeatedly called. None appeared on behalf ofthe workman. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his case . In view of the above as the workman is not appearing to pursue his case, the present reference is returnedto the Central Government for want of prosecution. CentralGovernment be informed. File be consigned.
Chandigarh .
Dated 9-12-2009
G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer का.आ. 203.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1, चन्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1296/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2009 [सं. एल-40012/84/2006- आई आर ( डीयू] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009
का.आ. 204.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1 , चन्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 210/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/228/2003- आई आर ( डीयू] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी S.O. 203. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1296/ 2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial T. Jounal Cum- Labour Court No. - I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-12-2009.
New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009 [No. L-40012/84/2006 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRIGYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. I.D. 1296 of 2007 .
S.O. 204. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 210/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court No. - 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-12-2009 .
Sh. Gurdeep Singh S/ o Sh. Kartar Singh , V. & P.O. Sandhir, Karnal .
.Applicant.
[No. L -400121 /228 /2003 - IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer Vs.
ANNEXURE
The General Manager , BSNL , Sector 8 , Distt . Karnal .
Respondent
APPEARANCES
Forthe Workman : None
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH
For the Management : Sh . G.C.Babbar .
Case No. I.D. 210 of 2004 .
AWARD
Passed on 9-12-2009
Sh. Sandeep Kumar S/ o Sh . Parmod Kumar, V. & P.O. Sohari - III, Tehsil Barsar, Distt. Hamirpur- 174311
.Applicant.
Vs.
Government of India , Ministry of Labour, vide notification No. L - 40012/ 84 /2006/ IR ( D.U. ), Dated 12th January, 2007 , referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
The Telecom Distt . Manager , BSNL, Kullu ( HP )- 175101. .Respondent
APPEARANCES
Forthe Workman : None
"Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Karnal , in terminating the services of Sh . Gurdeep Singh w.e.f. 7-10-2005 is legal and justified ? If not, to whatreliefthe workman is entitled to ? "
For the Management : Sh. Sanjay Goyal .
439
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26, 1931
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Vs.
AWARD
Passed on 9-12-2009 .
The General Manager , TD , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Hissar.
Respondent
APPEARANCES
Government of India , Ministry of Labour , vide notification No. L -40012/ 228 /2003 /IR (DU), Dated 7 th June, 2004, referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
None
For the Workman :
None.
For the Management :
AWARD
Passed on 9-12-2009
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom , now known as BSNL , in terminating the services of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Ex - Temporary Labourer w.e.f. 31-12-96 without complying with the provisions of the ID Act , 1947 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ? "
Government of India , Ministry of Labour , vide notification No. L -40012/ 14 /2005 / IR ( DU ) , Dated 14th June, 2006 , referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of GMTD, BSNL , Hissar in terminating the services of Sh.Kuldeep Singh S / o Sh . Karam Singh , Driver w.e.f. 18-3-2004 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? " 2. Case repeatedly called . None appeared on behalf ofthe workman . It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his case . In view of the above as the workman is not appearing to pursue his case , the present reference is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed. File be consigned. Chandigarh
Dated 9-12-2009 G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2009
2. Case repeatedly called . None appeared on behalf ofthe workman . It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his case . In view of the above as the workman is not appearing to pursue his case the present reference is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed. File be consigned . Chandigarh .
Dated 9-12-2009
नई G. K. SHARMA. Presiding Officer दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2010 का.आ. 205.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1, चन्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1270/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/ 14/2005 - आई आर (डीयू]
सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2009
का.आ. 206. 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 01 फरवरी , 2010 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 उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77,78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-
S.O. 205. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1270/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. - 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-12-2009 .
[No. L-40012/14/2005 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के कर्नूल जिले में स्थित धोन् मण्डल के धोन् नगरपालिका तथा उनके आस - पास स्थित ।. यू. कोत्तापल्ली, 2. उंगरानिगुंडला , 3. धर्मवरम्, 4. येर्रागुंडला , 5.गोसानिपल्ली , 6. चिंट्लपेटा , 7. उडुमुलपाडु, 8. अब्बिरेड्डिपल्लि, 9. वेंकटापुरम , 10. दोरापल्ली, 11. वेंकटानायुनिपल्ली , 12. कोचीरूऊ राजस्व गांव तथा 13. जोगदुर्ति राजस्व गांव के अंतर्गत आने वाले सभी क्षेत्र । " ANNEXURE
[संख्या एस-38013 /01/2010- एस.एस.1 ] एस.डी. जेवियर, अपर सचिव
New Delhi , the 5th January , 2010 BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT - I CHANDIGARH
Case No. I.D. 1270 of 2006 .
Sh.Kuldeep Singh S /o Sh. Karam Singh , Old DSP Road , Ma Jagdamba Crockery House , Fatehabad
S.O. 206. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February , 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and
Applicant .
440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 16 , 2010 / PAUSA 26 , 1931
[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
Dabgram , JL No. 1 , Daknikata , JL No. 83 , Matram , Mahishmari , Kalabari , Siliguri , JL No. 88 , Khaprali , Mallaguri , Matigara Hat , Kabakhari , Kabakholi , Fautsingh, Salbari Chhat in the District of Darjeeling. " Chapter -V and VI ( except Sub - Section ( 1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:-
[No. S-38013/02/2010 - S.S. - 1 ] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली , 5 जनवरी , 2010 "All the areas falling within the limits of " Dhone Municipality and its surrounding Villages of 1. U. Kothapalli , 2. Ungaranigundla , 3. Dharmavaram , 4. Yerragundla , 5. Gosanipalli , 6. Chintlapeta , 7. Udumulapadu , 8. Abbireddypalli , 9. Venkatapuram, 10. Dorapalli , 11. Venkatanayunipalli , 12 . Kocheeruvu, and 13. Jogadurthy of Dhone mandal inKurnool District of Andhra Pradesh, "
[No. S- 38013/01 /2010- S.S . 1 ] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2010
का.आ. 208.- 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 01 फरवरी , 2010 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 उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77,78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध कर्नाटकराज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:
होबली
तालुक जिला
क्र.सं. राजस्व ग्राम का नाम नगरपालिका सीमाएँ
1.
शांतिग्रामा हासन हासन
कनचनहल्ली (सातेनहल्ली)
[संख्या- एस-38013/03/2010 - एस एस 1 ] एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 5th January , 2010 का.आ. 207.- 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 01 फरवरी , 2010 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 उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77,78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:
" दार्जिलिंग जिला में पांचकुलगुड़ी, नेमाई , बनियाखड़ी, वनिमाखली गुडिया, धुकूड़िया , घोकमा , माथापरि, बारगड़िया बैराथिसाल, बड़मानसिंह जोत , बड़ोमोहनसिंह जोत , रुपसिंह , पथनघाटा , गौरचरण , पंचानई , कड़ईबाड़ी, उधमसिंह , उदय सिंह , चुमटा, राजपैरी , जितु , डाबग्राम जे.एल. 1 , डाकनिकाटा जे.एल. 83 , मातरम , महिसमारी , कालाबाड़ी , सिलिगुडी जे. एल. 88 , खपरेल , मलागुरी , माटिगरा हाट , काबाखड़ी काबाखली फौतसिंह , सलबारी छत मौजा के क्षेत्रों को शामिल कर "
S.O. 208. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 ( 34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February, 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter -V and VI ( except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely:-
[सं. एस-38013/02/2010 - एसएस 1 ] एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव
Taluk Distirict
Sl . Name of the Revenue Hobli No. Village of Municipal Limits
New Delhi , the 5th January, 2010
Shanthigramma Hassan Hassan
1. Kanchanahalli (Sathenahally)
[No. S- 38013 /03/2010-SS - 1 ] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली , 5 जनवरी , 2010
S.O. 207. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February, 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter -V and VI ( except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of West Bengal namely:-
का.आ. 209.- 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 01 फरवरी , 2010 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 उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77,78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के "Areas comprising the Mouzas of Panchkulguri , Nemai , Baniakhari/ Baniakhali , Guria , Dhukuria, Ghokma, Mathapari , Bargharia , Bairathisal , Barmansingh Jote, Baromohan singh Jote Rupsingh , Patharghata, Gourcharan , Panchanai , Karaibari , Udamsingh , Udaysingh , Chumta , Rajpairi , Jitu , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
उपबंध कर्नाटक , राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:
तालुक
क्र.सं. राजस्व ग्राम का नाम होबली नगरपालिका सीमाएँ जिला
कसबा कुणिगल तुमकूर 1. कुणिगल
2. कल्लनायकनहल्ली हुत्रीदुर्गा कुणिगल तुमकूर
[संख्या- एस -38013/04/2010 - एस एस 1 ] एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 5th January, 2010
S.O. 209. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February, 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter -V and VI (except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely:-
Sl . Name of the Revenue Hobli Taluk Distirict No. Village ofMunicipal Limits
Kasaba Kunigal Tumkur 1. Kunigal
2. Kallanayakanahalli Hutridurga Kunigal Tumkur
[No. S - 38013 /04/2010 - S.S . 1 ] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2010
का.आ. 210.-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 01 फरवरी , 2010 कोउस 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 उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77,78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:
क्रमांक. राजस्व ग्राम हदबस्त सं. तहसील जिला का नाम
फगवाड़ा कपूरथला 1. दक बुलाराई 66
2. झीता कलां 262 अमृतसर अमृतसर 3. काला टिब्बा 111 अबोहर फिरोजपुर
[संख्या- एस-38013/05/2010 - एस एस. - 1 ] एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव
441
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 16 , 2010/पौष 26 , 1931
New Delhi , the 5th January , 2010
S.O. 210. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section I of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February, 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter - V and VI ( except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely:
Sl . Name of Had Bast Tehsil No. the Village No. District
1. Dak Bhullari 66 Phagwara Kapurthala 2. Jheeta Kalan 262 Amritsar Amritsar Abohar Ferozepur 3. Kala Tibba 111
[No. S - 38013/05/2010 -S.S . 1 ] S.D. XAVIER , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 5 जनवरी , 2010
का.आ. 211.- 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 01 फरवरी , 2010 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 उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77,78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध गुजरात राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्: ग्राम पंचायत/नगरपालिका/राजस्व सीमाएं-
1. गांव कडोदरा , वरेली , पलसाना , तनतीथैया , जोलवा, वाकानेडा और चलथान तहसील पलसाना जिला सूरत । 2. गांव वन्ज तहसील चोरयासी जिला सूरत ।
[संख्या एस -38013/06/2010 - एस.एस.1 ] एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 5th January , 2010
S.O. 211. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist February , 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter -V and VI (except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Gujarat :-- Gram Panchayat/ Municipal /Revenue limits of: ---
(i) Villages Kadodara , Vareli Palsana , Tantithaiya , Jolva , Vankaneda and Chalthan of Taluka Palsana in Distirct Surat &
(ii) Village Vanz of Taluka Choryasi in District Surat . [No. S - 38013/06/2010- S.S.1 ] S.D.XAVIER, Under Secy.
Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .