This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

REGD. NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05

सत्यमेव जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 23]

नई दिल्ली, मई 30 - जून 5 , 2010 , शनिवार /ज्येष्ठ 9-ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

No. 23 ]

NEW DELHI, MAY 30-JUNE 5, 2010 , SATURDAY/ JYAISTHA 9 -JYAISTHA 15, 1932 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

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

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

वित्त मंत्रालय

(ख)

(आयकर विभाग )

उपरोक्त कंपनी अपने निजी कर्मचारियों द्वारा अपनी आस्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान कार्य करेगी ।

( मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त का कार्यालय , चेन्नै- II )

चेन्नै, 22 फरवरी , 2010

( ग) आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( IIक ) के अधीन अनुमोदन प्राप्त कम्पनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के प्रयोजन के लिए प्राप्त निधि के सन्दर्भ में अनुसंधान में खर्च की गई रकम को दर्शाते हुए अलग लेखा- बही रखेगी , अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में विनिर्दिष्ट प्रकार लेखा- बहियों की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगी और उक्त लेखाकार द्वारा सत्यापित और हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट को संबंधित आयकर निदेशक या आयकर आयुक्त के पास अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) में आयकर विवरणी दाखिल करने के लिए उल्लिखित समय सीमा के अर्न्तगत दाखिल करेगी । का.आ. 1432.-आम सूचना के लिए यह अधिसूचना जारी की जाती है कि मैसर्स निस्सान अशोक लिलेण्ड टेक्नॉलोजीज लिमिटेड, खीवराज काम्पलेक्स-II , चौथी मंजिल , 477-482 अण्णा सालै , नन्दनम, चेन्नै-600035 नामक कंपनी को ( जिनको भारत सरकार, विज्ञान और तकनीकी मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश संख्या : एफ.टी. यू- IV/आर.डी.आई/2904/2009 दिनांक28-08-2009 द्वारा आन्तरिक आर एण्ड डी ईकाइयों के लिए दिनांक 31-3-2012 तक पहले ही मान्यता प्रदान की गई है । ) वित्तीय वर्ष 2010-11 से 2012-13 तक वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करने वाले अन्य संस्थाओं के वर्ग में आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 5 एफ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( IIक ) के प्रयोजन के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के साथ मान्यता दी जाती है :-

(क) उपरोक्त कंपनी को संदत्त राशि को वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के प्रयोजन के लिए खर्च किया जाएगा ।

(घ) अनुमोदित कम्पनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के प्रयोजन के लिए प्राप्त दान और इस प्रयोजनार्थ खर्च का विवरण अलग से तैयार करके रखेगी । उक्त विवरण की एक प्रमाणित प्रति लेखाकार की लेखा रिपोर्ट के साथ उप नि म ( 3 ) के अनुसार प्रस्तुत करेगी । 1975 G1/2010

(2949) [PART II-SEC. 3(ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2950

(ड. ) अनुमोदन दिए जाने के बाद उपरोक्त कंपनी हर साल आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप - धारा (1 ) के अधीन आयकर विवरणी दाखिल करने के लिए विनिर्दिष्ट समय- सीमा के अन्दर संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त को निम्नलिखित विषयों पर प्रकाश डालते हुए एक विवरण प्रस्तुत करेगी ।

(i ) पूर्व वर्ष में किए गए अनुसंधान कार्य के बारे में एक विस्तृत टिप्पणी;

Anna Salai , Nandanam , Chennai-600035 , ( already granted recognition for its in-house R & D units by the Ministry of Science & Technology, Govt . of India, New Delhi vide their orderdated 28-08-2009 in F.No.TU - IV/RDI/ 2904/2009 till 31-03-2012) , has been approved for the purpose ofClause (iia) ofsub-section ( 1 ) of Section 35 ofthe Income- tax Act , 1961 (said Act) read with Rule 5F ofthe Income Tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules ) , for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 in the category of " other institution " , engaged in research activities , subject to the following conditions , namely:-

(ii ) राष्ट्रीय और अंतर - राष्ट्रीय पत्रिकाओं में संदर्भाधीन वर्ष में प्रकाशित अनुसधान लेखों की संक्षिप्त जानकारी ;

(a) The sum paid to the above approved company shall be used for scientific research ;

(iii ) संदर्भाधीन वर्ष में आवेदन किए गए या पंजीकृत किए गए पेटेन्ट या अन्य अधिकार का विवरण ।

(b) The applicant company shall carry on scientific research through its own employees using its own assets ;

(iv ) अगले वर्षों के लिए उद्देशित अनुसंधान परियोजनाओं का कार्यक्रम और इन कार्यक्रमों के लिए वित्तीय-आबंटन काविवरण ।

(च ) यदि आयकर आयुक्त इस बात से संतुष्ट है कि उपरोक्त कम्पनी

(i ) अपने वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान कार्यों के लिए अलग लेखा-बही नहीं रखती है

(ii ) लेखा-रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करने में चूक की है ।

(iii) अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त और उसमें लगें खर्च के संदर्भ में या उप - खण्ड ( ड. ) में उल्लिखित प्रकार से विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है, या

( iv) अनुसंधान कार्यों को समाप्त कर दिया हो या कार्यों में यथार्थता नहीं हो, या

(c) The company, approved under clause ( iia) of sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 35 shall maintain seperate books of account in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amount used for carrying on research , get such books of account audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub - section (2 ) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income - tax or the Director of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act ;

( v) जिन शर्तों के आधार पर अनुमोदन दिया गया हो, उन शर्तों का अनुपालन नहीं करती है ।

(d) The approved company shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts used for scientific research and a copy ofsuch statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to insub - rule (3 ) ;

तो ऐसे संदर्भ में उचित जॉच पड़ताल के बाद उपरोक्त उपखण्ड ( i ) से ( v ) तक के सन्दर्भ में एक रिपोर्ट धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन विवरणी दाखिल करने के लिए निर्दिष्ट दिन से छः महीने के अन्दर अपने मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त को प्रस्तुत करेंगे ।

(e) Subsequent to the approval , the Company shall , every year , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 , furnish a statement to the Commissioner of Income - tax, containing the following information namely:-

यदि नियम 5 च में उल्लिखित ( i ) से ( v ) तक के शर्तों में से किसी भी शर्त को पूरा नहीं किया गया या संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त से नियम 5 च ( 3 ) ( च) के अंतर्गत प्राप्त रिपोर्ट के आधार पर उपरोक्त अनुमोदन को रद्द किया जा सकता है ।

(i) a detailed note on the research work undertaken by it during the previous year;

(ii) a summary of research articles published in national or international journals during the year;

(iii) any patents or other similar rights applied for or registered during the year;

[अधिसूचना सं 1-2009-10/संसी.सी.- II/35 ( 1 ) ( II ए) /2009-10] जी. सी. जैन, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Income TaxDepartment) (OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI - II ) Chennai , the 22nd February, 2010

(iv) programme of research projects to be undertaken during the forthcoming year and the financial allocation for such projects ;

(f) If the Commissioner of Income-tax is satisfied that the company-

S.O. 1432. It is hereby notified for general information that the company M/s . Nissan Ashok Leyland Technologies Ltd. , Khivaraj Complex II , 4th Floor , 477-482, [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

(i) is not maintaining separate books of account for research activities , or

(ii) has failed to furnish its audit report, or (iii) has not furnished the statement of the sums received and the sums used for research , or a statement referred to in sub- clause (e) , or (iv) has ceased to carry on its research activities , or its activities are not genuine, or

(v) is not fulfilling the conditions , subject to which the approval was granted to it,

he may after making appropriate enquiries , furnish a report on the circumstances referred to in sub-clauses (i ) to (v) to the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of Income -tax within six months from the date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section (1 ) of Section 139.

The above approval may be withdrawn under Rule 5F (2)(j ), if any ofthe above conditions in (a) to (e) ofRule 5F is not satisfied or on receipt of the CIT's report as per Rule 5F(3)(f) .

[Notification No. 1-2009-10/No. CC- II/35 (1)(iia)/2009-10] G.C.JAIN , Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. (राजस्व विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 24 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1433, केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन प्रवर्तन निदेशालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों , जिनके 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है :-

1. लखनऊ क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , प्रवर्तन निदेशालय , 57 ए मीराबाई मार्ग , निकट दैनिक जागरण , लखनऊ-226001

2. चंडीगढ़ क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , प्रवर्तन निदेशालय , प्रथम तल , संघ राज्य क्षेत्र सरकारी प्रैस बिडिंग , मध्य मार्ग , सैक्टर -18 चंडीगढ़-160018

3. नागपुर उप क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , प्रवर्तन निदेशालय , प्रथम तल, एन एस बिल्डिंग , सिविल लाइन , नागपुर-440029

4. पटना उप क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , प्रवर्तन निदेशालय , बी एस एफ सी बिल्डिंग , चौथी मंजिल , फ्रेजर रोड, पटना-1

[फाइल सं. ई . 11017/1/2009- एडी ( हिन्दी-4 ) ] मधु शर्मा, निदेशक (Department ofRevenue) New Delhi , the 24th May, 2010

S.O. 1433. In pursuance of sub rule (4) ofRule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Directorate of Enforcement

2951

under the Department of Revenue , where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

1. Lucknow Regional Office , Directorate of Enforcement, 57A, Meera Bai Marg, Near Dainik Jagran. Lucknow -226001 .

2. Chandigarh Regional Office , Directorate of Enforcement , First floor, Govt . Press Building, Madhya Marg, Sector - 18 , Chandigarh - 160018:

3. Nagpur Sub Regional Office , Directorate of Enforcement , First Floor , N.S. Building, Civil Line, Nagpur-440029.

4. Patna Sub Regional Office, Directorate of Enforcement, B.S.F.C Building , Fourth Floor, Fraiser Road, Patna- 1 .

[F. No. E. 11017/1 /2009 -AD( Hindi -4) ] MADHU SHARMA , Director (OL) वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय (वाणिज्य विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 31 मई , 2010

का. आ. 1434. केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम (2 ) के अनुसार प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एसन एंड कं. जो कि 1068 वीं मैन रोड, माल्लेश्वरम पश्चिम , बैंगलोर-560 055. में स्थित है , को 10 दिसम्बर, 2009 से प्रभावी तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए राजपत्र में इस अधि सूचना के प्रकाशन के द्वारा भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 और का. आ. 3978 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 के साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क समूह- अर्थात्लौह अयस्क, मैगनीज अयस्क मैगनीज डॉयक्साइड को छोड़कर और खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप- II अर्थात बैराइट्स, मैंगनेसाइट, बेकार जला हुआ और कैलसींड मैगनेसाइट्स सहित , लाल आक्साइड, स्टेटाइट्स और फेल्डस्पार उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण करने के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन बैंगलोर में एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अर्थात्: -

( i ) मैसर्स एसन एंड कं. , बैंगलोर खनिज और अयस्क समूह-1 का निर्यात (निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 तथा खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप- II का निर्यात (निरीक्षण) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी,

(ii ) मैसर्स एसन एंड कं. , बैंगलौर इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

2952

और क्वालिटी नियत्रंण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय -समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।

[फाइल सं. 4/ 14/2009- ई आई एंड ईपी ] किरण पुरी, निदेशक

(समूह-1 ) अर्थात लौह अयस्क और मैंगनीज अयस्क मैंगनीज डायॅक्साइड को छोड़कर और ( समूह- II ) अर्थात्मैंगनीज डायॅक्साइड फेल्डस्पार, रेड ऑक्साइड ,पैल्लो ओचर, कैलसीड मैंगनेसाइट्, स्टीटाइल और बाराइट्स के निर्यात से पूर्व चैन्नई में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों कानिरीक्षण करने के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अर्थात :-

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi , the 31st May, 2010

( i ) मैसर्स एसन एंड कं. , चैन्नई , खनिज और अयस्क समूह-1 का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 तथा खनिज और अयस्क समूह- II का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए , इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों कोपर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी:

( ii ) मैसर्स एसन एंड क. चैन्नई , इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण "रिषद द्वारा समय- समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निदेशों से अ होंगे ।

फाईल सं. 4/13/09-ईआई एंड ईपी ] किरण पुरी , निदेशक

New Delhi,the 1st May, 2010 S.O. 1434. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby the sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act , 1963 (22 of 1963 ) and in pursuance of sub - ruie (2) ofrule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rule , 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s . Essen & Co. , located at 106 , 8th MainRoad, Malleswaram West , Bangalore -560055 as the agency for inspection ofMinerals and Ores - Group I namely, Iron Ore , Manganese Ore , excluding Manganese dioxide and Minerals and Ores-Group - II , namely , Barytes , Manganesite , including dead burnt and Calcined Magnesite , Red Oxide , Steatite and Feldspar , as specified in the Schedule annexed to be notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce , vide numbers S.O. 3975 , dated the 20th December , 1965 and S.O. 3978 , dated the 20th December, 1965, prior to the export of the said Minerals and Ores at Bangalore , for a further period ofthree years with effect from 10 December, 2009 , subject to the following conditions , namely:---

(i) that M/s . Essen & Co. , Bangalore shall give adequate facilities to the officer nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by him in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores- Group I (Inspection ) Rules , 1965 and rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores-Group II ( Inspection ) Rules , 1965;

(ii) that M/s . Essen & Co. , Pangalore in the performance of their function ends, this potification shall be bound by suchdirections as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ) , Export Inspection Council may give inwriting from time to time .

IF. 21. 4/14/2009-1 & EP ]

KIRANTOR . Director

नई दिल्ली , 31 मई, 2010

S.O. 1435.- In exercise ofthe powers conferred by the sub - section (1 ) of Section 7 the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub-rule (2) ofrule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rule, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognise M/s. Essen& Co. , located at 11/6 , Third Main Road, Indira Nagar , Adyar, Chennai -600 020 , as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for inspection ofMinerals and Ores (Group - I ) , namely, Iron Ore , Manganese Ore excluding Manganese Dioxide and (Group - II ) , namely, Managanese Dioxide , Feldspar , Red Oxide , Yellow Ochre , Calcined Magnesite , Steatile and Barytes specified in the Schedules annexed to the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce numbers S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December , 1965 and S.O. 3978 dated the 20thDecember, 1965 , prior to the export, ofthe said Minerals and Ores at Chennai , subject to the following conditions , namely:-

का.आ. 1435 बोसरकार निर्वालटी नियंत्रण

और निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12 में उपनिवार ( 2 ) के साथ

पठित , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963

(1963 का 22 ) की धारा की उपधारा ( 1 ) दमा प्ररत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसों पुरानी तीसरी मेन रोड,

अवधिके

(i) that M/s. Essen & Co. Chennai shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export ofMinerals and Ores-Group I ( Inspection ) Rules , 1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group II (inspection) Rules , 1965;

इंदिरा नगर, अध्याय है . यह येन वने को और का तारीख से भारत सरकार वाणिज्य मंत्रालय ... आ. 3975

तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 और का. का. 398. सारोख 250 दिसम्बर,

(ii) that M/ s . Essen & Co. , Chennai in the performance oftheir function under this notification 1965 के साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूचियों में विनिदिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control) , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

2953

तालिका

अधिकारी का नाम

और पदनाम

[F. No. 4/ 13/09 -El & EP] KIRAN PURI , Director

खान मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 26 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1436,-सरकारी स्थान [ अप्प्राधिकृत अधिभागियों की बेदखली ] अधिनियम, 1971 की धारा 3 के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केंद्र सरकार एतदद्वारा निम्न तालिका के कॉलम (1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारी , जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के पद के समकक्ष का अधिकारी है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है , और आगे निदेश देती है कि उक्त अधिकारी इस अधिनियम के द्वारा अथवा इसके तहत आरोपित शक्तियों और कर्तव्यों का प्रयोग उक्त तालिका के कॉलम ( 2 ) के संबंध में अपने क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाओं के अंदर करेगा । सरकारी परिसरों की श्रेणियां और क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं

(1)

(2)

श्री ए. श्री निवास ( 1 ) भारत गोल्ड माइस लिमिटेड द्वारा कोलार गोल्ड फील्ड्स, पोस्ट- उरगाम, जिला-कोलार ( कर्नाटक ) में धारित संपत्ति (जैसा अनुबंध-1. में विहित है )

प्रबंधक सुरक्षा व संपदा, भारत गोल्ड मांइस लिमिटेड ,कोलार गोल्डफील्ड्स, जिला-कोलार

( 2 ) भारतं गोल्ड माइंस लिमिटेड द्वारा रामगिरि खान,पोस्ट धरमावरम , जिला अंनतपुर ( आंध्र प्रदेश ) में धारित संपत्ति ( जैसा अनुबंध- II में विहित है)

[सं. 10( 1 )/2009- धातु- II ( स्वर्ण) ]

नीता गुप्ता,अवर सचिव

अनुबंध -1

भारत गोल्ड मांइस लिमिटेड

( भारत सरकार का उद्यम)

के.जी. एफ कोलार जिला औरेगांव पोस्ट, कर्नाटक राज्य-563120 में बीजीएमएल द्वारा धारित संपत्ति का ब्यौरा । क्र.सं. भूमि/अवस्थिति

ग्राम

खरीदने की तारीख

मकानों की संख्या

खरीदा गया कुल क्षेत्र एकड़ में

5 1. एनडी माइन कामगारों

के मकान

480.00

28.3.1977 (क)सिंगल हटमेंट्स 3164

71.00

28.3.1977 (ख) डबल हटमेंट्स 132

174.00

28.3.1977 (ग) मीजनरी माडल 552

हाऊस

253

152.00

28.3.1977 (घ)क्वार्टर

68.00

28.3.1977 (ड.) बंगले

4120.12

28.3.1977 ( च) औद्योगिक क्षेत्र -

4163

5065.12

कुल

2. चैंपियन रीक माइन

कामगारों के मकान

488.00

28.3.1977

3433

(क) सिंगल हटमेंट्स

59.00

28.3.1977 (ख) डबल हटमेंटस 156

41.00

28.3.1977 (ग )मीजनरी माडल 147

हाऊस

335

422.00

28.3.1977 (घ)क्वार्टर

117

310.00

28.3.1977 (ड. ) बंगले

28.3.1977

1957.09

(च) औद्योगिक क्षेत्र -

4188

3277.09

कुल

3. मैसूर खान कामगारों के मकान

459

28.3.1977 (क) सिंगल हटमेंट्स 1676

141

28.3.1977 (ख ) डबल हटमेंटस 347

155

28.3.1977 (ग) मीजनरी माडल 266

हाउस

तालुक जिला खरीद मूल्य रुपये में

8 9 केडीरेगोडावना बांगरपेट कोलार कोटे

1391880

गोलाहाली, दोदराहाली बांगरपेट कोलार 205883

बांगरपेट कोलार दोदुरकृपाणहाली

504558

पिच्चाहाली

बांगरपेट कोलार 440764

रेडीहाली

बांगरपेट कोलार 197184

दासरा होसाल्ली बांगरपेट कोलार 11947359

14687628

स्वर्ण कुप्पा

1415083

नाचीहल्ली, पेडडापल्ली बांगरपेट कोलार 171086

औरगांव ग्राम बांगरपेटकोलार 118890

बांगरपेट कोलार बोटेपल्ली,नाचाल्ली

1223699

गंगानाथोडी

बांगरपेट कोलार 898926

बांगरपेटकोलार बोदीगुडकी

5675091

काथीहल्ली

बांगरपेट कोलार 9502774

1330990

दासराहोसल्ली बांगरपेट कोलार 408866

यात्रेयनहल्ली

बांगरपेट कोलार 449463

बांगरपेट कोलार डोडडाकल्लासल्ली 2954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

174

28.3.1977

210

(घ) क्वार्टर

370

28.3.1977

(ड. ) बंगले

28.3.1977

2468.07

(च) औद्योगिक क्षेत्र -

3767.07

2560

कुल

खरीदा गया कुल खरीदने की तारीख खरीद में मूल्य रुपये में

मकानों की

क्र.सं. भूमि/अवस्थिति

संख्या क्षेत्र एकड़ में

कुल सार

5065.12

4163

1. एम डी माइन कामगारों के मकान

3277.09

4188

चैम्पियन रीफ माइन

3767.07

2560

3. मैसूर खान कामगारों

के मकान

12109.28

10911

कुल

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 6

8 9

विलेज औरगांव बांगरपेट कोलार 504558

बांगरपेट कोलार 1072911

उक्कराहल्ली,

कातिहल्ली

बांगरपेट कोलार 7156811

चिन्नाकोटे ,

बोविनाहल्ली

10923599

14687628

9502774

10923599

35114001

नोट: बीजीएमएल भूमि को सभी गांवों के लिए सामान्य गांव बंगारडागांनी गांव के रुप में उल्लेख किया गया है ।

अनुबंध- II

भारत गोल्ड मांइस लिमिटेड

( भारत सरकार का उद्यम )

रामगिरि खान , धर्मावरम पोस्ट, अनंतपुर जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश में बीजीएमएल द्वारा धारित संपत्ति का ब्यौरा

क्र.सं. भूमि/अवस्थिति

ग्राम

जिला

तालुक

खरीदने की तारीख

मकानों की संख्या

खरीदा गया कुल क्षेत्र एकड़ में

1. रामगिरिखान

1984

77.610

(क) औद्योगिक क्षेत्र

MINISTRY OF MINES

खरीद मूल्य रूपये में

धर्मावरम

रामगिरि ग्राम

अनन्तपुर कोटाल्ली,

85845

चेरालोपल्ली

New Delhi , the 26th , May , 2010

S.O. 1436. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act , 1971 the Central Government do hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the table below being officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted officer of Govt . to be Estate Officer for the purpose of said Act , and further directs that the said officer shall exercise the powers and duties imposed by or under the said Act, with in the local limits of his jurisdictions in respect of the Public Premises specified in column (2 ) of the said table.

TABLE Name and Designation of the officer

Shri A. Srinivas

CategoriesofPublic Premises and local limits ofjurisdiction

(1) Property held by Bharat

Manager Security and Estate ,

Gold Mines Ltd. at Kolar Gold Fields ,

Post-Oorgaum, Distt-Kolar

(Karnataka)

Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , Kolar Gold Fields , District-Kolar.

(AsContained in Annex - 1 )

(2) Property held by Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.

At Ramagiri Mines , Post- Dharamavaram

Distt. -Anantapur, (A.P. )

(AsContained in Annex - II )

[No.10 (1 ) /2009- MET- II (G)]

NEETA GUPTA , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2955

Annexure- I

BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED

(AGovernment of India Enterprise)

Details ofproperty held by BGML at K.G.F. , Kolar District, Oorgaum Post,

Karnataka State- 563120

Land/ Locations

Taluk

Purchase Village

District SL. No

Total area

Purchased

Date of Purchase value

Nos . of House inAcres

inRs .

9 1. ND Mine workmen

Houses :

480.00

3164

a. Single Hutments

28-3-1977

1391880 Kediregowdana Kote Bangarpet Kolar 71.00

132

b . Double Hutments

205883

28-3-1977

GollaHalli,Doddarahalli Bangarpet Kolar 174.00

c.Measonary model 552

504558

28-3-1977

Doddurkarapanahalli Bangarpet Kolar houses

253

d.Quarters

152.00 28-3-1977 440764 Pitchahalli ,

Bangarpet Kolar 62

68.00

e.Bungalows

28-3-1977

197184 Reddied halli ,

Bangarpet Kolar f. Industrial Area

4120.12 28-3-1977 11947359 Dasarahosaalli

Bangarpet Kolar Total

4163 5065.12

14687628

28-3-1977

Kathihalli

Bangarpet Kolar Total

4188 3277.09

9502774

SL . Land/ Locations Nos . of Total area Date of Purchase

Taluk District

Village

House Purchased

value

Purchase

in Rs .

inAcres

3. Mysore Mine

Workmen Houses :

459

1676

a . Single Hutments

28-3-1977

1330990 Dasarahosalli

Bangarpet Kolar 141

b. Double Hutments 347

28-3-1977 408866 Byatrayanahalli Bangarpet Kolar 155

266

c.Measonary model

28-3-1977

449463 Doddakallshalli

Bangarpet Kolar houses

210

d. Quarters

174

28-3-1977 504558 Oorgaun village Bangarpet Kolar 61

370

e. Bungalows

28-3-1977 1072911 Ukkarahalli, Kathihalli Bangarpet Kolar f. Industrial Area

2468.07 28-3-1977 7156811 Chinnakote, Bovinahalli Bangarpet Kolar Total

2560 3767.07

10923599

SL. Land/ Locations Nos . of Total area Date of Purchase Village

Taluk District No

House

Purchase

Purchased

value

inAcres in Rs .

TOTALSUMMARY

4163 5065.12

ND Mine workmen

14687628

Houses:

3277.09

2. Champion Reef Mine 4188

9502774

3767.07

MysoreMine Workmen2560

10923599

Total

10911 12109.28

35114001

Note : For all the villages common village name referred as Bangaradagani village for BGML land .

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2956

Annexure- II

BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED

(AGovernment of India Enterprises )

Details of property held by BGML at Ramagri Mines , Dharamavaram Post, Anantpur District, Andhra Pradesh .

Taluk District

Purchase Village

Date of

Land/Locations

value

Total area Purchased

Nos . of House

SL. No

inRs .

Purchase inAcres

1. Ramagiri Mine:

Ramagri Village Dharamavaram Anantapur

85845 Kothapalli

1984

77.610

a. Industrial Area

Cheralopalli

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 25 मई , 2010

का. आ. 1437.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद् द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया / किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

और वर्ष

कम संख्या

31मई , 2010

संशोधन संख्या 2 , मई 2010

1 आई एस 1893 ( भाग 1 ): 2002

31 मई, 2010

संशोधन संख्या 1 , मई 2010

2. आंई एस 15835 : 2009

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

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ]

ए.के. सैनी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION (DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi the 25th May , 2010

S.O. 1437.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standard , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

No. and Year of

SI.No.

The amendment

No.and Year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

31May 2010

Armendment No. 2, May 2010

1 .

IS 1893 (Part 1 ): 2

31 May 2010

Amendment No. 1 , May 2010

2. IS 15835 : 2009 .

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

[Ref: CED/ Gazette]

A.K. SAINI , Sc ' F ' & Head (Civil Engg . ) 2957 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 26 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1438.-भारतीय भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उपविनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

वर्ष

भाग अनु लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

भामा संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

स्वीकृत करने की तिथिवर्ष/माह

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम संख्या

(6) (7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2004

14543

08-04-2009

7930383

पेकेंजबन्द पेय जल (पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) - विशिष्टि

मैसर्स श्री बालाजी इंडस्ट्रीज मुर्तिजापुर, जिला अकोला, महाराष्ट्र

2004

14543

08-04-2009

7930484

पेकेजबन्द पेय जल (पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) - विशिष्टि

मैसर्स सांची इंडस्ट्रीज प्लॉट क्र. ए-11/8 , एम आई डी सी, बुट्टिबोरी तालुका हिंगणा , जिला नागपुर महाराष्ट्र-441112

14543 2004 12-05-2009

7943190

पेकेजबन्द पेय जल (पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) - विशिष्टि

मैसर्स द ट्रस्टॉन्स इंडस्ट्रीज बिसाइट्स महाबीज गोडाऊन नैशनल हाय- वे- क्र6 , नांदुरा रोड मलकापुर, जिला बुलढाणा , महाराष्ट्र-443101

14543 2004 12-05-2009

7943594

पेकेजबन्द पेय जल (पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) - विशिष्टि

मैसर्स श्रीजी बेवरेजेस गट क्र 753/2 , छोटा राजेगांव , तालुका गोंदिया , जिला गोंदिया , महाराष्ट्र

पावर थ्रेशर्स-सेफ्टी 9020 2002 26-05-2009

7945804

रिक्वारमेंट्स

मैसर्स सागर इंटरनैशनल प्राइवेटलिमिटेड प्लॉट क्र ए-28 और ए-32 एम आई डी सी एरिया सेवाग्राम रोड , वर्धा, महाराष्ट्र-442006

2004 26-05-2009

7946196

पेकेजबन्द पेय जल 14543 (पेकेजबन्दप्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) -

विशिष्टि

मैसर्स गिरिजा इंडस्ट्रीज प्लॉट क्र 137 , 138 और 139 छोरिया ले- आउट, गणेशपुर, जिला यवतमाल , महाराष्ट्र

14543 2004 27-05-2009

7946301

पेकेजबन्द पेय जल (पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) - विशिष्टि

46, गरोबा मैदान , नागपुर महाराष्ट्र-440014 मैसर्स सुनिला सारा एक्वा प्रॉडक्ट्स

1975 GI/10-2 2958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4) 8.

7946705 27-05-2009 मैसर्स ए डी एक्वा इंडस्ट्रीज प्लॉट क्र 13 , सर्वे क्र 533 , उमरेर, जिला नागपुर महाराष्ट्र-441202 9. 7951290 23-06-2009 मैसर्स श्री गणेश एन्टरप्राइजेस सर्वे क्र 145/155 , विदुल , एट हरदडा,पोष्ट धानौरा , तालुका उमरखेड, जिला यवतमाल , महाराष्ट्र 10. 7954603 13-07-2009 मैसर्स अगरवाल इंजीनियरिंग कंपनी 270 मिडल रिंग रोड, ईस्टवर्धमान नगर , नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र 11. 7965507 11-08-2009 मैसर्स श्री स्टील कास्टींग प्रा.लि. टी-38/1 , एम आई डी सी हिंगणा रोड, नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र-440016 12.

7964097 12-08-2009 मैसर्स मुरली इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड सीमेंट यूनिट नारंदा तालुका कोरपना, जिला चंद्रपुर, महाराष्ट्र-442401

13. 7964101 12-08-2009 मैसर्स मुरली इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड सीमेंट यूनिट नारंदा तालुका कोरपना, जिला चंद्रपुर , महाराष्ट्र-442401 14. 7964202 12-08-2009 मैसर्स पडगीलवार एग्रो इंडस्ट्रीज 192, वर्धमान नगर , सिडेन्ट्रल एवेन्यूरोड, नागपुर, महाराष्ट्र-440008 15. 7964303 12-08-2009 मैसर्स नवरस ( ए डिवीजन ऑफ पॅन्टालून रिटेल इंडिया लिमिटेड ) बिग बजार , लैंडमार्क बिल्डिंग , वर्धारोड , रामदापेठ, नागपुर-440010 महाराष्ट्र

16. 7964505 12-08-2009 मैसर्स नवरस ( ए डिवीजन ऑफ पॅन्टालून रिटेल इंडिया लिमिटेड ) बीग बजार , लॅडमार्क बिल्डिंग , वर्धारोड, रामदापेठ , नागपुर -440010 महाराष्ट्र

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

(6) ( 7) (8 ) ( 9 )

14543

2004 पेकेजबन्द पेय जल (पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) - विशिष्ट

14543

2004 पेकेजबन्द पेय जल (पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) - विशिष्टि

14543

2004 पकेजबन्द पेय जल (पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) - विशिष्टि

2830

सामान्य संरचनात्मक 1992 प्रयोजनों के लिए इस्पात में पुनः रोल करने हेतु कार्बन इस्पात कास्ट शड इन्गोट , शडे , ब्लुम्स औरस्लेब

8112

1989 43 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट

12269

1987 53 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट

14151 2 1999 सिंचाई उपस्कर- स्पिकलर पाइप विशिष्टि, भाग -2 सहज संयोगी पॉलिएथिलीन पाइप

1417 1999 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र- धातुएं , आभूषण/शिल्प- कारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि

2112 2003 चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्र- धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्प- कारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टी 295.

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

12-08-2009

7964606

17.

मैसर्स नवरस ( ए डिवीजन ऑफ पॅन्टालून रिटेल इंडिया लिमिटेड) बीग बजार , पूनम माल , वर्धमान नगर, नागपुर-440008 महाराष्ट्र

12-08-2009

7964404

18.

मैसर्स नवरस ( ए डिवीजन ऑफ पॅन्टालून रिटेल इंडिया लिमिटेड ) बीग बजार, पूनम माल , वर्धमान नगर , नागपुर-440008 महाराष्ट्र

12-08-2009

7965305

19.

मैसर्स दण्डकारण्य एक्वा इन्डस्ट्रीज, सर्वे क्र 3/4, देवापुर , जाशी राणी नगर , आई टी आई चौक के पास, गडचिरोली, महाराष्ट्र-442605

24-08-2009 7967713

20.

मैसर्स सनविजय रोलींग एन्ड इंजीनियरिंग लिमिटेड, (यूनिट एच-3 ) , एफ-41/43, एम आई डी सी इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया हिंगणा रोड, नागपुर महाराष्ट्र-440016

28-08-2009 7968210

21.

मैसर्स अनिल मधुकर वाजे ज्वेलर्स शॉप क्र 11 , रतन मार्केट , इतवारी , टांगा स्टेन्ड स्केवर्स, नागपुर-440002 महाराष्ट्र

09-09-2009 7971502

22.

मैसर्स करण कोठारी ज्वेलर्स प्रा. लि. , हाउस क्र 475 , सराफा ओली, सहिद चौक, इतवारी , नागपुर-440002 महाराष्ट्र

09-09-2009 7971401

23.

मैसर्स करण कोठारी ज्वेलर्स प्रा. लि. , हाउस क्र 475 , सराफा ओली , सहिद चौक , इतवारी, नागपुर-440002 महाराष्ट्र

16-09-2009 7973304

24.

मैसर्स पारेख आर वी ज्वेलर्स सराफा बाजार , इतवारी, नागपुर-440002 महाराष्ट्र

(9 )

( 8 )

(7)

(6)

(5)

1999

1417

स्वणं एवं स्वणं मिश्र- धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्प- कारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टी

2003

2112

चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्र- धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्प- कारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टी

2004

14543

पेकेजबन्द पेय जल (पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) - विशिष्टि

2006

2062

तप्तवेल्लित कम, मध्यम और उच्च तनन संरचनात्मक वाला इस्पात

1417 1999 स्वणं एवं स्वणं मिश्र- धातुएं , आभूषण/शिल्प- कारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टी

1417 1999 स्वणं एवं स्वणं मिश्र- धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्प- कारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टी

2112 2003 चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्र- धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्प- कारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टी

1417 1999 स्वणं एवं स्वणं मिश्र- धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्प- कारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टी 2960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

25 . 7973708 16-09-2009 मैसर्स दिनशॉ डेअरी फुड्स लि. के-42-42 , फाइव्ह स्टार इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया , एम आइ डी सी , ग्रेड बुट्टीबोरी नागपुर-441122 महाराष्ट्र 26. 7982204 14-10-2009 मैसर्स गजानन इंडस्ट्रिज एस एस क्र 59/1, हिंदुस्तान लिवर गोडाउन के पास , पोस्टरिधोरा , तालुका बालापुर जिला अकोला , महाराष्ट्र

27. 7982406 22-10-2009 मैसर्स इस्पात इंडस्ट्रिज लिमिटेड प्लॉट क्र ए-10/1 ,10/2 , एम आइ डी सी, कलमेश्वर , जिला नागपुर महाराष्ट्र-441501 28.

7983610 03-11-2009 मैसर्स पारेख हर्मुखराय त्रिभुवनदास ज्वेलर्स , सराफा बाजार , इतवारी , नागपुर महाराष्ट-440002 29. 7984915 10-11-2009 मैसर्स इस्पात इंडस्ट्रिज लिमिटेड प्लॉट क्र ए-10/1 , 10/2 , एम आइ डी सी, कलमेश्वर , जिला नागपुर महाराष्ट्र-441501 30.

7985008 10-11-2009 मैसल इस्पात इंडस्ट्रिज लिमिटेड प्लॉट क्र ए-10/1 ,10/2 , एम आइ डी सी, कलमेश्वर, जिला नागपुर महाराष्ट्र-441501 31.

7990203 02-12-2009 मैसर्स विदर्भ स्प्रिंग प्रायवेट लिमिटेड

के-11 , फाय स्टार इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया , एम आइ डी सी , बुट्टीबोरी , नागपुर महाराष्ट्र

32. 7991508 11-12-2009 मैसर्स आइडिअल रॅपर्स एन-86 , एम आइ डी सी हिंगणा रोड , हिंगणा जिला नागपुर महाराष्ट्र-440016

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

( 7) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

13334

1998 मलाईरहित दूध पाउडर- विशिष्टि; भाग 1 मानक

13592

1992 संवातन और वर्षा के पानी के तंत्र सहित भवनों के अन्दर की मिट्टी तथा अपशिष्ट निरावेशन तंत्र के लिए अनम्यद्रूत पी वी सी पाइपें-विशिष्टी

4923

1997 खोखले एस्पात के खं संरचनात्मक प्रयोग के लिए-विशिष्टि

1417 1999 स्वणं एवं स्वणं मिश्र- धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्प- कारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि

1239 1 1997 इस्पात की नलियां , नलिकाकार सामग्रियां तथा इस्पात की अन्य फिटिंगें -विशिष्टि भाग 1 इस्पात की नलियां

1161 1998 इस्पात की नलिकाएं, संरचनात्मक उपयोगों के लिये-विशिष्टि

14543

2004 पेकेजबन्द पेय जल (पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)- विशिष्टि

10212 1

1986 जनरल रिक्वारमेंट्स ऑफ पॅकेजेस ऑफ एक्स्प्लोसिवज पार्ट-1 कमर्सिअल हाय एक्स्प्लोसिवज भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

01-01-2010

7995617

मैसर्स दिपशीला इन्डस्ट्रीज प्लॉट क्र 29 और 30 अचलपुर को-ऑपरेटिव्ह इन्डस्ट्रीअल इस्टेट , अमरावती रोड, अचलपुर, जिला अमरावती महाराष्ट्र-444806 01-01-2010

7996215

मैसर्स प्रोवेस इन्डस्ट्रीज , प्लॉट क्र 134 , अमर ज्योती नगर , नारा रोड, भीम चौक , नागपुर महाराष्ट्र-440014 360395403-02-2010

मैसर्स टुफार्म टेकनो प्रॉडक्ट्स लि. , के एच क्र 7/3 , कवठा तालुकाकामठी जिला नागपुर, महाराष्ट्र-441002 04-02-2010

36 3604047

मैसर्स साइट्रॉन इंजिनिअरींग प्रा.लि. प्लॉट क्र ए-36 , इन्डस्ट्रील एरिया, एम आइ डी सी , बुट्टीबोरी , जिला नागपुर

महाराष्ट्र-441122 3605756 08-02-2010

मैसर्स वैभव एग्रो इन्डस्ट्रीज बी-18/7 बुट्टीबोरी , एम आइ डी सी, जिला नागपुर महाराष्ट्र-440108 3608156 19-02-2010

मैसर्स एस वी प्रॉडक्टस प्लॉट क्र 3 , फेज 4 एम आइ डी सी, अकोला जिला अकोला महाराष्ट्र-444104

22-02-2010

3609158

मैसर्स मधुर जल माधुरी कोल्डड्रींक्स, खेडकर नगर , मोरेश्वर कॉलोनी सकाला चौक जिला : अकोला महाराष्ट्र-444005 3612147

26-02-2010 मैसर्स भगवती इन्डस्ट्रीज प्लॉट क्र डी-26 शिप्रा इस्पात , एम आइ डी सी , जिला : वर्धा महाराष्ट्र-442001

09-03-2010

3614656

मैसर्स मुरजेलो इन्डस्ट्रीज प्लॉट क्र ए-58/ 1 , एम आइ डी सी, चिखली , तालुका चिखली

जिला : बुलडाणा महाराष्ट्र

2961

(7) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

2004

14543

पेकेजबन्द पेयजल (पेकेंजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) - विशिष्टि

2004

14543

पेकेजबन्द पेयजल ( पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) -

विशिष्टि

1984

3989

पेकेजबन्द पेयजल (पेकेजबन्दप्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) - विशिष्टि

2004

814

हस्त्य धातु आर्क वेल्डींग के लिए आव्रत्त कार्बन और कार्बन मैंगनीज इस्पात इलैक्ट्रोड

2004

14543

पेकेजबन्द पेयजल (पेकेंजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) - विशिष्टि

2000

4985

पेयजल की पूर्ति के लिएअसुघटियत 'पी वी सी पाइप) - विशिष्टि

2004

14543

पेकेजबन्द पेयजल

(पेकेजबन्दप्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) - विशिष्टि

14543 2004 पेकेजबन्द पेयजल

(पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) - विशिष्टि

2004

14543

पेकेजबन्द पेयजल (पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) - विशिष्टि

[सं. सी एम डी-13 : 11 ] सी. के. महेश्वरी , वैज्ञानिक ' जी ' ( प्रमाणन ) 2962

[PART II-- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

New Delhi , the 26th May, 2010

S.O. 1438.-In pursuance of sub -regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standrads (Certification ) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule .

SCHEDULE

Year

IS No. Part Sec

Title of the Standard

Licences Grant No. CM/ L Dated

Name of Address of the Licensee

Sl . No.

2004

mineral water)

M/ s . The Trustonus Ind- ustries besides Maha- beej Godown, National Highway 6, Nandura RoadMalkapur , Distt. Buldana, Maharashtra -443101

2004

14543

12-05-2009

7943594

Packaged Drinking

Water (other than

packaged natural

mineral water)

M/s . Shreeji Beverages GatNo. 753/2 , Chota Rajegaon , Tah-Gondiya Distt. Gondiya Maharashtra

2002

9020

26-05-2009

7945804

packaged natural

mineralwater)

M/ s . Agarwal Engi- neering Company 270 Middle Ring Road EastWardhman Nagar Nagpur, Maharashtra

2830

1992 11-08-2009

11. 7965507

M/s . Shree Steels Cast- ings Pvt Ltd , T- 38/ 1 , MIDC Hingna Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra -440016

Carbon Steel Cast Billet Ingots , Billets , Blooms and Slabs for Rerolling into Steel for steel for General Structural purpeses

1989

8112

12. 7964097 12-08-2009

43 Grade Ordinary

Portland Cement

M/ s. Murli Industries Ltd. Cement Unit Naranda Tehsil Corpana Distt . Chandrapur Maharashtra -442401

12269

1987 13. 7964101 12-08-2009

53 Grade Ordinary

Portland Cement

M/ s . Murli Industries Ltd. Cement Unit Naranda Tehsil Corpana Distt. Chandrapur Maharashtra -442401

1999

14151

14. 7964202 12-08-2009

IrrigationEquipment-

Sprinkler Pipe Part 2:

Quick Coupled

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2004

14543

12-08-2009

19. 7965305

Packaged Drinking

Water(Other than

PackagedNatural

Mineral Water)

M/ s . Dandakaryana Aqua Industry Servey No. 3/4, Devapur , Plot No. 3 , Zashirani Nagar Near ITI Chowk, Distt . Gadchiroli Maharashtra - 442605

2006

2062

24-08-2009

7967713

20.

Hot Rolled Low,

Medium and High

Tensile Structural

Steel

M/s . Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Limited. , (Unit H-3 ) F-41/43 , MIDC Industrial Area , Hingna Road , Nagpur, Maharashtra -440016

1999

1417

7968210 28-08-2009

21.

Gold and Gold Alloys ,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness

M/s . Anil Madhukar Waje Jewellers Shop No. 11 , RatanMarket, Itwari Tanga Stand Square , Nagpur-440002 Maharashtra

1999

1417

09-09-2009

22. 7971502

Gold and Gold Alloys ,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness

M/ s . Karan Kothari Jewellers Pvt . Ltd. , House No. 475 , Sarafa Oli Sahid Chowk , Itwari , Nagpur-440002 Maharashtra

2003

2112

09-09-2009

7971401

23.

Silver and Silver Alloys ,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness and Marking

M/ s . Karan Kothari Jewellers Pvt . Ltd. , House No. 475 Sarafa Oli Sahid Chowk , Itwari , Nagpur -440002 Maharashtra

1417 1999 16-09-2009

7973304

24.

Gold and Gold Alloys ,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness

M/ s . Parekhr Ve Jewellers SarafaBazar, Itwari , Nagpur-440002 Maharashtra

1 1998

13334

16-09-2009

7973708

M/s . Dinshaws Dairy

25.

Skimmed Milk Powder- Specification: Part 1: Standard Grade

Foods Ltd. , K-42-42, Five Star Industrial Area , MIDC, Butibori , Nagpur-441122 Maharashtra

1992

13592

14-10-2009

7982204

26.

Specification for UPVC Pipes for Soil and Waste Discharge System insideBuilding including and Ventilation and Rainwater Systern

M/ s . Gajanan Pipe Industries , S. S. No. 59/1 , Near Hindustan LiverGodown, Post Ridhora, Taluka -Balapur Distt. Akola Maharashtra 2965 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15,1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1997

4923

M/ s . Ispat Industries

22-10-2009

7982406

27.

Hollow Steel Sections

for Structural Use

Limited, Plot No. A - 10/ 1 , 10/2 , MIDC, Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur, Maharashtra -441501

1999

1417

03-11-2009

7983610

28.

Gold and Gold Alloys , Fineness Jewellery/Artefacts-

M/s . Parekh Hursukharai Tibhubandas Jewellers Sarafa Bazar, Itwari, Nagpur, Maharashtra -440002

1997

1239 1

10-11-2009

29. 7984915

Mild Steel Tubes , Tubulars and other Wrought Steel Fittings Specification Part1: Mild Steel Tubes

M/s . Ispat Industries Limited, Plot No. A- 10/ 1 , 10/2 , MIDC, Kalmeshwar , Distt . Nagpur-441501 Maharashtra

1998

1161

10-11-2009

7985008

30.

Steel Tubes for

Structural Purposes-

Specification

M/s . Ispat Industries Limited, Plot No.A- 10 /1 , 10/2 , MIDC, Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur -441501 Maharashtra

2004

14543

02-12-2009

7990203

31.

Packaged Drinking

Water (Other than

Packaged Natural

Mineral Water)

M/s . Vidarbha Springs Pvt. Ltd, K- 11 , Five Star Industrial Estate, MIDC, Butibori , Nagpur, Maharashtra

1986

10212

11-12-2009

7991508

32.

M/s . Ideal Wrappers N-86, MIDC Area Hingna Road, Hingna, Nagpur, Maharashtra -440016

General Requirements

forPackages of

Explosives: Part 1:

CommercialHigh

Explosives

2004

14543

01-01-2010

7995617

33.

Packaged Drinking

Water (Other than

Packaged Natural

Mineral Water)

M/s . Deepsheela Industries , Plot No. 29& 30, Achalpur Co -Operative Industrial Estate , Amravati Road , Achalpur , Distt . Amravati Maharashtra-444806

2004

14543

01-01-2010

7996215

34.

Packaged Drinking

Water (Other than

Packaged Natural

MineralWater)

M/ s . Prowess Industries , PlotNo. 134, Amar Jyoti Nagar, Nara Road, Bhim Chowk, Nagpur , Maharashtra -440014

1975 GI/10-3 2966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

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

9 3603954 03-02-2010

3989

1984 M/s . Truform Techno Products Lid .

KH No. 7/3 , Kawtha Taluka Kamptee

Distt. Nagpur Maharashtra -441002

Centrifugally Cast (Spun) Iron Spigot and Socket Soil, Waste and Venti- lating Pipes , Fittings and Accessories

814

3004047 04-02-2010 M/ s . Saitron Engineers

2004 Pvt. Ltd.

Covered Electrodes forManual Metal ARC Welding of Carbon and Carbon Manga- nese Steel

Plot No.A- 36, Industrial Area , MIDC , Butibori Distt. Nagpur Maharashtra - 441122

3605756

M/s . Vaibhav

08-02-2010

14543

2004

Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural MineralWater)

Agro Industries B - 18 /7 , Butibori MIDC Nagpur Mahshtra-440108

4985

3608156 19-02-2010 M/ 3 . SV Agro Products

2000

Unplasticized PVC Pipesfor Potable Water Supplies- Specification

PlotNo. 3 Phase- IV MIDC Akola Distt. Akola Maharashtra -444104

39 3609158

M/ s . Madhur Jal

22-02-2010

14543

2004

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

Madhuri Cold Drink KhedkarNagar Moreshwar Colony Sakala Chowk Distt.: Akola Maharashtra - 444005

40 3612147 26-02-2010

14543

M/s . Bhagwati Industries

2004

Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

PlotNo. D-26 Opp . Kshipra Ispat MIDC Dist. Wardha Maharashtra -442001

41 3614656

14543

09-03-2010

2004 M/ s. Murzello Industries Plot No. A - 58/ 1 , MIDC

Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

Chikhali , Taluka Chikhali Distt. Buldana Maharashtra

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

C. K. MAHESHWARI , Scientist ' G' ( Certification )

11 2967 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 26 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1439.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 5 के उप- विनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है: -

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल-

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

27-04-2009 01

2399067

जनरल रिक्वारमेंट्स आफ पैकेजेस ऑफ एक्स्प्लोसिवज पार्ट 1 कमर्सिअल हाय एक्स्प्लोसिवज

मैसर्स आइडिअल रॅपर्स प्लॉट क्र. एन -86 , एम आई डी सी हिंगणा रोड , नागपुर -440016

22-06-2009 02

7907590

पेकेजबन्द पेय जल ( पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) -विशिष्टी

मैसर्स पटेल ग्रुप आफ इंडस्ट्रीज एच एन 098 , सानवरी वार्ड, रामटेक , तालुका रामटेक, जिला नागपुर , महाराष्ट्रः 441106

07-08-2009 03

7907691

पेकेजबन्द पेय जल ( पेकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) -विशिष्टी

मैसर्स अजय वैनगगा प्युर वाटर , प्लॉट क्र. ए-57 , एम आई डी सी, गडचिरोली , महाराष्ट्र-442605

26-08-2009 04

7730678

सेट्रीफ्युगली कास्ट ( स्पन ) आयर्न स्पायगॉट और सॉकेट सॉइल वेस्ट और वेंटीलेटींग पाइप्स , फिटींग्स और एसेसरीज

मैसर्स ट्रफॉर्म टेक्नो प्रॉडक्ट्स लि. के एच क्र. 7/3 , कवथा तालुकाकामठी जिला नागपुर

[सं. सी एम डी 13:13

सी.के. महेश्वरी , वैज्ञानिक ' जी' ( प्रभाणन )

New Delhi , the 26th May, 2010

S.O. 1439. In pursuance of sub - regulation (6 ) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standrads ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of Sl . No.

Cancellation Name of Address of the Licensee

Licences No CM/L-

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

27-04-2009 2399067

General Requirements for packaged of Explosives : Part 1 Commercial High Explosive

M/s. Ideal Wrappers Plot No. N-86 , MIDC Hingna Road Nagpur-440016

22-06-2009 7907590

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/ s. Patel Group of Industries H. No. 098, Sanwari Ward Ramtek, Taluka Ramtek Distt. Nagpur, Maharashtra -441106

07-08-2009 7907691

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/s . Ajay Wainganga PureWater Plot No. A-57, MIDC Gadchiroli Maharashtra -442605

Centrifugally Cast (Spun ) irer. 26-08-200 7730678

Spigot and Socket Soil and Ventilatint. Pipes , Fittin and Assessor.ed .

Truform Techno Products Ltd. KH . No. 7/3 , Kawtha , Tahsil Kamptee , District Nagpur

C. K. MAHESHWARI , Scientist ' G ' (Certificat 2968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2010

का. आ. 1440,-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या काना. 1084 तारीख 17 अप्रैल , 2009 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उप - खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 25 अप्रैल , 2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अभिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 841.196 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 2078.60 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विहित उक्त भूमि के भाग में कोयला अभिप्राप्त है;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा ? की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 722.220 ऐक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1784.61 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है । टिप्पण 1 : इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. एसईसीएल /बीएसपी/जीएम/ (पीएलजी ) /लैंड/380 , तारीख 9 अप्रैल , 2010 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , जिला कोरबा , छत्तीसगढ़ के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काऊंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700 001 के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , राजस्व अनुभाग , सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर -495006 , छत्तीसगढ के कार्यालय में किया आ सकता है ।

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

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

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

( 2) उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आपत्ति राक्षम प्राधिकारी को लिखित रूप में की जाएगी और सक्षम प्राधिकारी , आपत्तिकर्ता को स्वयं सुने जाने , या विधि व्यवसायी द्वारा सुचवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपत्तियों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जाँच, यदि कोई हो , करने के पश्चात् जो वह आवश्यक समझता है , वह या तो धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि का या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न टुकड़े या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आपत्तियों पर अपनी सिफारिश , उसके द्वारा की गई कार्यवाही के अभिलेख सहित विभिन्न रिपोर्ट केंद्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा । (3 ) इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होगा , यदि भूमि या किसी ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार अर्जित कर लिए जाते हैं । "

टिप्पण 3 : केंद्रीय सरकार ने कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काऊंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700001 को उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र , भाग- II , खंड -3 , उप - खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 4 अप्रैल , 1987 में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 905 , तारीख 20 मार्च , 1987 द्वारा सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया है ।

अनुसूची

करतली ईस्ट ब्लाक , कोरबा क्षेत्र जिला-कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) [रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी ) /लैंड/380 , तारीख 9 अप्रैल , 2010 ]

सभी अधिकारः

(क) राजस्व भूमि:

ग्राम संख्य क्रम सं. ग्राम का नाम पटवारी हल्का संख्या

4 2

78 1. करताली

सर्वेक्षण रहित गणेशपुर

44 पुटा

75 4.

नूनेरा

43 5.

उड़ता

तहसील

क्षेत्र हेक्टेयर में

जिला

टिप्पणियां 6

8 पाली

कोरबा

39.360

भाग पाली

कोरबा

भाग

2.323

कोरबा

पाली

भाग

243.230

पाली.

कोरबा

2.270

भाग पाली

कोरबा

35.046

भाग

कुल क्षेत्र : 322.229 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 796.23 एकड़ ( लगभग ) 2969 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1932

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(ख) राजस्व वन भूमि:

कोरबा

80.461

भाग

पाली

1. करताली

कोरबा

भाग

पाली

204.763

2. पुटा

भाग

74.059

कोरबा

पाली

3. नूनेरा

40.708

भाग

कोरबा

पाली

4. उड़ता

कुल क्षेत्र : 399.991 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 988.38 एकड़ ( लगभग )

कुल योग ( क + ख ): 722,220 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1784.61 एकड़ ( लगभग ) 1. ग्राम करताली ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या 125 भाग , 127 भाग , 128 से 144 , 145 भाग , 146 से 149 , 150 भाग , 197 भाग , 234 भाग , 642 भाग , 643 भाग , 649 भाग , 650 से 673, 674/1 , 674/2.

2. ग्राम गणेशपुर ( सर्वेक्षण रहित ) ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या 127 , 128 , 129 , 130.

3. ग्राम पुटा ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या : 1/1 , 1/2 , 1/3 , 1/4 , 1/5 , 1/6 , 2 से 9 , 10/1 , 10/2 , 11 से 32 , 33 भाग , 34 भाग , 35 से 80 , 81/1 , 81/2 , 82 से 166 , 167 भाग , 168 से 184, 186 से 196, 197 भाग , 198 भाग , 199 , 200 भाग , 210/1 भाग , 329 भाग , 330/1 भाग , 330/2 भाग , 331 , 332 भाग , 337 भाग , 338 भाग , 339 भाग , 346 भाग , 347 भाग , 377 भाग , 384 भाग.

4. ग्राम नूनेरा ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या : 219/8 , 220 भाग , 221 भाग , 222 से 224 , 225 भाग, 226, 227/2, 227/1, भाग , 228 भाग , 229 , 230, 1137 भाग , 1138 भाग .

5. ग्राम उड़ता ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या 1 भाग , 2 भाग , 3 भाग , 93 भाग , 94 भाग , 97 , 98 भाग , 99 , 100 भाग , 102 भाग , 103 से 107 , 108 भाग, 109 भाग , 110, 111/1 , भाग , 111/2 , 111/3 , 111/4 , 111/5 , 158 , 159 .

सीमा वर्णन :

क-ख : रेखा ग्राम करताली के बिन्दु ' क ' से आरंभ होती है और प्लाट संख्या 127 ,125 से गुजरकर, ग्राम नूनेरा के 227/1 , 221 , 225 , 220 , 228 से गुजरकर , 230 के उत्तरी सीमा से होकर, 228 से गुजरकर बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है ।

रेखा प्लाट संख्या 228 से गुजरकर ग्राम नूनेरा और पूटा के सम्मिलित सीमा के बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है । ख-ग :

ग-घ रेखा ग्राम नूनेरा और पूटा के सम्मिलित सीमा से होकर , ग्राम नूनेरा के प्लाट संख्या 1137 , 1138 से गुजरकर बिन्दु ' घ ' पर मिलती है । :

घ-ङ : रेखा ग्राम नूनेरा के प्लाट संख्या 1138 से गुजरकर , ग्राम उड़ता के 1 से गुजरकर बिन्दु 'ङ ' पर मिलती है ।

रेखा ग्राम उड़ता के प्लाट संख्या 3 , 2 , 1 से गुजरकर, ग्राम पूटा के 137 से गुजरंकर बिन्दु ' च' पर मिलती है । ङ- च :

च-छ : रेखा ग्राम नूनेरा के प्लाट संख्या 137 से गुजरकर, ग्राम उड़ता के 1 , 102 , 100 , 98 , 111 / 1 क , 94 , 95 , 108 , 109 से गुजरकर बिन्दु ' छ' पर मिलती है ।

छ-ज : रेखा ग्राम पूटा के प्लाट संख्या 384 , 377 , 167 , 210/1 , 185 से गुजरकर , बिन्दु ' ज ' पर मिलती है ।

ज-झ : रेखा ग्राम पूटा के प्लाट संख्या 187 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होकर , 210/1 ,197 , 198 , 200 , 300/1 , 329 , 332, 337 , 338 , 339 , 346, 347 , 33 , 34 से गुजरकर , ग्राम गणेशपुर के 130, 129 , 128 , 127 के दक्षिणी सीमा से होकर बिन्दु 'झ ' पर मिलती है ।

झ-ञ : रेखा ग्राम करताली के प्लाट संख्या 668 के दक्षिणी सीमा से होकर , 642,643 ,649 से गुजरकर, 650 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होकर . 145 , 150 , 197 से गुजरकर बिन्दु ' अ ' पर मिलती है ।

अ-क : रेखा प्लाट संख्या 197 , 234 , 127 से गुजरकर आरंभिक बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/3/2009- पी आर आई डब्ल्यू-1 ] एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2010

S.O. 1440.- Whereas , by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofCoal , number S.O. 1084 datedthe 17th April , 2009, issued under Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 4 ofthe Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act . 1957 (20 of 1957 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) , dated the 25th April , 2009, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to porospect for coal in 841.196 2970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] hectares (approximately) or 2078.60 acres ( approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification ;

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 722.220 hectares ( approximately ) or 1784.61 acres(approximately ) with all rights in or over the said lands as described in the Schedule appended hereto .

Note 1 : The Plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/GM /( PLG )/LAND / 380 , dated, the 9th April , 2010 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected at the Office of the Collector , Korba , (Chhattisgarh ) or at the office of the CoalController , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 or at the Office of the South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Revenue Section , Seepat Road , Bilaspur - 495006 , Chhattisgarh .

Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act ,,which provides as follows : Note 2:

Objection to Acquisition.:

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

Explanation,

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

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

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

SCHEDULE

Kaast Block , Korba Area

District Korba , (Chhattishgarh)

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP /GM ( PLG ) LAND/380 , dated the 9th April , 2010 ]

AllRights:

(A) Revenue Land :

Tahsil

District

Remarks

Village Number

Sl . No.

Area in Hectares

Name of Village

Patwari halka Number

8 Kartali

Pali

Korba

39.360

Part 2.

Korba

2.323

Part Ganeshpur

unsurveyed Pali

Puta

Pali

Korba

243.230

Part 4.

Nunera

Pali

2.270

Korba

Part 5.

Urta

Pali

Korba

35.046

Part

Total : 322.229 hectares ( approximately ) or 796.23 acres ( approximately ) .

(B) Revenue Forest Land :

2971

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

Remarks

District

Tahsil

Area in Hectares

Village Number

S1 . No.

Name of Village

Patwari halka Number

Part

80.461

Korba

Pali

Kartali

1 .

Part

204.763

Korba

Pali

2. Puta

Part

74.059

Korba

Pali

Nunera

Part

40.708

Korba

Pali

Urta

Total : 399.991 hectares ( approximately) or 988.38 acres (approximately) .

Grand Total (A+ B): 722.220 hectares (approximately) or1784.61 acres (approximately).

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Kartali (Part): 125P, 127P, 128 to 144, 145P, 146 to 149, 150P, 197P, 234P, 642P, 643P, 649P, 650 to 673, 674/1,674/2 .

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Ganeshpur(unsurveyed) (Part) : 127, 128 , 129,130.

3. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Puta (Part): 1/1 , 1/2, 1/3 , 1/4 , 1/5 , 1/6, 2 to 9, 10/1 , 10/2 , 11 to 32, 33P, 34P, 35 to 80,81 / 1,81/2,82 to 166, 167P, 168 to 184, 186 to 196, 1979, 1989, 199 , 200P, 210/ 1P , 329P, 330/ 1P, 330/2 , 331 , 332P, 337P, 338P, 339P, 346P, 347P, 377P, 384P.

4. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Nunera (Part) : 219/8 , 220P, 221P, 222 to 224 , 225P, 26, 227/2, 227/ 1P, 228P, 229, 230 , 11379, 1138P.

5. Plot numbers to be acquired ' in village Urta (Part) : 1P, 2P, 3P, 93P, 94P, 97, 98P, 99, 100P, 102P, 103 to 107, 108P, 109P, 110, 111/1 क P, 111/2, 111/3 , 111/4, 111/5,158,159.

Boundary Description:

A-B : Line starts from point "A" in village Kartali and passes through plot no . 127 , 125 , in village Nunera through 227/ 1 , 221 , 225 , 220 , 228 , along northern boundary of230, through 228 and meets.at point ' B ' .

B-C : Line passes through plot no . 228 and meets common village boundary of Nunera and Puta at point'C' .

C-D : Line passes along common village boundary ofNunera and Puta, in village Nunera through 1137 , 1138 and meets atpoint 'D' .

D-E : Line in village Nunera passes through plot no . 1138 , in village Urta through 1 and meets at point 'E' .

E-F : Line passes in village Urta through plot no . 3 , 2, 1, in village Puta through 137 and meets at point ' F' .

F-G : Line passes in village Nunera through plot no . 137, in village Urta through 1,102, 100, 98 , 111/1 क, 94, 95, 108 , 109 and meets at point "G" .

GH : Line passes in village Puta through plot no. 384 , 377 , 167,210/ 1 , 185 and meets at point "H" .

H-I : Line passes in ' village Puta along western boundary ofplot no . 187, through 210/1 , 197, 198, 200 , 330/1 , 329, 332, 337, 338 , 339, 346, 347, 33 , 34, in village Ganeshpur along southern bondary of 130 , 129, 128, 127 and meets at point "I" .

I -J : Line passes in village Kartali along southern boundary of plot no . 668 through 642, 643 649 , along western boundary of 650 , through 145, 150, 197 and meets at point "J".

J -A : Line passes through 197 , 234, 127 and meets at starting point "A" ,.

[F. No. 43015/ 3 / 2009 -PRIW- 11

M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

2972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 17 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1441 , केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से राजस्थान राज्य में कोटा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

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

अनुसूची

जिला: कोटा राज्य : राजस्थान तहसील : लाड़पुरा

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में क्र. सं. गांव का नाम सर्वे नंबर

डाहरा

345

0.0650

0.0880

गोदल्याहेड़ी

[फा.सं. आर. -31015/7/2009 ओ.आर.- II ]

ए , गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS New Delhi , 17th May, 2010

S.O. 1441.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transporation of petroleum products Pipeline from Bina terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Kota in the State of Rajasthan should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

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

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

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Ladpura District : Kota State :Rajasthan

Area in Hectare S.No. Name of Village Survey No.

4 1. Dahra

345

0.0650 2

0.0880 Godalyahedi

[F. No. R. - 31015/7 /2009 -OR- II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 21 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1442.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात 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. 1885 तारीख 08-07-2009 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 11-7-2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार संस्थान से मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक कच्चे पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए वाडीनार - बीना पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 10-09-2009 , के दौरान 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 पश्चात, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

2973 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 ,1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 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;

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 ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश 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 ।

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 ofvesting in the Central Government, vest on the date ofpublication of this declaration, in Bharat Oman Refineries Limited , free from all encumbrance .

अनुसूची

SCHEDULE

राज्य : गुजरात

जिला : दाहोद

देवगढ़ बारिया

तहसील :

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में Tehsil : Devgadh Bariya District : Dahod State : Gujarat सर्वे नंबर

गांव का नाम

क्र. सं.

Village Survey No. Area in Hectare

Name of

S.No.

00.2250

322+336

पीपलोद

00.2250

322+336

1. Piplod

00.0365

575

00.0365

575

00.4911 00.4911

474

00.1000

269

00.1000

269

00.4800

117/23

2. Panchela

00.4800

117/23

पंचेला

00.7000

117/P/6

00.7000

117/पैकी/6

00.2640

117/P/7

00.3640

117/P/8

00.2640

117/पैकी/7

117/पैकी/8 00.3640

[F. No. R. - 31015 /21 /2009 -OR - II ] [फा. सं. आर-31015/21/2009- ओआर- II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

नई दिल्ली , 21 मई , 2010

New Delhi , the 21st May, 2010

का.आ. 1443.-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 उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2175 तारीख 13-08-2009 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 15-08-2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार संस्थान से मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक कच्चे पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए वाडीनार- बीना पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय घोषणा की थी;

S.O. 1442. Whereas , by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1885 dated the 08-07-2009 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acqusition 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 11-07- 2009 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for 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;

Andwhereas the copies ofthe siad Gazette notification were made available to the public during 10-09-2009;

और उक्त राजपत्र में अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 31-10-2009 से तारीख 25-11-2009 के दौरान उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted reportto the Central Government;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप -धारा ( 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 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;

1975GI /10-4 2004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15, 1932

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

किने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;

143

00.0300

142/1 पैकी

00.1150

142/1 पैकी

00.2650

146 पैकी

00.1101 अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 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 ;

146 पैकी

00.1590

163/1 पैकी

00.2360

193पैकी

00.0200

293पैकी

00.0400

401पैकी

00.3810 और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- श्वरा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश 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 स मुक्त, भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

164/2पैकी

00.1907 अनुसूची

142/3 पैकी

00.0700 जिला

तहसील : जामनगर

जामनगर

राज्य : गुजरात

9. मोडा

453पैकी

00.2430 पांव का नाम

क्र.सं.

सर्वे नंबर क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

454

00.3700 2

456

00.1485 भागवा

00.0210

474

00.0945 2.

वसइ

00.0383

15/2

00.04.19 17

00.2280

86 पैकी

00.0199 37/2

00.2592

86पैकी

00.0911 नाधेडी

5पैकी

00.0500

10. लाखाणी मोटावास 316 पैकी

00.2000 5पैकी.

00.3812

390पैकी 2

00.1000 12पैकी

00.7331

389

00.1196 4.

294

कनसुमरा

00.1673

431पैकी

00.0930 66

00.1420

426

00.4559 मोरकंडा

180

00.0490

11.

232 पैकी

लाखाणी नानावास

00.0860 165

00.3965

233

00.4183 232

00.3000

[फा. सं. आर-31015/25/2009- ओआर- II ] 233

00.1800

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव 174

00.1500

New Delhi , the 21st May, 2010 174

00.1620

(0. टेबा

108 पैकी

00.0906

84/2पैकी

00.0502

83पैकी

00.0710

7 . मोटा थावरीया 400 पैकी

00.0124

285

00.2125

199

00.0260

151 पैकी

00.0287

151 पैकी

00.0425

152

00.1290

130

8. अलीयाबाडा

S.O. 1443.- Whereas , by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2175 dated the 13-08-2009 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acqusition 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 15-08- 2009 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notificaiton 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;

00.1150 2975 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 ,1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

00.0287

151 Paiki

00.0425 And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were available to the public during 30-10-2009 to 25-11-2009;

151 Paiki

00.1290

152

00.1150

130

8. Aliyabada

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

00.0300

143

00.1150

142/1 Paiki

00.2650

142/1 Paiki

00.1101 And whereas the Central Government , after cosidering 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;

146 Paiki

00.1590

146 Paiki

00.2360

163/1 Paiki

00.0200

193 Paiki

00.0400

293 Paiki

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 ;

00.3810

401 Paiki

00.1907

164/2Paiki

00.0700

142/3 Paiki

00.2430

453 Paiki

Moda

00.3700

454

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 ofvesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of this declaration, in Bharart Oman Refineries Limited, free from all encumbrance.

00.1485

456

SCHEDULE

00.0945

474

00.0419

15/2

State: Gujarat

Tehsil : Jamnagar District : Jamnagar

00.0199

86 Paiki

Area in Hectare

Survey No.

Name of Village

S.No.

00.0911

86Paiki

00.0210

00.2000

316 Paiki

Lakhani Motawas

Gagwa

10.

00.0383

00.1000 15

Vasai

390Paiki 2

00.2280

00.1196

389

00.2592

37/2

00.0930

431 Paiki

00.0500

00.4559 5Paiki

426

3. Naghedi

00.0860

00.3812

5Paiki

11. Lakhani Nanawas 232 Paiki

00.4183

233

00.7331

12Paiki

00.1673

[ F. No. R-31015 /25 /2009-01-11 ] 294

Kansumra

A. GOSWAMI , Under S

00.1420

00.0490

180

Morkanda

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई , 2010

00.3965

165.

00.3000

232

00.1800

233

00.1500

174

00.1620

174

00.0906

108 Paiki

Theba

00.0502

84/2Paiki

00.0710

83Paiki

00.0124

400 Paiki

Mota Thavaria

00.2115

285

का.आ. 1444.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात 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. 2172 तारीख 13-08-2009 , আ के राजपत्र तारीख 15-08-2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार- संस्थापन से मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक कच्चे पेट्रोलिय उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए वाडीनार- बीना पाइपलाइन परियोजना रहे

00.0260

199 2976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] माध्यम से भारत मान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 20-10-2009 से तारीख 07-11-2009 के दौरान उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 15-08-2009 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 inthe 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 available to the public during 20-10-2009 to07-11-2009;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जुन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

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

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 whereas the Central Government , after cosidering 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 केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश 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 ।

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;

अनुसूची

तहसील : मातर जिला: खेड़ा राज्य : गुजरात

क्र. सं. गांव का नाम सर्वे नंबर क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

1. असामली

457

00.1328

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 publication of thisdeclaration , in Bharart Oman Refineries Limited, free from all encumbrance .

483/2

00.0315

SCHEDULE

2. असलाली

82/बी

00.0444

3. त्रान्जा

Tehsil: Matar

District: Kheda

00.0400

State: Gujarat 4. हेरंज

567

00.0427

Area in Hectare

S.No. Name of Village Survey No.

खांघली

4 12

00.0740

1. Asamali

457

00.1328 322

00.0481

483/2

354

00.0315

00.1456

2. Aslali

82/B

335

00.0175

Tranja

361

00.0369

567

Heranj

मलियातज

-00-0427

00.0208

5. Khandhli

00-0740 [फा. सं. आर-31015/27/2009- ओ आर- II ]

00-0481 ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

00-1456 New Delhi , the 21st May, 2010

00-0175

12 322 354 335 361

00-0369

Maliyataj

00-0208 S.O. 1444. Whereas , by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2172 dated the 13-08-2009 , issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acqusition of Right of User in Land)

[ F. No. R-31015/27/ 2009 -OR - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 21 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1445.- 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. 2485 तारीख08-09-2009, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 12-09-2009 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 रिफाइनरीज 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 05-11-2009 , से तारीख 10-11-2009 के दौरान उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनिय की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश 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 ।

अनुसूची

राज्य : गुजरात

जिला : खेड़ा

तहसील : ठासरा

2977 New Delhi , the 21st May, 2010

S.O. 1445. Whereas , by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2485 dated the 08-09-2009, 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 12-09-2009 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 during 05-11-2009 to 10-11-2009;

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

And whereas the Central Government , after considering the siad 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 ofvesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of this declaration, in Bharart Oman Refineries Limited, free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

State: Gujarat

District: Kheda

Tehsil: Thasra

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र. सं. गांव का नाम

00.3523

156पैकी

सीमलज

00.0215

1099

आगरवा

00.0016

724

00.0127

635/1

00.4400

उपलेट

[फा. सं. आर-31015/33/2009- ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

Area in Hectare

Survey No.

Name ofVillage

S.No.

00.3523

156P

1. Simlaj

00-0215

1099

2. Agarwa

00.0016

724

00.0127

635/1

Uplet

[F. No. R-31015/33/2009 -OR- II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

2978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

(1) नई दिल्ली, 1 जून , 2010

सोडामाल का.आ. 1446,-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 लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप- 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 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;

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- सम्बलपुर-रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना, 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क, भुवनेश्वर-751009 ( उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील- कोलाबिरा जिला- झारसुगुडा राज्य-उड़ीसा

गांव का नाम प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

क्षेत्रफल एयर वर्ग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

सोडामाल

1353

1232

1512

1213

1214

70.

1215

1218

1219

5996

1960

1959

1958

1956

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

(3) (4)

(5) 1963

44 1947

68 1946

20 1945

63 1944

88 1943

22 1931

27 1941

48 1940

09 1934

15 1933

68 1935

76 1927

06 1924

76 1925

17 1926

40 1921

44 1920

29 1919

78 1915

78 1914

65 1913

10 1990

66 1912

29 5983

15 1996

30 1997

10 5956

42 2017

20 2016

68 2015

87 2003

17 2010

08 2046

63 2008

90 2009

06 2048

00 2065

73 2063

86 2064

44 2074

20 2075

85 2102

70 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

समासिंधा

2103

सोडामाल

2106

2191

2192

2190

2188

2205

2204

2181

2206

2207

2208

2209

2283

2212

00.

2211

2213

2210

2214

2215

2222

2223

2224

2225

2280

2279

2230

2275

2274

2270

2269

3361

1651

समासिंधा

1652

1673

1672

1671

5621

1668

1669

1670

1657

1687

2979

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

07 1857

1855

1856

1858

15761

1851

1852

1850

1733

1734

13 1732

1724

1723

1722

1721

51 1740

1741

1742

1715

5802

1744

1743

1745

1746

1747

1.748

1749

1751

1750

1762

1768

98 5576

1769

1770

1767

1781

1780

1782

1784

1800

1785

1786

1788 2980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

(1)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(1) समासिंधा

75 समासिंधा 1791

1790

52 1792

1793

1794

1913

36 1933

1926

1409

1402

1263

1262

55 2438

1261

82 5520

06 1260

1259

1248

1249

87 1250

99 1251

1243

23 1242

1233

1232

00.

1166

04. 1165

1164.

1121

47 1116

02 1119

1120

1119

1118

1117

तरेकेला

1089

1085

1088

1086

1087

5408

1037

1058

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

(3)

(5)

(4)

1039

81 1038

1040

1043

02 994

03 992

5632

14 991

11 987

32 948

949

950

53 951

04 952

26 953

54 955

314

14 335

5568

87 334

74 336

333

81 5387

24 322

318

317

319

22 310

320

49 309

73 321

39 308

52 307

45 306

305

74 1917

30 1916

1915

1924

2139

1927

1911

1910

52 59

30 07

72 74

10 48

40 87

02 20

69 41

26 47

67 1000

(5)

2981

90 02

04 03

90 05 10

06 00

10 00

.08

06 03

(4)

00 00

00 0005

00 00

00 00 00

00 00

00 00 00 00

(3)

1360

1362

1361

1364

1363

1376

1395

1377

1396

1392

1394

1399

1400

1393

1397

1398

539

584 583

714 537

715 536

722

720

719

723

724

725

726 728

703

730 727

746

747

748

753

744

768 754

750

751

(2)

साल्हेपालि

तरेकेला

(1)

07 66

80 22

10 78

82 10

06 54

19 28

(5)

05 07

12 09

60 07 01

00 11 01

07- 00

90 02 03

(4)

भारतकाराजपत्र:जून5,2010/ज्येष्ठ15,1932

00 00

00 00 00

00 00

00 00 00

0003

00 00

(3)

00 0500 00 06 8888880 00 01

00 00 8888

798

770

767

799

814

815

817

1514

824

1512

825

1509 1513

813

1508

832 808

1504

807 827

1505

829

830

1496

1497

1495

1494

1476

1478

2230 2229

1468

1467

1465

1464

2127

1477

1456

1459

1466

1458

1454

1455

(2)

1975GI/105 तरेकेला

(1)

[भागII-खण्ड3(ii)] 2982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

(1) 1359

साल्हेपालि

62 पतरापालि 1358

49 1270

35 1253

1251

1684

1252

1233

1675

1674

1224

1673

1052

1051

1054

1050

1060

1068

1067

1066

1124

1125

1126

1127

1661

1135

1585

1118

১৫

1357

डण्डाबुडा

948

949

937

934

933

931

932

230

पतरापालि

485

484

486

487

488

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

(3) (4)

(5) 494

10 493

09 492

84 466

10 467

37 469

26 470

25 471

04 472

43 1864

00 2039

20 461

20 441

91 442

48 444

41 395

31 392

11 379

09 382

58 383

95 385

88 384

67 378

15 376

06 596

01 275

38 276

63 277

53 297

07 279

36 268

55 281

57 282

19 286

25 285

84 25

49 26

08 27

31 23

95 परमानपुर

(1)

पतरापालि

खुनापालि

21 24

[भागII- -खण्ड3(ii)]

223

(2)

243

3685

219

218

2424

241

2423

274

3979

220

222

2422

273

245

4005

277

244 242

2420

276

275

2414

280

295

311

313 294

323 314

357

315

324

356 325

353 354

00 00

(3)

00 00 00

00 00

00 01

01 05 02

02 02

00 26

12 02

ΟΙ 00 00

(4)

0001 04

00 11

01 01

00 88888 0006

22 38

:10 38 73

44 75

08 94

(5)

18 12

81 71

40 24

98 19

27 95 54

खुनापालि

जाममाल

(1)

भारतकाराजपत्र:जून5,2010/ज्येष्ठ15,1932

406 404

366

405

352

408

437

436 407

435

551

516

291

(2)

553 542

248 713

293

296

295

285

294

1219

284

298

297

286

281 725

278 279

280

301

276 302

277 303

273

274

267

272

00 00

00 00 00

00 00

(3)

00 00 00

00 00

03 00 08

(4)

00 02

00 03 08

01 03 03 02

00 00 00 8888888888

2983

27 33

08 66

70 47 91

31 79

85 57

05 89

(5) i

(15

27 67

10 10

58 2984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

(1) 269

जाममाल

30 जाममाल 218

217

215

213

211

68 रेन्गालिपालि 210

200

201

203

38 केलेण्डामाल 182

181

178

177

333

727

173

167

172

168

170

171

163

ΟΙ

156

148

150

154

153

381

389

382

38.

00'

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

(3) (4)

(5) 27

59 25

57 26

81 24

86 13

10 461

24 460

20 459

10 457

95 1921

97 1922

25 1928

76 1976

64 1975

81 1977

54 1973

15 1972

10 1971

1970

73 1978

15 1969

04 1979

28 1968

83 1962

69 1942

40 1967

1963

07 1958

00.

75 1826

43 1825

03 1823

74 1822

24 2055

06 1806

10 1807

1821

63 1808

1242

33 1243

39 2143

40 1239

91 1244

90 1238

86 (1)

केलेण्डामाल 954

932

858

857

943 946

942

945

944

[भागII-खण्ड3(ii)] 1023

1992

1200 2176

1201

1022

1035

2068

1028

1030

1203

1036

1204 1202

2063

1196

1193 1191

2142

1198

1199

1197

1155

1190

1224

2144

1225

1186

1237

(2)

1192

1195

00 00 00

00 00

00 00 00

00 00

00 00 88

00 00 00 88888888888888 00 00 00 00

(3) .02

07 01 01 06

03 00

10 03 12

(4) 46

51 73

92 10

10 29

19 99

(5)

(1)

केलेण्डामाल

भारतकाराजपत्र:जून5,2010/ज्येष्ठ15,1932 539

540

551

550 613 552 554

627

633

628

609

2101

553 608

544

634

548

629

631

603

763

600

630

739 741

742

744

743

632

764

758

740

2102

763

756

762

757

1986

2112

(2) 00

00 00 00 00

00 00 00

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 8888888888888888888888888888

(3)

00 01

03 00

00 01

03 01

03 00

(4)

2985 बी.के.दत्ता,अवरसचिव

46 43

21 21

08 87

30 75

67 33

ส [फा.सं.आर-25011/8/2010-ओ.आर-1]

49 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15, 1932

2986

(1) New Delhi , the 1st June , 2010

Sodamal S.O..1446 . 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) , a "Paradip-Sambalpur -Raipur -Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in theGazette 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 - Sambalpur - Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline Project, 1295, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar - 751009, (Orissa).

SCHEDULE

Orissa

Tehsil : Kolabira District : Jharsuguda State :

Area

Plot No.

Nameofthe

Are

Hectare

Sq. mtr.

Village

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1350

Sodamal

1232

1512

1213

1214

1215

1218

1219

5996

1960

1959

1958

1956

1963

[PART 11-SEC . 3( i ) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

1947

1946

1945

1944

22 1943

1931

1941

09 1940

15 1934

1933

1935

1927

1924

1925

1926

44 1921

1920

1919

1915

1914

1913

1990

1912

5983

1996

1997

5956

2017

2016

2015

2003

2010

2046

2008

2009

2048

73 2065

ΟΙ

2063

2064

20 2074

2075

2102

2103 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2987 (1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(2)

(1)

(3) (4)

(5) Sodamal

2106

1855

Samasingha

2191

1856

51 2192

1858

19 2190

15761

40 2188

1851

45 00

2205

1852

11 2204

1850

70 2181

1733

2206

1734

00 2207

1732

13 2208

1724

92 2209

1723

39 2283

1722

62 2212

1721

27 2211

1740

51 2213

1741

60 2210

1742

62 2214

1715

48 00

2215

5802

92 2222

1744

10 2223

1743

26 2224

1745

47 2225

1746

51 2280

1747

52 2279

00.

1748

33 2230

1749

14 2275

1751

43 2274

1750

83 2270

1762

43 2269

1768

84 3361

14.

5576

98 1651

Samasingha

1769

57 1652

1770

72 1673

1767

38 1672

1781

93 1671

1780

94 5621

1782

10 00

1668

1784

98 1669

1800

10 1670

1785

63 00

1657

1786

35 00

1687

1788

09 00

1857

1791

75 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/ JYAISTHA 15, 1932

2988

(1)

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

1039

Samasingha

1790

Samasingha

1792

1793

1794

1913

1933.

1926

1409

1402

1263

1262

2438

1261

5520

1260

1750

1259

1248

1249

1250

1251

1243

1242

1233

1232

1166

1165

1164

1121

1116

1119

1120

1119

1118

1117

1089

1085

1088

1086

1087

5408

1037

1058

1038

1040

1043

994

992

5632

991

32 987

948

949

950

951

952

953

955

314

335

5568

334

336

333

5387

322

318

317

319

310

320

309

321

308

307

306

305

1917

1916

1915

1924

2139

1927

1911

1910 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

(5)

(1)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

2989

(4)

(5) (2)

(3)

768

Samasingha

1454

Samasingha

1455

1456

1458

1466

1459

1464

1465

1477

38 .

1468

19 1467

2127

1476

1478

2230

1494

60 2229

1495

1496

00 .

1497

1505

1504

1508

1509

1512

1513

1514

Salhepali 830

829

20 832

807

808

827

825

824

813

817

815

814

799

767

770

798

1975 GI/106

754

753

14 751

750

744

748

746

747

730

703

727

726

02 725

728

724

723

722

27 720

719

715

714

536

537

584

539

583

1398

1400

36 1399

.05

1397

1393

1392

1394

38 1395

1396

1376

1377

1364

1363

59 1362

1361

1360 2990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

(1)

1359

62 Salhepali

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

(3) (4)

(5) 488

Patrapali

1358

35 1270

1253

1251

1684

05 1252

1233

1675

1674

57 1224

1673

1052

1051

1054

1050

1060

1068

1067

1066

1124

1125

1126

1127

1661

1135

1585

1118

Dandabuda 1357

948

949

937

934

933

931

932

930

485

Patrapali

484

486

487

494

10 493

09 492

84 466

00'

10 467

469

26 470

25 471

04 472

43 1864

00 2039

20 461

441

91 442

48 444

76 391

395

31 392

11 379

09 382

58 383

95 385

88 384

67 378

15 376

596

275

38 276

63 277

53 297

07 279

36 268

281

57 282

19 286

25 285

84 25

49 26

08 27

10 22

10-

31 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2991

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

(1) 23

Patrapali

(2)

(3) (4)

(5) 354

Khunapali

2424

Paramanpur

3685

3979

2423

4005

2422

2420

2414

223

Khunapali

222

218

Jammal

219

220

241

242

243

244

274

245

273

275

276

277

295

280

294

311

313

315

314

323

324

325

357

356

353

63 352

12 366

404

64 405

27 406

66 408

407

91 435

47 436

437

% 516

01 1219

85 542

79 553

31 551

70 713

57 248

291

89 293

89 294

27 295

296

19 286

11 297

05 298

285

10 725

72 284

18 281

301

10 280

67 279

278

27. 302

55 303

76 276

10 277

10 274

58 273

ΟΙ

272

61 267

31 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15, 1932

2992

(1)

(5)

(2)

(3) (4)

(1)

56 Jammal 271

Jammal

268

269

218

217

215

213

211

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

10 28

59 27

86 24

461

Rengalipali

210

200

201

203

20 460

459

95 457

1921

Kelendamal

182

181

178

177

333

727

173

167

172

168

170

171

163

156

148

150

154

153

381

389

382

00'

25 1922

1928

64 1976

1975

1977

15 1973

10 1972

1971

73 1970

1978

04 1969

28 1979

83 1968

1962

40 1942

1967

07 1963

1958

43 1826

03 1825

74 1823

1822

06 2055

10 1806

1807

63 1821

30 1808

33 1242

39 1243 2993

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2143

Kelendamal

1239

1244

1238

1237

2144

10 2142

1186

1225

1224

1190

1191

1192

1193

1196

1195

1155

2063

2068

1197

1198

2176

1199

1200

1201

1202

1203

1204

1036

1035

1030

.02

1028

1023

1022

942

944

945

946

943

954

1992

932

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

858

857

763

764

763

762

2112

758

756

757

743

744

742

741

740

739

630

631

1986

632

629

81 633

634

600

628

603

627

609

608

553

21 554

552

613

551

550

2102

539

548

544

2101

540

[F. No. R-25011 / 8 /2010-OR- I ] B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

2994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

(1) नई दिल्ली, 1 जून , 2010

कुरेइबगा का.आ. 1447- 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-सम्बलपुर-रायपुर -राँची पाइपलाइन" बिछाई जानी चाहिये;

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 उपाबद्व अनुसूची में वर्णित है , में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां 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 पारपदीप - सम्बलपुर-रायपुर राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क, भुवनेश्वर 751009 ( उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य - उड़ीसा

तहसील - बडगाँ जिला- सुंदरगड

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

00 14

1140

80 कुरेइबगा

1141

00 13

1437

00 06

1440

1436

1139

1148

1439

1438

00 02

1181

1120

1118

1119

00 05

1048

00 05

1047

00 08

1443

1049

00 05

1094

00 02

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

(3) (4)

(5) 1095

00 07

68 1092

00 01

72 1091

00 04

20 1057

00 03

1090

81 1055

00 07

29 1060

00 08

74 1061

00 03

41 609

00 01

11 608

00 02

25 610

39 611

00 05

27 600

1276

00 03

91 612

00 02

29 520

21 521

00 00

45 522

00 03

22 523

00 03

29 535

34 1386

20 524

00 01

54 527

00 03

90 526

00 11

81 525

00 00

20 451

00 07

90 447

67 418

00 14

52 415

00 06

81 407

91 1415

00 02

61 1400

72 1413

08 1414

00 01

34 393

00 04

54 1393

00 03

84 392

95 1383

09 391

85 1302

00 05

00 00

402

13 1303

81 390

00 00

13 389

26 388

00 01

55 222

00 02

53 1398

00 02

69 221

00 03

30 220

00 01

223

47 00

227

06 219

10 00

1169

46 228

200

00 04

24 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

(5) (1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(1)

197

छामुण्डा कुरेइबगा

198

00 02

199

196

00 04

229

00 03

00 00

1215

195

00 07

194

00 00

184

185

00 02

193

192

188

187

177

36.

174

00 02

173

00 00

175

00 00

176

00 10

168

169

00 00

167

238

239

240

154

00 06

153

00 05

1227

00 11

147

00. 00

146

151

00 09

149

150

1307

00 04

छामुण्डा

1397

1396

1690

00 01

00 00

1308

1310

00 05

1648

00 02

00 05

1341

1314

00 03

1340

00 02

1339

00 05

1338

00 08

1336

00 02

1334

00 05

1333

1348

1332

1685

00 04

1331

1299

00 06

1289

2995

(3) (4)

(5) (2)

1656

00 00

10 1290

56 1287

1286

00 02

33 1285

00 02

56 1269

00 02

03 1234

00 05

1225

1224

00 08

10 1226

00 01

1223

1127

00 14

1710

1130

23 1731

1128

1129

00 00

1073

71 1072

63 1070

00 12

20 1069

10 1068

00 00

1071

1065

00 00

1078

00 00

1056

06 1643

1051

00 06

1052

1053

97 1712

00 02

00 01

1711

00 14

40 570

12 571

573

64 582

591

592

24 596

00 01

595

598

599

61 609

00 07

00 05

613

06 614

615

617

616

628

00 03

1779

629

00 02

26 630

00 00

661

670

00 2996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

(5) (1) (2)

(3) (4)

(1)

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

(5) (2)

00 00

10 156

सालेपालि

1772

छामुण्डा

28 224

1773

00 00

223

222

00 02

221

220

00 02

218

214

215

00 00

31 213

00 08

212

00 00

10 185

186

00 01

211

00 01

37 210

00 12

88 187

00 07

1568

189

00 00

80 197

186

63 190

00 03

00 00

10 195

00 07

194

फुलबारि

00 02

193

171

170

बिरसु

00 03

15 327

सालेपालि

88 326

328

00 02

52 325

10 324

00. 05

323

311

290

00 04

288

44 289

00 02

00 07

287

56 286

00 02

00 03

285

176

00 05

179

00 00

10 174

00 04

82 182

00 05

183

00 04

191

00 01

167

192

00 06

164

10 197

58 198

199

06 200

00 03

201

44 155

89 153

28 154

00 06

99 61

34 00 12

37 65

94 00

74 67

00 01

15 104

42 68

90 00

92 103

00 00

43 00 00

102

100

101

15 00 04

12 85

76 86

10 00

01 84

62 00

580

10 579

581

128

10 00

127

86 126

48 00

123

99 00

11 00

122

59 00

124

117

00 05

44 00

116

67 00

115

10 00

113

00 00

92 50

15 00 07

00 01

34 53

10 60

00 04

53 62

00 05

1622

00 03

98 75

00 02

00 04

Π 93

80 बुदना

बिरंसु

(1)

दुरीपोष

1975GI/10-7

[भागII-II-खण्ड3(ii)]

1707

417 436

432

415

406

219

434

234

223 216

218

404

412 416 421

504

383 389 405 408

437 533

546

430

217

380 381 385

549 550

232

224

393

551 544

573

222

384

392

574

318

382

552 545

90 92

85 88 89

(2)

00 00

(3)

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 00 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00

8888 00

03 1888880 04

01 09 04 10 02 05 03 01

(4)

1000

33 49

44 08

05 00

60 76

74 78

67 33

26 83

93 09 81

39 44 84

73 26

76 20

56 90

(5)

03 02 06 05 008888888888000

बुदना

(1)

चाबिरि बाउँसेन

भारतकाराजपत्र:जून5,2010/ज्येष्ठ15,1932

36 36

429

369

266

259

388

273

428 384

248 233 265 305 309 311

354

362

283

282 276

275 279

261 265 270 302

385

383

365

368

343

277

274

260 264 527

244 304

308

393

364

366

346

347

543

245 312

363

246 310

758

(2)

00 00

00 00 00 00

00 00 00

00 00

00 00 00

01 00

0004

01 04 0001

0001

06 0002

0006

05 0008

0014 0008

0002

0004

0012

(3)(4)

06.

2997

(5)

077万的 (1) 2998

महुपरा

चाबिरि

259

208

131 733 209

256 732 215

214 206

205

203

204

(2)

00 00 00

0003

0006 00 00 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888

0003

0006

0007

0002

0006

0012

(3)(4)

65 42 57

83 48

(5)

(1)

महुपरा

राजबसा

THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JUNE5,2010/JYAISTHA15,1932

652

1140

569 567 654

566

571

650

633

568

634

647

629

649

612

635

620

546

638

637

596 591

623

583 589

588

500

616

590

548

615

553

545

535

(2)

00 00

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 388888888888888888888888888888888888

(3)

(4)

(5)

[PARTII-SEC.3(ii)] [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2999

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

(1)

(2) (3)

(5)

(4)

राजबसा

00 03

26 441

440

00 00

93 206

00 00

207

79 208

209

00 00

211

10 210

00 06

270

00 05

45 271

00 04

272

00 04

54 Tehsil:

273

Bargaon

54 274

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty - one days from the date onwhich the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazettte 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 Sambalpur - Raipur- Ranchi Pinpline Project , 1295 , Forest Park , Bhubaneswar - 751009 , (Orissa)

SCHEDULE

State: Orissa

District:

Sundargarh

Area

PlotNo.

Name ofVillage

304

00 12

79 306

00 01

307

00 02

(1) 308

00 05

71 Hectare Are Sq.mtr

(5) (2)

(3) (4)

00 14

80 1140

Kureibaga

309

317

71 319

00 04

318

320

83 321

47 327

00 01

326

00 04

343

38 1192

344

00 02

345

00 10

01 341

00 01

10 340

00 00

346

00 04

00 01

347

348

39 349

[सं. आर-25011/9/2010-ओ आर-1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st June , 2010

S.O. 1447. 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 ) , a " Paradip - Sambalpur - Raipur - Ranchi Pipline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

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 threin;

1141

00 06

08 1437

1440

59 1436

1139

00 13

00 00

10 1148

13 1439

53 1438

28 1181

00 00

1120

39 1118

60 1119

78 1048

1047

1443

1049

00 02

13 1094

1095

00 07

00 01

72 1092

00 04

20 1091

1057

00 01

1090

81 1055

00 08

74 1060

41 1061

00 03

609

11 608

00 02

25 610

00 00

611

00 05

27 600

00 02

94 1276

00 03

612

520

00 07

45 521 3000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15, 1932

(1 )

(2)

(3) (4)

(5) (1) 522

00 03

Kureibaga

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

(5)

(3) (4)

188

00 12

Kureibaga

523

00 03

00 00

535

1386

524

00 01

527

00 03

526

525

451

00 07

447

00 00

418

00 14

415

00 06

407

00 01

1415

1400

1413

00 08

1414

00 01

393

1393

00 03

392

00 01

1383

00 01

391

00 00

Chhamunda 1302

00 05

402

1303

390

00 00

389

388

222

00 02

1398

00 02

221

00 03

220

00 01

223

00 01

227

00 06

219

1169

00 01

228

200

197

00 02

198

199

196

00 04

229

1215

195

00 04

194

00 07

184

00 00

185

00 02

193

00 01

192

187

00 03

45 177

00 03

00 02

174

89 173

10 175

00 00

176

10 168

169

20 167

00 00

68 238

00 04

14 239

00 05

240

80 154

00 00

45 153

00 06

34 1227

00 05

24 147

00 11

83 146

10 151

19 149

00 00

10 150

00 00

45 1307

00 04

47 1397

00 02

82 1396

00 12

00 01

1690

1308

20 1310

09 1648

00 02

1341

35 1314

00 00

23 1340

00 03

75 1339

00 02

1338

98 1336

00 08

1334

08 1333

00 05

43 1348

00 00

1332

15 1685

1331

1299

00 02

44 1289

00 06

90 1656

32 1290

00 00

10 1287

1286

00 02

33 1285

56 1269

00 02

03 1234

00 05

35 1225

00 02

88 3001

00 00

0002

0008

00 00

88.1 00

(3)

221

220

186

214

187 189

218 215 212

185

166

197

213

210

190 193 170

211

194 171

195

327 325

324

326

(2)

328

1568

Chhamunda

Salepali

(1)

20 87

(4)

이이

भारतकाराजपत्र:जून5,2010/ज्येष्ठ15,1932

8AHN

8888 =

ABA08

(3)

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 88042888 8822

28888888 888888888

1224

1226

1731

1223

1127

(2)

570

1710

1130

1072

1070

1129

1073

1128

1069

582

1065

571

573 592

599

1078

1056 1051

596

595

1068

1071

1643 1052 1712

598 609

591

1711

614

1053

613 615

617

616

Chhamunda

[भागII-खण्ड3(ii)]

(1) 3002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

(4)

(5) (1) (2)

(3)

(1)

00 00

153

Birsu Salepali

00 01

154

00 01

104

00 01

00 00

103

00 00

102

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(5) (2)

(4)

(3)

69 80

00 03

80 81

39 91

00 02

00 이

27 89

00 00

56 88

00 00

10 87

1707

00 08

59 85

81 318

Turiposh

100

00 04

00 00

101

00 03

580

00 09

Fulbari

579

Buduna

581

00 00

128

Birsu

00 05

127

126

00 05

123

122

00 06

124

117

00 05

116

00 03

115

113

92 50

00 07

00 01

00 10

00 00

00 04

00 05

1622

00 01

98 75

00 03

42 76

00 02

77 93

00 00

10 79

09 574

573

00 544

00 04

38 546

00 01

05 545

12 551

550

83 552

54 549

533

49 430

33 437

00 03

83 432

436

33 434

00 05

44 421

00 03

417

00 04

416

18 415

00 09

78 414

00 07

76 412

00 03

404

408

406

60 405

392

31 393

28 389

385

00 08

384

20 383

00 10

00 01

381

48 382

380

217

00 00

33 218

00 04

67 216

219

26 30

57 22

10 38 28

3003

00 00

11 00 02

03 03

03 02 00 01

0008

0001

00 00 00 00 00

00 00

0007

00 00 00

-00

00 (3) (4)

305

304 302

122

309

308

310

265

205 209

214

259

269 204

203 206

733

208

732 256

390

215

131

363 388

364 387 389

394 406

429

270

405

407

258

391

393

439

970 408

434 428

427

957

431

432

418

433

(2)

Mahupara

Chabiri

(1)

73 78

16 44 90

18 10

(5)

03 01

60 60

13 00

13 01 03

(4)

भारतकाराजपत्र:जून5,2010/ज्येष्ठ15,1932

02 00 888 04

00 00

0001

0002

0012

0007

(3)

222

504

245

224

223

232 233

265

264

248

234

244

246

527

266

276

282

261

260

543

346

259

274

275

347 343

279

273

283

368 366

758

277

369

367 365

362 364 385

363

384

(2)

354

388 428

429

361

383

393 312

311

Baunsen

Buduna

Chabiri

[भागII-खण्ड3(ii)]

(1) 3004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

(5)

(1)

416

00 02

[PART 11- SEC . 3( ii) ] (3) (4)

(5) (2)

478

00 01

Rajabasa

Mahupara

507

00 01

506

505

517

00 00

504

516

518

00 07

519

520

00 02

530

00 00

529

528

544

00 06

545

546

548

00 01

500

00 16

588

00 07

589

00 07

590

591

00 17

02 583

00 01

596

00 01

1140

90 Rajabasa

615

616

620

00 07

96 623

629

00 04

42 612

00 28

00 01

633

00 08

635

00 05

634

80 637

00 04

00 02

638

00 01

647

00 18

648

00 01

00 649

650

09 652

00 01

653

36 654

571

00 22

566

00 02

567

00 03

568

569

00 02

34 502

498

00 03

31 1197

00 07

00 20

497

496

00 02

481

74 479

00 03

482

24 461

00 14

460

459

76 457

00 04

456

1194

00 03

455

25 451

00 03

452

20 443

00 08

442

00 02

35 441

00 03

440

206

00 02

16 207

208

00 03

00 14

41 209

00 00

211

57 210

00 06

270

00 05

00 04

45 271

272

00 04

273

274

00 00

23 304

306

307

308

00 08

90 309

317

23 319

00 04

71 318

320

00 04

00 05

321

327

00 04

326

343

96 1192

21 344

00 02

345

00 10

341

10 340

00 00

346

00 04

83 347

00 01

99 348

00 04

349

39 [F. No. R-25011 /9/2010-O.R- I] B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

3005 [भ्राग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून, 2010

का. आ. 1448.- भारत सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1852 तारीख 23 जून , 2009 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा वासुदेवपुर- हावडा गैस पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 27 मार्च , 2010 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

और , पाइपलाइन विछाने के संबंध में , जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आंक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वार। विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्नात कर दिया गया;

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

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

अतः , अव , भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और , भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित . होने के वजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: पूर्वी गोदावरी

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: सामलकोट

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं. / सब डिविजन सं.

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेतफल

हेक्टेयर

सिएयर

एयर

108/3

1 ) पनसापाडु

108/2

108/1

107

104/2ए

104/ 2वी

104/1

105

100/ 5वी

100/4ए

100/1वी

100/1 ए

1975 GI /108 3006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

82/3 2 ) पी. वेमावर्म

93/1

93/2

90/1 ए

90/1वी

73/1

73/2

64/1

63/1

61/1

60/1

59/6

59/7

59/3

59/4

33/2

33/1

5/2

3/1

3/2

82/4

41/2

3 ) उन्दूरू

41/1

42/2

42/1

539

4 ) सामलकोट

538

540

542

12/1

5 ) कापवरम

12/3

12/4

10/1

10/2

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

5 00

33 00

61 00

22 00

26 00

00 00

09 00

47 00

12 00

05 00

26 00

66 00

38 00

91 00

12 00

58 00

86 01

20 00

40 00

26 00

75 00

57 00

16 00

07 00

37 00

87 00

89 03

08 00

81 00

89 03

75 00

76 10

62 00

40 10

63 00

60 00

28 10

70 00

74 00

36 00

54 30

42 00

43 00

74 00

84 00

08 00

84 16

97 00

07 00

06 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

5) का५१२म (निरंतर)

18/2

23/2

23/1

6) पवारा

371

375

368

374

367/3

348

347

342

341/1

340/1

339/1

338/1

335

334/1

334/2

333

323/10

323/9

323/7

322

315/2

311

3007

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:पूर्वी गोदावरी

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: पिठापुरम

101/3डी 1 ) सोमावरम

101/ 3सी

101/3वी

100/2

100/1

100/3

99/2

99/1

98/6

98/4

2 ) कन्डराडा

14/1 ई

14/1एफ

14/5सी

14/4ए

14/4बी

14/4सी

14/5ए

14/3बी

14/6

26 3008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

2 ) कन्डगडा (निरंतर)

18/6

18/7ई

24/10ए

24/10बी

24/10सी

24/9

24/8वी

24/7ई

24/7डी

24/7सी

24/6

24/8ए

25/2

25/1

44/9

44/6

44/3

44/ 2ए

44/2वी

44/2सी

44/1

40/4

58/4

58/2डी

58/ 2सी

58/1 ए

58/2ए

68/1

68/2

67/2

65/19

65/17

65/15

65/16

65/14

65/7

65/8

65/9

96/ 2डी

93/5

93/4

93/1ई

93/1जी

93/1डी

93/1सी

93/3

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

5 3

39 00

10 00

05 00

70 00

87 00

88 00 07

47 00

88 00

96 00

25 00

90 01

63 00

52 00

85 06

19 00

40 08

54 00

10 49

74 08

13 09

12 00

47 10

76 00

63 00

41 00

90 03

45 00

27 00

30 00

00 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

93/2 2 ) कन्डराडा (निरंतर)

94/4

94/6ए

94/6वी

96/35

96/3एफ

96/3जी

96/1जे

96/1 के

96/1एल

96/1जी

96/1एच

96/2आई

96/1एफ

96/2जे

96/1 ई

96/1डी

96/2एल

96/ 2एम

96/ 1 सी

96/1वी

96/1 ए

149

152

151

32 3 ) कुमारपुरम

28/1

28/6

28/2

26/6

26/1वी

26/ 2ए

26/2वी

26/ 2सी

26/3

26/1ए

21/5

21/6

21/4

3009

12 3010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

21/3

3 ) कुमारपुग्म (निरंतर)

19/2

4 ) पिठापुरम

15/1

15/2

15/3

15/4

18/5

119

120

121

113

109

111

110

190

192

191

195

188

185

184

196

197/4

197/3

183/2

197/2

223/6

223/4

224/8

224/6

224/5

224/4

226

5 ) अग्रहारम

99/1

[ Part II- Sec . 3 (ii)]

5 3

31 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

101/4 5 ) अग्रहारम (निरंतर)

101/5ए

101/5बी

101/6ए

103/1

103/2

104/1

105/2

106

107

108

109

110/2

110/1

128/1वी

128/1 ए

129/1

132/2

131

133/28

133/27

133/25

133/24

133/23

133/26

133/22

133/21

133/20

133/19

133/17

152/3

152/2

152/12

152/13

151

284

6 ) रापरती

285

349/6

349/5

351

347/2

347/3

3011 3

5 00

00 00

69 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3012

2 1

350/2 6 ) गपग्नी (निरंतर)

350/1

352

375/2

375/1

376/1

372

371

370/3

370/2

370/1

369/2

381/3

380

381/1

381/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 3

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: पूर्वी गोदावरी

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: गोल्लाप्रोलु

593/10 1 ) गोल्लाप्रोलु

593/4

593/8

593/7

593/6

593/5

593/2ए

593/2वी

593/ 2मी

592/2

592/1

5/1

5/2

5/3

5/4

12/1

11/2

11/6

10/1

27/3

80/3

90 32

49 00 27

26 08

10 00

84 00

05 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

80/4

) गोल्लाप्रालु (निरंतर)

46/2

46/1

47/2

47/1

49/1

50/1

51/2

51/3

54/7

54/5

54/4

54/1

54/2

54/3

55/12

55/10

55/11

59/2

57/1/6

57/1/7

57/1/8

605/5

2 ) चेन्दुर्ती

605/4

606/3

606/2

606/1

607

1975GI /10-9

3013 3

5 00

00 28.

00 40

00 04

00 25

00 03

00 88

[फा. स. एल -14014/20/2009- र्जी.पी. ] स्नेह पी. मदान , अवर सचिव THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3014

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 4th June , 2010

S. O. 1448.- Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1852 dated 23rd June , 2009, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , Government of India 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 Kakinada - Basudebpur- Howrah pipeline for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited by M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country; gas And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 27th March,2010 ;

And whereas , the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

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

And whereas , Government of India , 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 , Government of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the land, specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in Government of India , vest on the date of publication of the declaration , in M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , free from all encumbrances .

Schedule

District : East Godavari

State : ANDHRA PRADESH Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Samalkota

Area to be acquired for RoU

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

C-Are

Hec

Are

108/3

1 ) Panasapadu

108/2

108/1

107

104/2A

104/2B

104/1

105

100/5B

100/4A

100/ 1B

100/1A

70 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

82/3 2 ) P.Vemavaram

93/1

93/2

90/1A

90/1B

73/1

73/2

64/1

63/1

61/1

60/1

59/6

59/7

59/3

59/4

33/2

33/1

5/2

3/1

3/2

82/4

41/2 3 ) Unduru

41/1

42/2

42/1

539 4 ) Samalkota

538

540

542

12/1 5 ). Kapavaram

12/3

12/4

10/1

10/2

18/2

3015

5 3

26 00

12 00

66 00

26 13

87 00

76 10

62 00

40 28

60. 02

28 00

70 06

74 06

36 13

54 00

42 00

43 66

48 00

31 69

31 00

08 00

84 00

97 00

07 06

10 00

23 3016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

5) Kapelanam (Contd)

23/2

23/1

371

6 ) Pavara

375

368

374

367/3

348

347

342

341/1

340/1

339/1

338/1

335

334/1

334/2

333

323/10

323/9

323/7

322

315/2

311

Mandal /Tehsil / Taluk : Pithapuram

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

1 00

5 50

53.

District: East Godavari

1 ) Somavaram

101/3D

101 / 3C

101/3B

100/2

100/1

100/3

99/2

99/1

98/6

98/4

2) Kandrada

14/1E

14/ 1F

14/5C

14/4A

14/4B

14/4C

14/5A

14/3B

14/6

18/6

18/ 7E

State: ANDHRA PRADESH

70 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

24/10A 2) Kandrada ( Contd)

24/10B

24/10C

24/9

24/8B

24/ 7E

24/ 7D

24/7C

24/6

24/8A

25/2

25/1

44/9

44/6

44/3

44/2A

44/2B

44/2C

44/1

40/4

58/4

58/2D

58/2C

58/1A

58/2A

68/1

68/2

67/2

65/19

65/17

65/15

65/16

65/14

65/7

65/8

65/9

96/2D

93/5

93/4

93/ 1E

93/1G

93/1D

93/1C

93/3

3017 3

5 04

00 3018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

93/2

2 ) Kandrada (Contd )

94/4

94/6A

94/6B

96/ 3E

96/3F

96/3G

96/1J

96/ 1K

96/ 1L

96/1G

96/1H

96/21

96/1F

96/2J

96/ 1E

96/ 1D

96/2L

96/2M

96/ 1C

96/1B

96/1 A

149

152

151

3 ) Kumarapuram

28/1

28/6

28/2

26/6

26/ 1B

26/2A

26/2B

26/2C

26/3

26/1A

21/5

21/6

21/4

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

10 00

58 07

10 00

12 24

00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

21/3

3 ) Kumarapuram ( Contd)

19/2

4 ) Pithapuram

15/1

15/2

15/3

15/4

18/5

119

120

121

113

109

111

110

190

192

191

195

188

185

184

196

197/4

197/3

183/2

197/2

223/6

223/4

224/8

224/6

224/5

224/4

226

5 ) Agraharam

99/1

3019

5 00

19 3020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

101/4 5) Agraharam( Contd)

101/ 5A

101/5B

101/6A

103/1

103/2

104/1

105/2

106

107

108

109

110/2

110/1

128/ 1B

128/ 1A

129/1

132/2

131

133/28

133/27

133/25

133/24

133/23

133/26

133/22

133/21

133/20

133/19

133/17

152/3

152/2

152/12

152/13

151

284

6 ) Raparthi

285

349/6

349/5

351

347/2

347/3

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

5 22

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ 15 , 1932

350/2 6) Raparthi ( Contd)

350/1

352

375/2

375/1

376/1

372

371

370/3

370/2

370/1

369/2

381/3

380

381/1

381/2

District: East Godavari

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Gollaprolu

593/10 1 ) Gollaprolu

593/4

593/8

593/7

593/6

593/5

593/2A

593/2B

593/20

592/2

592/1

5/1

5/2

5/3

5/4

12/1

11/2

11/6

10/1

27/3

80/3 1975 Gl /10-10

3021 3

5 20

State: ANDHRA PRADESH

Continued 10 3022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

80/4

1 ) Gollaprolu ( Contd)

46/2

46/1

47/2

47/1

49/1

50/1

51/2

51/3

54/7

54/5

54/4

54/1

54/2

54/3

55/12

55/10

55/11

59/2

57/1/6

57/1/7

57/1/8

605/5

2) Chendurti

605/4

606/3

606/2

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

5 00

88 [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

3023 1

2) ( hendurti ( (' ontd)

606/1

607

[ F. No. L-14014/20/2009-G.P. ] SNEH P.MADAN , Under Secy:

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून, 2010

का. आ. 1449.- भारत सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत मरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ .1852 तारीख 23 जून , 2009 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा वासुदेवपुर- हावडा गैस पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 06 अप्रैल, 2010 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलव्ध करा दी गई थीं;

और, पाइपलाइन विछाने के संबंध में , जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्नात कर दिया गया;

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

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

और , भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के वजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 3024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[ Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: पिठापुरम

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:पूर्वी गोदावरी

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं/ सब डिविजन सं.

2 1

416/2 1 ) भोगापुरम

416/3

416/1

417

413/8

413/7

413/6

413/5

413/4

413/2

410/3

410/4

410/6

411

409

432/2

432/1

432/3

433/3

433/4

431/3

431/2

431/1

435/1

436/2

436/1

437/1

437/2

439

289/3

289/4

289/5

289/9

289/8 आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफलं

हेक्टेयर एयर सिएयर

5 3

78 00

10 00

84 00

33 37

08 00

59 00

16 00

00 09

17 00

63 16

57 00

10 00

79 01

61 16

48 00

33 00

03 00

91 00

74 05

25 00

73 00

07 01

74 00

00 06

289/10

00 04

289/11

288/6 00

37 3025

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 1

288/1

1) भोगापुरम (निरंतर)

254/6

254/4

254/2

254/1

258/4

258/5

258/3

257

256/1

256/2

260/3

260/2

260/1

261/1

262/3सी

262/3वी

262/2

262/1 वी

262/1 ए

265/4

243/1

242/2ए

242/ 2वी

242/2सी

242/1

217/1

217/2

216/2

216/3

215

196/2

196/1

197/1 ए

197/1बी

197/1सी

198/5ए

198/5बी

198/2

198/3

202/1

201/2

16 08

88 29

40 06

16 00

64 15

17 00

10 00

98 00

64 12

05 13

36 00

62 05

41 00

09 00

94 00 05

74 00

72 11

26 00

$3 00

10 00

54 05

23 00

13 00

53 18

26 00

28 00 00

100

09 45

57 00

20 19

00 03

26 05

00 3026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

201/1 1 ) भोगापुग्म (निरंतर)

201/7

200/1

200/2

150/4

150/5

149/5

149/6

149/4

149/3

149/2

148

मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक: गोल्लाप्रोन्नु

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

5 00

80 00

48 00

74 00

09 00

20 00

24 00

10 00

49 00

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: पूर्वी गोदावरी

562

1 ) चंवोलु

561/4

560/2

560/1

561/1

561/2

565/2

565/3

566

569/1 ए

568

567/2

567/3

567/4

588

589/4

589/3

589/ 2डी

589/1

587

582

581

593

598

594/1

520/28

518

655

662

663

64 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

666

) चेव्रोलु (निरंतर)

667

668

451/1

451/2

450

452

453

456/1

456/2

454/2

467

466/1

466/2

464/1

464/2

463/4

463/3

463/2

463/1

461/1

462

416/1

417/2

417/1

418/4

418/5

418/7

407

381

379/5

379/4

379/6

379/3

378/4

378/5

378/3

377/303

377/3ए2

377/304

377/301

377/10

3027

5 00

29 38

81 00

44 00

22 00

25 00

97 00

56 00

20 00

25 00

08 00

23.

65 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3028

2 1

377/1वी ) चेबोलु (निरंतर )

314/4

314/3वी

314/1

314/2

312/1

276

277/3

277/4

310/2

310/1 बी

310/1ए

277/6

277/5

307/1

307/2

307/3

306

282

305/5

305/3

305/4

304

303

301/2

301/1

30'0/ 2

300/3

300/4ए

300/4वी

300/5

334

336/3

337

338/1 ए

338/1वी

338/2

462/1वी 2 ) दुरगाडा

462/ 2वी

463

461/2वी

461/3वी

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)]

29 02

96 12

87 33

64 06

62 24

78 13

38 04

83 44

49 10

10 00

50 02

25 20

19 00

10 00

20 20

40 23

60 26

00 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

460/3 2 ) दुरगाडा (निरंतर )

460/2

460/1

459/4

459/3

458/2

465

475

469/1

469/2

467/5

467/6

467/3

468/1

468/2

469/7

469/9

469/10

470

275

274/2

268

269/2

269/3

265/4

265/1

265/2

265/3

263/1

264

262/1

261/1

305

306

231/1

231/2

230/2

230/7

232/1

233/1

234/2

234/1 1975 GI/10-11

3029

5 3

40 23

30 00

00 00

87 01

47 00

98 00

59 22

35 00

48 00

59 00

10 00

26 00

96 00

19 00

80 00

26 00

55 00

48 17

06 00

70 00

50 13

68 00

57 00

54 00

25 00

-01

94 09

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

235/2

नाडा (निरंतर)

235/1

227

210

211/3

211/2

211/6

211/7

211/9

211/8

223

212

202/2

202/3वी

202/ 3ए

202/3सी

213

214/ 2/वी

214/1/वी

215

216

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

5 00

92 00

23 00

51 00

01 00 21

63 00

82 00

15 00

69 00

80 00

10 00

29 00

03 00

49 00

88 00

45 00

38 00

10 00

95 [फा. सं . एल-14014/20/2009- जी.पी . ] स्नेह पी. मदान, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th June , 2010

S. O. 1449.- Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1852 dated 23rd June, 2009 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , Government of India 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 Kakinada - Basudebpur - Howrah gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited by M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 06th April,2010;

And whereas , the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

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

And whereas , Government of India, 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;

[[ भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

3061 Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1) of Section 6 of the said Act , Government of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the land, specified ir the Schedule , appended to this notification , 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, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in Government of India , vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances .

Schedule

District : East Godavari Mandal/Tehsil / Taluk: Pithapuram

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

416/2 1 ) Bhogapuram

416/3

416/1

417

413/8

413/7

413/6

413/5

413/4

413/2

410/3

410/4

410/6

411

409

432/2

432/1

432/3

433/3

433/4

431/3

431/2

431/1

435/1

436/2

436/1

437/1

437/2

439

289/3

289/4

289/5

289/9

289/8

289/10

289/11

288/6 State : ANDHRA PRADESH Area to be acquired for RoU

Are 4

Hec 3

C-Are 5

ক্ষ

880

20 26

00 55

00 57

00 26

00 13

00 23

00 54

00 83

00 74

00 94

00 60

00 62

00 64

00 17

00 16

00 40

00 88

00 41

00 52

[PartII-Sec.3(ii)]

201/2

202/1

198/3

198/2

198/5B

198/5A

197/1C

197/1B

197/1A

196/1

196/2

215

216/3

216/2

217/2

217/1

242/1

242/2C

242/2B

242/2A

243/1

265/4

262/1A

262/1B

262/2

262/3B

262/3C

261/1

260/1

260/2

250/3

256/2

256/1

257

258/3

258/5

258/4

254/1

254/2

254/4

254/6

288/ 8/1

m(Contd) 1)Bhogapuram 2

THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JUNE5,2010/JYAISTHA15,1932

3032 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2 1 ) Bhogapuram(Contd)

201/1

201/7

200/1

200/2

150/4

150/5

149/5

149/6

149/4

149/3

149/2

148

Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Gollaprolu

District : East Godavari

562

1 ) Chebrolu

561/4

560/2

560/1

561/1

561/2

565/2

565/3

566

569/ 1A

568

567/2

567/3

567/4

588

589/4

589/3

589/2D

589/1

587

582

581

593

598

594/1

520/28

518

655

662

663

3033 3

5 00

State: ANDHRA PRADESH 03

64 3034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

666

1 ) Chebrolu ( Contd )

667

668

451/1

451/2

450

452

453

456/1

456/2

454/2

467

466/1

466/2

464/1

464/2

463/4

463/3

463/2

463/1

461/1

462

416/1

417/2

417/1

418/4

418/5

418/7

407

381

379/5

379/4

379/6

379/3

378/4

378/5

378/3

377/ 3A3

377/3A2

377/3A4

377/ 3A1

377/ 1A

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii )]

5 3

29 00

22 00

56 00

20 00

25 05

70 06

08 05

61 00

55 05

20 10

24 00

09 00

28 00

17 00

94 00

10 00

12 00

84 00

04 00

65 04

65 00

09 02

76 00

70 03

34 00

23 00

38 00

25 00

76 00

49 00

02 00

97 00

15 00

65 00

00 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

377/1B 1 ) Chebrolu ( Contd)

314/4

314/3B

314/1

314/2

312/1

276

277/3

277/4

310/2

310/ 1B

310/ 1A

277/6

277/5

307/1

307/2

307/3

306

282

305/5

305/3

305/4

304

303

301/2

301/1

300/2

300/3

300/4A

300/4B

300/5

334

336/3

337

338/ 1A

338/ 1B

338/2

462/1B 2 ) Durgada

462/2B

463

461/2B

461/3B

3035

5 02

010

00 3036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 2) Durgada ( Contd)

460/3

460/2

460/1

459/4

459/3

458/2

465

475

469/1

469/2

467/5

467/6

467/3

468/1

468/2

469/7

469/9

469/10

470

275

274/2

268

269/2

269/3

265/4

265/1

265/2

265/3

263/1

264

262/1

261/1

305

306

231/1

231/2

230/2

230/7

232/1

233/1

234/2

234/1

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

5 00

94 3037 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भाला का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

5 Durgada( Contd)

235/2

235/1

227

210

211/3

211/2

211/6

211/7

211/9

211/8

223

212

202/2

202/3B

202/3A

202/30

213

214/2/B

214/1/B

215

216

[F. No. L -14014/20/2009-G.P. ] SNEH P.MADAN , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 4 जून 2010

का. आ. 1450.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि , मैसर्स रिलायंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आंध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टर्मिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए, मैसर्स रिलोजिसडिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेबपुर - हावड़ा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्धं है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इंक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपायोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री के. गंगाचलम , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , डोर नं. 67-11-21/2, साविसुजा , न्यु सेंचुरी पब्लिक स्कूल के सामने, एल.बी.नगर, काकिनाडा 533 003, पूर्वी गोदावरी जिला , आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

1975 GI/10-12 [Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

अनुसूची

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:अनकापल्लि

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:विशाखापट्नम

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

1) वेन्कुपालेम

168/27

168/ 26ए

168/ 26बी

168/26सी

168/ 26डी

168/13

168/12ए

168/12वी

168/12सी

168/14

168/ 15वी

168/15ए

168/16

168/17

168/10ए

168/10बी

168/18

168/9ए

168/ 9वी

168/7

168/6

168/ 5वी

168/5ए

168/8

93/7

93/8

93/5

95/3

95/4

95/5

95/6

95/7

95/11वी

95/11 ए

95/10ए

1.10

आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर 3

96 00 04

20 00

39 00 00

90 00

38 00

15 00

58 00

26 00 00

43 00 01

37 00

58 00 00

55 00 00

49 00

23 00 02

00 04

02 00 00

70 00 02

10 00

46 00 02

41 00

90 00

00 00

94 00

59 00 00

10 00 01

33 00 01

16 00 01

71 00 01

74 00

12 00 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 16, 1932

2 1

95/12 1) बेन्कुपालेम (निरंतर)

95/13

95/14

95/15

D516

95/17

95/18

95/19

95/20

94/13

94/15

94/34

94/35

94/16

94/11

94/17

94/18

94/19

94/20

94/10

94/3ई

94/3डी

94/22

94/23

94/25

94/29

94/26

94/28

94/27

82/10

82/30

82/11

82/29

82/28

82/15

82/16

82/18

82/17

82/21

82/22

3039 3

5 00

70 00

34 00 02

85 02

48 00 00

55 00

83 03

60 00

54 00

10 00

55 09

00 00

31 00

37 03

00 00

73 00 00

13 00 02

79 00

56 00 02

67 00 04

51 00

10 05

97 01

99 00

17 00

97 05

00 00

35 07

12 02

10 00 02

52 00 02

29 02

97 00 05

18 00 00

39 09

78 04

06 00 03

89 00 00

67 00

25 00 02

47 00

86 00

84 01

00 02

83 3040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 /JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

82/23 1) वेन्कुपालेम (निरंतर)

6/36

6/28

6/27

6/26

6/25

6/24

6/23

6/22

6/21

6/35

6/34

6/33

6/20

161/10

161/11

161/12ए

161/12 बी

161/13

161/14

161/15

161/16

161/17

161/18

16019

161/20

161/21

161/23

161/22

161/ 28डी

161/28सी

161/ 28 ई

161/ 28वी

161/28ए

161/ 28एफ

161/29

161/27

161/26

161/25

161/24

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

71 00 08

95 00 02

91 00

95 00

91 00

76 00

02 00 02

26 00 01

25 00

72 00 02

23 00

71 02

00 02 92 00 06

14 00 15

71 00 00

55 00 00

56 00

38 00 02

82 02

00 0,0

42 00

39 00

18 01

75 01

25 00 03

06 00

42 00 00

88 00 03

49 00

04 00 02

47 01

13 00 00

56 00

57 00

61 00

10 00

56 00

55 00

63 00

82 00

03 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- II- खण्ड (ii) ]

2 1

8/1

1) वैल्कुमालेम (निरंतर)

8/2

5/18

5/20

5/19

5/5

5/4

160/7

160/5

160/6

160/1

216/6 2) सम्पतिपुरम

216/7

218

219/2

219/1

271

221

208/3

208/2

208/1

209/2

209/3

209/5

209/6

209/12

209/11

209/1

190

192/1

48/6

3) वेटाजंगलापालेम

4/5

41/24

41/25

46/1

96/3

96/2

3041

5 3

25 0.0 10

10 00

67 07

83 12

69 00

05 00

03 00 03

00 00

10 00

00 02

96 00 07

74 00

00 13

35 00 05

00 39

75,

55 00

70 00

35 00

00 16

00 08

まる

63 00

73 00

10 00

48 00

00 00

57 00 03

91 00

00 35

10 00

00 18

10 00

59 00

00 3042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5, 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

94/24

3 ) वेटाजंगलाफालेम (निरंतर)

94/27

94/30

94/29

94/28

23/7

23/6

23/8

23/9

23/10

23/11

23/12

23/14

24/34

24/33

24/32

510

4) सीतानगरम

509

418

416/3

416/2

416/1

416/9

420/1

419/66

419/24

419/25

419/26

419/31

419/32

419/33

419/35

419/36

419/37

419/38

419/39

419/40

419/45

419/47

419/46

419/48

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

5 00

18 00 00

10 00 04

05 00

79 00 00

31 00 27

86 00 01

29 00 05

31 07

75 00 03

35 02

45 00 00

56 00 00

10 00

29 04

00 00

66 00 00

10 00

45 00 03

42 00 06

03 01

79 00 00

63 00 05

00 06

35 00 00

10 00

96 00 02

10 07

49 00 07

99 00 00

74 00 00

10 00

50 00 00

39 00

69 00

12 00 00

82 00

32 00 04

20 00 05

97 00

10 00 08

10 00

23 00

59 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

419/49 4) सीतानगरम (निरंतर)

504

451

450

453/31

453/30

453/29

453/28

453/27

453/20

453/19

453/18

453/16

453/17

453/15

453/12

453/11

453/10

453/9

453/8

453/7

453/6

453/4

453/5

453/3

453/2

497/2

459/13

459/12

459/11

459/10

459/9

459/8

459/2

465/1

495/1वी

495/2

467/12

467/2

467/1

467/3

467/4

3043 3

5 00 00

00 00

01 02

01 00

89 00

29 00

78 03

30 00

90 00 04

00 00

30 09

40 00 07

85 00 03

92 00

20 00

39 00

47 03

16 00 04

07 00 00

48 00

92 00

56 06

21 00

20 00 06

65 00

25 00 01

51 00 06

34 00 00

81 00 03

52 00 05

05 00 02

07 00 02

50 00 00

16 00

20 00

74 00 63

55 00

83 00 09

30 00 08

96 00 02

10 00

62 00 3044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

490

4) सीतानगरम (निरंतर)

486/17

484/16

484/6

484/5

484/1

469/1

483/7

483/9

483/8

483/6

482/4

482/2

482/3

482/1

* 481/ 22

481/21

481/20

481/25

481/27

481/28

481/29

481/30

480/1

480/2

481/31

481/32

478/3

478/4

478/5

472/13

472/14

477/2

477/1

477/3

477/4

473/7

476

398/1

328

329

330

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

5 4

00 05

27 00

40 00

70 00

95 00 08

18 00 04

95 00 04

92 00

00 00 06

62 00 07

11 00 11

27 00 01

00 05

94 00 03

00 02

07 00 08

91 00 03

94 00

00 06

60 00

00 00

42 00 00

10 00

21 00 06

11 00 06

45 00

10 00

81 00

18 00

48 [भाग- खण्ड (ii)

3045 15,1932

जपत्र 15,20

391/17 सीतानगरम (निरंतर)

331/27

394

393

359/2 5) तुम्मापाला

359/3

350/4

1959/

347/10ए

347/10बी

347/11 ए

347/11 बी

347/12

B47/13

348/1

348/2

348/3

348/8

348/9

348/10

348/11

348/13

353

354

351

334/8

334/7

334/9

334/12

334/13

334/23

334/14

334/15

334/17

334/20

334/21

334/22

333

334/19

332/1

313/3

313/4

1975 GI/10-13

00 17

00 22

00 48

00 36

00 00

00 09

00 0.9

00 10

00 03

00 01

00 02

00 14

00 01

00 21

00 29

00 03

00 00

00 05

00 14

00 04

00 00

00 13

00 00

10 3046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

313/5

3) तुम्मापाला (निरंतर)

313/6

313/7

313/8

313/9

313/10

313/11

313/12

313/13

313/14

309/2

309/1

311/3

311/4

311/5

309/16

310

311/6

311/7

304/1

304/2

304/3

304/4

303

302/4

301/3

301/2

301/1

289/5

289/4

289/2

289/3

285/1

285/2

285/3

284/4

284/5

282

273/5

269/3

269/2

269/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii)]

5 00 19

3 00 05

32 00 00

10 00

78 00

04 00 00

48 00 06

14 00

91 00

95 00

13 00

58 00

16 00 02

34 00

80 00

10 00

91 00

69 00

34 00 02

56 00

00 00 09

90 00

67 00

15 00

09 00

12 00

81 00 09

98 00

01 00

19 00

41 00

39 00

79 00 08

77 00

87 00 26

50 00 01

49 00 20

03 00

31 गग - खण्ड ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

253/1 5) तुम्मापाला (निरंतर)

253/2

253/3

251/1

251/2

251/3

251/4

251/8

251/7

251/6

248/18

248/19

248/21

248/24

248/23

248/30

248/31

248/33

248/34

248/35

245/2

245/3

245/4

245/7

201/3 6) मारुटूरू

201/4

201/5

201/6

200

197

199/1

199/2

195/5

195/12

195/13

198/1

198/2

198/3

198/7

198/8

191/1

192/7

3047

5 00 08

64 00

00 08

47 00 14

85 00 29

69 00 00

58 00 02

37 00 00

76 00

87 00 05

97 00

35 00

22 00 10

42. 00. 10

17 00

93 00

65 00

53 00

71 00

09 09

86 00

51 00 00

26 00

81 00

35 00 12

28 00

38 00 01

30 00

15 00

00 01

93 00

00 02

07 00 02

74 00 02

16 00 03

73 00 00

10 00

05 3048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1.

192/8

6) माउदूरू (निरंतर)

192/9

193/2

193/3

189/1

189/2

189/3

181/1

181/5

181/6

182/1

182/2

166/1

167,7

167/8

167/9

168/14

163/13

168/15

154/2

154/3

154/9

154/4

154/5

154/6

154/7

154/8

130/19

153

$$2

190/2

130/3

130/4

130/5

130/6

130/7

138/5

138/6

138/3

138/4

138/2

134/2

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

5 00

81 00

30 00

43 00 15 98 00

15 00 05

24 00 02

68 00

10 00 12

09 00 09

0 00

25 00

48 00

30 00 03

45 04

21 00

67 00 01

08 00 03

77 00 03

49 00 10

76 09

33 00

00 00

10 00

80 00 04

48 00

09 00 13

00 00

30 00

48 00

41 00 04

52 00 05

83 01

37 00 06

89 00 00

36 00

33 00 05

64 00 02

45 00

10 [ भाग II- खण्ड (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

134/3

6) मारटके (निरंतर)

134/4

137/6

137/7

134/1

135/7

135/8

120/13

120/12

120/11

120/10

120/9

120/8

120/7

120/5

120/4

120/3

120/2

112/8

119/1

118/3

118/2

118/1

117/3

220

7) रेखाका

222/1

224

225

211

207

210

223

182/1

8) माकवरम

181

182/2

163

162

164

166/1

166/2ए

185/3

185/4

3049 3

5 00

64 00 02

40 00

78 00

10 00

90 00 02

39 00 08 08 00 00

34 00

01 89 00 01 92

48 00 00

63 00 09

10 00

00 12 98 00 13 48 00

63 00 00

10 00

00 02

97 00

05 00 04

17 00 42

04 00 02

32 00 96

01 00

00 89

15 00 04

28 00 03

72 00 93

28 00

59 00

11 00 42

96 00

54 00 19

23 00 39

56 00

39 00 10

49 00

57 06

45 00 05

31 00 02

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3050

2 1

185/5

8) माकसाराम (निरंतर)

185/7

185/8

185/9

185/10

185/17

185/18

185/19

185/20

185/21

185/22

151/1

184/13

184/14

184/15

184/12

184/10

149/5

149/4

149/3

149/2

149/1

150/15

150/1

150/2

150/3

148

147

144/4

144/5

144/6

144/7

165

9 ) कोन्डुपालेम

218

219

227

223

224

225

204

201

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

5 3

75 03

35 00

4.9

36 02

53 00 09

81 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

3051 1

200

9) कोन्डुपालेम (निरंतर )

191

00 00

190

00 06

189

00 72

205

[फा. सं. एल-14014/55/2009-जी.पी. ]

स्नेह पी. मदान, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th June , 2010

S. O. 1450. Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of Natural Gas from Onshore Terminal at East Coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s . Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country , Kakinada- Basudebpur -Howrah Pipeline should be laid by M/s . Relogistics Infrastructure Limited ;

And whereas , it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in and under which the said pipeline isproposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

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

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

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

3052

谢

[Part 11

Schedule

State: ANDHRA PRADESH

District: Visakhapatnam

Mandal/ Tehsil / Taluk: Anakapalli

Area to be acquired for RoU

Survey No./Sub-Division

Village

2 1

1) Venkupalem

168/27

168/ 26A

168/26B

168/26C

168/26D

168/13

168/ 12A

168/12B

168/12C

168/14

168/15B

168/ 15A

168/16

168/17

168/ 10A

168/10B

168/18

168/9A

168/9B

168/7

168/6

168/5B

168/5A

168/8

93/7

93/8

93/5

95/3

95/4

95/5

95/6

95/7

95/118

95/11A

95/10A

Are

C-Are Hec

96 00

47 00

38 00

37 00

49 00

20 00

10 00

46 00

41 00

32 00

10 00

90 00

94 00 00

50 00

71 00

81 00

00 [ भागं II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

95/12 1) Venkupalem ( Contd)

95/13

95/14

95/15

95/16

95/17

95/18

95/19

95/20

94/13

94/15

94/34

94/35

94/16

94/11

94/17

94/18

94/19

94/20

94/10

94/3E

94/3D

94/22

94/23

94/25

94/29

94/26

94/28

94/27

82/10

82/30

82/11

82/29

82/28

82/15

82/16

82/18

82/17

82/21

82/22 1975 GI /10-14

3053

83 3054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

82/23 1) Venkupalem( Contd)

6/36

6/28

6/27

6/26

6/25

6/24

6/23

6/22

6/21

6/35

6/34

6/33

6/20

161/10

161/11

161 / 12A

161/ 12B

161/13

161/14

161/15

161/16

161/17

161/18

161/19

161/20

161/21

161/23

161/22

161/28D

161/28C

161 /28E

161/28B

161/28A

161/28F

161/29

161/27

161/26

161/25

161/24

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

03 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

8/1 1) Venkupalem ( Contd)

8/2

5/18

5/20

5/19

5/5

5/4

160/7

160/5

160/6

160/1

216/6 2) Sampatipuram

216/7

218

219/2

219/1

271

221

208/3

208/2

208/1

209/2

209/3

209/5

209/6

209/12

209/11

209/1

190

192/1

48/6 3) Vetazangalapalem

48/5

41/24

41/25

46/1

96/3

96/2

3055 4

00 25

75 3056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

94/24 3) Vetazangalapalem (Contd)

94/27

94/30

94/29

94/28

23/7

23/6

23/8

23/9

23/10

23/11

23/12

23/14

24/34

24/33

24/32

510

4) Sithanagaram

509

418

416/3

416/2

416/1

416/9

420/1

419/66

419/24

419/25

419/26

419/31

419/32

419/33

419/35

419/36

419/37

419/38

419/39

419/40

419/45

419/47

419/46

419/48

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

59 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

419/49 4) Sithanagaram (Contd)

504

451

450

453/31

453/30

453/29

453/28

453/27

453/20

453/19

453/18

453/16

453/17

453/15

453/12

453/11

453/10

453/9

453/8

453/7

453/6

453/4

453/5

453/3

453/2

497/2

459/13

459/12

459/11

459/10

459/9

459/8

459/2

465/1

495/ 1B

495/2

467/12

467/2

467/1

467/3

467/4

3057

92 00

20 00

48 00

51 00

07 00

50 00

20 00

74 00

55 00

83 00

09 30 00

00 3058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 4) Sithanagaram ( Contd)

490

486/17

484/16

484/6

484/5

484/1

469/1

483/7

483/9

483/8

483/6

482/4

482/2

482/3

482/1

481/22

481/21

481/20

481/25

481/27

481/28

481/29

481/30

480/1

480/2

481/31

481/32

478/3

478/4

478/5

472/13

472/14

477/2

473/1

477/3

477/4

473/7

476

398/1

328

329

330

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

48 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

331/17 4) Sithanagaram ( Contd)

331/27

394

393

359/2 5) Tummapala

359/3

359/4

359/1

347/10A

347/10B

347/ 11A

347/ 11B

347/12

347/13

348/1

348/2

348/3

348/8

348/9

348/10

348/11

348/13

353

354

351

334/8

334/7

334/9

334/12

334/13

334/23

334/14

334/15

334/17

334/20

384/21

334/22

333

334/19

332/1

313/3

313/4

3059

79 00

010

99 00

79 00

72 00

10 00 3060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

313/5 5) Tummapala( Contd)

313/6

313/7

313/8

313/9

313/10

313/11

313/12

313/13

313/14

309/2

309/1

311/3

311/4

311/5

309/16

310

311/6

311/7

304/1

304/2

304/3

304/4

303

302/4

301/3

301/2

301/1

289/5

289/4

289/2

289/3

285/1

285/2

285/3

284/4

284/5

282

273/5

269/3

269/2

269/1

4-40

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

50 00

49 00

31 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजषत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2 5) Tummapala ( Contd )

253/1

253/2

253/3

251/1

251/2

251/3

251/4

251/8

251/7

251/6

248/18

248/19

248/21

248/24

248/23

248/30

248/31

248/33

248/34

248/35

245/2

245/3

245/4

245/7

201/3 6) Maruturu

201/4

201/5

201/6

200

197

199/1

199/2

195/5

195/12

195/13

198/1

198/2

198/3

198/7

198/8

191/1

192/7 1975 GI /10-15

3061 3

Continued ...... 12 3062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

192/8 6) Maruturu ( Contd)

192/9

193/2

193/3

189/1

189/2

189/3

181/1

181/5

181/6

182/1

182/2

166/1

167/7

167/8

167/9

168/14

168/13

168/15

154/2

154/3

154/9

154/4

154/5

154/6

154/7

154/8

130/19

153

152

130/2

130/3

130/4

130/5

130/6

130/7

138/5

138/6

138/3

138/4

138/2

134/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

49 00

76 00

10 00

48 00

09 00

00 00

52 00

83 00

89 00

33 00

64 00

45 00

10 12 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत की राजपत्र : जूने 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

134/3 6) Maruturu ( Contd)

134/4

137/6

137/7

134/1

135/7

135/8

120/13

120/12

120/11

120/10

120/9

120/8

120/7

120/5

120/4

120/3

120/2

112/8

119/1

118/3

118/2

118/1

117/3

220

7) Rebaka

222/1

224

225

211

207

210

223

182/1 8) Makavaram

181

182/2

163

162

164

166/1

166/2A

185/3

185/4

3063 4

73 00

72 00

59 00

96 00

39 00

57 00

02 3064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 /JYAISTHA 15, 1932

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

185/5

8) Makavaram (Contd)

185/7

185/8

185/9

185/10

185/17

185/18

185/19

185/20

185/21

185/22

151/1

184/13

184/14

184/15

184/12

184/10

149/5

149/4

149/3

149/2

149/1

150/15

150/1

150/2

150/3

148

147

144/4

144/5

144/6

144/7

165

34 9) Kondupalem

218

219

227

223

224

225

204

201

202

40 3065 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

203

9) Kondupalem ( Contd)

191

190

189

205

[F. No. L-14014/55/2009-G.P . ] SNEH P.MADAN , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 4 जून 2010

का. आ. 1451.--भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि, मैसर्स रिलायंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आंध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टर्मिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेबपुर- हावड़ा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा ( 3 ) की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री के . गंगाचलम , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इनफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, न. 67-11-21/2 , साविसुजा, न्यु सेंचुरी पब्लिक स्कूल के सामने , एल बी नगर , काकिनाडा-533003 , पूर्वी गोदावरी जिला, आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 3066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

अनुसूची मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक पोंदूरू

जिला:श्रीकाकुलम गाँव की नाम

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ] राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

108/8 1) र्धमापुरा

108/9

108/10

108/16

108/15

108/14

108/13

108/12

108/11

108/17

108/18

107/22

107/18

107/21

107/20

110/12

110/11

110/10

110/9

110/8

110/7

110/6

110/5

110/13

110/1

110/2

110/3

114/13

114/14

114/15

115/15

115/6

115/5

115/7

115/8

115/9

115/4

आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर 3

84 00 15

68 00

39 00 02

88 00 02

62 00 04

77 00

73 00

18 00 00

84 00 00

27 00

02.

98 00

90 00 06

93 00 02

23 00

00 03

17 00

13 00

51 00 08

26 00 01

10 00

87 00 13

70 00

13 00

98 00

46 00 00

50 00

10 00

83 00 03

44 00

37 00

10 00 02

31 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ पाम II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

115/3

1) र्धमापुरा (निरंतर)

115/2

124/5

124/2

124/1

124/4

124/6

124/3

125/9

125/10

125/8

125/7

125/5

125/3

125/4

126/13

126/15

126/14

126/5

127/17

127/16

127/18

127/19

127/15

127/12

127/14

127/13

127/4

127/5

127/10

127/6

127/7

128

134/15

134/12

134/11

141/27

186/17

187/12

187/14

187/13

187/15

3067 3

5 00

60 00 02

03 00

10 00

50 08

88 00

10 00

53 00

12 00 .

10 00 00

75 16

90 00 04

42 00

21 04

78 20

58 00

00 07

56 00 05

43 00

65 08

10 00

20 00

21 00

64 00

00 06

44 07

47 00 10

00 02

18 03

85 01

72 00

49 00 03

22 00 07

58 00 00

36 00

62 07

00 00

93 00 07

28 00 08 3068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

187/17 1) र्धमापुरा (निरंतर)

187/18

189/1

189/2

189/3

189/22

189/4

189/23

189/21

189/19

189/18

189/17

189/16

189/10

189/14

189/11

189/12

190/9

190/8

190/7

190/6

190/5

190/4

190/1

190/3

190/2

190/12

190/13

192/19 2) तोलापी

101

155/2

155/3

156/1

156/14

156/15

156/16

156/17

156/18

156/19

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

5 00 02

93 00 03

82 00

00 02

83 00 04

08 00.

10 00

05 00

27 00

11 05

72 00

10 00 00

03 00 05

8年 00 09

05 00 00

47 00

96 00

06 00

03 03

82 00

99 00 00

66 00 02

14 00 12

46 03

25 00 08

49 00 00

75 02

97 00 00

26 00 00

22 00

53 16

10 00 00

68 00 09

48 00 02

26 00 03

05 00 02

78 00

87 00

82 03

00 02

33 00

50 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1932

15,6/20 2) तोलाची (निरंतर)

156/22

156/3

156/4

1.56/5

157/21

157/22

157/24

157/25

157/26

157/27

157/29

157/30

16/12

160/18

160/19

160/20

160/8

161/10

161/16

161/17

161/18

161/2

161/3

161/4

161/5

161/6

161/7

161/8

161/9

162/1

162/10

162/2

162/3

163/6

163/8

163/9

164/15

164/16

164/17

164/5

164/6 1975GI /10-16

3069

5 0.0 01

45 00

10 00

00 00

87 00

20 00 03

00 01

06 02

95 00

73 00 05

34 00 06

05 00

17 09

12 00 07

15 00

31 00

80 00

47 00 04

18 0,0 00

18 00

10 00 00

10 00

09 00

78 00

23 02

69 00

00 07

67 00

59 04

00 08

14 0.0 01.

0.0

56 00

54 00 00

73 00

19 00

57 13

74 00

43 00

93 00 02

69 03

23 00

27 00

16 00

00 02

18 3070

[Phm II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

JUNE 5 , 2000/ JYASTHAN 5, 1932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

2 1

164/7 2) तोलापी (निरंतर)

170/1

170/11

170/2

170/5

170/6

170/7

170/8

170/9

171/10

171/11

17/12

171/16

185/3

185/4.

185/5

185/6

185/7

185/8

185/9

186/17

186/18

186/19

186/20

186/21

186/22

187/1

187/11

187/2

187/3

187/4

188/1

188/10

188/11

188/12

188/13

188/14

188/15

188/2

188/20

188/8

188/9

5 00 10

51 00

47 00

45 00

43 00

10 07

35 00

00 02

000

$ 5

0:0

80 00

66 00

68 00

67 00

00 04

62 00 06

85 00

61 00

06 00 03

21 00

00 0.6

77 00

69 00

17 00

32 00

22 00

95 00

24 00

12 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का सखापत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

-2

192/1 2) तोलापी (निरंतर)

192/17

192/18

192/2

192/3

192/4

192/5

34/2

34/3

34/4

34/

320/6

36/1

36/10

36/11

36/14

36715

36/5

36/6

36/7

36/8

36/9

37/1

39/10

39/13

39/14

39/15

20717

39/18

39/7

69713

69/12

69/14

69/15

69/16

69/20

69/5

70/1

70/9

80/2

3071 3

93 00

44 00 11

04 00

24 00

67 00

91 00

86 00 02

04 00 02

22 00

66 00. 06

77 00

57 00

25 00

82 00

10 00 00

87 00

39 00 02

72 00 06

94 00 06

17 00

59 00

27 00

00 06

05 00

30 00

03 05

16 03

99 00

44 00

00 00

17 00 09

93 00 03

73 00 24

47 3072

THE GAZETT OF INDIA : #UNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

81/1

2) तोलापी (निरंतर)

81/10

81/11

81/12

81/13

81/2

81/20

81/21

81/22

81/23

81/6

81/7

81/8

81/9

82/10

82/11

82/12

82/1.8

82/19

82/20

82/21

82/22

92/20

94/10

94/11

94/12

94/13

94/14

94/19

94/4

94/5

94/6

94/7

922/8

95/11

95/12

95/14

95/15

95/16

95/17

95/18

[Part II Sec . 3(ii) )

5 00

81 00

09 00

62 00 00

10 02

48 02

76 00

88 00 00

34 00

00 09

38 00

39 00 06

19 00 00

49 00 03

41 00 04

89 00 00

10 00

35 00

17 00 00

61 00

75 04

10 00

49 04

98 00

65 080

53 21

19 00 04

32 00

32 00 00

20 02

83 92

96 00 02

26 00

46 05

00 00

80 00

55 08

17 00 00

15 00 00

48 00

04 00. 02

74 00

44 [पाप II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

95/23 2) तीलापी (निरंतर)

95/24

95/4

95/5

95/6

95/7

95/8

97/12

97/13

97/14

97/15

97/16

97/17

97/18

97/19

97/20

119/12 3 ) मोदुल्लावलसा

119/13

119/14

119/11

119/16

119/10

119/9

119/8

119/6

119/5

119/7

119/4

120/3

120/1

120/2

120/12

120/13

120/14

122/7

122/6

122/4

122/1

122/2

121/14

121/15

121/16

3073 3

5 00

43 00

55 00 03

66 00 06

23 00

86 00

10 00

00 00

91 00

90 00

$ 6 06

63 00

98 00

04 00

28 00

68 02.

02 00

00 02

37 00 03

58 00 00

15 00

45 00 03

30 00

10 00

00 06

95 00 06

74 00 00

13 00 09

77 00 06

81 00

36 12

72 00

00 06

88 00

22 00

00 01

85 00

22 00

01 02

00 11

56 00

00 00

10 00 01

22 00 09

38 30674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

121/17 3) मीदल्लावलसा (निरंतर)

121/7

103

106/1

106/2

107/8

107/1

107/2

108/9

108/8

97/1

97/2

97/3

97/4

97/5

94/1

94/2

19/4

19/5

19/7

19/8

19/9

19/10

19/11

19/12

19/1

29/1

29/6

20/5

28/1

28/2

28/3

28/4

28/5

28/6

34/6

34/1

35/1

35/2

34/2

27/4

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ]

5 3

72 00

36 00

26 00

00 01

11 00 16

00 07

93 00 00

49 00

78 00

10 00 00

81 00

79 00

78 00 06

01 00

88 00

64 00

49 00 07

78 00

22 00

60 00 09

08 00 09

70 00 00

20 00 00

24 00 01

82 00 10

42 00

43 00 08

64 00 01

76 00

33 00 08

00 01

89 00

10 00 00

27 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राज़पत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2.7/

3) मोर्थसलावलसा (निरंतर)

27/56

21729

27/11

27/12

27/13

38/13

38/10

38/11

38/12

38/14

38/7

38/6

38/5

38/4

38/3

25/4

25/5

25/6

39/1

39/2

39/3

39/7

39/8

4) बोडापल्ली

198/11

198/12

198/13

198/14

198/15

198/16

198/17

198/18

198/20

198/19

198/22

198/1

199/16

199/17

199/18

199/19

3005

5 3

00 02

34 00

10 -00

00 00

70 00

08 9 00

92 00 01

411:

00. 00

28 00 02

00 00

64 00 00

39 00

35 00 02

44 00 12

24 00

10 00

38 00 06

15 00

74 08

10 00 03

120 00

77 00

00 00

56 01

47 00

14 00 09

05 00 03

44 00

73 00 00 89 00 00

84 00 02

79 07

18 00

০৩

94 00 00

61 00 00

10 .

00 00

56 00

51 00 02

25 09

69 00 02

36 00 04

19 00 00

84 3076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

199/20 4) बोडापल्ली (निरंतर)

199/21 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )]

5 3

00 03

38 00

81 00

199/22

199/23

199/24 00 00

44 00

77 00

199/26

199/13

199/11

199/10

199/9

199/8

199/7

200

245/10

245/9

245/8

245/1

244/16

244/15

24.4/14

244/12

244/9

244/10

244/8

244/1

244/2

243/23 00 00

50 00 02

06 00

00 02

30 00 00

10 00 00

87 00 00

10 00 00

98 00

98 00 01

48 00

70 00

16.

28 00 05

00 02

50 00

00 03

10 00

31 00

24 00

243/22

243/21

243/20

243/17

243/18

243/19

243/11

243/12

243/7

243/8

243/9

243/10

243/4

243/3

243/1 00 03

15 00

10 00

83 00

34 00

60 00 01

46 00 01

27 00

00 03

02 00

13 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3077

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

240/10 4) बोडापल्ली (निरंतर)

240/9

240/8

240/7

240/2

240/1

235

236/1

228/1

228/2

228/3

228/4

253

5 0.0 00

10 00

54 00 05

63 00 02

10 00 04

66 00

29 00 20

00 11

06 00

04 00

58 00 30

प्रदेश

राज्य आन्ध्र

जिला: श्रीकाकुलम

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक आमदालवलसा

1) दुसी

52/17

52/16

51/5

52/19

52/18

52/20

52/15

51/4

51/8

51/2

51/3

55/12

55/15

56/1

183/12

183/16

183/15

183/13

183/14

184/1

183/10

184/2

184/11

184/10

184/4

184/3

1975 GI/10-17

37 00 54

00 00

63 00

35 00 01

05 00 02

60 00 08

13 00 02

71 00 03. 95 00

47 00 24

71 00 04

82 00

03 00

75 00

00 06

44 00

66 00 10

13 00

42 00

09 00

53 00 03

09 00

61 00

04 3078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

184/5 1) दुसी (निरंतर)

185/19

185/20

184/8

185/22

185/21

185/13

185/17

185/5

185/9

185/10

185/12

185/11

185/6

185/8

186

251/8

251/4

251/2

251/1

228/3

228/5

228/4

2-28/ 2

228/1

227/11

227/15

227/14

227/6

229/14

229/13

229/12

229/8

227/5

229/7

229/9

229/6

229/1

229/2

229/3

229/5

233/7

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

00 08

94 00 01

23 00 05

49 00

23 00 01

04 00- 03

72 00 07

09 00

96 03

55 03

25 00 00

27 00

76 01

70 00 01

83 00

10 00 00

80 00

46 00 04

91 02

22 00

59 00

82 09

79 00

64 00

70 00

69 00 09

84 00 02

02 00 00

10 00

18 00

19 02

72 00 00

10 00 02

61 00 01

26 00

88 00

34 00

27 06

05 00

10 00

10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

230/9 1) दुसी (निरंतर)

230/3

230/11

229/4

230/10

230/7

230/6

230/5

230/4

223/20

223/19

222/15

222/14

221/6

221/5

221/4

221/3

222/9

221/2

221/7

221/9

221/10

221/12

221/13

221/15

221/11

221/ 2.2

221/19

221/17

221/16

221/18

220/6

220/1

220/2

215/5

215/6

216

213/14

213/13

213/12

217

212/1

3079

S 3

03 00 01

35 00 00

51 00

10 00 03

68 00 02

82 00

91 00

96 00

00 01

47 00

13 00

19 00 02

72 02

56 00 02

94 00 00 ,80 00 06

20 00 00

85 00 02

96 05

29 00 04

00 00

10 00 02

32 00

36 00

40 00 02

08 00

52 00 03

29 00 02

91 00 04

58 00

44 00

70 05

00 09

10 21

08 06

69 00

25 18

55 00 02

21 00

20 00

02 01 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3080

2 1

218/4 1) दुसी (निरंतर)

8/15

2) वन्जान्गी

9/1

8/16

8/8

8/17

9/3

8/18

8/19

6/18

6/17

6/19

8/7

6/6

6/7

6/15

6/9

6/8

6/13

6/11

6/12

6/10

14/2

14/4

14/3

36/1

22/6

36/8

22/8

22/7

22/5

23/17

23/16

23/15

23/14

35/7

35/2

34/5

34/1

32/2

32/4

32/1

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

5 3

49 00

99 13

10 00 00

26 00 02

23 00

19 00 00

18 00 17

19 01

90 00

00 05

27 00

08 00 03

00 10

45 00

62 04

33 02.

41 0

22 00 01

55 00

35 00 06

37 00 01

73 00

36 00 09

36 00 02

73 00 00

63 00

00 12

37 00 00

13 00 00

89 00

02 00

00 04

89 00 08

55 00 02

22 00 04

00 02

76 00

83 00

25 16

38 02

00 09

06 00

31 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

32/3 2) बन्जान्गी (निरंतर)

32/6

32/5

30/21

30/20

48/1

48/2

54/5

54/6

54/7

54/8

54/9

54/13

54/22

52/1

52/2

52/3

52/6

52/7

52/8

52/9

52/12

52/13

56/15

56/16

56/21

56/18

56/19

56/20

57/4

57/5

56/9

57/3

57/6

57/7

57/2

57/8

57/10

57/13

57/12

58/2

58/3

3081

5 3

59 00

13 00

77 00 00

01 00 03

10 00 17

28 00

61 05

00 01

57 00 04

65 00

20 00

00 03

22 01

00 02

86 00 00

93 00

03 00

55 00

30 04

82 00 02

79 00

83 02

88 00 00

42 00 00

13 00

86 00

65 05

00 03

29 00

87 00

88 00

35 00

00 00

29 00

19 00

23 00

90 00

00 04

27 00

86 16

00 08

43 00

73 00

21 00 00

70 00

30 00 3082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

58/4

2) वन्जान्गी (निरंतर)

58/5

58/6

58/13

58/14

58/15

58/16

60/1

60/3

60/2

213/13 3 ) कनुगुलावलसा

213/14

213/15

216/27

216/26

216/25

216/24

216/29

216/23

2-16/ 22

216/21

216/20

216/19

216/18

216/32

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

0.0

70 00

17 00 00

11 00 19

37 00 00

57 00

48 00

13 00 05

40 00 00

00. 03

53 00

08 00

45 00

31 00 01

32 00 08

88 00 04

93 00

00 02

13 00 00

13 00 23

39 00

54 00

38 [फा. सं. एल-14014/33/2010-जी.पी. ] स्नेह पी . मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th June , 2010

S. O. 1451. Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of Natural Gas from Onshore Terminal at East Coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s . Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country , Kakinada- Basudebpur -Howrah Pipeline should be laid by M/s . Relogistics Infrastructure Limited;

And whereas , it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed hereto:

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

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

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

3083

Schedule

District : Srikakulam Mandal/ Tehsil /Taluk: Ponduru

Village

State: ANDHRA PRADESH Area to be acquired for Rou

Survey No./Sub-Division No

108/8 1) Dharampura

108/9

108/10

108/16

108/15

108/14

108/13

108/12

108/11

108/17

108/18

107/22

107/18

107/21

107/20

110/12

110/11

110/10

110/9

110/8

110/7

110/6

110/5

110/13

110/1

110/2

110/3

114/13

114/14

114/15

115/15

115/6

115/5

115/7

115/8

115/9

115/4 Hec

Are

C-Are

31 3084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932.

2 1

115/3 1) Dharampura ( Contd)

115/2

124/5

124/2

124/1

124/4

124/6

124/3

125/9

125/10

125/8

125/7

125/5

125/3

125/4

126/13

126/15

126/14

126/5

127/17

127/16

127/18

127/19

127/15

127/12

127/14

127/13

127/4

127/5.

127/10

127/6

127/7

128

134/15

134/12

134/11

141/27

186/17

187/12

187/14

187/13

187/15

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

28 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

187/17 1) Dharampura ( Contd)

187/18

189/1

189/2

189/3

189/22

189/4

189/23

189/21

189/19

189/18

189/17

189/16

189/10

189/14

189/11

189/12

190/9

190/8

190/7

190/6

190/5

190/4

190/1

190/3

190/2

190/12

190/13

192/19 2) Tolapi

101

155/2

155/3

156/1

156/14

156/15

156/16

156/17

156/18

156/19 1975 GI /10-18

3085

03.

50 3086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

2 2) Tolapi ( Contd)

156/20

156/22

156/3

156/4

156/5

157/21

157/22

157/24

157/25

157/26

157/27

157/29

157/30

16/12

160/18

160/19

160/20

160/8

161/10

161/16

161/17

161/18

161/2

161/3

161/4

161/5

161/6

161/7

161/8

161/9

162/1

162/10

162/2

162/3

163/6

163/8

163/9

164/15

164/16

164/17

164/5

164/6

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

18 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

164/7 2) Tolapi (Contd)

170/1

170/11

170/2

170/5

170/6

170/7

170/8

170/9

171/10

171/11

171/12

171/16

185/3

185/4

185/5

185/6

185/7

185/8

185/9

186/17

186/18

186/19

186/20

186/21

186/22

187/1

187/11

187/2

187/3

187/4

188/1

188/10

188/11

188/12

188/13

188/14

188/15

188/2

188/20

188/8

188/9

3087 4

.00

06 00

02 00

69 00

79 00

17 00

57 00

22 00

10 00

95 00

24 00

00 3088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

2 2) Tolapi ( Contd)

192/1

192/17

192/18

192/2

192/3

192/4

192/5

34/2

34/3

34/4

34/5

34/6

36/1

36/10

36/11

36/14

36/15

36/5

36/6

36/7

36/8

36/9

37:1

39 10

39 13

39/14

39:15

3917

3918

39:7

69:13

69/12

69/14

69:15

69/16

69/20

69:5

70/1

70/9

80/2

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

.00

47 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

81/1 2) Tolapi (Contd)

81/10

81/11

81/12

81/13

81/2

81/20

81/21

81/22

81/23

81/6

81/7

81/8

81/9

82/10

82/11

82/12

82/18

82/19

82/20

82/21

82/22

92/20

94-10

94.11

94/12

94/13

94/14

94/19

94/4

94/5

94/6

94/7

94/8

95/11

95/12

95/14

95/15

95/16

95/17

95/18

3089 4

08 3090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 2) Tolapi ( Conid )

95/23

95/24

95 4

95/5

95/6

95/7

95/8

97/12

97/13

97/14

97/15

97/16

9707

97/18

97-19

97/20

119/12 3) Modallavalasa

119/13

119/14

119/11

119/16

119/10

119/9

119:8

119/6

119/5

119/7

119/4

120/3

120/1

120/2

120/12

120/13

120/14

122/7

122/6

122/4

122/1

122/2

121/14

121/15

121/16

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

38 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

3) Modallavalasa ( Contd)

121/17

121/7

103

106/1

106/2

107/8

107/1

107/2

108/9

108/8

97/1

97/2

97/3

97/4

97/5

94/1

94/2

93.

19/4

19/5

19/7

19/8

19/9

19/10

19/11

19/12

19/1

29/1

29/6

20/5

28/1

28/2

28/3

28/4

28/5

28/6

34/6

34/1

35/1

35/2

34/2

27/4

3091 3

23 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3092

2 1

27/3

3) Modallavalasa ( Contd)

27/6

27/9

27/11

27/12

27/13

38/13

38/10

38/11

38/12

38/14

38/7

38/6

38/5

38/4

38/3

25/4

25/5

25/6

39/1

39/2

39/3

39/7

39/8

198/11 4) Boddapalli

198/12

198/13

198/14

198/15

198/16

198/17

198/18

198/20

198/19

198/22

198/1

199/16

199/17

199/18

199/19

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

00.

84 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

199/20 4) Boddapalli ( Contd)

199/21

199/22

199/23

199/24

199/26

199/13

199/11

199/10

199/9

199/8

199/7

200

245/10

245/9

245/8

245/1

244/16

244/15

244/14

244/12

244/9

244/10

244/8

244/1

244/2

243/23

243/22

243/21

243/20

243/17

243/18

243/19

243/11

243/12

243/7

243/8

243/9

243/10

243/4

243/3

243/1 1975 GI/10-19

3093

.02

10.

.03

10.

00 3094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 4) Boddapalli (Contd)

240/10

240/9

240/8

240/7

240/2

240/1

235

236/1

228/1

228/2

228/3

228/4

253

Mandal/ Tehsil / Taluk : Amadalavalasa

District: Srikakulam 1) Dusi

52/17

52/16

51/5

52/19

52/18

52/20

52/15

51/4

51/8

51/2

51/3

55/12

55/15

56/1

183/12

183/16

183/15

183/13

183/14

184/1

183/10

184/2

184/11

184/10

184:4

184/3

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

State: ANDHRA PRADESH 01

82 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15, 1932

2 1) Dusi ( Contd)

184/5

185/19

185/20

184/8

185/22

185/21

185/13

185/17

185/5

185/9

185/10

185/12

185/11

185/6

185/8

186

251/8

251/4

251/2

251/1

228/3

228/5

228/4

228/2

228/1

227/11

227/15

227/14

227/6

229/14

229/13

229/12

229/8

227/5

229/7

229/9

229/6

229/1

229/2

229/3

229/5

233/7

3095 3

10 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5, 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3096

2 1

230/9 1) Dusi ( Contd)

230/3

230/11

229/4

230/10

230/7

230/6

230/5

230/4

223/20

223/19

222 15

222-14

2216

221.5

221/4

221/3

222/9

2212

221/7

221/9

221/10

221/12

221/13

221/15

221/11

221/22

221/19

221/17

221/16

221/18

220/6

220/1

220/2

215/5

215/6

216

213/14

213/13

213/12

217

212/1

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

(..

02 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

218/4 1) Dusi (Contd)

8/15 2) Vanjangi

9/1

8/16

8/8

8/17

9/3

8/18

8/19

6/18

6/17

6/19

8/7

6/6

6/7

6/15

6/9

6/8

6/13

6/11

6/12

6/10

14/2

14/4

14/3

36/1

22/6

36/8

22/8

22/7

22/5

23/17

23/16

23/15

23/14

35/7

35/2

34/5

34/1

32/2

32/4

32/1

3097

00-

01.

35 00

73 00

36 00

00 3098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

2 2) Vanjangi ( Contd)

32/3

32/6

32/5

30/21

30/20

48/1

48/2

54/5

54/6

54/7

54/8

54/9

54/13

54/22

52/1

52/2

52/3

52/6

52/7

52/8

52/9

52/12

52/13

56/15

56/16

56/21

56/18

56/19

56/20

57/4

57/5

56/9

57/3

57/6

57/7

57/2

57/8

57/10

57/13

57/12

58/2

58/3

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

0,0

30 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2 2) Vanjangi ( Contd)

58/4

58/5

58/6

58/13

58/14

58/15

58/16

60/1

60/3

60/2

213/13 3) Kanugulavalasa

213/14

213/15

216/27

216/26

216/25

216/24

216/29

216/23

216/22

246/21

216/20

216/19

216/18

216/32

3099 3

37.

[ F. No. L -14014/33/2010-G.P. ] SNEH P.MADAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून 2010

का. आ. 1452.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि, मैसर्स रिलायंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आंध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टर्मिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा - बासुदेबपुर - हावड़ा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपायोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री के. गंगाचलम, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स ग्लिोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , डोर नं. 67-11-21/ 2 , साविसुजा , न्यु सेंचुरी पब्लिक स्कूल के मामने, एल.वी. नगर , काकिनाडा 533003 , पूर्वी गोदावरी जिला , आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज मकेगा । THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3100

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

अनुसूची

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:आमदालवलसा

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: श्रीकाकुलम

गाँव का नाम

आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

2 1) अक्किवलसा

266/16ए

266/16वी

266/17 ए

266/17बी

266/15सी

266/14डी

266/13

266/12

266/11 ए

266/11 वी

266/10सी

266/9मी

271/3

271/1

271/2

270/8

270/7

270/9

270/10

270/5

270/11

270/20

270/19

270/18

270/17

276

310/5

310/4

310/3वी

310/3ए

310/12 ए

310/13 ए

309/24

306/7वी

306/7ए

306/8

306/17 के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर 3

5 00 02

64 00

05 00

61 00

03 00

00 00

14 00

95 00 08

56 00 04

52 00

23 00

67 00

76 00

98 00

73 00

65 00

98 00 04

74 00

57 00

88 00

10 00

85 00

24 00

77 00

28 00

45 00

00 10

93 00

24 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्रं : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2 1

306/9सी 1) अक्किवलसा (निरंतर)

306/ 9वी

306/16ए

306/16वी

306/14

306/13

306/12

306/11 डी

306/11 ई

305/11

305/9

305/8

304/15

304/14

304/13

304/12

जिला:श्रीकाकुलम मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: श्रीकाकुलम

115/13 1) चिन्ताडा

115/12

115/1

115/11

115/3

115/4

104/23

104/21

104/22

104/20

105/16

105/14

105/15

105/13

105/10

105/9

105/8

106/17

106/16

106/15

106/14

106/3

106/4

106/5 1975 GI/10-20

3101

5 00 03

44 00

60 00

00 05

00 00 05

78 00 03

66 00 05

00 10

17 00

00 18

45 00 08

41 00 06

42 00 04

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

88. 00

26 00

10 00

00 06

01 00 03

13 00

00 00

95 00

00,

94 00

29 00 02

34 00 01

40 00 04

00 00

37 00

57 00

00 00

15 00

00 01

10 3102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

106/13 1) चिन्ताडा (निरंतर)

106/12

106/11

106/6

106/7

106/8

106/9

106/0

108/1

108/2

108/3

108/8

108/9

108/10

108/13

108/11

108/12

108/16

108/17

108/18

107

128

151/3

151/4

151/2

151/6

151/1

151/7

151/8

151/9

151/10

151/11

150

169/18

169/17

169/16

169/15

169/13

168/9

168/1

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

5 00 02

75 00 02

17 00 02

18 00 02

48 00

73 00 02

23 00 03

06 00

16 00 02

72 00 00

10 00 15

79 00 03

71 00 03

34 00

07 00

94 00

00 02

56 00

71 00 00

86 00 02.

02 00

40 00 04

98 00 06

33 00 02

59 00 00

64 00

97 00 02

57 00 00

25 00

14 00

04 00

66 00 00

18 00 05

41 00

14 00

26 00

20 00 00

10 00

73 00

57 [भाग il- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत की राजयेत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2 1) चिन्ताड़ा (निरंतर)

168/2

168/5

168/4

168/3

168/14

168/15

168/16

168/20

170/16

170/17

170/18

170/15

170/19

171/1

171/3

171/2

171/10

171/11

172/2

172/18

172/19

172/20

172/17

172/16

174/1

173/18

173/19

173/16

173/15

175/19

175/18

175/17

175/4

175/5

175/6

175/16

175/13

175/12

175/11

175/14

3103 3

5 00 01

41 00 00

10 00

05 00 03

42 00 02

14 00 01

45 00 00

10 00 00

84 00 02

4:2 00 04

07 00 04

7.6 00 08

13 00

77 00 00

78 00

29 00 00

82 00 00

10 00 00

60 00 06

25 00

32 00 02

61 00 04

27 00 00

00 05

00 04

00 12

00 00

00 0.2

00 04

00 02

00 05

00 06

00 01

00 05

00 04

00 05

51 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 /JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3104

2 1

175/10 1 ) चिन्ताडा (निरंतर)

266/2

266/3

266/1

265/12

265/15

265/14

265/13

265/16

265/17

265/18

265/10

265/19

265/9

265/7

265/8

265/5

265/4

265/3

265/1

261/1

261/2

261/3

262/2

262/3

262/4

262/5

262/7 वी

260/2

260/1

260/3

260/4

225

230/24

230/12

230/14

230/15

230/25

230/26

230/27

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)]

5 3

47 00 03

10 00

95 00

15 00 04

63 00 06

84 00

0:3

03 00

90 00

55 00

62 00 05

39 00

10 00 00

30 00 01

08 00

74 00

66 00 02

66 00

24 00

10 00 00

57 00

00 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

230/23 1) चिन्ताडा (निरंतर )

230/22

230/21

230/20

230/17

230/18

231/10

231/9

231/8

231/13

231/7

231/4

231/5

231/6

231/15

231/1

232/1

234-

232/2

233/15

233/14

233/13

233/12

233/11

233/10

233/18

233/19

233/20

233/1

233/9

233/8

233/2

233/3

237/15

237/16

237/14

237/9

237/10

237/8

237/7

3105 4

5 3

68 00

32 00 05

48 00

64 05

16 00

99 00 06

61 06

52 00

36 05

50 05

83 00

53 04

97 00 19

86 00

66 0.2

10 00 00

63 00

76 00 03

14 00

00 00

11 00

98 00

36 00

29 00

51 00 05

00 00

00.

04 00

57 00

00 3106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1) चिन्ताडा (निरंतर)

237/6

237/5

237/4

237/3

237/2 2) भैरिवनीपेटा

4/2

4/1

3/8

3/9

3/7

3/6

3/5

3/4

3/3

3/2

3/1

1/6

1/5

1/4

1/2

1/3

3) कासीमवलसा

79/7

79/6

79/8

79/22

79/21

79/20

79/18

79/17

79/16

79/15

79/12

79/4

79/3

79/2

79/9

79/10

81/7

81/1

81/2

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

5 00

91 00 02

22 00 06

87 00 09

67 00

10 00

22 00

56 00 14

79 00 03

83 00 13

32 00 07

02 00

00 0.8

00 00

17 00

34 00

41 00 05

83 00 07

57 00

05 00

82 00

93 00

99 00 05

81 00 11

05 00

90 00 02

14 01

25 00 01

30 00 01

04 00

90 00 00

77 00

0.1

94 00 02

34 00 04

70 07

84 00 02

43 00 05

11 00

65 00 00

51 00

50 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

3) कासीमवलसा (निरंतर)

83/4

83/7

83/5

83/6

83/9

83/11

89/8

89/20

89/21

89/22

89/19

89/18

89/17

89/16

89/15..

89/14

87/11

87/9

87/8

87/3

87/7

87/4

87/5

87/6

86/9

86/16

86/17

86/15

86/14

86/11

86/12

86/13

106/3

106/1

104/9

104/8

104/7

104/6

104/12

3107 3

5 00

16 00 02

58 00

45 00 00

25 00 09

76 00 00

17 00

52 00 00

10 00 02

95 00 03

38 00 01

86 00 04

55 00 01

68 00 03

98 00 08

06 00 00

64 00 00

18 00 06

48 00 04

88 00

30 00

49 00 13

08 00

41 00

20 00

16 00 00

12 01

77 00 02

38 00 02

54 00 06

40 00 00

61 00

33 00 04

08 00 03

00 00 04

80 00 02

04 00 02

06 00 01

16 00 00

90 00

08 3108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

104/13 3 ) कासीमवलसा (निरंतर)

104/5

103/5

103/7

103/6

103/9

103/10

103/1

103/2

101/3

101/7

101/8

101/9

3/1

4 ) बत्तेरू

117

5) पोन्नम

118

289/1

288/3

288/4

288/5

288/6

288/8

288/9

288/15

288/7

288/10

288/14

288/16

288/17

288/13

291/1

291/2

291/3

283/1

283/2

283/6

283/5

283/7

283/4

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

5 00 02

39 00 14

02 00

15 00 00

27 00

38 00

60 00

43 00

35 00

55 00

10 00 02

27 00 06

53 00

85 29

00 29

29 00 51

38 00

81 00

63 00

11 04

63 00

00 01

13 00

88 00

00 00 01

69 00 00

12 00

61 00 04

91 00 19

65 00 06

67 00 05

92 00 00

91 00

04 00 06

50 00 00

49 00 06

71 00

42 00

07 01

00 02

62 00

40 00

55 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

283/8 5) पोन्नम (निरंतर)

283/3

283/9

282

284.

285/7

281

277/5

277/1

276/4

276/1

276/2

276/3

275/2

275/1

268/4वी

269/1 वी

269/ 2वी

269/1ए

268/1ए

308

310/2

309/1 वी

310/6

309/1 ए

323

322/12

321/13

322/11

322/8

322/7

322/3

322/4

322/5

322/6

322/9 मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: नरसन्नापेटा

जिला:श्रीकाकुलम

गाँव के मीमा और सर्वे न . 438 के बीच में

1) लुकूलाम

438

439

440

1975 Gl /10-21

3109 3

5 00 07

87 00

55 00 12

10 00

62 00. 17

86 00

54 00

41 00 00

5.6

65 00 02

67 00

27 00

03 00

77 00 04

00 08

17 00 02

69 00

31 00 00

30 00

05 00

00 06

23 00 03

00 03

21 00

82 00

15 00

17 राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

79 01 25

50 00 09

98 01 39

87 3110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )]

5 3

204/13

1) लुकूलाम (निरंतर)

205/1

205/2

195/7

195/8

207/1

207/2

192/1

192/2

10:2/3

$92/4

190

186/1

186/2

486/3

187/1

187/2

189

45/60

45/6वी

46/10

46/11

47/1

47/2

47/6ए

54/ 1 রা

54/ 2ए

54/ 2वी

54/3वी

54/4

54/5

53/1

53/2

53/3ए

52/1 ए

52/1वी

52/3

58/1

58/2

51/1

00 00

10 00

03 00 05

20 00 07

21 00 00

72 000 114

00 08

93 00

34 00 02

47 00

96 00 12

65 00 00

15 00

01 00 09

78 00 25

29 00

14 00 16

26 00

46 00

90 00

00 00

10 00

15 00

37 00

10 00

00 07

05 00

17 00

39 00

34 00 09

19 00

73 00 06

57 00 00

10 00 08

50 00 09

24 00. 26

07 00 03

78 00

81 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

75/2

1) लुकूल्यम (निरंतर )

75/3

75/4

75/5

75/7

75/8

75/9

74/2

74/7

72/8

72/10

71/6

71/7

71/8

81/2

81/4

81/5

95/4

96/1

95/5

95/6

95/7

95/8

95/9

95/10

95/12

95/13

94/2

92/1

92/2

92/3

86/22

91/3ए

91/3बी

91/4

91/5

91/6

91/7

3111

5 00 00

50 00

61 00

000 03

99 00 12

33 00

04 00

67 00

71 00

42 00 01

00 03

25 00

70 00 06

37 00

70 00 06

40 02

00 00

00 07

59 00 00

30 00 00

78 00

00 01

90 09

29 00

09 00 06

13 00 02 88 00

56 00

00 00

19 0.0 09 36 00 18

43 24

71 00 00

85 00 00

16 00 02

12 00 15

31 00 02

19 05

62 00 0.7

01 3112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

91/8

1) लुकूलाम (निरंतर)

91/9

91/10

91/11

91/12

91/13

90/1 ए

89/9

89/10

89/11/वी

89/22ए

89/ 2.2वी

89/23

89/24

89/25/ए

102/1

102/2

102/4

10.2/5

102/6

102/7

10.2/9

102/10

102/12

103/1

204/10 2) नदागम

204/9

205

206/2

206/1

207/3

207/2

207/1

208/5

208/2

218

219

220

221/1

221/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii)]

5 3

13 05

82 00

12 09

10 00

75 00

26 00 04

97 00 02

82 00

71 00 0.2

58 06

00 08

02 06

00 01

66 00

44 00

70 00

77 06

56 00

00 02

71 00

05 09

11 00

58 00

00 02

43 00

97 00

1:4

89 00

00 05

07 00

10 00

62 00

17 00

78 00 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II-खम्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

222

2) नदागम (निरंतर)

224

225

226/2

130/6

129/5

129/6

129/7

129/4

128/2

129/3

128/1

128/3

119

127/6

127/5

120/12

120/13

120/10

120/9

120/14

120/15

120/16

117/1

117/2

117/4

116/7

116/10

116/11

116/12

116/13

115/3

115/2

115/4

115/10

115/9

111/2

110/1

110/2

110/4

3113 3

34 00

23 00 00

61 00

00 12

68 00

66 00

34 00 02

53 00

63 02

14 00

96 00

32 00

59 00

10 00 00

10 00

46 00

00 12

55 00 05

69 06

65 00 12

65 00

32 05

09 00

51 05

02 00 05

70 00

82 00 05

67 03

29 09

13 00 05

71 05

87 03

90 00

00 06

30 00 12

48 00 08

32 00 08 3114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15, 1932

105/1

2) नदागम (निरंतर)

105/2

83/1

83/4

83/3

83/8

83/6

83/7

82/1

82/2

82/3

16/1

3) तोटाडा

16/2

16/3

22/5

15/16

15/17

15/20

4) तालगावलसा

67/3

67/2

67/1

68/6

68/10

60/7

60/6

60/5

60/4

60/1

59/9

59/7

59/4

59/3

58/4

58/3

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

5 00 29

45 00

28 00

91 00 02

14 00

42 00 00

54 00

89 00

10 02

18 00 29

40 00

09 00

16 00

10 00 00

21 00

78 00

32 02

00 06

78 02

49 00

15 00

27 02

04 00 04

04 00

99 00 08

88 03

87 00

56 03

10 03

00 02

47 00 13

89 02

92 00 01

12 00 01

10 00

00 00

96 ["भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1932

2 4) तालगावलसा (निरंतर)

58/2

58/1

56/5

56/4

57/4

57/3

56/3

$7/2

57/1

56/2

5) परासेली

36/3

85/2

85/3

62/1

62/3

62/4

62/5

53/2

53/1

52/1

52/2

50/2

50/1

48/1

47/1

47/5

47/4

48/2

6) सुन्दरपुरम

11/8

11/7

3115

5 00 01

50 00 02

58 00 11

35 00 05

02 00 00

42 00

36 00

77 00

90 00

11 00

88 00

32 00 26

70 00

96 00

05 00 22

07 00

28 00 07

48 00 02

94 00 20

13 00

17 00 03.

76 00

60 00

25 00 02

31 00

55 00

65 00 02

56 00 02

00 20

62 00

00 01

00 08

00 00

00 05

00 26

00 00

21 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3116

11/6

6) सुन्दरपुरम (निरंतर)

11/3

11/2

11/4

5/20

5/21

6/9

6/8

6/11

7/2

6/21

7/1

7/3

7/5

7/6

7/7

7/8वी

7/11

7/10

7/ 8ए

37/2

37/1

37/3वी

37/3ए

37/4

37/5 [Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

-07

16 00

00.

[फा. सं. एल-14014/33/2010- जी.पी. ] स्नेह पी. मदान, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th June , 2010

S. O. 1452. Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of Natural Gas from Onshore Terminal at East Coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/s . Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country , Kakinada- Basudebpur-Howrah Pipeline should be laid by M/s . Relogistics Infrastructure Limited;

And whereas , it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline isproposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

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

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3117 Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri K. Gangachalam, Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, D.No. 67-11-21 /2 , Savisuja , Opp New Centuary Public School , L.B. Nagar , Kakinada - 533003 , East Godavari District , Andhra Pradesh State .

Schedule

District: Srikakulam Mandal/ Tehsil / Taluk : Amadalavalasa

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

266/16A 1) Akkivalasa

266/16B

266/17A

266/17B

266/ 15C

266/ 14D

266/13

266/12

266/ 11A

266/ 11B

266/ 10C

266/9C

271/3

271/1

271/2

270/8

270/7

270/9

270/10

270/5

270/11

270/20

-270/19

270/18

270/17

276

310/5

310/4

310/3B

310/ 3A

310/ 12A

310/ 13A

309/24

306/7B

306/ 7A

306/8

306/17 1975 G1/10-22

State : ANDHRA PRADESH Area to be acquired for RoU Are

C-Are Hec 3

52.

00 3118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1) Akkivalasa (Contd)

306/9C

306/9B

306/ 16A

306/16B

306/14

306/13

306/12

306/11D

306/ 11E

305/11

305/9

305/8

304/15

304/14

304/13

304/12 Mandal/ Tehsil / Taluk : Srikakulam

District: Srikakulam 1) Chintada

115/13

115/12

115/1

115/11

115/3

115/4

104/23

104/21

104/22

104/20

105/16

105/14

105/15

105/13

105/10

105/9

105/8

106/17

106/16

106/15

106/14

106/3

106/4

106/5

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

State: ANDHRA PRADESH 07

10 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2 1) Chintada (Contd)

106/13

106/12

106/11

106/6

106/7

106/8

106/9

106/10

108/1

108/2

108/3

108/8

108/9

108/10

108/13

108/11

108/12

108/16

10817

108/18-

107

128

151/3

151/4

151/2

151/6

151/1

151/7

151/8

151/9

151/10

151 / M

150

169/18

169/17

169/16

169/15

169/13

168/9

168/1

3119 3

57 3120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

168/2 1) Chintada ( Contd)

168/5

168/4

168/3

168/14

168/15

168/16

168/20

170/16

170/17

170/18

170/15

170/19

171/1

171/3

171/2

171/10

171/11

172/2

172/18

172/19

172/20

172/17

172/16

174/1

173/18

173/19

173/16

173/15

175/19

175/18

175/17

175/4

175/5

175/6

175/16

175/13

175/12

175/11

175/14

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

51 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2 1) Chintada (Contd)

175/10

266/2

266/3

266/1

265/12

265/15

265/14

265/13

265/16

265/17

265/18

265/10

265/19

265/9

265/7

265/8

265/5

265/4

265/3

265/1

261/1

261/2

261/3

262/2

262/3

262/4

262/5

262/ 7B

260/2

260/1

260/3

260/4

225

230/24

230/12

230/14

230/15

230/25

230/26

230/27

3121 3

03.

00 05

৩৮ 10

58 JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

230/23 1) Chintada ( Contd)

230/22

230/21

230/20

230/17

230/18

231/10

231/9

231/8

231/13

231/7

231/4

231/5

231/6

231/15

231/1

232/1

234

232/2

233/15

233/14

233/13

233/12

233/11

233/10

233/18

233/19

233/20

233/1

233/9

233/8

233/2

233/3

237/15

237/16

237/14

237/9

237/10

237/8

237/7

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

100

06 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1932

2 1) Chintada ( Contd)

237/6

237/5

237/4

237/3

237/2

4/2

2) Bhyrivanipeta

4/1

3/8

3/9

3/7

3/6

3/5

3/4

3/3

3/2

3/1

1/6

1/5

1/4

1/2

1/3

79/7

3) Kasimvalasa

79/6

79/8

79/22

79/21

79/20

79/18

79/17

79/16

79/15

79/12

79/4

79/3

79/2

79/9

79/10

81/7

81/1

81/2

3123

50 3124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

3) Kasimvalasa ( Contd)

83/4

83/7

83/5

83/6

83/9

83/11

89/8

89/20

89/21

89/22

89/19

89/18

89/17

89/16

89/15

89/14

87/11

87/9

87/8

87/3

87/7

87/4

87.5

87/6

86/9

86:16

86/17

86/15

86:14

8611

86.12

86/13

106/3

106/1

104/9

104/8

104/7

104/6

104/12

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

01 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2 3) Kasimvalasa ( Contd)

104/13

104/5

103/5

103/7

103/6

103/9

103/10

103 1

103/2

101 3

101-7

1018

101 9

4) Batteru

117

5) Ponnam

118

289-1

288-3

288-4

288/5

288:6

288/8

288/9

288/15

288/7

288/10

288/14

288/16

288/17

288/13

291/1

291/2

291/3

283/1

283/2

283/6

283/5

283/7

283/4 1975G1/10-23

3.125 3

.00

55 3126

JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

2 1

283/8 5) Ponnam ( Conid)

283.3

2839

282

284

285/7

281

277:5

277/1

276:4

276/1

276/2

276/3

275/2

275/1

268/4B

269/1B

269/2B

269 / 1A

268/ 1A

308

310/2

309/1B

310/6

309/ 1A

323

322/12

321/13

322/11

422/8

322/7

322/3

322/4

322/5

322/6

322/9

District: Srikakulam Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Narasannapeta

[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

12.

State : ANDHRA PRADESH

In bet . V.B. & Svy. No. 438

1) Lukulam

438

439

440

39 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

204 13 1) Lukulam (Contd

205-1

205 2

195 7

195 8

207 1

207-2

192 1

1922

192-3

192 4

190

186-1

1862

186'3

187: 1

187/2

189

45/6A

45/6B

46/10

46/11

47/1

47/2

47/6A

54/ 1B

54/2A

54/2B

54/3B

54/4

54/5

53/1

53/2

53/3A

52/ 1A

52/ 1B

52/3

58/1

58/2

51/1

3127 4

13 3128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1) Lukulam ( Contd )

75/2

75/3

75 4

75/5

757

75 8

75-9

742

747

72 8

72:10

716

71: 7

718

81-2

814

815

954

96 1

95 5

956

957

95 8

959

95 10

95 12

95 13

942

92 1

923

91 3A

91 3B

914

915

916

917

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

01 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

91/8 1) Lukulam ( Contd)

91/9

91/10

91/11

91/12

91/13

90/ 1A

89/9

89/10

89/11/B

89/ 22A

89/22B

89/23

89/24

89/ 25/A

102/1

102/2

102/4

102/5

102/6

102/7

102/9

102/10

102/12

103/1

204/10 2) Nadagam

204/9

205

206/2

206/1

207/3

207/2

207/1

208/5

208/2

218

219

220

221/1

221/2

3129

00.

18.

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 /JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3130

2 1

222

2) Nadagam ( Contd)

224

225

226-2

130 6

129 5

129.6

129 7

129-4

128 2

129/3

128:1

128/3

119

127/6

127/5

120/12

120/13

120/10

120/9

120.14

120/15

120/16

117/1

117/2

117/4

116/7

116/10

116/11

116/12

116/13

115/3

115/2

115/4

115/10

115/9

111/2

110/1

110/2

110/4

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

08 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

105/1 2) Nadagam ( Contd)

105/2

83/1

83/4

83/3

83/8

836

83/7

82/1

82/2

82/3

16/1 3) Totada

16/2

16/3

22:5

15/16

15/17

15/20

74 4) Talagavalasa

67/3

67/2

67/1

68/6

68/10

60/7

60:6

60/5

60/4

60/1

59/9

59/7

59/4

59/3

58/4

58/3

3131 3

00 3132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

58/2 4) Talagavalasa ( Contd)

58/1

56/5

56/4

57/4

57/3

56/3

57/2

57: 1

56/2

86/3 5) Paraselli

85/2

85/3

62/1

623

62-4

62/5

53-2

53 1

52/1

52/2

50/2

50/1

48/1

47/1

47/5

47/4

48/2

6) Sundarapuram

11/8

11/7

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

21 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

116 6) Sundarapuram ( Contd)

11/3

11/2

11/4

5/20

5/21

6/9

6/10

6/8

6/11

7/2

6/21

7/1

7/3

7/5

78B

7-11

710

7/8A

37/2

37.1

37/3B

37/3A

37:4

37/5

3133 3

5 00

56 00

70 00

[F. No. L -14014/33/2010-G.P . ] SNEH P.MADAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 4 जून 2010

का. आ. 1453.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि , मैसर्स रिलायंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आंध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टर्मिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेबपुर- हावड़ा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ; और, भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि, उस भूमि में, जिगकं भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसुचना से उपावद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलव्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपायोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री के. गंगाचलम , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , डोर नं. 67-11-21/2 , साविसुजा, न्यु सेंचुरी पब्लिक स्कूल के सामने , एल.वी. नगर , काकिनाडा 533 003 , पूर्वी गोदादरी जिला, आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकंगा ।

1975 G1 /10-24 3134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

अनुसूची मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:मंदसा

[ Part II-- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:श्रीकाकुलम

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

1) सन्धीगम

6/1

6/2

8/8

8/1

11/12

11/10

11/4

11/2

14/5

14/6

14/7

14/10

14/8-

14/9

14/1

14/3

17/4.

15/5

15/6

15/4

15/1

15/3

36/3

36/2

36/4

34/6

34/7

34/8

34/5

34/1

34/2

20/10

33/14

आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

00 04

00 06

24 00 02

00 01

00 12

00 03

66 00 00

00 19

00 06

00 00

00 02

00 00

10 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

33/12 1) सन्धीगम (निरंतर)

33/13

32/1

32/3

32/4

32/5

32/6

32/7

26/3

26/1

27/पी

53/5

2) भोगबन्दा

53/4

54/5

54/14

54/15

54/13

55/8

55/2

99/2

99/3

99/6

98/1

99/5

99/7

97/2

98/2

98/8

98/7

98/3

98/4

98/6

95/4

95/3

98/5

94/9

95/1

95/2

93/3

93/2

93/1

3135

05 08

76 04

11 12

84 17

62 00 15

43 09

48 04

10 00

33 00

11 32

24 05

55 02

37 00

98 00

41 32

34 12

29 06

16 54

95 00 09

81 05

10 00

69 27

05 06

80 02

59 00

10 00

99 16

33 00

34 00

25 00 01

22 02

96 00 01

57 00

52 00 07

96 00 3136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 2) भोगवन्दा (निरंतर)

86/3

83/5

83/6

83/7

83/8

83/9

83/13

83/12

83/10

84/5

81/2

81/1

81/4

80/10

3/1

3) कोन्कडापुट्टि

4) कील्लोयी

7/ 6वी

7/6सी

7/3

7/6डी

12/4

7/6ए

12/2

12/3

7/5

12/1

13/2

15/3

15/1

15/2

5) बन्जरूयुवराजपुरम

21/1

21/3

21/6

24/2

24/3

22/3

11/7

12/1

12/3

12/4

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

95 00 09

42 00 10

29 00

49 00 04

13 00 00

10 00 02

04 00 07

50 00

69 00

61 00

69 00 00

93 00

44 00 02

65 00 36

19 00 08

46 00

01 00

69 00 00

00 00

00 15

01 3137

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

12/5

5) बन्जरूयुवराजपुरम (निरंतर)

12/7

12/8

2/5

6) मन्डवूरू

2/1

2/2

2/4

2/6

1/2

7) तुब्बुरू

1/3

3/3

3/2

3/4

2/6

2/7

2/8

2/9

90/1

8 ) नवगाम

90/2

90/3

90/4

90/5

90/6

90/7

90/8

90/9

90/10

89/1

89/4

89/5

89/13

89/14

89/15

89/16

89/17

89/18

89/19

89/20 3

00 00

62 02

59 00

00 07

43 00

49 00

95 05

14 00

87 00 01

82 02

57 00

00 00

00 16

22 01

27 00

34 00 00

27 00

63 00

90 02

00 00

21 00 02

06 00

00 01

96 00

08 3138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 /JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

76/3

8) नवगाम (निरंतर)

76/4

76/5

76/11

76/12

76/13

76/18

75/19

75/20

75/21

75/22

95/1

95/2

95/4

96/1

96/2

96/3

96/7

73/26

73/29

73/30

73/31

62/2

62/3

48/1

48/2

51/2

51/3

51/4

51/5

51/6

39/1

39/2

39/3

39/4

39/6

39/7

39/8

38/1

38/2

38/3

[ Part II-Sec . 3( ii) ]

10 00

00 00

59 00

10 00

00 02

65 00

42 00 08

90 00

79 00

10 00

70 03

61 00

16 00

78 00 00

82 00

99 01

96 00

73 00

22 00 01

84 00

31 00

11 00

58 13

50 33

14 00

27 15

72 00

93 00

61 00

88 00

12 00

18 00

55 00

24 00

47 05

00 09

65 08

04 00

93 00

18 00 04 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

37/5

8) नवगाम (निरंतर)

35/2

35/3

35/4

35/5

35/6

35/7

35/8

35/12

35/13

34/1

34/2

31/ 2मी

31/ 2डी

31/3

145

१ ) सिन्गुपुरम

147

146/1

146/2

206

179/2

179/3

180

183

184/3

185

188

186

105/1 10) राजपुरम

105/2

104/3

104/5

104/6

104/7

93/2

93/3

92/1

92/2

426/7 11 ) बुदरसीन्गी

426/8

3139 4

49 01

54 00

76 06

47 00

77 00

38 00

70 00 01

41 00

15 00

61 03

64 00 12

85 00

71 23

68 00

10 00

45 00

07 00 04

25 03

68 19

32 00

37 00

95 17

57 00 19

43 00 50

66 00

07 30

00 22

34 00

56 00

16 00

70 00

35 08

02 00 49

37 00 00

47 00

41 09

59 00 18

21 00

05 3140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

426/6 11 ) बुदरसीन्गी (निरंतर)

426/5

427/1

425/7

425/6

429/3

429/2

429/4

429/1

428/1

430/5

432/1

432/3

432/2

432/4

432/5

432/6

433/4

433/7

433/6

433/5

433/2

434/1

411/3

411/2

410/4

409/1

408/3

408/2

408/1

394/6

394/7

12) हुनाली (जमीन)

91/1

91/2

209/1

13) सिरिपुरम

209/2

211

212

213

214

217/3

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

00 00

85 2.7

58 00 06

11 00 19

31 00

44 00

03 10

41 00

14 00

28 00

36 00

15 00

93 00

80 00

52 00

00 00

00 30

00 22

00 06

30 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

217/1 13) सिरिपुरम (निरंतर)

216/2

216/1

216/3

215

118/16

118/23

118/19

118/20

118/21

118/22

118/8

117/10

117/5

117/1

117/2

117/3

116

115

112/1

112/3

111

14) खोलगम

75/1पी

76/1

12/2

15) कोरदबडी

12/3

12/5

12/6

11/3

10/2

10/3

10/4

10/5

10/6

9/1

9/2

9/6

8/1

8/2

8/3

8/4

8/5

1975 GI/10-25

3141 3

32 01

97 00 07

79 00

11 00

96 00

90 12

24 00

35 00

10 00

46 00

69 00

28 00

00 00

00 07

00 01

02 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3142

2 1

8/6

15) कोरदबडी (निरंतर)

8/7

8/8

7/1

7/2

7/3

7/4

7/5

2/3

2/5

3/1

3/5

3/6

3/13

3/14

3/15

3/19

3/20

4/1

4/3

4/4

4/9

4/10

4/11

94/1

16) नऊगडा

94/2

94/3

94/4

94/5

94/6

93/3

93/5

102/1

103/1

103/2

103/3

103/4

104/4

102/2

106/4

111/4

111/6

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

72 06

70 10

63 02

76 00 06

90 00 04

44 00 02

68 00

79 00

06 00 04

42 00 20

47 03

96 07

12 08

64 00

39 07

39 00

55 00 08

59 00

06 00

41 00

22 00

10 00

19 00

64 00

74 00

21 00

中 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

112/1 16) नऊगडा (निरंतर)

112/2

113

118/8 17) जगन्नाथपुरम

118/16

118/19

118/20

118/21

118/22

118/23

117/1

117/2

117/3

117/5

117/10

116

1,15

112/1

112/3

111

122/1 18) चोकाम्बो

122/2

123/2

123/4

124/4

125/4

117/1

19 ) लोडकपिट्टा

117/2

117/3

117/4

116

115

114/5

20) बन्दीकरो

145/3

145/4

145/5

147/1

148/3

140

150

151/4

151/5

3143

95 00

50 00

29 00

10 00

00 00

90 00 06

35 00

10 00

4.6 00 12

24 00 02

65 00

42 00

28 00

69 00 00

74 36

16 00

00 04

39 00 12

13 22

03 00

00 00

00 02

24 00

00 04

00 19

00 00

00 15

00 42

00 24

04 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3144

2 1

151/6 20) वन्दीकरो (निरंतर)

154

21 ) रंगनाथपुरम

155

156/3

164/1 ए

164/1 वी

164/ 2ए1

164/ 2 ए2

165/3

167

169

वेल्लपाद्रा

170

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

10 00

99 00

63 00 05

34 00

95 00

20 00

62 01

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:श्रीकाकुलम

मंडल/ नेहगिल/ तालुक भोमपेटा

123/2 1) जरावंडा

123/3

123/1

124/9

124/10

130/9

130/10

130/8

130/7

130/2

130/5

130/6

131/9

131/8

131/7

131/3

131/4

131/2

131/1

137/3

137/1

157/3ए

157/2

158/2

157/1

158/3

154

164

153

166/1

67 00

10 00

85 00 09

13 00

10-

71 00

72 00

43 00

57 00

16 00

12 00

98 00

41 00

97 00 84

20 01

36 00

10 00

51 00 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

166/ 2ए 1) जराबंडा (निरंतर)

166/2वी

166/3

166/4

166/5

166/6

166/7

166/9

165/7

165/6

165/8

165/9

165/5

165/4

165/3

165/1

2) सनकीडी

85/5

85/1

85/2

84/5

84/6

84/9

84/10

84/8

83/2

83/3

82/16

82/17

82/8

82/7

82/6

82/5

82/4

82/3

105 3 ) बुसाभद्रा

106

110/2

114

110/1

111/8

111/9

3145 4

17 00

15 07

10 00

64 00

31 01

95 03

10 00

54 07

29 02

61 03

74 00 02

69 00

98 00 04

00 3146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

2 3) बुसाभद्रा (निरंतर)

111/7

111/6

111/5

112

113/1

113/2

115

116/4

116/5

116/6

116/8

116/7

117/10

118/4

118/3

118/5

118/7

118/8

118/11

118/12

118/10

119/1

119/2

119/3

121/1

122

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

5 00

83 00 01

44 00

11 00

87 00 12

30 00 05

04 00 08

03 00

43 00 04

02 00 08

14 00

35 00 15

80 00 02

32 00 05 83 00 06

16 00

74 00

26 00 01

51 00 06

68 00

92 00 00

90 00 06

27 00 04

91 00 08

79 00

38 00

10 [फा. सं. एल-14014/36/2010- जी.पी. ] स्नेह पी. मदान, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th June , 2010

S. O. 1453. Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of Natural Gas from Onshore Terminal at East Coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s. Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country, Kakinada- Basudebpur -Howrah Pipeline should be laid by M/s . Relogistics Infrastructure Limited;

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

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of 3147

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

India under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri K. Gangachalam, Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , D.No. 67-11-21 /2 , Savisuja, Opp New Centuary Public School , L.B. Nagar , Kakinada - 533003, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh State.

Schedule

District: Srikakulam Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Mandasa

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

46 1) Sandhigam

6/1

6/2

8/8

8/1

11/12

11/10

11/4

11/2

14/5

14/6

14/7

14/10

14/8

14/9

14/1

14/3

17/4

15/5

15/6

15/4

15/1

15/3

36/3

36/2

36/4

34/6

34/7

34/8

34/5

34/1

34/2

33/10

33/14 State: ANDHRA PRADESH Area to be acquired for RoU

C-Are

Are

Hec

003130

24 00

01 00

90 00

16 00

10 00

10 00 3148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1 ) Sandhigam (Contd)

33/12

33/13

32/1

32/3

32/4

32/5

32/6

32/7

26/3

26/1

27/P

53/5

2) Bhogabanda

53/4

54/5

54/14

54/15

54/13

55/8

55/2

99/2

99/3

99/6

98/1

99/5

99/7

97/2

98/2

98/8

98/7

98/3

98/4

98/6

95/4

95/3

98/5

94/9

95/1

95/2

93/3

93/2

93/1

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

96 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

86/3 2) Bhogabanda( Contd)

83/5

83/6

83/7

83/8

83/9

83/13

83/12

83/10

84/5

81/2

81/1

81/4

80/10

3/1

3) Konkadaputty

4) Killoyi

7/6B

7/6C

7/3

7/6D

12/4

7/6A

12/2

12/3

7/5

12/1

13/2

15/3

15/1

15/2

5) Banjaruyuvaraja Puram

21/1

21/3

21/6

24/2

24/3

22/3

11/7

12/1

12/3

12/4 1975 GI/10-26

3149 4

01 3150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

12/5 5) Banjaruyuvaraja Puram ( Contd)

12/7

12/8

2/5

6) Mandavuru

2/1

2/2

2/4

2/6

1/2

7) Tubburu

1/3

3/3

3/2

3/4

2/6

2/7

2/8

2/9

90/1 8) Navagam

90/2

90/3

90/4

90/5

90/6

90/7

90/8

90/9

90/10

89/1

89/4

89/5

89/13

89/14

89/15

89/16

89/17

89/18

89/19

89/20

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

08 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

76/3 8) Navagam ( Contd)

76/4

76/5

76/11

76/12

76/13

76/18

75/19

75/20

75/21

75/22

95/1

95/2

95/4

96/1

96/2

96/3

96/7 .

73/26

73/29

73/30

73/31

62/2

62/3

48/1

48/2

51/2

51/3

51/4

51/5

51/6

39/1

39/2

39/3

39/4

39/6

39/7

39/8

38/1

38/2

38/3

3151 4

02.

9,6

00.

04 3152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

37/5 8) Navagam ( Contd)

35/3

35/4

35/5

35/6

35/7

35/8

35/12

35/13

34/1

34/2

31/2C

31/2D

31/3

145

9) Singupuram

147

146/1

146/2

206

179/2

179/3

180

183

184/3

105

188

186

105/1 10) Rajapuram

105/2

104/3

104/5

104/6

104/7

93/2

93/3

92/1

92/2

426/7 11) Budarisingi

426/8

[ Part II Sec. 3( ii ) ] 3

5. 00

기 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

426/6 11) Budarisingi ( Contd)

426/5

427/1

425/7

425/6

429/3

429/2

429/4

429/1

428/1

430/5

432/1

432/3

432/2

432/4

432/5

432/6

433/4

433/7

433/6

433/5

433/2

434/1

411/3

411/2

410/4

409/1

408/3

408/2

408/1

394/6

394/7

89 12) Hunnali (Zamin)

91/1

91/2

209/1 13) Siripuram

209/2

211

212

213

214

217/3

3153

00.

32 00

36 00

09 00

64 00

00 3154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

2 13) Siripuram ( Contd)

217/1

216/2

216/1

216/3

215

118/16

118/23

118/19

118/20

118/21

118/22

118/8

117/10

117/5

117/1

117/2

117/3

116

115

112/1

112/3

111

75/ 1P 14) Khollagam

76/1

15) Kordabadi

12/2

12/3

12/5

12/6

11/3

10/2

10/3

10/4

10/5

10/6

9/1

9/2

9/6

8/1

8/2

8/3

8/4

8/5

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

66 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8/6 15) Kordabadi (Contd)

8/7

8/8

7/1

7/2

7/3

7/4

7/5

2/3

2/5

3/1

3/5

3/6

3/13

3/14

3/15

3/19

3/20

4/1

4/3

4/4

4/9

4/10

4/11

94/1 16) Naugada

94/2

94/3

94/4

94/5

94/6

93/3

93/5

102/1

103/1

103/2

103/3

103/4

104/4

102/2

106/4

111/4

111/6

3155 4

.00

78 3156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

112/1 16) Naugada (Contd)

112/2

113

118/8 17) Jagannadhapuram

118/16

118/19

118/20

118/21

118/22

118/23

117/1

117/2

117/3

117/5

117/10

116

115

112/1

112/3

111

122/1 18) Chokkambo

122/2

123/2

123/4

124/4

125/4

117/1 19) Lodakapitta

117/2

117/3

117/4

116

115

114/5

145/3 20) Bandikaro

145/4

145/5

147/1

148/3

140

150

151/4

151/5

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

IN [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2 20) Bandikaro ( Contd)

151/6

154 21 ) Ranganadhapuram

155

156/3

164/ 1A

164/1B

164/2A1

164/2A2

165/3

167

169 22) Bellapadra

170

District : Srikakulam

Mandal/ Tehsil /Taluk : Sompeta

123/2 1) Jarabunda

123/3

123/1

124/9

124/10

130/9

130/10

130/8

130/7

130/2

130/5

130/6

131/9

131/8

131/7

131/3

131/4

131/2

131/1

137/3

137/1

157/3A

157/2

158/2

157/1

158/3

154

164

153

166/1 1975 GI/10-27

3157 3

State: ANDHRA PRADESH 04

11.

51 3158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 1

1) Jarabunda ( Contd)

166/2A

166/2B

166/3

166/4

166/5

166/6

166/7

166/9

165/7

165/6

165/8

165/9

165/5

165/4

165/3

165/1

Sunkidi

85/5

85/1

85/2

84/5

84/6

84/9

84/10

84/8

83/2

83/3

82/16

82/17

82/8

82/7

82/6

82/5

82/4

82/3

105

3) Busabhadra

106

110/2

114

110/1

111/8

111/9

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

5 00

75.

59 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

111/7 3) Busabhadra ( Contd)

111/6

T11/5

112

113/1

113/2

115

116/4

116/5

116/6

116/8

116/7

117/10

118/4

118/3

118/5

118/7

118/8

118/11

118/12

118/10

119/1

119/2

11/3

121/1

122

3159

5 3

010

32、 00

[ F. No. L -14014/36/2010-G.P . ] SNEH P.MADAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून, 2010

का. आ. 1454.- भारत सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहां गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप -धाग ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ . 1853 तारीख 23 जून, 2009 द्वारा, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलाएंम इन्डग्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए, मैमर्म ग्लिोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा वासुदेवपुर-हावडा गैस पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और , उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 13फरवरी , 2010 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और , पाइपलाइन विछाने के संबंध में , जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर मक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्नात कर दिया गया;

और , मक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

और, भारत सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह संतुष्ट हो जान पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

3160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15, 1932

[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] अतः, अब , भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और , भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के वजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: काजुलूरू

जिला:पूर्वी गोदावरी

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं. / सब डिविजन सं.

2 1 पल्लेपालेम

615

618/7

614/1

613/1 बी

613/1सी

619/1

619/2

618/3

618/2

618/1

623

620/1

622

630

632

633/ 2बी

633/1

646/2ए

646/1

645/2

645/1

664/3

664/1

665

667

2 ) शीला

321/1

325/7

330/2

330/1

355

356/ 2वी

363

361

357

360/4

347

346/3

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सिएयर 3

31 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

346/4

2) शील्ला (निग्लर)

346/1

232/2

232/1

231/4

231/3

231/2

230

228/ 2/1वी

228/ 2/1 ए

228/1/1

229/3

227/2/1

227/1/3

227/1/2

224

225

226/1

226/2

62/9

62/8

62/5

62/4

62/6

62/3

62/2

62/1

65/6

58/11

56/9

56/7

56/6

55/1

53/1

52/3

3161

5 3

10 00

02 53

33 00

00 11

13 00

71 06

88 09

06 01

32 00

56 00

64 04

37 00

46 00

46 09

21 16

12 00

24 00

38 00

91 00

06 05

10 00

64 10

28 08

51 02

10 00

86 00

54 00

75 00

76 00

17 18

72 00

48 00

06 15

51 00

58 00

45 23

98 00

14 28

11 00 3162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 2 ) शीला (निरंतर

227/6 3 ) मंजम

227/1

229/5

229/2

229/1

230/1

230/2

63/2

63/1

62/9

62/ 8वी

62/ 3ए

62/1 वी

62/10

61/13

61/12

53/2

53/1/3

53/1/2

52/12

52/11

52/8

52/7

299/13 4 ) वंदनपूडी

299/12

299/7

299/6

299/4

299/2

300/6

300/5

300/4

300/3

301/3

301/4

301/1

302

303/3

303/2

305/9

305/8

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 00

دو

(02

97 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

305/6 4 ) वंदनपूडी ( निरंतर )

305/7

306/3

306/2

306/11

306/10

309/13

309/12

309/11

309/10

309/9

309/6

308

329/2

95/2 5 ) मालपाका

95/3

94/2

98/2

98/1

115

116/2

116/1

117/3

117/1

117/2

119/4

119/3

119/2

120

121

122/3

131

132/2

142

143/3

132/1

141/3

141/1

144

140

139/5

3163 3

05 00

06 00

46 00

82 00

10 00

3章 00

94 00

10 00

84 00

66 00

59 00

09 52

87 43

35 00

77 00

82 00

56 00

20 14

06 00

43 08

05 00

66 00

23 00

20 26

26 00

72 18

25 00

08 00

46 00

04 02

47 00

88 00

10 00

39 00

19 04

97 00

78 3164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

139/2 5 ) मालपाका (निरंतर)

139/3

139/1

138/3

138/2

138/1 ए

138/1वी

153/9

137/1

137/2

153/4

153/2

153/1

169

168/6

168/4

168/2

168/1

174

167/11-

167/3

167/2

167/1

166/ 2वी

166/1

161/5

161/3

165

164/3

164/2

164/1

163

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

5 00

95 13

00 13

55 00

59 00

00 03

57 16

67 00

67 01

29 00

15 00

28 00

28 08

02 06

78 00

61 16

76 01

99 04

70 00

27 00

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: पूर्वी गोदावरी

मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक: कम्पा

250

1 ) गोर्रेपूडी

251

249/2

249/1

237/2

237/1

220

236

235

221/10 00

15 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

221/9 1 ) गोंर्नेपूडी (निरंतर )

221/2

221/3

221/4

221/5

219/5

219/6

219/7

219/16

219/11

219/8

219/9

219/10

218/13

218/12

218/8

218/9

218/7

218/6

214

212

207/1

207/2

207/3

207/4

207/6

207/7

206

189

188/5

188/4

191/7

191/5

188/3

188/2

191/4

191/3

191/2

191/1

192/2

192/1

193 1975 GI /10-28

3165 3

5 00

47 00

48 00

81 08

64 08

29 00

34 09

42 00

50 01

45 00

03 00

73 00

94 00

73 00

77 09

10 00

46 00

61 00

00 05

92 00

72 00

11 00

30 04

42 00

82 00

03 00

05 53

62 00

82 13

19 00

52 00

42 00

62 00

10 00

28 10

00 3166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

194

1 ) गोर्रेपूडी (निरंतर)

181

कागाडु

180/2

180/1

172

171

165/3

164

163/5

163/2/4

163/2/5

163/2/3

163/2/2

163/1/7

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

5 00

06 00

08 00

30 00

10 00

45 00

15 00

50 07

52 00

12 00

62 00

67 00

40 00

99 00

163/1/12

163/1/11

163/1/8

163/1/5

150/2

३ ) पातर्लगडडा

150/1

149

148/5

148/4

148/3

148/2

147/6

148/1

147/5

147/4

147/3

147/2

147/1

63/ 2वी

63/ 2ए

63/1डी

63/1 ए

62/5

62/4

करपा

89/1

89/2

91/1

77 00

02 00

93 00

15 46

12 00

82 00

90 00

52 00

88 00

24 00

12 00

42 00

79 06

34 00

64 00

73 00

27 00

04 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

+ ) कम्पा ( निरंतर ।

80/2

76/ 2मी

76/ 1 मी

75/3मी

71/2

72/2

12/3

11/3

6/9

6/8

6/7

6/4

6/3

6/2

6/1

7/3

7/2

7/1

144/1 5 ) कोरूपल्ले

143

147/3सी

141/4

141/1

137/4

137/ 2वी

137/ 2ए

137/1

136

135/ 2वी

135/ 2ए

134/7

134/6

131/8

134/5

131/4

316

45 00

00 00

07 26

10 00

70 00

85 43

62 00

87 03

50 35

14 41

35 00

90 03

87 08

69 09

66 07

00.

99 06

40 04

19 00

73 01

98 19

10 00

40 00

.00

15 07

84 38

94 06

10 00

61 07

74 04

08 00

70 00

84 00

34 00

13 00

41 00

08 00

52 00

84 02

00 3168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15, 1932

134/4 5 ) कांरूपल्ले (निरंतर)

134/3

131/3

131/2

133

130/4

130/3

130/2

132/2

132/1

128/13

127

129/12

129/14

129/9

129/13

129/2

129/1

92/3

95/2

95/1

96/1

98/3

98/1 ए

98/1वी

98/2

100/2

109/6

105

101/15एफ

101/15 इ

101/14

101/11

101/2

101/1

103/3

103/2

107

106

110/3

6 ) जड.वावराम

110/4

110/2

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

5 00

72 01

20 08

18 00

22 00

00 00

88 06

92 00

85 00

30 00

10 00

32 00

82 00

20 00

48 00

49 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

112

6 ) जड. वावगम (निरंतर)

114

113/2

113/1

119

117/2

117/1

118

126/2

124/3

122/2

123-

124/1

134

142/1

143/1

143/2

140/1

145/4

145/3

145/2

145/1

152

149/1

149/2

150/1

255/2 7 ) अरटलकटटा

260/3

259/4

259/3

259/2

259/1

203/4

203/3

202

275/6

275/4

203/1

203/2

276/4

276/3

278/2

3169

5 3

86 00

06 00

4:3 00

04 42

73 23

90 03

36 00

33 00

18 00

16 20

43 00

38 00

10 00

91 00

32 24

40 () ]

04 00

57 00

44 09

07 11

52 00

80 09

32 00

20 19

35 20

25 00

08 09

44 05

27 00

10 00

35 00

70 00

67 00

76 00

18 00

95 00

95 10

00 3170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

278/1

7 ) अग्टलकटटा (निरंतर)

277

281

280

279/1

194/1

194/2

193

192/4

326/2

192/2

192/1

327

328/4

187/3

187/2

187/1

186

343

344/2

344/1

60/1 ए

50/4

50/1

50/3

51/7

51/8

52/12

52/6

52/3

52/1

52/2

42/1

42/2

35/4

35/8

35/6

35/5

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

11 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

36/3

7 ) अरटलकटटा (निरंतर)

36/2

35/1

36/1

5/5

7/3

7/1

5/4

5/1

2/3

2/4

2/1

जिला: पूर्वी गोदावरी मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: पेदपूडी

136

1 ) करकुटुरू

133/14वी

133/1

133/4

133/10बी

133/12

238

2 ) अच्युतापुरतयम

237/ 2वी

237/1 बी 2

236/1 वी1

237/1 बी/1 सी

236/1 ए

236/ 2बी/1

235/1 वी 3

235/1 बी 2

235/ 1 बी 1

235/1 ए

240

241

242/10

242/9

242/5

242/4

245/6

245/5

245/4

3171-

5 3

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 01

15 3172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

245/1 2 ) अच्युतापुरतयम (निरंतर)

244

253

254/1

256/4

247/9

247/10

248/10

248/8

248/5

248/4

248/2

252/4

252/7

252/6

252/1

251/14

251/13

251/12

251/11

251/10

280/1

284

287/2

288

289/2

290

385

299

383

300/1

382/2

381/10

301/1

380

377

302

371

372/1

372/2

374/8

373

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: सामलकोटा

[Part II Sec . 3( ii )] 3

5 00

00 、

जिला:पूर्वी गोदावरी

165/12 1 ) माधवपटनम

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

91 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

160/16 1 ) माधवपटनम (निरंतर)

160/17

166

165/16

165/13

165/6

165/5

162/2

165/4

164/1/2

164/1/1

158

156/1

155/2

155/1

148

145/2ए

145/ 2वी

146/1

146/2

144/1

144/2

47/4

2 ) बोयनपूडी

48/1

49/6

49/5

49/2

51/2

51/3

67/5

67/6

68/5

68/2

68/3

84/3

1975 Gl /10-29

3173 3

5 00

72 00

73 00

16 00

34 00

54 00

02 00

62 00

02 00

00 25

53 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3174

2 1

97/2

2 ) वोयनपूडी (निरंतर )

95/1ए

95/2वी

97/1जी

97/1एफ

97/ 1 इ

99/4

99/5

4/1

3 ) मामिल्लदोडडी

4/2

5/1

6/3

5/2

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii )]

80 00

10 35

10 00

62 00

66 09

26 07

55 00

70 00

30 00

78 00

64 00

82 00

89 14

सर्वेनंवर 10 में

18/2/4

18/2/3

18/2

18/1

31/3

28/2

28/1

29/1

29/2

29/3

50/1

61/1

62/2

62/3

62/4

75 00

51 00

72 00

04 00

28 02

39 19

26 00

15 00

13 00

98 00

48 00

49 00

21 00

06 00

67 31

87 11

52 00

33 00

39 00

62 00

54 29

58 00

76/ 2/ 2बी

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

76/1- 3 ) मामिल्लदोडडी (निरंतर)

77/1

77/2

161 4) वल्लूरू

160/4

160/3

159/2

158/1

158/2

157/ 2सी

157/ 2ए

157/1

156/2

152

151/3

151/4ए

151/1 ड़ी

151/1वी

151/1 ए

150/ 1 सी 1

150/1वी

148/3

150/1 ए

148/1

146

145/9

145/5

145/3

144/2

143/2

143/1

3175

[फा. सं. एल-14014/20/2009-जी.पी. ] स्नेह पी. मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th June , 2010

S. O. 1454. Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1853 dated 23rd June , 2009 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , Government of India 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 Kakinada - Basudebpur - Howrah gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited by M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 13th February, 2010;

And whereas , the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

3176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15, 1932

[Part II-Sec..3 ( ii) ] And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Government of India;

And whereas , Government of India , 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 , Government of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the land , specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification, is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in Government of India, vest on the date of publication of the declaration , in M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances .

Schedule

Mandal/Tehsil / Taluk : KAJULURU

District: EAST GODAVARI

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

615

1 ) PALLEPALEM

618/7

614/1

613/ 1B

613/ 1C

619/1

619/2

618/3

618/2

618/1

623

620/1

622

630

632

633/2B

633/1

646/2A

646/1

645/2

645/1

664/3

664/1

665

667

2 ) SILA

321/1

325/7

330/2

330/1

355

356/2B

363

State: ANDHRA PRADESH

Area to be acquired for Rou

Hec

C-Are Are 4

29 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

361

2) SILA ( Contd)

357

360/4

347

346/3

346/4

346/1

232/2

232/1

231/4

231/3

231/2

230

228/ 2/ 1B

228/ 2/ 1A

228/1/1

229/3

227/2/1

227/1/3

227/1/2

224

225

226/1

226/2

62/9

62/8

62/5

62/4

62/6

62/3

62/2

62/1

65/6

58/11

56/9

56/7

56/6

55/1

-53/1

52/3

3177

5 3

58 3178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 2) SILA (Contd)

3 ) MANJERU

227/6

227/1

229/5

229/2

229/1

230/1

230/2

63/2

63/1

62/9

62/8B

62/ 3A

62/1B

62/1A

61/13

61/12

53/2

53/1/3

53/1/2

52/12

52/11

52/8

52/7

4 ) BHANDANAPUDI

299/13

299/12

299/7

299/6

299/4

299/2

300/6

300/5

300/4

300/3

301/3

301/4

301/1

302

303/3

303/2

305/9

305/8

[Part II Sec . 3( ii) ] 3

5 00

97 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

305/6 4 ) BHANDANAPUDI ( Contd )

305/7

306/3

306/2

306/1B

306/ 1A

309/13

309/12

309/11

309/10

309/9

309/6

308

329/2

95/2 5 ) SALAPAΚΑ

95/3

94/2

98/2

98/1

115

116/2

116/1

117/3

117/1

117/2

119/4

119/3

119/2

120

121

122/3

131

132/2

142

143/3

132/1

141/3

141/1

144

140

139/5

3179

05 08

66 00

23 00

25 00

08 00

19 00

59 00

00 3180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 5 ) SALAPAKA ( Contd)

139/2

139/3

139/1

138/3

138/2

138/ 1A

138/ 1B

153/9

137/1

137/2

153/4

153/2

153/1

169

168/6

168/4

168/2

168/1

174

167/11

167/3

167/2

167/1

166/2B

166/1

161/5

161/3

165

164/3

164/2

164/1

163

District : EAST GODAVARI

Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk : KARAPA

250

1 ) GORREPUDI

251

249/2

249/1

237/2

237/1

220

236

235

221/10

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

5 00

State: ANDHRA PRADESH 00

15 भारत को राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

221/9 1 ) GORREPUDI (Contd)

221/2

221/3

221/4

221/5

219/5

219/6

219/7

219/16

219/11

219/8

219/9

219/10

218/13

218/12

218/8

218/9

218/7

218/6

214

212

207/1

207/2

207/3

207/4

207/6

207/7

206

189

188/5

188/4

191/7

191/5

188/3

188/2

191/4

191/3

191/2

191/1

192/2

192/1

193 1975GI /10-30

318

5 3

47 00

48 00

29 00

34 09

42 00

50 09

45 00

03 05

73 00

47 01

94 11

73 00

77 00

10 11

46 00

61 00

00 00

46 00

42 04

82 00

03 00

05 00

62 00

82 00.

52 00

42 00

62 00

02 00

28 00

76 00

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

2 GOR PUDI ( Contd)

104

KONGODU

180.2

180/1

172

165.3

163/3

153/2/4

163/2/5

163/2/3

163/2/2

163/1/7

163/1/12

163 /L11

163/1/8

163/1/5

150/2

PATARLAGADDA

150/1

149

1-48/5

148/4

148/3

148/2

1476

148/1

147.5

1471

147/3

1472

147-1

63/2B

63/2A

63/10

63/1A

62/5

62.4

KARAPA

89/1

011

[Part II- Sec . 3 (ii) ]

5 00

(00

04 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ] 、

97 4) KARAPA ( Contd)

79.

80/2

76/2C

76/ 1C

75/3C

71/2

72/2

12/3

11/3

6/9

6/8

6/7

6/4

6/3

6/2

6/1

7/3

7/2

7/1

144/1 5 ) KORUPALLE

143

147/3C

141/4

141/1

137/4

137/2B

137/2A

137/1

136

135/2B

135 / 2A

134/7

134/6

131/8

134/5

131/4

3183

5 3

40 00

84 00

08 45

67 00

75 00

15 3184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

2 5) KORUPAMIE Comd

134:4

134/3

131/3

131/2

133

130/4

130/3

130/2

132/2

132/1

128/13

127

129/12

129/14

129/9

129/13

129/2

129/1

92/3

95/2

95/1

96/1

98/3

98 / 1A

98/ 1B

98/2

100/2

109/6

105

101/ 15F

101/ 15E

101/14

101/11

101/2

101/1

103/3

103/2

107

106

6 ) Z.BHAVARAM

110/3

110/4

110/2

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

72 00

49 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3185

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

2 1

112

6 ) Z.BHAVARAM (Contd)

114

113/2

413/1

119

1.17/2

117/1

118

126/2

124/3

122/2

123

124/1

134

142/1

143/1

143/2

140/1

145/4

145/3

145/2

145/1

1'52

149/1

149/2

150/1

255/2 7 ) ARATLAKATTA

260/3

259/4

259/3

259/2

259/1

203/4

203/3

202

275/6

275/4

203/1

203/2

276/4

276/3

278/2

5 3

27 00

76 04

10 JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

278/1 7 ) ARATLAKATTA ( Contd )

277

281

280

279/1

194/1

194/2

193

192/4

326/2

192/2

192/1

327

328/4

187/3

187/2

187/1

186

343

344/2

344/1

60/1A

50/4

50/1

50/3

51/7

51/8

52/12

52/6

52/3

52/1

52/2

42/1

42/2

35/4

35/8

35/6

35/5

Part 11- Sec .

5 3

69 00

So 00

10 00

27 00

52 00

68 00

2.2 00

83 00

07 00

08 00

98 00

05 00

42 00

38 00

57 00

21 00

81 00

73 00

11 3187

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

36/3 7 ) ARATLAKATTA (Con'd)

36/2

35/1

36/1

5/5

7/3

7/1

5/4

5/1

2/3

2/4

2/1

State : ANDHRA PRADESH

District: EAST GODAVARI

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk : PEDAPUDI

136 ) KARAKUDURU

133/14B

133/1

133/4

133/10B

133/12

238 2 ) ACHYUTAPURATRIAM

237/2B

237/1B2

236/1B1

237/1B/ 1C

236/ 1A

236/2B/ 1

235/1B3

235/1B2

235/1B1

235/ 1A

240

241

242/10

242/9

242/5

242/4

245/6

245/5

245/4

245/1

244

253

254/1

256/4

247/9

247/10

248/10

248/8

248/5

248/4

22 05

10 06

45 39

05 01

54 40

70 09

68 02

85 00

55 00

80 00

42 09

00 00

50 03

40 00

11 00

91 00

35 00

87 00

00 3188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

248/2 2 ) ACHYUTAPURATRIAM ( Contd)

252/4

252/7

252/6

252/1

251/14

251/13

251/12

251/11

251/10

280/1

284

287/2

288

289/2

290

385

299

383

300/1

382/2

381/10

301/1

380

377

302

371

372/1

372/2

374/8

373

District: EAST GODAVARI

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk : SAMALKOTA

165/12 1 ) MADHAVAPATNAM

160/16

160/17

166

165/16

165/13

165/6

165/5

162/2

165/4

164/1/2

164/1/1

158

156/1

155/2

155:1

148

145/24

145/28

146/1

1-46/2

144/1

144/2

[Part II Sec . 3( ii ) ] 3

State : ANDHRA PRADESH 38

34.

52 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खैण्ड3(ii ) ]

47/4 2 ) BOYANAPUDI

48/1

49/6

49/5

49/2

51/2

51/3

67/5

67/6

68/5

68/2

68/3

84/3

97/2 2) BOYANAPUDI ( Contd)

95/ 1A

95/2B

97/1G

97/1F

97/ 1E

99/4

99/5

4/1 3 ) MAMILLADODDI

4/2

5/1

6/3

5/2

In Svy. No.10

18/2/4

18/2/3

18/2

18/1

31/3

28/2

28/1

29/1

29/2

29/3 1975 G1/1031

3189

5 3

30 00

28 00

98 00

00 $190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

20 3 ) MAMILLADODDI ( Contd)

50/1

61/1

62/2

62/3

62/4

76/2/2B

76/1

77/1

77/2 + VALLURU

161

160/4

160/3

159/2

158/1

158/2

157/2C

157/ 2A

157/1

156/2

152

151/3

151/4A

151/ 1D

151/1B

151/ LA

150/ 1C1

150/ 1B

148/3

150/ 1A

148/1

146

145/9

145/5

145/3

144/2

143/2

143/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) )

5 3

06 00

54 00

19 00

74 00

26 00

[ F. No. L-14014/20/2009-G.P . ] SNEH P.MADAN , Under Secy.

3191 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

is legal and justified ? If not, then what relief d concerned workman is entitled to? "

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 17 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1455.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.ई.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 136/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/ 101/1991- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

2. The case of the workman , in short, is that the workman was working as Mazdoor from 2-4-65 . He became illfrom 11-5-89 to 25-5-90 . It is stated that he sent an application on 26-5-90 regarding medical leave by registered post when he went along with medical certificate on 27-5-90 for joining, he came to know that he had been terminated from service . He again filed a representation on 4-7-90 for reinstatement . It is alleged that he was not served with a chargesheet and the entire proceeding was done without giving opportunity to defend himself. Lastly he was terminated vide order No. 1668-78 dated 19-5-90 w.e.f. 18-5-90 . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated withi backwages .

New Delhi , the 7th May, 2010

S.O. 1455.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 136/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-5-2010.

[No. L-22012/ 101 / 1991 - IR (C- II )]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 136/91

3. The management/non- applicant appeared and contested the reference by filing written statement . The case ofthe management , interalia, is that the workman was General Mazdoor w.e.f.20-5-1965 instead of2-4-1965 . The workman was absent from his duty from 11-5-1989 to 25-5-90 without any intimation to the management . It is stated that a charge sheet dated 28 /29-11-1989 was sent to him for his unauthorized absence from duty on the address as recorded in his service record by post but the same was returned unserved. Lastly the notice was published in the Daily Nav Bharat on 29-1-1990 when he failed to appear , the Enquiry Officer proceeded exparte against him . The EnquiryOfficer found him guilty ofmisconduct under para 17(1 )(6) ofthe Certified Standing Orders . The Disciplinary Authority on the finding of the Enquiry Officer , dismissed the workman from service w.e.f. 18-5-1990. It is submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

Shri Mangtu Ram ,

4. After filing statement of claim, the workman also absented in the reference . Lastly the then Tribunal proceeded exparte against the workman on 17-2-2005.

5. The issue for adjudication is as to whether the departmental proceeding is valid and proper . If not, what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?

..... Workman/Union

S/o Shri Madhaw Ram , Qr. No. G/68 Block, SECL, Korba Colliery, PO Korba Colliery, Distt.Bilaspur

Versus

Sub Area Manager ,

....Management

SECL, Manikpur Colliery, POManikpur Colliery , Distt.Bilaspur

AWARD

Passed on this 21st day of April , 2010

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012/ 101 / 91 - IR22012/ 101 / 91 - IR (Coal - II ) dated 29-7-91 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

6. The management has adduced exparte evidence in the case . The management witness Mr. M.J.Jabbar is Personnel Manager . He has supported the case of the management . His evidence shows that the workman Shri Mangtu Ram was absent from 11-5-89 to 25-5-90 without any information to the management . He has stated that departmental enquiry was initiated and notice was published in the daily news paper which is Annexure M /4 . When the workman did not appear , exparte enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and after enquiry the charges was found proved against him . The Enquiry repon was submitted by the Enquiry Officer . Thereafter , Sub Area Manager passed the order of termination w.e.f. 18-5-191 His evidence is unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence . Thu it is proved that full opportunity was given to the workman but he had himself "Whether the action of the management ofSub Area Manager , SECL , Manikpur Colliery , Distt . Bilaspur , in terminating the services of Shri Mangtu Ram S / o Madhaw Ram, General Mazdoor Cat- I w.e.f. 25-5-90 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3192

not participated in the enquiry . Thus the enquiry is held proper and legal .

7. The reference is proceeded exparte against the workman. It appears that the punishment imposed on the workman is just and proper . There is no other evidence on the record to show that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him because it is a long absence . Moreover the conduct also shows that he is also absent in Court . Thus the reference is answered in favour of the management .

8. In the result, the award is passed exparte against the workman without any order to costs .

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 7 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1456.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 94/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/531/1994- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th May, 2010

S.O. 1456.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 94/95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 7-5-2010.

[No. L- 22012/531 / 1994- IR(C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 94/95

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan

Shri Jagdish Singh ,

General Secretary,

KoylaMazdoor Sabha ( UTUC) ,

Post Dhanpuri ,

Workman/Union Distt. Shahdol (MP)

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)]

Versus

Sub Area Manager ,

Burhar Area, South Eastern coalfields Limited, PostDhanpuri ,

Distt. Shahdol

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day of April , 2010 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No.L-22012/531/94- IR(C- II) dated 25-5-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of Sub Area Manager, Burhar Sub Area of SECL, Post Dhanpuri , Distt . Shahdol ( MP) in not promoting/ regularizing Shri Premdas S/o Shri Indrabhan , Token No. 246, Burhar Colliery No.3 on the post of Loading Supervisor from the date of taking his services on the said post is justified or not ? If not , what relief the workman concerned is entitled for "

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was working as a Loading Supervisor at Burhar Colliery of Burhar Sub Area of SECL . After closing the said colliery, he was transferred to Chachai Colliery where he was also working as Loading supervisor but he was not regularized on the said post . The workman claims to be regularized on the said post.

3. The management non - applicant appeared and contested the reference by filing written statement . The case of the nonapplicant , interalia, is that the workman Shri Premdas was initially appointed as casual mazdoor category No. 1 on 2-5-1970 . Thereafter he was regularized on the post of clipman. It is denied that he has ever worked as Loading supervisor . It is stated that promotion is done as per cadre scheme and there is no post of Loading Supervisor in cadre scheme as claimed by the workman . Under the circumstances , the workman is not entitled to anyrelief.

4. After filing the statement of claim , the workman became absent . Lastly the then Tribunal proceeded exparte on6-8-08 against the workman .

5.The important issue is that the workman is entitled to be promoted/ regularized as Loading supervisor as has been claimed by him.

6.To prove the case , the non- applicant has examined one witnesses and has filed photocopies of documents . The management witness Shri Dharmajan Panicker was Deputy Personnel in Burhar Sub Area . He has stated that he was initially appointed as casual mazdoor Cat No. 1 on 2-5-1970 . Thereafter he was regularized as a clipman . He has also denied that the workman had ever worked as 3193 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Versus

ChiefGeneral Manager ,

SECL, Korba Area,

...Management

PostKorba Colliery, Distt. Bilaspur

AWARD

Passed on this 22nd day of April 2010 Loading supervisor and there is no post of Loading Supervisior in the cadre scheme . In support of the oral evidence, the photocopies of the service record of the workman is filed. The said service record further corroborates that he was working as a clipman and was promoted to the clipman Cat V. There is nothing on the record to show that the workman was working as Loading Supervisor . The management evidence is unrebutted, as such there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence . Accordingly the reference is answered in favour of the management/non - applicant.

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012/228/ 94- IR-(C.II ) dated 7-10-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis tribunal :--

7. In the result, the award is passed exparte against the workman without any order to costs .

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

"Whether the action of the management of Rajgamar Colliery , SECL , Korba Area in dismissing Shri Surajram , S/o Baburam , Ex - Loader from service w.e.f. 1-4-93 is legal and justified ? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 7 मई , 2010

का. आ. 1457. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 196/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-2010 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/228/1994- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The case of the union/workman , in short, is that the workman , Shri Suraj Ram was working as Loader on permanent post at Rajgamar Colliery of SECL . He was taken into judicial custody on 30-10-92 and was released from custody on 30-3-93 . As such , he was absent from duty. The management is said to have terminated him from service on his absence from duty on 1-4-93 . It is stated that the workman took active participation in the Union work and therefore he was victimized and was terminated without giving him reasonable opportunity to explain his absence which was beyond his control . He is said to have filed representation several times explaning his absence but no order was passed though in other case the management had considered in similar cases . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages .

New Delhi , the 7th May, 2010

S.O. 1457. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 196/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-5-2010.

[No. L-22012/228/ 1994- IR(C- II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. The management/non - applicant appeared and filed Written Statement in the reference . The case of the management, in short, is that the management was not aware ofthe fact that the workman was in jail from 30-10-92 to 29-3-93 . Since no information was given to the management either by the workman or the jail authority of hisunauthorized absence without any intimation or permission , a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The notices were sent to the workman on the address but the same were returned undelivered . Lastly the management proceeded departmental enquiry exparte against him. In the departmental enquiry, the charge was found proved and the workman was terminated on 1-4-93 under the provision of clause 26.30 ofthe certified standing order. It is stated that the action of the management is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

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

No. CGIT /LC/ R/ 196/ 94

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

4. After filing statement of claim in the reference, the Union/workman became absent . Then the Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the Union/ workman on 5-3-2008 .

Dy. President (Central) ,

Chhattisgarh Swatantra Mazdoor Union,

Rajgamar Colliery Branch,

....Workman/Union

5. The first issue is that whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman/Union is legal and proper .

Distt. Bilaspur 3194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[ PART II -SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

Industrial dispute between the management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and their workmen , received by theCentral Government on 7-5-2010 .

[No. L -22012/ 47/ 2009 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, 6. The Written Statement of the management/non- applicant at para -9 shows that it is an admitted fact that before starting exparte departmental enquiry, all notices sent to the workman were returned unserved . There is nothing in the pleading that other means were adopted to complete the service of the notice . This itself shows that exparte departmental enquiry is not justified and the workman had not been given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Accordingly the departmental enquiry is held illegal and invalid . However the management is permitted to prove misconduct of the workman in Court.

CHENNAI Friday, the 23rd April , 2010

Present : A.N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 7/2010 7. The management/non - applicant filed a petition dated 20-4-2010 that the workman has not adduced any evidence on any points , the management does not want to adduce any additional evidence and the final award be passed.

(Inthe 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 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and their Workman)

8. On the basis of the submission made by the management , the another point is as to whether the Management is able to prove misconduct against the workman in Court .

BETWEEN

Sri R. Gunasekaran

: I Party/Petitioner

Vs.

: II Party/Respondent

TheDirector (Personnel) Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Neyveli

APPEARANCE

9. There is no evidence of either parties on the record . Thereafter except the evidence of one management witness Shri Manoj Kumar who was Asstt . Colliery Manager at Rajgamar Sub Area from 2-9-1986 to 2-6-1994 . His evidence is on the point of departmental enquiry which isheld illegal and not proper . The Union/ workman became absent in the reference and has not raised the dispute . As such , it is a case of no dispute . Accordingly the reference isanswered .

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Since deceased

For the 2nd Party/Management : M/ s N.A. K. Sarma 10. In the result, no dispute award is passed without any order to costs .

AWARD

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

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012/47/2009 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 21-1-2010 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 मई , 2010

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. in terminating the services ofShri R. Gunasekaran w.e.f. 15-6-2001 is legal and justified ? To what relief the claiment entitled for ?" का. आ. 1458.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एन.एल.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/47/2009- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th May, 2010

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as I D 7/2010 and issued notices to both sides.Respondent entered appearance through his counsel but the petitioner was reported dead . The ID then stood posted for further steps to implead the legal representatives of the petitioner and the ID continued to be posted from time to time . While so on 16-4-2010 the counsel for the Second Party filed a memo together with a xerox copy of the Death Certificate dated 9-1-2009 in respect of the registration of the death of the petitioner . It is stated in the memo that the wife of the deceased petitioner has requested the Second Party to settle all benefits due to the deceased FirstParty.

S.O. 1458.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 7/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the 3195

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3. In the memo it is prayed for appropriate orders .

4. The referred question is whether the termination of service of R. Gunasekaran, deceased petitioner by the Management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation is legal and justified?

5.Now the petitioner is dead . By the reason of his death should the termination be challenged the legal representatives of the petitioner may get on record by being impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner if in spite ofthe death of the petitioner , the original claimant , the claim for adjudication as to the legality and justifiability of the termination still survives for such a finding. But so far no legal representatives ofthe deceased petitioner have sought to be impleaded by appearing before this Tribunal and raised any claim that the dispute still survives for adjudication and is to be continued . Therefore , the claim is only to be held as not surviving for adjudication and hence the same abates .

6. In view of not continuing the process for adjudication and no evidence adduced in support of the claim the same is only to be answered against the petitioner / legal representatives . So ordered. Therefore , the petitioner/ legal representatives are not entitled to any relief.

7. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this daythe 23rd April , 2010) .

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

: None

For the I Party/Petitioner

For the II Party/Management : None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side

Date

Description

Ext. No.

Nil

On the Management's side

Date

Description

Ext. No.

Nil

नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1459.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स यू.पी. एयरवेज लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 26/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-05-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/80/ 1999- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th May, 2010

S.O. 1459. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s U.P. Airways Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-05-2010 .

[No. L- 11012/80/1999 - IR(C-I )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , KARKARDOOMA

I.D. No.26/2000

Dated 22-4-2010

IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE :

BETWEEN:

Shri Dharmbir Khola , S/o Shri Rati Ram Khola, Village & P.O. Zainabad,

...Workman Distt. Rewari (Haryana)

And

The Manager , (HRD)

M/ s . UP Airways Limited,

A-2, Defence Colony,

..Management New Delhi - 110024

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Reference Order No. L - 11012/80/99- IR(C-I ) dated 17-2-2000 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether the action of the management of UP Airways , A- 2 , Defence Colony, New Delhi in dismissing the services of the workman Shri Dharambir Khola w.e.f. 12-1-98 is just and fair ? If not to what relief is the workman entitled ? " 2. The workman filed his statement of claim dated 31-07-2000 . The management filed its written statement dated 26th August , 2002. Thereafter rejoinder on 20-03-2003 was filed by the workman . In order to prove his case, he has completed his evidence. However, evidence from the side ofthe Management was yet to be completed. On 22-04-2010, wh this matter was listed , it was in formed 3196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

that settlement had taken place between the parties . Settlement Deed has also been filed . It has been signed by the workman and his A/R , as well as by the A/ R of Management . The workman has not pressed his claim for reinstatement in service . He has accepted a sum of Rs.1,10,000 (Rs . One Lac Ten Thousand only) paid to him in the court vide Pay Order No. 595233 dated 17-04-2010 for Rs . 1,10,000 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Daryaganj , New Delhi , towards the full and final settlement of his claim made by him against the Management U.P. Airways Ltd. in 1.D. No. 26/2000 . It has further been mentioned in the settlement that no claim remains subsisting against the Management from the side of the workman . As the dispute has been amicably settled. between the parties the reference sent by the Central Government bearing I.D. No. 26/2000 stands disposed of asfully settled and satisfied between the parties in terms of the settlement filed this court .

Award is passed accordingly .

SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1460.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं फूड कॉर्पोरेशन आफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-05-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/41/2006- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th May , 2010

S.O. 1460.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 69/ 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 11-5-2010 .

[No. L- 22012/ 41 /2006 -IR. (CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , JS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT KANPUR Industrial Dispute No.69 of2008 and old No. as (I. D. 18 of2006 in CGIT , New Delhi )

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ]

BETWEEN

General Secretary, FCI Mazdoor Sangh , U.P. , 6 -Naveen Market , Kesarbagh , Lucknow. And

Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, 98 Nashvilla Road , Dehradun .

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No. L-22012/ 41 /2006 - IR(CM - II ) , dated 1-6-2006 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

2. Whether the demand of FCI Mazdoor Sangh ( UP) is fair and just to declare that the discontinuance of operation carried out at SD Jwalapur from 23-1-99 onwards ( except for the period from 13-5-99 to 19-5-99 & from 10-7-03 to 12-1-04) and the termination ofthe services of 180 workmen employed under Direct payment system by the management of FC ! in the guise of closure is illegal and unjustified? If so to what relief the workmen concerned (as per the list attached) are entitled to?

3. Brief facts are 180 claimants filed this claim statement through FCI Mazdoor Sangh U.P. , through General Secretary, Mohd . Zubair , claiming that the reference may be answered in affirmative in favour of the claimant union and holding that the action of the management in discontinuing the operations at Jwalapur Depot for the time period mentioned in the reference and the termination of these workmen employed under direct payment system by the management in the guise of closure is illegal and unjustified and the workmen are entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages . It is also prayed that the management be directed to forthwith make Jwalapur Depot Operational under direct payment system .

4. Ithas been alleged by the Authorized Representative ofthe claimant that there has been a corrigendum in the reference order and now it pertains to 200 workmen instead of 180 workmen . This fact has been denied and opposed by the opposite party . I have seen the reference order at present there is no such corrigendum is existing in the reference order .

5. It has been alleged that the present dispute relates to the Jwalapur Depot of the opposite party where the members of the claimant union i.e. , FCI Mazdoor Sangh were employed and engaged . It is stated that the management has been following the policy of unfair labour practice and have been engaging the 3197

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Act, 1947. They have not sought any prior permission from the appropriate authority before closing the Jwalapur Depot . Even if it is said that the work / operation at the Jwalapur Depot has been suspended temporarily it amounts to lay offas per provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and for that also prior permission is required from the appropriate Government before laying off which has not been followed. As such opposite party has acted in violation ofthe provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also alleged that since more than 100 workmen were engaged as such provisions of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is applicable and the opposite party is required to follow the provisions of Sections 25 M 25 O and other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . Therefore , they have prayed for the aforesaid relief.

6. Opposite party has filed the written statement . They have contradicted the aversions made by the claimant union. It is alleged that statement ofclaim is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of parties . It is stated that the services of the labourers were hired by the corporation i.e. FCI on contract basis as per provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. It is said that FCI had a storage capacity of 2000 m.t. at FSD , Jwalapur from State Government as per requirement at that instance. It is prerogative ofthe management to introduce any type labour system namely HTC system, DPS, Department Labour etc.Management has introduced HTC system atJwalapur at FSD , Jwalapur . FCI appoint HTC for a particular depot on regular basis for two years or on ad-hoc basis for three months or on day to day basis. According to the HTC system they supply labour for depot operation made payment to them, raise the bills to the FCI for reimbursement on the terms and conditions agreed in the tender form. HTC was the sole employer for the labour . After the expiry of his contractperiod he is free to use his labour at his own discretion . FCI neither engaged labour in the said system nor is his employer of the labour. Hence , there is no direct master and servant relationship betweenthe FCI and the labourers in the said system , but the system of HTC could not function smoothly atFSD Jwalapur . Appointment of HTC makes it clear thatdirect labour under DPS system was not engaged by FCI at any point of time . It is also mentioned that any of the system cannot be introduced till the previous systemis abolished. According to procedure the competent authority has to issue notification for abolition of system and introduction ofother system . No such notification has been issued by the competent authority about abolition of HTC system function at the depot till the closure of the operation at FSD , Jwalapur . The said HTC system wassmoothly functioning at FSD , Jwalapur , but due to interference of labour who were claiming that they have worked at FSD Jwalapur , unrest started . It workmen through the agency of various contractors , though the entire supervision of administration of the work being performed by the workmen is done directlyby the management of opposite party that is the whole system of contract labour was a sham . The nature ofwork at the godown situated at Jwalapur is permanent and perennial in nature and the workmen are needed for the proper functioning of Jwalapur Depot to perform the function of Transport that is loading and unloading . As unfair labour practice was being followed so the Union raised the demand for eliminating the system of engaging a contractor . At other depots the workers were directly engaged by the management and were being paid directly by the management . In the month of October 1998 , the management deprived the work to the twenty workers of the union at Jwalapur Depot . The said workers filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad . Thereafter the management of opposite party stopped all the work at Jwalapur and a writ petition has been filed by 180 workmen against the opposite party before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad . Now it is an admitted fact of both the parties that various writ petitions have been filed by the claimant union before Hon'ble High Courts and whatever the orders passed in those writ petitions by the Hon'ble High Court have been mentioned by the claimant in para 8 of the claim petition. It is pertinent to mention that in special appeal no. 111 of2004 filed by the FCI before Hon'ble High Court ofUttranchal at Nainital passed an order that the matter be placed before ALC for the conciliation proceeding and if the matter could not be resolved then the Government should make a reference to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall decide the dispute according to law . In Para 9 of the claim petition what ever the agreements had arrived at have been mentioned. It is also alleged that as per directions of the management through Senior Regional Manager letter dated 1-5-99 sent to District Manager to carry out all depot operation under direct payment system with immediate effect, the work was done by the members of the union under direct payment system and Identity Cards were also issued to all the members of the claimant union which were signed by the District Manager and counter- signed by the Assistant Manager in terms of settlement between the claimant union and the Management, the depot was opened under the system of DPS on 13-5-99 to 19-5-99 and 10-7-03 to 12-1-04 and all the members of the claimant union were engaged without the agency of any contract and no wages have been paid by the management to the members of the claimant union for the work done during the said period. It is alleged that the management had stopped the operation of the Jwalapur Depot without following due process/ procedure provided under the Industrial Disputes

1975 GI /10-32 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15, 1932

increased due to interference of various labour groups and unions filed so many writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad its Lucknow Bench and High Court , Naiaital . The Hon'ble High Court has passed interim orders in those writ petitions as a law abiding body FCi fully med either to comply with the interan orders within its limits or filed objections as per law. Out of the numerous writ petitions the seven writ petitions numbers 4243/01 , 4793/01,2379/99, 57/04 , 5539/01,2467/2000 , 1981/03 , 239/04 , 948/03 have been finally disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court Nainital vide order dated 14-09-05 . Apart from these writ petitions other writ petition No. 6126/96 and others are still pending before the various High Courts.

7. In para-wise reply it is also stated that the work at Swalapur was neither permanent nor perennial . It is also stated that unlawful interference by the group of labours are not only spoiling system but also caused huge loss to the FCI .It is alleged that FC! never engaged direct labours at FSD, walapur nor paid any wages to them at any " int of time directly. it is alleged that the claimant has to legal right to claim and the claim is liable to be rejected.

taimant has filed rejoinder wherein 'ncy have Contradicted the averments made by the opposite party in their written statement and reiterated the aversons made in the claim petition.

9. Both the parties have inled oral as well as documentary evidence .

10. Claimant has filed numerous documents . These damements were filed previously, in the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi . This reference was transferred to this Tribunal at the instance of union .

11. Claimant has filed photocopies of copies of wages register running from pages ! to 120 , ranging from 30-10-94 to the year 1996 , copies of the minutes of the meeting.dated 26-3-98 , copies of letters dated 28-3-98.22-12-98 , 8-1-99 , 18-3-99, 6-4-99, 24-4-99, 1-5.99.13-5-99,27-7-99, 5/13-8-99 ,23-9-99 , 19-6-2000, 8-7-03、18-7-03 , 8-11-05 , and ther numerous letters which are on the index list filed by the caimant/ running at serial numbers 13-13-14 and so on. They have also filed copy of minutes of meeting dated 31-99 , 29-5-99, They have also filed copy of telegram and fax dated 11-1-99 , 10-3-99 . They have also filed copy of Identity Cards at serial No. 23. They have also filed copy of record of discussion held with FCI Mazdoor Sangh at FCI Regional Office Lucknow on 1/2-9-2000 , copy of tender notice , copy of order dated 10-8-04 , copy of statement of claim tiled before ALC , copy of proceedings etc.

12. Opposite party has also filed certain documents vide list 3/1 . They have filed appointment letter ofBhartiya Sahkari Shram Samida Samiti ( in future referred to as

[PART 11- Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] BSSSS) . Appointment letter of Dheer Singli, Bishan Pal as HTC Jwalapur and joining report , appointment letter of M/ s Mahipal Giri at HTC Jwalapur , appointment letter of M/ s Rana Transport Company Jwalapur and joining report , bill and payment sheet ofHTC, Sanction order ofdifferent HTC 13. It was a case relatingto 180 workaren . After discussing with both the parties my learned predecessor passed an order on 17-12-05 that on behalf of all the workmen General Secretary of the claimant union can produce his staternent and he was summoned vide order dated 17-12-08 , therefore , this order is final and no party is prejudice vide this order.

14. Before this certain claimants have filed their affidavits separately but as they were not produced for cross examination or any other purpose so their affidavit is not being looked into and this point has not been opposed by anyone before me .

15. Therefore St Mohd . Zubair appeared in evidence he filed his evidence through affidavit and his evidence has been marked as W. W.1 . He has been cross examined .

16. Opposite party has also produced Sri K. Badwal , Manager i egal as a witness as M.W.1 .

17. On the pleadings of both the parties issues were framed on 15-3-07 before CGIT New Deltu The following issues were framed.-

a. Whether the claim is bad for mis -joinder of parties asalleged in Para 2 of the written statement .

b. Whether the services of the workmen were hired through agency/ contractor as alleged in Para 3 of the written statement .

C. Whether the unit of the Jwalapur Depot has been closed or the work has been shifted to Roorki Depot as claimed by the workmen .

d. Whether the unit Jwalapur has been closed as alleged by the management respondent or whether the work has been received by Roorki Depot as claimed by the workman. If so its effect.

e. In terms of reference .

18. I have gone through the record evidence heard the arguments of both the parties carefully di length 1 have also perused the entire documentary as well as oral evidence . Though there are numerous documents filed by the parties , I will be considering and taking cognizance or all such document which has been referred before me specifically.

Issue No. 2

19. I am taking this issue on priority basis as it goes to the root of the case .

20. It is contended by the opposite party that the services of the claimants were hired by the opposite party भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15,1932

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

through the agency on the contract basis as per provision of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act , 1970 , opposite party has never deployed any labour at any point of time but appointed handling- cum-transport contractor ( in short HTC) and got the work done through them, Opposite party has filed documentary evidence indicating the names of the contractor through whom the claimants were engaged for labour work . They have filed paper No. 3/2 and 3/3 . These are papers issued by the FCI to the Secretary M/ s . BSSSS Limited, for providing labour at Jwalapur Depot and 3/3 is the paper given by the Secretary BSSSS Limited, Meerut. Similarly paper No. 3/4 , to 3/9 is the papers relating to employment of contractor from different time to time. Opposite party has mentioned the details of these contractors in their affidavit . There is no cross examination by the claimant side on this point.

21. On behalf of all the claimant General Secretary Sri Mohd . Zubair has filed his affidavit in evidence as a witness W.W.1 . I have gone through his statement. He has clearly admitted that all these workers in this claim petition had worked under the contractor . He also admitted that he had also worked under contractor Sri Ram Avtar . He had also admitted that the payment voucher/ wages payment which have been filed by the claimant, all these payments have been made through contractor Ram Avtar . Claimant has alleged that for a short period i.e. from 13-5-99 they have been paid under the direct payment system, but during arguments no such evidence has been referred before me from which I can infer that there had been direct payment system adopted by the opposite party. Therefore, from the evidence it is clear that there no relationship of master and servant . These workmen were never employed or engaged by the opposite party FCI directly. They were employed through the contractor after issuing orders /notifications . Initially the burden was on the claimant side to prove that they were employees of the opposite party but they have not been able to prove it.

22. Claimant has also alleged that the work was of a permanent and perennial nature and the employment ofthe labour through contractor was sham , and the opposite party has adopted unfair labour practice .. Though there is no issue framed on this point but this point is also referred in the reference . So I have also analyzed this point.

23. Opposite party has specifically stated in their affidavit that after the expiry of the contract of Sri Dheer Singh, Bishan Pal and Mahipal Giri , contractors M/ s . Rana Transport Corporation was appointed as regular HTC for a period of two years . Afterappointment of new contractor i.e. M/s Rana Transport the Ex- contractors labours created unrest and insisted for their inclusion of labour by the newly

3199 appointed contractors , who had already enge theil workers for handling work of the depoi , the by depot became paralyzed and stopped delive the State Government were badly affected. Therefor. to solve the problem a meeting was held at regional office with the FCI workers union on 20-6-98 in which it was agreed that the workers who were working with earlier contractors may be employed with the existing contractor and the list of the worker shall be provided by the union . But the existing contractor was not ready to engage the labours of ex- contractors . Hence the efforts taken by the regional level meeting could not be materialized . FCI also contacted the ex - contractor H.S. Dheer Singh on 13-5-98 at Jwalapur to obtain the list of 80 workers so that the work may be provided to them through existing contractor M/ s . Rana Transport. But the ex-contractor Sri Dheer Singh flatly refused to give anything in writing therefore , it was not possible to the FCI to work with the current contractor and depot became stand still for long time . It is also mentioned that Sri Dheer Singh has also filed I.D. Case uncer the grab of fabricated union in Delhi Court .

24. There is no cross on this point by the claimant sido 25. Discussion of this evidence on this point will also dispose off issue No. 3 (C) and 4 (D) which are also related to the same type of evidence .

26. The further contention of the AR of the claimant side that issuance of identity cards to the labours by the opposite party shows that there is a relationship of master and servant. Opposite party has contradicted this fact . First they contended that no original I cards have been filed. It is also contended that on certain cards signature of the Assistant Manager has been done on a previous date on 14-5-99 and the photographs have been affixed on 17-5-99 . Claimant has also admitted in his cross that contractor Sri Ram Avtar has also issued i cards to certain labours . In this context paper No. 146 to 181 have been filed. I have examined the papers ranging from 146 to 181. It is true that before the signature of Assistant Manager Depot there is a date 14-5-99 and in front of photograph there is a date 17-5-99. Therefore these are different dates and original have notbeen filed.

27. In this regard opposite party AR sympathetically argued that FCI is a big organization and when any work is to be taken from a number of persons or labours, just to keep the security provision and safety ofthe workers , I card might have been issued with the concurrence of the contractor but it does rot mean that just issuance of I card will mean that will become the employees of the FCI . I find foror in the contention of the opposite party. Claimant bas also admitted in his cross that I cards number pe No. 264 to 281 have been issued through comm. actor 3200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

Ram Avtar through depot in -charge Nand Kishore Gupta. The workers in their pleadings and evidence have not denied their engagement through the contractor but said that the appointment of contractor is a sham transaction .

28. I have already said to prove that it was a sham transaction of the employment of the contractor the initial burden lies on the shoulder of the claimant . According to the evidence they have not been able todischarge their burden . Claimant has also not been able to prove that they were being paid by DPS system . W.W.I has specifically admitted seeing the payment register that the payments were made through the contractor Ram Avtar.

29. Opposite party has contended that as the labours were not directly employed by them therefore the worker do not fall under the definition of workmen . I agree with the view of the opposite party therefore, there is no force in the contention of the authorized representative . for the claimant that these labours are workmen and before removing them or laying off the opposite should have followed the provisions of Section 25 M and 25 O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Opposite has employed labour through the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970. Opposite has contended that it is their prerogative . I agree with the view of the opposite party.

30. Therefore , considering and analyzing the whole evidence on record and otherwise it has been fourtd that these workmen were hired through agency/ contractor as claimed by the opposite party. Therefore issue No. 2 (b) is decided in affirmative in favour of the opposite party.

31. Regarding issue No. 3 and 4 it has been framed like this.

32. Whether the unit of Jwalapur Depot, has been closed.

[PART II-SEC.3 ( ii)] discontinued at FSD Jwalapur by opposite party but due to unrest of the labour unions . Opposite party has not discontinued the work malafidely. Theydid their best to start the work, but the unions/ workers are not agreeing to continue the work .

35. Therefore, it is decided that the action of the oppo- site party was just and fair in discontinuing the work atJwalapur Depot .

36. It is also the contention of the auth . Representative for the claimant that the evidence of M.W./1 be not read as he has not been authorized. Opposite party has contended that Sri K. S. Badwal is holding two positions i.e. as Manager Legal and Manager /Admn . Security and he has been permitted by the General Manager to give evidence . They have filed authori- zation letter , therefore , there is no force in the con- tention of the AR for the union .

37. In issue No. 3 and 4 there is one more part whether the work has been shifted to Roorki Depot as claimed by the workmen. In this regard I would like to say that the burden initially lies on the workmen . They have not placed any arguments or evidence before me from which I may conclude some thing . More- over there is nothing in the reference order, which bound down this tribunal/court to decide this fact whether the work has been shifted to Roorki or whether the work of the unit has been received by Roorki . So this part of the issues I am disposing it off against the claimant . Therefore , issue No. 3 and 4 are decided and disposed off with the observation made above. Again to put it that the unit of Jwalapur Depot has been discontinued due to labour unrest and there is no malafide on the part of opposite party. Therefore , issue No. 3 and 4 is disposed off accordingly.

Issue No. 1

33. But going through the reference there , in the reference order it is mentioned whether the demand ofFCI Mazdoor Sangh is fair and just to declare that discontinuance of operation carried out at FSD Jwalapur from 23-1-99 on wards ( except for the period 1999 to 19-5-99 & 10-7-03 to 12-01-04).

38. The A.R. for the opposite party has contended that the claimant has filled their claim statement making Food Corporation of India as opposite party . It is contended that FCI in itself is not a porper entity. It should have been through someone like General Manager or party. I agree with the contention of the opposite party . Therefore, it will also be treated as misjoinder ofparties .

Interms of reference :

39. Threrefore, from the discussion made above , refer- ence is decided against the workmen they are not entitled to any relief. There is no illegality or malafide found on the part of the opposite party.

40. Reference is disposed off accordingly.

Dated 3-5-2010

34. In this regard as I have already discussed the evidence addured by the opposite party as M.W./1 that labour unrest was created by the unions of the labours in between the previous contractor and the existing contractor . They tried to solve the dispute in between them but they did not agree and they did not permit the FCI to continue the work and they incurred heavy losses . It is also said that supply could notbe made to the State Government . It is also said that the unions have filed numerous petitions and industrial dispute cases , so it has been found that the work was discontinued and operation was

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer 3201 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 11 मई , 2010

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment , New Delhi in relation to the Management ofArchaeological of India and their workmen has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal - cum- Labour Court vide its letter No. L- 42012/202 /2005 - IR ( CM - II ) , dated 5-10-2006:

का.आ. 1461.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं आर्कियोलोजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/202/2005- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India , Bhubaneswar in not regularizing the services of Shri Surendra Kumar Behara and 9 others ( as per list enclosed) is legal and justified? If not , to what relief these workmen are entitled?

New Delhi , the 11th May, 2010

S.O. 1461.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Archaeological Survey of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 11-5-2010.

[No. L -42012/202/ 2005 - IR (CM - II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer,

2. Being noticed the 2nd Party -Union filed their statement of claim , in reply to which the 1st Party- Management has filed their written statement . After that the 2nd Party -Union has filed a petition before this Tribunal /Court on 16-9-2009 to close the case , as the 1st Party- Management has expressed their inability to regularize the services of casual workmen as there exits no Group -D posts and agreed to pay 1 /30th wages to the 26 Nos . of casual workmen at present working under Konark and Bhubaneswar sub - circle as per applicable norms and rules atan early date . Accordingly the 2nd Party - Union has come up not to press the claim and withdraw the case pending before this Court . The 1st Party- Management has endorsed no objection on this petition. The 2nd Party - Union has also prayed to pass an award on the above terms . Therefore thisreference is liable to be decided within its precincts as not pressed and withdrawn and is answered accordingly. However the 1st Party- Management is expected to honour the settlement arrived at bilaterally with the 2nd Party- Union as disclosed in the above petition .

C.G.I.T.-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

Dictated and Corrected by me .

Industrial Dispute Case No. 27/2006

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer Date of Passing Award , 29th April , 2010

नई दिल्ली , 11 मई , 2010

BETWEEN:

का.आ. 1462.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 The Management of the Dy . Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Division- IV, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar .

....... 1st Party - Mangement .

AND

Their Workmen represented through the General

Secretary, Archaeological Survey of India Workers Union , Barabati Fort, Cuttuk- 753001 . ...2nd Party-Union

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 निष्टि औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 66/2008 ) कौ प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

APPEARANCES :

[सं. एल-12011/59/2008- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय, डेस्क अधिकारी Shri Sunakar Pradhan ,

..For the 1st Party Management

New Delhi , the 11th May, 2010

Authorized Representative .

Shri Ajaya Kumar Pattnaik

...For the 2nd Party- Union

General Secretary.

S.O. 1462.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central 3202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/ 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-5-2010.

[No. L- 12011 /59 /2008 - IR (B - II ) ]

U. S. PANDEY , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 66 of 08

BETWEEN

The Secretary, Pujab National Bank Workers Union , 128 /F /75 , Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur.

AND

The Deputy General Manager , Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Birhana Road, Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi vide notification No. L- 12012/ 59/2008 -IR (B - II) dated 26-8-08 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

2. Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in imposing a punishment of withdrawal of special allowance of special Assistant vide order dated 21-11-03 on Sri K.K.Tripathi Special Assistant is legal and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

3.After receipt of the reference from the Ministry , repeated registered notices were issued to the union raising the industrial dispute on behalf of the claimant , but neither the representative for the union nor the claimant appeared in the case before the tribunal nor filed statement of claim.

4.Therefore , from the behavior ofthe claimant/union it isquite clear that the neither the union nor the claimant is interested in prosecuting the case . Reference is therefore answered in affirmative against the union and in favour of the management holding that the action of the opposite party as referred to in the schedule of reference order is neither illegal nor unjust. Consequently it is held that the

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] union is not entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference order .

RAM PRAKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1463. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/69/2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 11th May , 2010

S.O. 1463.- In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 61/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - i abour Court- I , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-5-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/69/2004- IR ( B - II) ]

U.S. PANDEY, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I.D.No. 61/2004

Workman Smt . Kanta Devi W/ o Hoshiar Singh , R/o Jhonju Kalan , Tehsil Charkhi Dadri , Distt. Bhiwani , Haryana .

Versus

The Branch Manager , Central Bank of India , Jhonjhu Kalan, Thehsi Charkhi Dadri , Bhiwani -Harayan .

Management

AWARD

Smt . Kanta was engaged for cleaning bank premises and supplying drinking water to the staff and customers on casual basis by the Branch Manager , Jhonju Kalan Branch , Central Bank of India . She worked there for some period. Thereafter her services were disengaged . She raised भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

anindustrial dispute , before the Conciliation Officer . When conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L - 12012/69 /2004- IR( B - II ) , New Delhi , dated 23rd ofNovember , 97, with following terms : ---

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Smt . Kanta Devi w/ o Shri Hoshiar Singh , Waterman w.e.f. 4-6-2002 is just and legal ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. Corrigendum dated 20th October , 2006 was issued vide Ministry's Order No. L- 12012/ 169/2004 - IR (B- II ) dated 23-11-2004 detailing that in the dispute referred between the management of Central Bank of India and Smt . Kanta Devi for adjudication , the schedule appearing at page I may be read as under:-

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Smt . Kanta Devi , w/o Shri Hoshiar Singh , Waterman w.e.f. 9-11-2003 is just and legal ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

3. Claim statement was filed by Smt . Kanta Pleading therein that service conditions of bank employees are governed by awards of Industrial Tribunals , popularly known as Sastry Award , Desai Award and Bipartite Settlement , arrived at between the Indian Bank Association and Association of the workmen , representing employee ofthe"banking Industry " . She was employed by the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India , Jhonju Kalan branch on 1-5-1999 , to clean the bank premises and to supply drinking water to the staff and customers , during 9 AM . to 5 PM. Her salary was fixed at Rs . 600 per month, which was released in her saving bank account No. 4911. , maintained at the aforsaid branch of the bank. She presents that she was given bonus in the months of November , 2000 and September, 2001 and entries to that effect were also made in her pass book. Her salary was reduced to Rs . 450from Rs. 600 in October , 2001 by the then Branch Manager , without any charge sheet or notice , She was paid reduced salary of Rs . 450 PM upto 4-6-02 . Thereafter her salary was againreduced to Rs . 300 PM without any notice or charge sheet. When objection was raised by her , she was threatened of disengagement of her service and advised to keep mum . Her salary of Rs. 300 PM was given to her through vouchers sometimes in her name and sometimes in the name of non- existent persons . Her services were dispensed with on 9-11-2003 without any charge sheet or notice . She presents that she had worked for 4 years 6 months and 4 days without any break in service . After dispensing with her services , some one else was engaged by the management . She claims reinstatement in service with continuity , fuli back wages and consequential benefits .

3203 4.Management demurred her claim pleading that the reference is not maintainable , since this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdication to adjudicate it , for the matter pertains to Jhonju Kalan branch of the bank , which falls within the territory of State of Haryana . Services of the claimant were utilized purely on contract and need basis for sweeping bank premises and fetching drinking water for the staff, which job was hardly for 1 or 1-1 /2 hours a day. The claimant was paid remuneration at the rate of Rs .450 per month for sweeping the branch premises and Rs . 150 per month for fetching water , in summer season . She used to get the work done from her family members , as and when she did not feel well or had to go out of station. Smt . Kanta worked on contract/need basis upto 4-6-2002 and thereafter she did not turn up for performing her contractual jobs . Payment of bouns to the petitioner has been wrongly made as she was never in the employment of the management bank . For miscellaneous jobs usually the bank engages persons and their engagements are for a fixed period as well as for a particular work. Smt . Kanta has never been in the employment of the management nor any appointment or retrenchment letter was ever issued to her. There was no privity of contract between the claimant and the bank. Since the claimant was not in the employment of the respondent, therefore , question of issuing any charge- sheet, notice , etc. does not arise . Since the workman did not turn up after 4-6-2002 there was no other alternative except to get the work done from another person on contract/need basis . Her claim is liable to be rejected .

5. Smt. Kanta has examined herself in support ofher claim. Shri Harish Chand Chawla (MW1 ) and Shri Madan Lal (MW2) were examined on behalf of the management . No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Brijesh Kumar and Dharam Chand , authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the workman . Shri A.R. Verma, authorized representative , raised his submissions 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 :-

7. Smt . Kanta swears in her affidavit that she was employed at Jhonju Kalan branch of the bank on Ist May, 1999 by the branch manager after judging her suitability and eligibility . She used to perform job of cleaning the bank premises and supply of drinking water to the staff and customers from 9 AM to 5 PM at a monthly salary of Rs . 600. Salary was paid to her by way of transfer in her account No. 4911 maintained in the said branch . She was appointed against a clear /sanctioned vacancy . She unfolded that bonus was given to her in the month of November , 2000 and September , 2001 by way of tr un fer of money in her account . There was a direct employe and employee relations between her and the management .

3204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15, 1932

Her work was directly supervised by the bank's officials. Her salary was abruptly reduced to Rs . 450 per month from October, 2001 without any rhyme or reasons . She deposed that she was paid her salary @ Rs . 450 per month till 4th June , 2002 , from which date he salary was again reduced to Rs . 300 p.m. by the Branch Manager. When she objected to reduction of salary, she was threatened of her dismissal . Consequently she kept quiet . On 9-11-2003 her services were abruptly terminated by the management without any reason . She was not given acy notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation by the management . She worked continuously for four years , six months . After her termination , a fresher was appointed by the management . During the course of her cross examination she concedes that no appointment letter was issued to her . She presents that her job was to sweep, clean and dust the bank premises , fetch water and serve it to the bank staff and visitors . The Branch Manager made enquiries from someone to employ a sub staff. When she was told about that fact, she approached the Branch Manager for job . She further stated that she had not moved any application for her appointment .

8. Shri Harish Chand Chawla swears in his affidavit that Smt. Kanta Devi was never appointed by the bank and no relationship of employer and employee over existed between the parties . She used to visit the branch occasionally to do jobs of sweeping and fetching water . No appointment letter was issued to her . Smt. Kanta never worked for 240 days in a calendar year . In cross examination he deposed that Smt . Kanta Devi used to periodically deposit money in her saving bank account No. 4911. He disputed that she was appointed on 1-5-99 as watermaid in the bank at fixed wages of Rs. 600 PM . He does not dispute that in pass book Ex . MWI , WI monthiy emoluments of wages , for the days she worked in a particular month , were transferred by the bank. She worked with the bank from May,99 till June, 2002. She used to work for a spell of 15 or 10 days in a month . She was paid bonus as and when it was declared by the bank Bonus was paid to Kanta Devi, taking her as casual employce of the bank. She used to work for 1 or 1-1 /2 hour in a day . She was paid Rs . 20 or Rs.25 per day for the days she worked. No fixed wages were paid to her . Her services were dispensed with on 9-11-2003 .

9. Shr Madan Lal ( WW2 ) wears at his affidavit that he worked as Branch Manager in Jhonju Kalen branch of the bank from 20-6-2003 to 26-11-2005 . Smt . Kanta Devi was never appointed by the bank. No relationship of employer and employee ever existed between the parties. She used to occasionally visit the branch for sweeping ..nd fetching water . No appointment letter was issued to r. During the course of his crass examin thou he stated atshe worked in the branch as dailywager employee for 3-4 months during his tenure . He unfolds that she worked upto 4-6-02. She also worked in the branch during his tenure

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] in June , 2003. When he joined the aforsaid branch of the bank on 20-6-2003 , she was doing job as a casual employee . She worked there upto September or October , 2003. Не admits that in the written statement Ex . MW2 / 2 no such standwas taken that Kanta Devi was engaged by the bank for 3-4 months is 2003. He does not dispute that on 4-11-2000 a sum of Rs . 968 was paid to Smt . Kanta Devi by the bank , He admitted payment of a sum of Rs . 600 , made to Smt. Kanta Devi on 28-9-2001 . Another sum of Rs. 449 was also paid to her on that day . He admitted that from May, 1999 till June , 2002 bank made payment to her towards her wages he admitted that afier June , 2002 payment of wages of Kanta Devi were made through vouchers.

10. Whether relationship of employer and employee existed between the parties ? For an answer to this proposition , it is to be appreciated as to how contract of service is entered into . The relationshin of employer and employee is constituted by a contract , express or implied between employer and employee . A contract of service is one in which a person undertakes to serve another and to obey his reasonable orders within the scope of the duty undertaken . A contract of employment may be inferred from the conduct which goes to show that such a contract was intended although never expressed and when there has, in fact, been employment of the kind usually performed by the employees , Any such inference , however , is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relation between the parties concerned was on a charitable footing or the parties were ralations or partners or were directors of a limited company which employed no staff. While the employee, at the time, when his services were engaged, need not have known the identity of his employer there must have been some act or contract by which the parties recognized one another as master or servant .

11. Smt . Kanta projects in her testimony that she was engaged by the bank on 1st May, 1999for cleaning the branch premises and to fetch drinking water for the bank staff and customers . Her salary was paid by way of transfer inher account No. 4911 , maintained at Jhonju Kalan branch of the bank . Bonus was paid to her in November , 2000 and September, 2002 by way of transfer ofmoney to her account . In his testimony Shri Harish Chand Chawla admits that Smt . Kanta worked with the bank from May, 1999 till June , 2002. However , he tried to testify that she worked periodically , in case of exigencies . But he would not dispute that bonus was paid to her as and when it was declared by the bank. He offers an explanation that bonus was paid to her , taking her as a casual employee . Shai Mada Lai also concedes that Smt . Kanta worked in Sherju Kalze branch of the bank upto September October, 2003. These facts make out that Smi . Kanta undertook to serve the bank to perform sweeping and cleaning the branch and to fetch water for the staff and customers . Though no appointment letter was issued to 3205 भारत का राजषत्र : जून 5, 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1992

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

her, yet an implied contract of employment emerge out of the facts that her wages were paid by way of transfer to her account . Payment of bonus , as and when it was declared by the bank, goes to confirm creation of relationship of master and servant between the parties . Hence it is concluded that a contract of service was entered into between the parties and Smt. Kanta served the bank as its part time employee .

where presents that notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to workman while terminating her services . Retrenchement compensation was not paid to her . The management was under an obligation to pay her compensation for retrenchment at the time of her retrenchment . Payment of retrenchment compensation is a condition precedent to a valid order of retrenchment . Precedents in Bombay Union of Journalists case ( 1964 ( 1 ) LLJ 351 ), Adaishwar Laal ( 1970 Lab . I. C. 936) and B.M. Gupta ( 1979 ( 1 ) LLJ 168 ) announce that subsequent payment of compensation was not paid to Smt. Kanta Devi , consequently action of the management falls within the mischief of section 25 - F ofthe Act.

12. " Continuous Service " has been defind by section 25 B ofthe Act . Under sub- section ( 1) ofthe 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 ifhe 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 contemplatedbysub -section (2 ) furnishes a unit ofmeasure 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 bytheAct.

15. Services of the workman were retrenchment 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 . It is not the case of the claimant that shewas engaged in accordance with recruitment rules . No evidence worth name has been brough over the record to establish that vacancy was advertised to the public at large or names of eligible condidates were obtained from the employment exchange . Whether reservation policy applicable to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidates was followed, is a mistry. It is not the case of the claimant that she underwent a test/interview for her employment . Therefore , it is evident that engagement of the claimant was not in consonance with the recruitment rules . Under these situations the Tribunal is under an obligation to address a proposition as to whether her reinstatement would not amount to her continuance in the post, to which she was appointed in an illegal manner . For an answer the law laid by the Apex Court is to be applied. In Uma Devi (2006 (4) SCC I ) the Apex Cout considered the proposition as to whehter the persons who got employment, without following of a regular procedure or even from the back door or on daily wages can be ordered to be made permanent in their posts , to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned . Catena of decisions over the subject were considered and the court declined the submissions of the workman to be made permanent on the post which was held by them in temporary or adhoc capacity for a fairly long spell . The Court ruled thus:

13. An enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman has actually worked for not less then 240 days during a period of 12 calandar months , immediately preceding the date of her disengagement . As detailed above services of Smt . Kanta Devi were dispensed with on 9-11-2003 . She claims to have served the bank in continuity, since the date of her engagement . Shri Chawla and Madan Lal could not dispel those facts , Unassailed testimony of Smt. Kanta is accepted and it is concluded thatshe rendered continuous service for 240 days in every calendar year till the date of her disengagement.within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Act. It has not been projected by management that workman sought voluntary reirement from service or she reached the age of superannuation and was made to tetire . It was not the case that her services came to an end on non renewal of her contract of employment . Her services were not done away on the ground of her continued ill health . Consequently termination of her service amounts to retrenchment within themeaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Act .

"With respect, why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts ? This Court , in our view, isbound to insists on the State making regular and proper recruitments , and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression ofthe rules of regular recruitment . The direction to make permanent-the distinction between reularization and making permanent , was not emphasized here-can only encourage the State , the modal employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many 14. Workman projects that her service were dispensed with abruptly on 9-11-2003 . Management no

1975 GI/10-33 1205

[PART II-SEC: 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

waiting to compete. With respect the directions made in Piara Singh [ 1992 (4) SCC 118 ] is to some extent incosistent with the conclusion in para 45 ofthe said judgement therein . With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter To the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision . Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad-hoc , temporary or casual employees engaged without following a regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent . "

16. Taking note ofsome of recent decisions , the Apex Court held that the State does not enjoy a power to make appointments in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution . The Court quoted its decision in Girish Jyanti Lal Vaghela 12006 (2) SCC482 ] with approval , wherein it was rules thus .

18. In Uma Devi ( supra) it was laid that when a person enters a temporary employment or get engagement as contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequence of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature . Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed for the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure or selection in any concerned cases , in consultation with the public service commission . Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees . It cannot also be held that the State held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent . The State cannot constitutionalily make such a promise. It is also obvious thatthe theory cannot be invoked to seek relief of being made permanent in the post. In view of those precedent neither continuance nor regularisation of services of the claimants can be ordered , since it would amount to a back door entry.

"The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of a selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committed nose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made . A regular appointment to the post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange, where eligible candidate get their names registered . Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshirned under Article 16 ofthe Constitution" .

19. There is other fact of the coin . The Government ofIndia issued an approach paper on 16-8-90 , layingdown guidelines for all public sector banks , in the matter of recruitment as well as absorption of temporary employees . Guidelines laid in the approach paper is not a matter of dispute. Ithas been laid in clause (a) of paragraph (6) of the approach paper that the cases of temporary employees who have put in not less than 240 days oftemporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to the benefits of Section 25 F of the I.D.Act , may be decided by entering into a settlement with the represntative union . It may be pointed out that in order to have a binding effect of the settlement on the other parties , who are not parties to the settlement , it will be necessary that the settlement should be arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings . The terms of settlement can be initiated by the management of each bank with its representative union during the conciliation proceedings and may be given effect to in terms of the provisions of the Act .

20.Modalities regarding test and- or interview etc. forabsorption of temporary employees in subordinate cadre was left to be finalized by the individual banks in their own discretions , keeping in view the main criteria proposed in the approach paper. It was further pointed out there in that eligibility or ineligiblity of a candidate would be considered only on the date he was first engaged as temporary employee. Only temporary employees who had put in minimum temporary service of 90 days or more after cut off date, that is , 1-1-82 would only be eligible for consideration under the scheme. The vacancies for absorbing the temporary employees who were to be finally approved, 17. In P. Chandra Shekhara Rao and others (2006 7 SCC488 ) the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's Case (supra) with approval . It is also relied the decision in a Uma Rani (2004 7 SCC 112 ) and ruled that no regularization is permissible in exercise of statutory powers conferred in Article 162 of the Constitution , if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules . In Somveer Singh (2006 5 SCC 493 ) the Apex Court ruled that appointment made without following due procedure cannot be regularized . In Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2007 ( 1 ) SCC 408 ] the Apex Court reiterated the law and announced that the rules of recruitment can not be relaxed and court can not direct regularisation of temporary cmployees dehors the rules , nor can it direct continuation ofservice of a temporary employee (whether called a casual , ad-hoc or daily rated employee) or payment of regular salaries to them.

3207

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

to be achieved. Classification may be made according to the nature of persons , nature of business , and may te based with reference to time.

were to be identified by the management within the norms prescribed by the Ministry of Finance and the test/interview was to be conducted for filling up the vacancies allotted for a particular cadre in the year in which test/interview was being conducted. The above recruitments were to be subject to statutory requirements regarding reservation for S.C./ST, physically handicapped and ex servicemen . The aforesaid approach paper provide one time measure to be adopted by all public sector banks to regularize the services of temporary employees .

23. Concept of equality guaranteed byArticle 16 of the Constitution is something more than formal equality and enables the underpriviledged groups to have a fair share by having more than equal chance and enables the State to give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving real equality with reference to social needs. 'Protection discrimination ' enabled the State to adopt new strategy to bring underprivileged at par with . The rest of the society, by providing all possible opportunities and incentives to them. Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential treatment in the matter relating to employment or appointment . There cannot be rule of equality between members of separate and independent group of persons . Persons can be classified in different groups, based on in terms of nature of persons , nature of business and with reference, time. Therefore to classification based on experience , in relation to time for which personal drivers employed by the officers of the bank had served, has a reasonable differentia .

24. The management bank is State within the meaning ofArticle 12 of the Constitution . It has power to make classification and categorisation in the matter of absorption oftemporary employees . On the strength of approach paper, referred above, classification of temporary employees for the purpose of their absorption in the services of the management bank, was based on time of their engagemeni . Employees engaged after 1-1-1982 and prior to 16-8-90 were ondifferent and distinct footing than the claimant, whe was engaged on 1-5-99 . Therefore classification of temporary employees made by the bank was based on intelligible differentia. The claimant was not in that bracket and can not plead any discrimination . She is not covered in the category of temporary employees , whose cases were to be considered for absorption in the light of the approach paper , referred above.

21.As detailed above , approach paper provides one time measure for absorpotion of temporary employees . Approach paper was issued on 16th August, 1990 and laid guidelines for absorption of employees , who were working with the " banking industry " in temporary capcity since 1-1-1982 . Whether claimant can seek parity with the temporary employee , working with the bank prior to 16th August, 1990. For an answer legal provisions are to taken note of. Equality before law and equal protection of laws are fundamental rights of every person , ordains Article 14 of the Constitution . The guiding principles laid in Article 14 are that persons , who were similarly situated, shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liability imposed, which means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated alike . Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunities for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. What is guaranteed is the equality of opportunity. Like all other employers , Government is also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large number of candidates offering themselves for employment. But the selection process must not be arbitary . The guarantee given by caluse ( a ) of Article 16 of the Constitution will cover (a) initial appointments (b) promotions (c) termination of emplyment ( d) and matters relating to salary, periodical increments , leaves , gratuity , pension, age of superannuation etc. Matters relating to employment or appointments include all matters in relations to employment both prior and subsequent to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment .

25. When services of Smt . Kanta Devi can not be ordered to be reinstated, she is entitled to compensation for illegial retrenchment of his services . What compensation is to be awrded? No definite yardstick for measuring quantum of compensation is available . In S.S.Shetty [1957 ( 11 ) LLJ 696 ] the Apex Court indicated some relevant factors which an adjudicator has to take into account in computing compensation in lieu of reinstatement , in the following words :

"The Industrial Tribunal would have to tak into account the terms and conditions of employn the tenure of service , the possibility of termina.Or ofthe employment at the instance of either party , the possiblity of retrenchment by the employer or resignation or retirement by the workman and even 22. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of discretion . Cassification is the recognition ofthe relations , and in making it the Government must be allowed a wide latitude of discretion and judgment . In a way , the consequences of such classification would undoubtedly be to differentiate persons belonging to that class from others . The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought 3208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] of the employer himself ceasing to exist or of the workman being awarded various benefits including reinstatement under the terms of future awards by Industrial Tribunal in the envent of industrial disputes arising between the parties in future .... In computing the money value of the benefits of reinstatement, the industrial adjudicator would also have to take into account the present value of what hissalary, benefits etc. would be till he attained the age of superannuation and the value of such benefits would have to be computed as from the date when such reinstatement was ordered under the terms of the award.

Having regard to the considerations detailed above, it isimpossible to compute the money value of this benefit of reinstatement awarded to the appellent with mathematical exactitude and the best that any Tribunal or Court would do under the circumstances wouldbe to make as correct an estimate as is possible bearing , of course in mind all the relevant factors pro and con ."

[1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 228 ] compensation equivalent to two years salary last drawn by the workmen was held to be fair and proper to meet the ends of justice . In Anil Kumar Chakraborty [ 1962 ( 11 ) LLJ 483 ] the Count converted the award of reinstatement into compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/-asjust and fair compensation in full satisfication of all his claims for wrongful dismissal from service . In O.P.Bhandari [ 1986 ( 11 ) LLJ 509 ] the Apex Court observed that it was a fit case for grant of compensation in view of reinstatement . The Court awarded compensation equivalent to 3.33 years salary as reasonable. In M.K. Aggarwal (1988 Lab.I.C.380) , the Apex Court though confirmed the order of reinstatement yet restricted the back salary to 50% of what would otherwise be payable to the employee . In Yashveer Singh ( 1993 Lab.I.C.44 ) the court directed payment of Rs.75,000/- in view of reinstatement with back wages. InNaval Kishore [ 1984 ( 11 ) LLJ 473 ] the Apex Court observed that in view of the special circumstances of the case adequate compensation would be in the intrest of the appellent . A sum of Rs . 2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In Sant Raj [ 1985 ( 11 ) LLJ 19 ] a sum of Rs.2lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement . In Chandu Lal ( 1985 Lab.I.C.1225 ) a compensation of Rs.2 lac by way of back wages in lieu of reinstatement was awarded . In Ras Bihari ( 1988 Lab.I.C. 107) a compensation of Rs.65000/- was granted in lieu of reinstatement, since the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere. In V.V.Rao ( 1991 Lab.I.C. 1650) a compensation ofRs . 2.50 Lac was awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

28. Smt . Kanta Devi served the bank for four years six months and four days only . Her engagement was in violation of rules . On consideration of these factors , besides others . I am of the view that a compensation of Rs . 25,000 in lieu of reinstatement of the claimant would meet the ends of justice . She has to fight for more than 5 years . Therefore the management shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000 to the claimant , towards the cost of litigation . An award is , accordingly , passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R. K. YADAV , Presiding Officer 26. ADivisional Bench of the Patna High Court in B. Choudhary vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court , Jamshedpur ( 1983 ) Lab.I.1755 ( 1758) deduced certain guidelines which have to be borne in mind in determining the quantum of compensation viz . ( i ) the back wages receivable ( ii) compensation for deprivation of the job with future prospect and obtainability of alternative employment ; ( iii) employee's age (iv) length of service in the establishment ( v) capacity of the employer to pay and the nature of the employer's business ( vi ) gainful employment in mitigation of damages ; and (vii ) circumstances leading to the disengagement and the past conduct. These factors are only illustartive and not exhaustive. In addition to the amount of compensation , it is also within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award interest on the amount determined as compensation . Furthermore , the rate of such interest is also in the discretion ofthe Tribunal . Reference can be made to Tabesh Process, Shivakashi ( 1989 Lab.1.C.1887) .

Dated: 15-4-2010

नई दिल्ली , 11 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1464.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं यूनाईटेड बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-05-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

27. In Assam OilCo. Ltd. ( 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 587 ] the Apex Court took into account countervailing facts that the employer had paid certain sums to the workmen and her own earning in the alternative employment and ordered that " it would be fair and just to direct the appellant to pay a substantial sum as compensation to her " . In Utkal Machinery Ltd. [ 1966 ( 1 ) LLJ 398 ] the amount of compensation equivalent to two year salary of the employee awarded by the Industrial Tribunal was reduced by the Supreme Court to an amount equivalent to one year salary ofthe employee in view of the fact that she had been in service with the employer only for 5 months and also took into consideration the unusual manner of her appointment atthe instance of the Chief Minister of th State . In A.K.Roy

[सं. एल-12011/ 132/2007- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी 3209

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 11th May, 2010

S.O. 1464. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management ofUnited Bank of India, and their workman, which was received bythe CentralGovernment on 11-05-2010 .

[No. L- 12011 /132/2007- B (B - II )]

U.S. PANDEY , DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT , KANPUR

Industrial Dispute Case No. 20 of 2008 In the matter of dispute between- Sri Sanjeev Kumar through the General Secretary , UPBank Workers Organization , 2-Naveen Market, Kanpur , U.P. And

The General Manager , United Bank of India, 11 , HamantaBasu Sarani , Kolkata- 700001 .

AWARD

1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No. 12011 / 132/2007 - IR (B - II) dated 05-03-08 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

2. Whether the action of the management of United Bank of India in denying promotion to Sri Sanjeev Kumar son of Sri Ramendra Nath Tiwari from 07-12-2007 is legal and just ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?

3. Brief facts are claimant Sri Sanjeev Kumar through his union U.P. Bank Workers Organisation Kanpur has filed his claim statement , making a prayer that his claim regarding the promotion test of members be declared as such that he should also be given the benefit ofpromotion from the declaration of final result that is 07-12-05 , with all consequential benefits .

4. In the pleading also he has alleged that the claimant Sanjeev Kumar was unfairly declared unsuccessful in the promotion test from clerical to JMGS - I by a biased and prejudicial performance appraisal as well as intentionally who were scoring in the interview test. He stated that his rank in the over all written test result of All India was 2nd out of 1069 candidates who appeared for interview for 500 seats . The reviewing authority wrongly reduced the performance appraisal marks awarded by the reporting authority from to good to satisfactory . The reviewing authority further arbitrarily refused the marks awarded by the reporting authority to make him declare unsuccessful . Therefore , bank has violated his own promotion in awarding marks in performance appraisal . 320 candidates who have secured 10 or moreless marks than Sri Sanjeev Kumar in the written test were awarded very high marks in the interview and performance appraisal to make them to declare successful . No scientific of clear cut method for awarding marks in the interview was adopted. Two candidates were awarded zero marks in the interview. According to the claimant , in lieu of promotion policy the marks awarded by the reporting authority should have been either zero to 5,7 or 10. Therefore , he has claimed that the opposit party has acted malafide and arbitrary in the interview to make him declare unsuccessful .

5. Opposite filed the written statement . They have contradicted the pleadings of the claimant union . They alleged that the bank has formulated the policy ofpromotion from clerical cadre to officer grade 1 vide circular dated 01-07-05 , as alleged in para 12 ofwritten statement. Claimant has appeared in the promotion test in the year 2005 and has obtained marks as under-

Writtentest 35.50 out of50

Interview out of20

Performance appraisal 3.15out of 10 Professional qualification 0 out of 10

Seniority 0 out of 10.

6. Thus he obtained 47.65 out of 100. According to the bank policy and circular a candidate was required to obtained at least 49 out of 100 marks in order to be selected butclaimant did not obtain the required marks . As such he was not given the promotion . Above promotion test was conducted in an impartial manner and according to rules . Oppositparty has not acted in a biased or prejudiced manner against the claimant . It is denied that reviewing authority hasreduced the performance appraisal marks ofthe claimant and had further increased the appraisal marks of other candidates . Claimant having failed in 2005 test and again having appeared in the promotion test in the year 2006 without making any complaint against the result of2005 is now stopped from challenging the validity test of the year 2005. Claimant has no legal right for consideration of promotion. It is stated that no result was declared on 7-12-07, hence the present reference is beyond the scope ofthe case ofthe claimant and as such is liable to be rejected onthis score alone .

7. Claimant has filed only documentary evidence . No oral evidence has been filed .

3210

[PART 11 -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

8. Claimant has filed 9 documents vide list 7/1 , which are promotion policy, performance appraisal sheet, written test result, interview result , final result , order of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahbad on the writ petition , copy ofthe general instruction , Govt . of India's and Court orders , copy of news paper report etc.

13. I have given due thought that if this tribunal is of the view that here is a legal and technical defects as claimed by the opposite party then whether I should discuss the factual merits of the parties . I am of the view that I should not discuss factual merit of the case as it may cause prejudice to either of the party.

9. I persued the whole record and heard the arguments of both the parties at length.

14. Therefore , in absence of specific pleading in regard to the period mentioned in the reference order, I feel that the claimant is not entitled to any relief.

15. Therefore , reference is disposed of accordingly . 4-5-2010 RAM PRAKASH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1465.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 29/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-05-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

10. It is true that no oral evidence have been filed by either of the parties . Opposite party at the outset has contended that the case of the workman suffers from one fatal defect/ legal lacuna . It is contended that in the pleading the claimant union has specifically mentioned in the claim statement regarding the declaration of final result of the ear 7-12-05 . Relief has also been sought consequentially regarding the result of 7-12-05 . Whereas , the reference mention like this -whether the action of the management bank in denying promotion to Sri Sanjeev Kumar from 7-12-07 is legal and just . Opposite party has contended thatthey have specifically mentioned in the W.S. also that the pleading and reference are contrary to each other . It is argued that the provision of Section 10 (4) of the I.D. Act, 1947 , do not give power to the court to travel beyond the scope of the reference order . It has to confine to the reference order .

[सं. एल-12012/30/2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू.एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 11th May, 2010

S.O. 1465. In pursuanceuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court - I , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-05-2010.

[No. L- 12012/30/2004- IR ( B - II ) ] U.S. PANDEY, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

11. Opposite party has placed reliance upon a number of decision in the Case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat versus the Perfect Pottery Company, 1989, Lab IC 827 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction ofthe Tribunal under Industrial Disputes Act is limited to the points specifically referred to for adjudication and to matters incidental thereto . Further in the case of management of Divisional Engineer Telecom Mehboob Nagar District Versus Vakantiah 2006 Lab IC 3395 ( Α.Ρ. ) the Hon'ble High Court had held that Industrial Tribunal derive their jurisdiction from the reference made by the government, they are bound to act within the for corner thereof and cannot deviate there from . Further placed reliance upon a decision Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Limited versus Its workman AIR 1967 ( SC ) 469 - it has been held that the industrial court cannot grant relief to a workman with respect to dispute not referred to it .

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI I. D. No. 29/2004

Shri S.K. Yadav , C/o Syndicate Bank, Farrukh Nagar Branch , Gurgaon

Claimant

Versus

12. Claimant has vehemently argued before me that this court can amend or correct the reference order and may presume that the dispute has been referred to with respect to the year 2005. I have given due thought to this . I am of the view that it not a matter incidental thereto . Whenopposite party has raised this legal lacuna I feel that the claimant union should have approachedd the government, but they kept silent . In my view, if the pleadings are not in relation to the reference order then claimant is not supposed to get any relief from this tribunal .

3211 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

The Asstt .General Manager ,

Syndicate Bank,

Sarojini House, 6- Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi - 110001

Management

AWARD

Branch Manager , which was subsequently joined by S.K. Yadav. They plead that the altercation took place between them when the manager asserted that medical certificate submitted by Ranbir Singh was bogus . They submitted their explanation to that charge sheet on 4th of October, 99 which were not considered . Show cause notice dated 25-7-99 was served in a mechanical manner . Matter was reported to Police Station Farrukh Nagar and with the intervention of respectables it was settled . Complaint, made to police, was withdrawn by the management . Despite the said settlement , they were suspended in an illegal and malafide manner . An ex -parte enquiry was conducted against them . Punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages in pay scale for two years , was awarded to them . Appeals were preferred by them but it were dismissed. Whencomplaint, made to police authorities , was withdrawn, there was no substance in the enquiry and action of the management . At the relevant time , Shri S.K. Yadav was president of the Union and Ranbir Singh was member of State Executive Committee . They used to present grievances of the employees before the management and as such officers of the manangement got biased . Regret letters were procured by the management from them . No document was supplied to them and it resulted in to absence ofreasonable opportunities to them to defend themselves . The Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have acted in an illegal manner . The Appellate Authority had also not acted in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Punishment awarded to them is liable to be set aside . They claim that their pay may be restored to the very stage, where it would have been in case no punishment was awarded to them.

Ranbir Singh , an employee of Syndicate Bank , had availed various loans beyond his eligibilities , by concealing his liabilities . He absented himself in an unauthorised manner from 28-6-99 till 02-07-99 and Branch Manager was initiating an action for his absence. When Branch Manager came to know about those loans , he started deduction in respect of loan s availed by Ranbir Singh . On 28-07-99 at 10.45 A.M. , Ranbir Singh went to the cabin of the Branch Manager and asked him not to deduct installement from his salary towards loans and not to initiate any action against him . Branch Manager showed his inability to oblige him . It enraged Ranbir Singh , who starte shouting and abusing the Branch Manager . Ranbir Singh picked up S.B. Account Ledger with an intention to hit Branch Manager and threatened him of dire consequences . At that juncture Shri S.K.Yadav, a clerk working in that Branch, left his seat, entered the cabin of the Branch Manager and joined fray with Ranbir Singh . He abused Branch Manager in filthiest language and damaged telephone kept on the table of the Branch Manager . Matter was referred to higher authorities and it resulted in domestic action against delinquent employees . Claimants admitted the charges , hence punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages in the pay scale for two years was awarded to them . Appeal preferred by them came to be dismissed . They raised a industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide orderNo. L- 12012/30/2004 - IR(B - II ), New Delhi dated 31st ofMay, 2004 , with the following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in imposing punishment of reduction in basic payby two stages of pay for two years of S /Shri S.K. Yadav and Ranbir Singh clerk is legal and justified? Ifnot what reliefthe concerned workmen are entitled to ?"

3. Claim was demurred by the management pleading that the claimants committed acts of grave misconduct. Their behaviour was riotious , disorderly and indecent in the premises ofthe bank. They will fully damaged property of the bank and did acts prejudicial to the interests of the bank. Charge sheets were served upon them . Claimant denied the allegations The manageement took a decision to conduct departmental enquiry . On various dates claimants sought adjournments . Ultimately enquiry was fixed for 1st and 2nd ofAugust, 2000. On 24th ofJuly, 2000 the claimants wrote to the disciplinary authority projecting that they donot want to go into merits or demerits of the case, expressed their regrets for the indecent and assured good behaviour in future . They requested for lenient view, by bringing the matter within clause 19.12 (e) of Bipartite Settlement . Considering those facts and with a view to give an opportunity to them, a lenient view was taken by the Disciplinary Authority by bringing the matte vi hin clause 19.12 (e) ofBipartit Settlement. The punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages for a period of two 2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimants pleading therein that the charge sheet were served upon them by the management, alleging there in that on 28-7-99 Ranbir Singh went to the cabin ofthe Branch Manager at about 10.45 A.M, and asked him not to make deductions in respect of loan availed by him and intiate any action about his absence from 28-6-99 till 22-7-99. Impasse resulted into an altercation between him and the 3212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3(V) ]

ση 28-7-2000. Personal hearing was given to him. In personal hearing he requested the management to award less punishment to him . He concedes that in view of his admission, no enquiry was conducted . He admits that he made a wrong pleading that an exparte enquiry was conducted against him .

7. Ranbir Singh also admits in his testimony that he was suspended vide order dated 28-7-99 , which was followed by a charge sheet . He replied that charge sheet . P. K. Rastogi was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who served a notice calling upon him to join the enquiry .He asked the management to settle his claim under clause 19.12 (e) of Bipartite Settlement , vide his letter dated 24-7-2000. Show cause notice dated 25-7-2000 was served upon him , calling upon him to offer comments on the proposed punishment . Personal hearing was given to him on 28-7-2000 . In his personal hearing he requested the management to award lesser punishment. In view of his admission no enquiry was conducted against him . He made wrong pleadings to the effect that exparte enquiry was conducted against him.

years was awarded for each of the misconduct to the claimant, which punishment was to run concurrently. Show cause notice dated 25-7-2000 , calling upon them to offer their comments on proposed punishment was served upon them . In responce to the said show cause notice , they expressed their regrets vide letter dated 27-7-2000 and sought personal hearing . On 28-7-2000 Disciplinary Authority gave opportunity of personal hearing to them . The Disciplinary Authority had taken into account the admission made by the claimants facts projected by them in the personal hearing and he proceeded to award punishment to them . Punishement of reduction in basic pay by two stages for a period of two years for each of misconduct was awarded to them , which punishment were to run concurrently. They preferred appeals against the order ofthe Disciplinary Authority, which were dismissed. Since the claimants have admitted their mistake , before the commencement of the enquiry, there was no occasion to proceed with the enquiry . Allegations of the claimants that an exparte enquiry was conducted is wrong and baseless . No compromise was ever arrived at between the claimants and the management . No illegality is there in the punishment awarded to the claimants . Their claim statement is liable to be dismissed.

4. Shri S.K. Yadav (WW1 ) and Shri Ranbir Singh (WW2) tendered their respective affidavits in support of their claim. They were cross examined on behalf of the management . Shri T.R. Jain tendered his affidavit as evidence on behalf of the management . He too was cross examined on behalf of the workman. No other witness was examinedby either of the parties.

5. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri B.K. Paul , authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimants . Shri Rajesh Mahendru , authorized representative , raised his submission on behalf of the management . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

8. In his affidavit Ex . MW1 /A Shri T.R. Jain projects that the claimants were suspended vide order dated 29-7-99 . Charge sheet dated 9-8-99 was served on Shri S.K. Yadav and dated 28-8-99 was served on Ranbir Singh for gross misconduct of riotious , disorderly and indecent behaviour in the premises of the bank, causing willful damage to the property and doing acts prejudicial to the interest ofthe bank . Claimants denied the charges and an enquiry officer was appointed who served notices on them to appear before him , on 1st and 2nd ofAugust, 2000, On 24-7-2000 they wrote to the Disciplinary Authority, admitting their guilt and giving assurances for good behaviour in future . They requested for lenient punishment, by bringing the matter under clause 19.12 of Bipartite Settlement. In view of their admissions no enquiry was found necessary . Show cause notice dated 25-7-2000 , calling their comments on proposed punishment , was served upon them . Vide letter dated 27-7-2000 , they again expressed their regrets for grave misconduct and requested for personal hearing . On 28-7-2000 personal hearing was given to them. Since no extenuating factor was brought forward, punisment of reduction ofbasic pay by two stages in scale of pay for two years for each misconduct was awarded to them , which punishments were to run concurrently. Punishment awarded to them was on lower side, since their misconduct were very grave . No principles ofnatural justice were violated.

6. Inhis testimony, when it was purified by an ordeal of cross examination , Shri Yadav admits that he was suspended by the management vide letter dated 29-7-99 . He further admits that subsequently when charge sheet was served upon him, it was replied by him . Shri P.K. Rastogi was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who issued notice calling upon him to appear in the enquiry. He asked the managementto settle his claim under clause 19.12 ( e) of Bipartite Settlement, vide letter dated 24-7-2000 . He admits hat on 25-7-2000 management issued a show cause notice calling upon his comments on the proposed punishment . He further admits that he was called for personal hearing

9. Out of facts testified by Shri S.K.Yadav , Ranbir Singh and T.R. Jain , it emerge that the claimants were charged for misconduct of riotious , disorderly and indecent behaviour in the premises of the bank, willful damage to 3213 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1932

2-7-99 . When Branch Manager opted not to oblige Ranbir Singh , the letter lifted S.B.Account Ledger and threatened the former of dire consequences . At that juncture Shri S.K. Yadav entered the cabin and abused the branch manager in filthiest language . He broke instrument of telephone lying on the table of the branch manager . These facts highlight that riotious , disorderly and indecent behaviour was shown by the claimants in the premises of thebank, theywilfully damaged the property and committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Misconducts , referred above , are of alarming complexion . Punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stage in scale of pay for a period of two years for each misconduct , cannot be called excessive or disproportionate.

the property and doing acts prejudicial to the interst ofthe bank. The claimants denied the allegations and management proceeded to conduct a domestic enquiry. Enquiry Officer called them to attend the proceedings on 1st and 2nd of August, 2000. In the meantime, claimants wrote the Disciplinary Authority , expressing their regrets over the incident and assured the Disciplinary Authority of their good conduct in future . In view of their admissions of facts, the Disciplinary Authority obviated the enquiry and served a show cause notice on them, calling upon their comments on the proposed punishment . They further expressed their regrets over the incident and sought an opportunity ofbeing heard in person. They were personally heard. In consideration of all these facts the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment to the claimants .

13. Award of punishment by the management can onlybe interfered by this Tribunal when there is a want of good faith, victimization or unfair labour practice , violations of principles of natural justice , or/ and punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct . By no stretch of imagination it can be said that punishment does not commensurate to the misconduct committed by the claimants . No facts of victimization, want of good faith , commission of unfair labour practice or violations of priniciples of natural justice are brought to the light of the day.Onewho looks down upon his senior, raises eye brows onhis acts, criminally intimidates him of dire consequences by words and gestures , abuses him in filthiest language and wilfully damages the property of the bank , cannot expect a lesser punishment . Circumstances of the present controversy are indicative that leniency was shown to the claimants . Punishment awarded to the claimants tilts in their favour . It cannot be said to be disproportionate to thier misconduct, not to call it shockingly disproportionate. Therefore , there are no reason to interfere with the punishment , awarded to the claimants .

10. Admission offacts by the claimants project that they made their breasts clean before the authorities and assured them of their future good conduct. Admission of guilty by a delinquent official dispenses with the enquiry . Itisnot expedient for the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the enquiry, when a delinquent official makes admission ofthe charges levelled against him . Here in the case the claimants admitted their guilts vide communication dated 24-7-2000, as well as in response to show cause notice on proposed punishment . Their admission , coupled with the confirmation ofthose facts , made the Disciplinary Authority sure that the claimants were repentive of their guilt and wanted to mend their behaviour . Admission of charges by them made it clear that the enquiry was not expedient . No illegality was committed in the matter, when reliance was placed on admissions made by the claimants . Violations of principles of natural justice has not taken place , since due opportunity was given to the claimants to present facts before the Displinary Authority . Consequently it is concluded that the Disciplinary Authority was justified in acting upon the admission of the guilt made by the claimants and recording a fining to the effect that misconducts stood proved against them.

11. Appeals were preferred by the claimants against the punishment awarded to them . Appellate Authority heard them and found no reason to interfere with the punishment awarded to them . It is evident that right of an appeal of the claimants was accorded to them by the management . Hence one cannot find that there was a violation of principles of natural justice at any stage too.

14. In view of the reasons detailed above , punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages in the pay scale for two years awarded to Ranbir Singh and S.K.Yadav is found to be justified . Management was competent to award such a punishment in view of 19 12 (e) of Bipartite Settlement . The said punishment nowhere comes in conflict with law . Therefore , action of the management, in awarding such a punishment , is found to be legal andjustified . The claimants are not entitled to any relief in that regard. Therefore , claim statement is liable to be dismissed. The same is , accordingly , dismissed and an award is passed in favour of the management . It be sent to theappropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV , Presiding Officer

Dated : 30-4-2010 .

12. Quantum of punishment awarded to the claimants has been assailed . As brought over the record Ranbir Singh went to the cabin of the Branch Manager on 25-7-99 at 10.45 AM to question him as to why he has deducted installments towards loans from his salary and initiated an action for his unauthorized absence between 28-6-99 to

1975GI /10-34 3214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 11 मई , 2010

2. Whether the action of the management of 508 Army Base Workshop , Allahabad in awarding punishment to Τ.Ν. 3674 Sh . G. S. Pathak , vide their order No. 2/ 3674-GSP/ Est- Ind dated 27-7-97 is legal and justified? If no , to what reliefthe workman is entitled?

का.आ. 1466.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार 508 आर्मी बेस वर्कशॉप के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 193/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -14011/5/1999- आईआर (डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 11th May , 2010

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant Sri G. S. Pathak, T. No. 3674 TCS , employed is 508 Army Base Workshop Allahabad has filed his claim statement through the Union . He stated that he is a workman under the provision of Section 2( s) of the I.D. Act . Army Base Workshop is registered under Factories Act , 1948 , as such it is a Factory and is an Industry and provisions of the 1.D. Actare applicable on the said factory . Sri Pathak has been elected Works Committee member from February , 1993 onwards .

S.O. 1466.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 193/1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of508 Army Base Workshop and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-5-2010 .

[No. L- 14011/ 5/ 1999 - IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH , Deşk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 193 of 99

Between

I.D. 46/2006

The General Secretary, Defence EWE Employees Union , Allahabad 586/74 A/25 ,B , Dalekapurwa Allahabad.

And

The Commandant & M& D , 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad For, Allahabad.

AWARD

4. On 10-1-1994, the main gate of the said industry was closed early prior to mustering in time allowed under the rules . Over three hundred workman were not allowed to enter in the workshop on that day by the arbitrary action ofthe opposite party . Workman Sri Pathak however , did not come on duty on that day due to illness . He was served with a memo of charges framing false charges against him . He denied the charges . Opposite party appointed an inquiry officer and presenting officer. Inquiry officer supplied the copy of the inquiry proceedings to the workman . Opposite party demanded certain documents for the defence of the workmanunder the rules , like copy of FIR if lodged copy of documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority, copy of the preliminary inquiry report , copies of the statements etc, copy of the Presidential Order empowering Brigadier K. Hari Kumar to act as disciplinary authority . It is alleged that the powers to appoint disciplinary authority cannot be delegated further . It is stated that out of four listed witnesses only one witness Sri S.R. Agarwal produced and cross examined . Other three witnesses were not produced in the inquiry as such no opportunity to cross examine was provided . The inquiry officer however , taken the cognizance of previous statements of the three officers (witnesses) and filed them along with inquiry proceedings . These statements were never confirmed nor opportunity to cross examine them was given to the claimant which is against the rules . He alleged that he produced four defence witnesses . Defence witnesses Sri Mishralal Chowkidar was on duty on the gate where incidents took place . In his statement he confirmed that Sri Pathak was not seen by him at the gate on 10-1-94 in the mob . Prosecution Sri Agrawal in his statement stated that UDC Sri Y. A. Khan was available in the gate on 10-1-94 where Sri Khan in his statement has stated that he was on leave on 10-1-94 . Sri Swyamber Lal , UDC stated in his statement that he was available at the gate whole day on the date of incident . He also confirmed that he had not seen Sri Pathak at the gate . The labourer Sri Vijay Kumar was also examined as a 1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide notification No. L- 14011 /5/99 /IR (DU) dated 21-7-99 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

3215 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6. It is alleged that the dispute raised by the employee is a service matter as defined under Section 3 of Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 , as such provisions of the same are applicable to the employees of the Army Base Workshop . Therefore , the employee should have gone to Administrative Tribunal which deals with service matter . It isfurther alleged that the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act are not applicable on the claimant .

7. Opposite party has also filed additional written statement in which it has been reiterated that the inquiry against the workman was conducted fairly, rules ofnatural justice has fully been complied with and the delinquent employee was given fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry by the disciplinary authority . The inquiry report does not suffers from any infirmity and lastly the disciplinary authority after fully applying his mind to the entire record of the inquiry and after providing opportunity to the delinquent employee passed final order imposing punishment . Lastly opposite party has prayed that the claim of the claimant is liable to be rejected being dovoid ofmerit .

defence witness who confirmed that he did not see Sri Pathak on the relevant date . He stated that on 10-1-94 he was sick . He applied for leave . He sent leave application along with medical certificate under certificate ofposting , copy of the same was produced before the inquiry officer . Prosecution witness Sri Agrawal has made a false statement so he could not be relied. Inquiry Officer has relied upon the statement Sri N. B. Bisal Lt. Colonel , NPM Kumaran and Col. V. K. Khosla whereas they have not been before the inquiry officer to confirm their statement nor opportunity was given to cross - examine them . Therefore , the order of the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of stopping three stages increment without considering the medical certificate and relying upon the statements of the witnesses who were not produced is arbitrary and illegal . Workman Sri Pathak also preferred an appeal against the final order in which appellate authority reduced the punishment by lifting one increment . The claimant also pleaded that the disciplinary action conducted against him is wholly illegal and against rules of nature justice and rules governing the service condition . Therefore , the entire action in the name of disciplinary action is liable to be set aside along with final order and appellate order .

8. Both the parties have filed documentary evidence .

9. Claimant has filed documentary evidence along with his statement of claim . These are , memo of charge, reply of charge , order appointing inquiry officer and presenting officer, letter forwarding inquiry report with proceeding reply of the second notice . Order ofpunishment dated 27-6-97 , copy of appeal made by claimant and copy oforder passed by the appellate authority .

10. Opposite party has also filed all the relevant documents relating to the inquiry vide list dated 1-5-03 . Almost these are the same documents which are filed by theclaimant.

11. Both the contesting parties have filed documents in the shape of photocopy.

12. Claimant did not produce any oral evidence in favor ofhis claim .

13. Opposite party has produced one witness Sri Sunil Rai Agrawal Asstt . Engineer as M.W.1 .

14. I perused the record evidence and heard the arguments .

15. It is contended by the opposite party that allegations of malafide and perversity has been leveled against the inquiry officer . It is also alleged that the disciplinary authority has not acted bonafidely but claimant has not produced any oral statement in support of their claim statement .

16. Opposite party has produced the witness Sri Agrawal , he stated that he was present in the office on the relevant date 10'- 1-94 . He stated that on that date when 5. Opposite party has contradicted the allegation of the claimant in their reply . It is alleged that on 10-1-94 workman Sri Pathak instigated co workers to take part in the demonstration and slogan shouting at various times between 9.30 hours and 16.00 hours in front of the gate and in front of civilion assistant security office of 508 Army Base Workship Allahabad . Thus he indulged in a mannar unbecoming of a Government servant and violated CCS & CCA Rules 1965. Sri K. Hari Kumar the then Brigadier issued a memorandum/charge sheet under the rules to Sri Pathak and also framed Article ofCharges which were duly served. Sri V. K. Bahal was appointed as inquiry officer and Sri P. D. Rastogi was appointment as presenting officer . Inquiry officer conducted the inquiry on various dated strictly in accordance with settled rules of natural justice . Full fair and reasonable opportunity was given to the charge employee to prove his innocence but he failed to prove . After conducting the inquiry officer found the delinquent employee guilty and opined that the charges leveled againgst him stands fully proved and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority . The disciplinary authority after having considered all the aspect of the matter found Sri Pathak guilty of the charges . After cosideration and hearing the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction by three stages of increments . It is alleged that after giving due consideration to all the aspects of the case the appellate authority reduced the punishment of Sri Pathak by lifting one increment . Therefore the punishment awarded to the delinquent employee is fully legal and based on a fair inquiry . There was no biased opinion by punishing the delinqent and the employee was given full opportunity for his defence in the inquiry .

3216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

most of the workers did not come in time, they were not allowed to enter inside by the officer present. On this workers collected in the shape of mob and started shouting against the officers . At that time Col. V.K. Khosla and Kumaran and other officers came at the place of incidence. Employee Sri Ghanshyam Pathak along with others was also present . Sri Agrawal submitted report of the incident to the Commandant on which an inquiry was conducted and he has given evidence against Sri Pathak . He has been cross- examined. Nothing has come out in his statement he is making a false statement . Claimant had not given any kind of evidence which can prove that the inquiry officer was biased . There is no evidence from which I can infer that there was a violation of principles of natural justice during the course of conduct of inquriy. From the entire document it is quite evident that there is no iota of evidence on the point that inquiry finding suffers from any kind of infirmity. Thus I hold that the inquiry report is just and fair and also that the inquiry officer had not committed any legal error in conducting the inquiry. Likewise I also find that the disciplinary authority had given full opportunity and considered the relevant facts and circumstances of the case in the light of allegations of misconduct and recorded a reasoned finding at arriving its finał conclusion in imposing penalty on the claimant.

17. Opposite party has also placed reliance on the case law [ 2008 ( 118 ) FLR 1164 ] M/s . Uptrom Powertronics Employees Union Ghaziabad through its Secretary versus P.O. Labour Court ( II ) Ghazibad, in which Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has observed that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of workman -Reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman . Therefore , the law applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case with full swing . In this case also the workman has not adduced any evidence in support ofhis claim.

18.Having concluded that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper and also having concluded that there is no error or defect either in the observation of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority, I am ofthe firm view that the order passed by both the officers i.e. disciplinary authority and the appellate need no interference at the hands of this tribunal and as such is maintained .

19. Therefore , the action of the management is declared just and fair and it is held that the claimant Sri Pathak is not entitled for any relief for want of evidence .

20. Before parting with it , it may be pointed out that it has also been contended by the authorized representative for the opposite party that the cause of action falls within the ambit and scope of the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 , therefore , provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , will have no application to the case of the claimant. After giving my anxious consideration to the

[PART 11--St . 30 ) ] contention of the opposite party I do not find any force in the contention of the authorized representative for the opposite party because it has not been explained by the opposite party as to how provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable on the claimant . Even no evidence has been adduced on this point by the opposite party. Therefore , I do not find any force in this contention .

21. In view of above observations , the claim is decided against the claimant holding that he is not entitled to any relief pursuant to present reference .

22. Reference is answered accordingly .

Dt. 05-05-10

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 मई, 2010

का.आ. 1467.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्सेस रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 157/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/ 263/98- आईआर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th May, 2010

S.O. 1467. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 157/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Indian Institute of Pulses Research and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-5-2010.

[No. L-42012/263 / 98 - IR ( DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 157 of 99 BETWEEN

Sri Awadhesh alias Raju Co Sh . Rajendra Prasad Shukla , 115/ 193 -A- 2 Maswanpur, Kanpur.

3217 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii)]

AND

Director,

6. Workman has also filed rejoinder but nothing new has been stated there in except reiterating the facts already pleaded by him in his statement of claim.

Indian Institute of Pulses Research ,

Kalyanpur,

G.T. Road,

Kanpur.

AWARD

7. Claimant has filed certain documents which are photocopies vide list 15/2 and they have filed 10 documents . Opposite party has filed 12 documents vide list 14/1 . These documents are photocopy of licence ofthe contractor , photocopy of the registration certificate photocopy of letters .

8. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence .

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide its notification No. 42012/ 263 /98 / IR( DU) dated 3-5-99 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

9. Claimant has adduced himself as W.W. I as Awadhesh Kumar . Opposite party has adduced one Sri Jagdish Narain who is Farm Manager as M.W.1 .

2. Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute ofPulses Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur in terminating the services of Sri . Awdhes alies Raju is legal justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?

10. I perused the record evidenc and heard the arguments.

11. Claimant did not appear at the time of arguments .

3. Brief facts are that the claimant Sri . Awadhesh alias Raju has filed his claim statement praying that the order of oral termination of service dated 19-5-98 , be declared as null and void and he should be granted all the benefits and he should be reintated in service .

12. Opposite party specifically contended that claimant was never engaged by them as labour or casual labour in the year 1989 or onwards . He has never employed on any post. MW.I stated that he is working in the institute since 1982 till today . He was never engaged by the institute he was never enrolled and his presence was never marked . Whenever there is additional work in the institute that work is to be carried out through the licensed contractor. Opposite party has filed licence of the contractor issued by RLC dated 13-5-93 and on wards . There is no cross examination done by the claimant side to M.W. 1 , therefore , his statement is un - rebutted . Claimant has also admitted in his cross that there was no advertisement in the paper for employment . He never gave any application to the institute for employment, his name was never sent bythe employment exchange for employment, and he was never paid by the institute for holidays .

4. He stated that he was employed as labour on permanent basis for permanent work on the minimum scale on 1-1-89 . He was getting Rs . 2127 per month before termination of his service . Nature of work for which he was employed was agriculture because of permanent and perennial in nature and still continuing . It is alleged that the opposite party is an industry as per provisions of the I.D. Act . He has been engaged or employed for a number of years but he was never regularized and not given permanent pay scale . He has continuously worked for 240 days in the previous calendar year . To escape from the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , the opposite party has tried to declare the claimant as the labour of supply contractor in the year 1998. When he made a representation for claiming to be regularized, getting aggrieved, the opposite party terminated his service orally . Before terminating his service he was not given any notice or notice pay . Therefore , the opposite party has committed the breach of section 25F of the Act and acted illegally . Opposite party has committed unfair labour practice, committed breach of section 25H also . Therefore , the claimant has prayed for the aforsaid relief.

13. Therefore , from the evidence of the claimant it does not appear that he had been engaged directly by the opposite party management as casual labour in the year 1989 or onwards . I have gone through the papers filed by the claimant . These papers are photocopies . They are not material or relevant to the extent that the claimant has been engaged by the opposite party as a casual labour . Claimant has not been able to prove that he had worked for 240 days continuously under the opposite party . When he was not engaged or employed by the opposit party, therefore he does not come under the definition of workman as claimed by the opposite party.

14. Therefore , there does not appear to be any breach of any provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. There does not appear to be any relationship of employer and employee , there is no appointment letter . Therefore , the claimant has failed to prove that he has been a workman and he was terminated by the opposite party at any point oftime or as alleged by him .

15. Opposite party has further contended that there isno mention of date of termination of the workman or the year , therefore , reference order is vague . I agree with the view of the opposite , rty.

5. Opposite party has filed written statement denying vehemently the claim of the claimant on a number of grounds . It is alleged that the opposite party does not come under the definition of industry as per provisions of the Act . It is alleged that the claimant was never engaged or appointed by the management . Claimant might have been engaged by contractor to when work of contract have been awarded by the opposite party. It is also stated that the claimant does not come under the definition of workman ; there had been no relationship of workman and employer . Itis stated that in the reference order date of termination is not mentioned. It is alleged that they have not committed any breach of section 25B , 25F and 25H of the Act . Therefore, they have prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected.

3218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 /JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 16. Therefore, the reference is decided against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , ( the Act in short) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

Di.04-05-10

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 12 मई , 2010

"Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corp. , Ltd. In terminating the services of Shri Sulakhan Singh S/o Shri Nachhattar Singh is legal& justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date ?" का.आ. 1468. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान पेटोलियम कोरपोरेशन लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30012/ 129/2000- आईआर ( एम)]

कमल बाखरू . डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th May , 2010

After receiving the reference , parties were informed . Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The main contention of the workman is that he was employed by the management as clerk on 1-9-98 and his services were terminated on 12-5-99 without any notice , charge sheet , enquiry or compensation . The juniors and new hands are still in service . He was getting the daily wages at the rate of Rs . 150 per day but paid monthly . On the basis of the above the workman has requested for an order setting aside the termination order and consequential order for his reinstatement into the services .

S.O. 1468.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 49 :2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court - 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-5-2010 .

[No. L - 30012/ 129/ 2000 - IR ( M ) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The management appeared and has raised two preliminary objections . The first objection is that this industrial dispute is bared by the principle of resjudicata as the workman had previously field a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge , Civil Division Bhatinda on 28-5-99 challenging his termination from the services . He withdraw the suit without seeking any permission to raise the industrial dispute . The second preliminary objection raised by the management is that there is no employer and employee relationship between the management and the workman . The services of the workman were provided with through the contractor and he was not employed by the management . He was not paid the wages directly by the management and there was no administrative control of the management on the workman .

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

Case I.D. No. 49/2001

Shri Sulakhan Singh So Shri Nachhattar Singh C / o General Secretary , Trade Union Council , Patiala ,

...Applicant

Versus

The Manager . Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Bhatinda ( Panjab ) .

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman :

Shri IHLS . Bath , Advocate .

Shri Subhash Ahuja, Advocate

For the Management :

AWARD

Passed on 24-4-10

Government of India vide notification No. L-30012/ 129 2000- IR ( M ) dated 8-1-2001 by exercising its powers

Bothof theparties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . The workman tiled his affidavit in support of his claim and he was cross - examined by learned counsel for the management on 10-12-03 . One Shri Rajnish filed his affidavit on behalf of the management and he was cross-examined by learned counsel for the workman on 5-10-05. No documents were filed by the management . Workman filed the documents marked as Ex . WI to W173 . I have heard the parties at length and perused entire materials on record . So far as the documents filed by the workman is concerned , the same are related to his working with the management . Thedocuments are the entries in cash sales control register and preparation of sales supply vouchers . There is not a single document which proves the direct appointment or engagement of the workman with themanagement . There is no iota of evidence which proves thatpayment of wages was made good by the management to the workman directly . There is no iota of evidence on record to prove that workman was working under the administrative control of the management .

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15. 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

It is the contention of the management that the services of the workman were provided with by the contractors . Management also failed to file any contact or even iota of evidence to prove that his services were provided with to the management through contractor . In absentia of evidence , the contention of the management providing with the services to the workman through contractor cannot be relied upon. It does not mean that on failure of the management to file the relevant evidence regarding contractor will automatically prove the case that workman directly worked with the management and he was paid wages directly by the management . It is the duty of the workman to prove that he was engaged by the management, he was under the administrative control of the management , he was directly working with the management and the payment of wages were also made good directly by the management . The workman to prove the above contentións has only filed the documents marked as exhibits W 1 to W 173. None of the documents filed by the workman proves the direct engagement of the workman by the management nor these documents proved the administrative control and payment of wages made good by the management to the workman . The workman has also failed to prove that he has completed 240 days ofwork in the preceding year from the date of his termination . There is not a single sentence in pleadings and in evidence which proves that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination with the management . In absentia ofthis evidence , I am of the view that workman has failed to prove that he was directly engaged by the management , was under the administrative control of the management and was paid wages by the management directly to the workman.

The preliminary objections raised by the management are not sustainable . The workman has filed a civil suit but the civil suit was not decided finally by the Court of competent jurisdiction which is the condition precedent for application of principle of resjudicata . Accordingly, this claim is not barred by the principle of resjudicata . So far as the second preliminary objection raised by the management is concern , I am also of the view that workman has failed to prove the direct relationship with the management. Accordingly , on the basis of the above observation , I am of the view that workman is not entitled for any relief. The reference is answered accordingly . Let Central Government be approached for publication of award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1469.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार विजय बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध

3219 में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 60/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/169/2003- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th May, 2010

S.O. 1469.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 60/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Banglore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Vijay Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-5-2010 .

[No. L- 12011 / 169 /2003 - IR ( B - II ) ] U.S. PANDEY, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Shri S.N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer C.R. NO.60/2003

II PARTY

I PARTY

The Regional Manager , Vijay Bank, Head Office , 41/2 , M.G. Road , Trinity Circle , Banglore- 560001

TheRegional Secretary , Vijay Bank Workers Organisation , 122 1stFloor , Srinath Complex, New Cotton Market, Hubli -29

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12011/ 169 / 2003 - IR( B - II ) dated 21-10-2003 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Vijaya Bank is justified in terminating the services of Shri Prakash Veerabhadrappa Hugar , Sub - staff? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?

2. Inpursuance of the notices issued by this tribunal . both the parties entered their appearance through their respectives Advocates and the first party filed Claim 3220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 /JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

Statement and the Second Party filed Counter to the Claim Statement and both led evidence on their respective contentions .

3.When the matter was at the stage of arguments , the first party and its workman filed a memo dated 28-5-2008 reporting settlement to the effect that the Second Party has provisionally selected the first party workman for the postof Peon, he is satisfied with the offer of appointment given by the bank and he wishes to withdraw the dispute raised under the reference .

4. Today, the learned Advocate for the first party confirmed the contents of the memo filed by the first party and its workman and submitted to disposes off the matter as withdrawn . Similarly, the counsel appearing for the second party with a memo produced the joining report of the first party workman and submitted as per the memo filed by the first party and its workman , refrence may be disposed off.

5. In view of the settlement arrived at by the parties , first party workman being given an appointment of Peon by the Second Party and his withdrawal of the dispute , the reference deserves to be rejected. In the result , I pass the following Award:

AWARD

The reference is rejected as withdrawn . No costs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 4th May 2010 )

S.N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 12 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1470.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ ट्वान्सकोर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/212/2003- आईआर( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th May, 2010

S.O. 1470.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 12/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Travancore and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 12-5-2010 .

[No. L - 12012/212/ 2003 - IR ( B - I) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

[ PART 11 -SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1. KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX . DELHI I.D. No. 12/2004

Workman Pragati Kumar Tiwari S/ o Late Shri Dulare Tiwarı . C/ o Kaushal Kishore Tiwari , New Colony , Ganga Nagar, Near Ratan Cold Storage, Farukhabad ( U.P. ) .

Versus

The Dy. General Manager ,

State Bank of Travancore , Zonal Office , Chennai .

.. Management

AWARD

Examination for recruitment of clerks was conducted byBanking Service Recruitment Board ( hereinafter referred to as the B.S.R.B. ) in the year 1994. Shri Pragati Kumar Tiwari , who had applied for that post , vide his application dated 3-8-94, was required to appear for written examination on 13-11-94 at Government Girls Senior Secondary School No.1 , East of Kailash, New Delhi . Instead of appearing in the examination , Shri Tiwari conspired with one Sarvesh Kumar Mishra , who in pursuance of the said conspiracy appeared in that written examination , impersonating himself asPragati Kumar Tiwari . Shri Mishra forged signatures of Shri Tiwari on the Admit Card . Shri Pragati Kumar Tiwari , onbeing declared successful in that examination, was called for an interview by the B.S.R.B. He was declared successful and allotted to the State Bank of Travancore by the B.S.R.B. He joined Karol Bagh branch of the said bank as clerk - cum- cashier on 12-8-95 . When this fraud came to light , a case was registered with Central Bureau of Investigation (inshort C.B.I. ) . Pragati Kumar Tiwari was suspended w.e.f. 12-3-97. Charge sheet was served upon him. An enquiry was conducted . The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 16-1-2001 . Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment ofdismissal from service to Shri Tiwari , vide its order dated 28-6-2001 . He raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer . When conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide Order No. L-12012/212/2003 - IR ( B - I ) New Delhi , dated 23-1-2004, with the following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofTranvancore, New Delhi , in dismissing Shri Pragati Kumar Tiwari vide dismissal order dated 28-6-2001 is just, fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?"

2.Claim statement was filed by the workman pleading that he joined services of the management bank as clerk- cum-cashier at its Karol Bagh branch on 12-8-95 . He received memo dated 7-3-97 from Zonal Office , Madras , on the strength of which he was suspended w.e.f. 12-3-97 . Charge sheet dated 7-9-99 was served upon him and a domestic enquiry commenced . He wrote letter dated 25-10-99 pleading that he has been implicated in false and frivolous case , with ulterior motive . His request for stay of departmental procedings was declined . He approached 3221

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

claim . Shri Babu Raj was examined on behalf of the mangement . After hearing the parties and on consideration ofthe evidence adduced, issue No.1 was answered in favour of the management and against the claimant, vide order dated 4-2-2010 .

6.Arguments on proportionality ofpunishment were heard. Shri Rajat Arora, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the management . None came forward on behalf of the workman , to advance arguments on the matter . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

Issue No. 2

High Court ofDelhi for stay of departmental enquiry. The management proceeded with the matter and passed an order ofdismissal of his services , which resulted in frustration of hiswrit petition . He opted to withdraw his petition . During the course of enquiry , no reasonable opportunity was given to him to cross examine the witnesses . Hand- writing expert was not an impartial person , hence his report cannot be termed as an independent piece of evidence . The report of the Enquiry Officer was based on false and frivolous allegations, hence it cannot attract any punishment . As per the provisions of clause 21 ( ir ) of Bipartite Settlement dated 14-2-95, punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority was uncalled for . A charge sheet was submitted against him by the C.B.I. before a criminal court. He was acquitted by the trial court . Findings ofthe Enquiry Officer were in contradiction to the findings of the criminal court , hence those findings cannot be used in awarding punishment to him . He presents that order of punishment is not sustainable . He claims his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

7. Babu Raj , the Enquiry Officer had proved his report as Ex.MWI/2 . He testified that the report was recorded on consideration of evidence adduced by the parties as well as their written submissions . On perusal of report Ex.MWI/2 it came to light that Pragati Kumar Tiwari had applied for a post of clerk in B.S.R.B. in the year 1994. Не was required to appear in the written examination on 13-11-94, atGovt . Girls High School No. 1 , East of Kailash , New Delhi . Instead of appearing in that examination, he entered into a conspiracy with Sarvesh Kumar Mishra , a clerk inOriental Bank of Commerce , Shastri Nagar branch , Ghaziabad , U.P. In pursuance of that conspiracy , Shri Sarvesh Kumar Mishra appeared in the examination , impersonating himself as Pragati Kumar Tiwari . Sarvesh Kumar Mishra had forged signatures of Shri Tiwari on AdmitCard bearing Roll No. 31971113 and wrote answer sheet bearing Sl . No. 1523632. Unaware of that fraud , Pragati Kumar Tiwari was declared successful by the BSRB and called for an interview. He appeared for the interview and wasdeclared eligible for appointment as clerk in the bank. An offer was given to him in that regard , which was accepted by Tiwari, knowing well that it was based on written examination held on 13-11-94 , in which he had not appeared. Hence was not eligible for appointment . All these charges were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer in his findings Ex.MW1/ 2 . The Disciplinary Authority considered those findings and awarded punishment of dismissal to the claimant , vide his order dated 26-6-2001 .

3.Contest was given to the claim by the management pleading that Pragati Kumar Tiwari entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sarvesh Kumar Mishra and the latter appeared in written examination held by the B.S.R.B. for selection of clerks. He forged signatures of Shri Tiwari on Admit Card and answer sheet also . On the basis of answer sheet , written by Shri Mishra , Pragati Kumar Tiwari was declared successful in written examination . Shri Tiwari appeared before the Interview Board and was appointed as clerk-cum- cashier in Karol Bagh Branch of the bank . When fraud came to light, he was suspended and charge sheeted , vide order dated 9-9-99 . Enquiry was initiated against him . The Enquiry Officer gave reasonable opportunity to him to defend himself. Claimant moved High Court of Delhi for stay of the enquiry proceedings but his writ petition was declined . He was represented by Shri K.K.Sukumaran, his defence representative, before the Enquiry Officer . He examined his witnesses before the EnquiryOfficer. The Enquiry Officer has not violated either the provisions ofBipartite Settlement or principles of natural justice.After giving him a show cause and personal hearing, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of dismissal . It has been projected that in a criminal trial proof beyond reasonable doubt is expedient to establish charges , while in a departmental enquiry the matter is adjudicated on preponderance of probabilities . Charges were distinct and different than the charges which were before the criminal court . He was acquitted by the trial court on technical reasons , which acquittal does not come in the way of the management . Claim petition deserve dismissal and the same may be dismissed .

4.Onpleadings of the parties following issues were settled:

1. Whether the enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper?

2. As in terms of reference .

3. Relief.

8.What shouldbe the appropriate punishment , which can be awarded to the claimant ? Right of an employer to inflict punishment of discharge or dismissal is not unfattered . The punishment imposed must commensurate with gravity of the misconduct , proved against the delinquent workman . Prior to enactment of section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (in short the Act) , it was not open to the industrial adjudicator to vary the order of punishment on finding that the order of dismissal was too severe and was not commensurative with the act of misconduct. In other words , the industrial adjudicator could not interfere with the punishment as it was not required to consider propriety or adequacy of punishment or whether it was excessive or too severe . Apex Court , in this connection, had, however , laid down in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Company [ 1963 ( 1 ) LLJ 291 ] that where order of punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the act of the misconduct which no reasonable employer would 5. Issue No. 1 was treated as a preliminary issue . Pragati Kumar Tiwari examined himself in support of his

1975 Gl /10-35 3222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

of punishment to be imposed . In that case a conductor of the bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss of 50 p . to the employer by irregular sale of tickets . It was held that the punishment was too harsh and disproportionate to the act of misconduct.

impose in like circumstances , that itself would lead to the inference of victimization or unfair labour practice which would vitiate order of dismissal or discharge . But by enacting the provisions of section 11 -A of the Act, the Legislature has transferred the discretion of the employer , in imposing punishment , to the industrial adjudicator. It is now the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of misconduct , in cases of discharge or dismissal . If the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified in any circumstances on the facts of a case, it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment and direct reinstatement with back wages , but it has also the power to impose certain conditions as it may deem fit and also to give relief to the workman, including award of lessor punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal .

11. After insertion of section 11 -A of the Act , the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with the Tribunal , who has to see whether punishment imposed by the employer commensurate with the gravity of the act of misconduct . If it comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment is not justified because misconduct allowed and proved is such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or dismissal and where necessary , set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any other relief, including the award of lessor punishment , in lieu of discharge or dismissal , as the circumstance of the case may warrant . reference can be made to a precedent in Sanatak Singh ( 1984 Lab . i.C. 817) . The discretionto award punishment lessor than the punishment of discharge or dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal can interfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the decree of the guilt of the workman . Reference can be made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar [ 1994 ( II) LLJ 332 ] . Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now jurisdiction and power of substituting its own measure of punishment in place of the managerial wisdom , once it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case , Section IIA of the Act specifically gives two folds powers to the Industrial Tribunal , first is virtually the power of appeal against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer inhis report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence and the conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost importance, is the power of reappraisal of quantum of punishment.

9. It is established law that imposing punishment for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing authorityto decide and normally it should not be interfered withbythe Industrial Tribunals . The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment. But where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, regard being had to the particular conduci and past record, or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstance , the Tribunal may treat the imposition of such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair labour practice . Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Labour [ 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 462] . Likewise in Management ofthe Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry [1971 ( II ) LILJ 630] the Apex Court ruled that the employer made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trivial matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be unwarranted . In Ram Kishan [ 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ 982 ] the delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using abusive language against a superior officer . On the facts and in the circumstances of the case , the Apex Court held that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputed to the delinquent. It was ruled therein , " when abusive language is used by anybody against a superior , it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive language. No straight-jacket formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service . Each case has to be considered on its own facts " .

12. Power to set aside order of discharge or dismissal and grant relief of reinstatement or lessor punishment is not untramaled power . This power has to be exercised only when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was notjustified . This satisfaction of the Tribunal isobjective satisfaction and not subjective one . It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to various circumstances like nature of delinquency committed by theworkman , his past conduct , impact of delinquency on employer's business , besides length of service rendered by him . Furthermore , the Tribunal has to consider whether the decision taken by the employer is just or not. Only after taking into consideration these aspects , the Tribunal can upset the punishment imposed by the employer . The quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with without recording specific findings on points referred above . No indulgence is to be granted to a person , who is guilty of grave misconduct like cheating, fraud , misappropriation of employers fund , theft of public property etc. A reference cannot be made to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa [ 1995 ( 1 ) LLJ 960] .

10.In B.M.Patil [ 1996 ( II ) LLJ 536] , Justice Mohan Kumar of Karnataka High Court observed that in exercise of discretion , the Disciplinary Authority should not act like a robot and justice shouldbe moulded with humanism and understanding. It has to assess each case on its own merit and each set of fact should be decided with reference to the evidence recording the allegation , which should be basis of the decision . The past conduct of the worker may be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ त्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

13. As detailed above Shri Tiwari entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sarvesh Kumar Mishra , who impersonated himself as the claimant in the examination hall . In pursuance of the said conspiracy, signature of the claimant were forged on the Admit Card and Shri Mishra wrote answer sheet for the claimant . The claimant knew it well that he himself was under an obligation to take the examination in person . By sending Shri Mishra to the examination hall , the claimant cheated B.S.R.B. and ultimately management bank, who offered him job ofa clerk. Acts of forgery, cheating , conspiracy and impersonation committed by the claimant as well as Shri Sarvesh Kumar Mishra are very grave. Impersonation as claimant was done by Shri Mishra, to accord benefit to the claimant. Series of acts were commited with a view to defraud the B.S.R.B and -the bank. Orne who commits such serious offences deserves servere punishment of dismissal . Therefore , punishment of dismissal awarded to the claimant commensurate to his misconduct. Act of dismissing services of the claimant vide order dated 28-6-2001 is found to be fair , just and legal . The issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the management and against the claimant .

14. Relief.

15. In view ofthe foregoing reasons it is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. His claim statement isdevoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. accordingly his claim statement is discarded . Resultantly an award is passed it favour of the management . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated 22-4-2010

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 12 मई , 2010 का.आ. 1471, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार विजया बैंक के प्रबधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/ 252/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th May, 2010

S.O. 1471. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Rer . No. 24/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofVijaya Bank and their workman, which wasreceived by the Central Government on 12-5-2010.

[No. L- 12011 /252/2003 - IR (B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY, Desk Officer

3223

ANNEXURE

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

Dated4th May 2010

PRESENT: Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer C.R. No. 24/2004

IPARTY TheRegional Secretary, VijayaBank Workers Organisation, 122, 1st Floor , Srinath Complex , New CottonMarket , Hubli II PARTY The Deputy General Manager , Vijaya Bank, HeadOffice , M.G. Road, Trinity Circle , Bangalore- 560 001

AWARD

1.The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section( 1) and Sub section 2A ofSection 10 of the Industria Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947)has referred this dispute vide order No.L- 12011 /252/ 2003-1R(B - 11 )dated 18.03.2004 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank is justified in terminating the services of Shri Raju Rachappa Koppal. Sweeper, without complying with the provisions of ID Act , 1947 ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? " 2. Pursuant to the Issuance of notice to both the parties , they entered their appearance through their respective advocates and the first party filed its Clain Statement and Second Party filed its Counter Statement and after both the parties led their evidence , the first party and its workman filed a memo on 28.05.2008 to the effect that the Second Party bank having provisionally selected the first party workman for the post of Peon in the bank, he issatisfied with the offer of appointment made by the bank and he wishes to withdraw the dispute raised under the reference as fully settled.

3. Today, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Second Party submitted that in view of the regularization of the first party , by the second party bank, as per the memo filedby the first party workman dated 28.05.2008 , the reference may be disposed off.

4. Since the first party withdrew the dispute being selected for the post of Peon in the Second Party Bank and request to dispose off the reference as withdrawn , the reference deserves to be rejected as withdrawn by the first party workman . In the result, I pass the following award: AWARD

The reference is rejected as withdrawn . No costs . (Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 4th May 2010 )

S.N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer 3224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 12 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1472.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डी. आर. डी. ओ. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14011/6/2008- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th May, 2010

upgradation was granted to him in the scale of Rs.3050- 3950 on 9-8-99 . Second financial upgradation was granted to him in the scale of Rs . 3200-4900 w.e.f. 22-10-2004 , which scale was revised to Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs . 2000. He was belabouring under a misconception that second upgradation was available to him in the scale ofRs 4000-6000 . He raised a demand in that regard. When his demand was not conceded to , he approached All India Gentral Government Employees Association and Canteen Mazdoor Sabha , who opted to espouse his claim . The said union filed a claim before the Conciliation Officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order No. L - 14011 / 6/ 2008 - IR ( DU) , New Delhi dated 29-7-2008 , with following terms:

"Whether the demand of AICEA Canteen Mazdoor Sabha for seeking pay scale of Rs . 4000-6000 for Rajinder Sharma, bearer from the management of Statutory Canteen D.R.D.O. is legal andjustified? Ifyes , to what relief workman is entitled to ? "

S.O. 1472. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.7/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No. - I , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of D.R.D.O. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-05-2010 .

[No. L- 14011/6/2008 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DLEHI

I. D. No. 7/2009

Shri Rajinder Sharma through Shri V. N. Sharma General Secretary of AICEA , Canteen Mazdoor Sabha , 48, Lado Sarai , (F-48 Lado Sarai) . New Delhi - 110030 . ....

Workman

Versus

The Director ( LASTEC) , DRDO, O/o the Director LASTEC , Metcalf House , Delhi - 110054

....Management

AWARD

A Bearer/Attendent was appointed in defence Science Laboratory Canteen , Metcalf House , Delhi , on 21st of January , 1976 , in the scale of Rs . 70--85 . It was a non statutory Canteen . In pursuance of directions given by the Apex Court benefit of statuory canteen were accorded to the employees of non statutory canteens . Consequently status of Government employee was accorded to that bearer on 22-10-1980 . He served the canteen till 30-6-2007 the date whenhe reached the age of superannuation . First financial

2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Rajinder Sharma pleading that statutory canteens are established under Section 46 (0) of the Factories Act , 1948 , which are controlled by the establishment of respective departments . Non statutory Canteens are also there in some of the departments . Employees of statutory and non statutory canteens were to be treated at par in pursuance of the directions given by the Apex Court . It has been pleaded that Rajinder Sharma was appointed as Bearer / Attendant ' B ' on 21-1-76 . He was accorded status of a Government employee on 22-10-80 . On recommendation of 5thPay Commission Cooks , employed in statutory cantteen established in the Ministry of Defence " were granted Ist financial upgradation in the scale of Rs . 1320-2040 , which scale was revised to Rs . 4000-6000and 2nd financial upgradation on was granted in the scale of Rs . 1600-2660 which scale was revised to Rs . 5000-8000 Post of cook and Assistant Halwai were to be upgraded in the scale of Rs . 950-1500 and to be given first and second financial upgradation , as referred above . He was not granted financial upgradation , as per scale available in canteen being established by Department of Space and Technology, Government of India. A bearer in the said department gets first financial upgradation in the scale of Rs . 3050-4590 and second financial up gradation in the scale of Rs. 4000- 6000. An order was issued by the management on 7-7-2008 inwhich pay scale for Halwai- cum-Cook was mentioned as Rs . 3200-4900 . Management issued order dated 20-1-2009/21-1-2009 and granted second financial upgradation to him in the scale of Rs.3200-4900 w.e.f. 22-10-2004. Management was under an obligation to grant 3225 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ15 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

him 2nd financial upgradation in the scale of Rs . 4000- 6000.Aclaim has been made that Rajinder Sharma is entitled to second financial upgradation in the scale of Rs . 4000- 6000 w.e.f. 22-10-2004 , besides other consequential benefits .

beenpaidyet.Attendant " B " are getting their wages in the scale of Rs . 4000-6000 since 22-10-2004 . Vth Pay Commission had recommended 2nd financial upgradation in the scale of Rs . 4000-6000 for his category . Canteen Mazdoor Sabha filed an application before Jabalpur Bench ofCentral Administrative Tribunal, which was adjudicated on2-7- .2009 , copy ofwhich order is Ex. WW1 /2 . In 2005 an application was moved by Canteen Mazdoor Sabha before Central Administrative Tribunal which was adjudicated on 1-2-2006 , copy of which order is Ex. WW1 / 3 . Ministry of Personnel , Public Grievances and Pension issued order dated 18-4-2006 , copy of which order is Ex. WW 1/4. On 10-4-2006 order was issued by the said Ministry , copy of which order is Ex.WW1 /5 . An order was issued by All India Institute of Medical Sciences on 17-4-08 , copy of which order is Ex . WW1 /6. On 24-2-2005 wet canteens were declared as statutory canteen, copy of which order is Ex.WW1 / 8 . He admits that he was aware that the management had granted him 1st ACP on 9-8-99 in the scale of Rs . 3000-4590 and second financial upgradation on 22-2-2004 in the scale of Rs.3200-4900 .

3.Management demurred the claim pleading that two sets of canteen employees viz.statutory canteen employees and non statutory canteen employees are working in various Labs . Pay scales and nomenclature of the posts for those two sets of employees were different . In pursuance of Government ofIndia decision dated 7-7-2008 , management took steps for restructure of pay scale and designations in statutory and non statutory canteen, vide its order dated 10-7-2008 . Thereafter employees of statutory and non statutory canteens were given common designation and pay scales w.e.f. 14-1-2008 , in line with Staff Investigation Unit recommendations . In pursuance of those restructured pay scales and designations 1st financial upgradation was granted to Rajinder Sharama in the scale ofRs . 3050-4590 and second financial upgradation was granted to him in the scale of Rs . 3200-4900 , w.e.f. 22-10-2004 . Parity with the post of clerk /cook is entirely misplaced and claimant cannot seek second financial upgradation in the scale of Rs . 4000-6000 . It has been claimed that his claim deserves dismissal .

4. Rajinder Sharma has examined himself in support ofhis claim . Shri Debashis Dey was examined on behalf of the management . No other witness was examined by either ofthe parties .

7. Debashish Dey deposed that order Ex. WW1 /M1 was issued by the Government an 7-7-2008 on the strength ofwhich posts have been restructured alongwith pay scales . Payscale for the workman appears at SL.No.3 of Annemure (IV) appended to Ex . WW1 /Ml . He presents that there is no promotional post for a bearer. The management had adopted the order dated 14-1-2008 , issued by Department ofpersonnel , Training and thereafter issued order Ex. WWI / Ml . He admits that the workman is matriculate . However, he denies that matriculate bearer will get second financial upgradation in the scale of Rs . 4000-6000 .

5. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Vidya Nand Sharma, authorised representative , advanced arguments onbehalf of the claimant. Shri Sanjeev Yadav, authorised representative , raised his submissions on behalf of the management . I have given my carefull considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows :-

8. When facts testified by Rajinder Sharma and Debashish Dey were appreciated, it came to light that an order Ex.WW1 /5 was passed by Ministry of Personnel , PublicGrievances and Pension , Government of India, New Delhi , on 10-4-2006, declaring Assured Carrier Progression Scheme for canteen employees working in non statutory Departmental Canteen/Tiffin Room located in Central Government Offices , on implementation of S.I.D. Report . Inthat order revised designations for posts in non statutory departmental canteen with upgraded pay scales are detailed. Post of General Manager with scale of pay of Rs . 5500-9000 is at the top and post of safaiwala with scale ofRs . 3550-3200 is at the bottom . Post ofbearer is at sl.No.l with the scale of pay of Rs . 2610-3540 . In annexure to Ex . WW1 /5 scales for 1 st financial upgrdation and 2nd financial upgradation are mentioned . Post of bearer has a pay scale ofRs . 2600-3540 with 1st financial upgradation in the scale ofRs . 3050-4590 and 2nd financial upgradation in the scale of Rs . 3200-4900 , in case of a non matriculate . For matriculate 2nd financial upgradation is in the scale of Rs.4000-6000 .

6. Shri Rajinder Sharma testified that he was appointed as canteen boy on 21-1-76 in ad- hoc capacity in wet canteen of D.R.D.O. His services were regularized on 22-10-1980, in the pay scale of Rs . 196-232 . IVth Central Pay Commission modified that scale of pay to Rs.750-940, which scale was revised to Rs . 2650-4000 by Vth Central Pay Commission . On 9-8-99 1st financial upgradation was to be granted to him . On that date he ought to have been upgraded . in the scale of Rs . 3050-4590 . His pay was fixed inthe scale Rs . 3050-4590 vide order dated 21-1-2009, copy ofwhich order is EX.WWI/ 1 . Though his pay was revised, yet. his arrears have not been released till date . On 20-10-2004 2nd financial upgradation became due . He was also granted 2nd financial upgradation in the scale of Rs. 3200-4900, vide order Ex. WWI/l . His arrears have not 3226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

to be achieved. Classification may be made according to the nature of persons , nature of business , and may be based with reference to time .

9. Ex.WWI/Ml was issued by the management on 7-7-2008 which is based on OM No. 13 / 10//2001-Dir. (C) dated 22-12-2004 , on implementation of S.I.U. Recommendation WWI/MI post of canteen attendant " B " and Canteen ' B ' " HS " have been restuctured as post of canteen attendant ' B ' (Tea/ Coffee maker /bearer ) and scale ofpay has been provided as Rs.2610-3540 . Therefore , it is emerging over the record that in EX.WWI/MI canteen attendant ' B ' has to get Ist financial upgradation in the scale of Rs . 3050-4590 and 2nd financial up gradation in the scale of Rs . 3200-4900 . Ex . WW1 /Ml is in consonance with Ex. WW1/5 in all respect , except that for matriculate bearer second financial upgradation has not been granted in the scale ofRs . 4000-6000 .

12. Concept of equality guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution is something more than formal equality and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share by having more than equal chance and enables the State to give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving real equality with reference to social needs . ' Protection discrimination' enabled the State to adopt new strategy to bring underprivileged at par with the rest of the society, by providing all possible opportunities and incentives to them . Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential treatment in the matter relating to employment or appointment . There cannot be rule of equality between members of separate and independent group of persons . Persons can be classified in different groups , based on in terms of nature of persons , nature of business and with reference to time.

13. A bearer who is matriculate and serving in non statutory departmental canteen /tiffin room located in the Central Governmen : Offices is entitled to 2nd financial upgradation in the scale of Rs . 4000-6000 . The claimant is abearer , who is matriculate too. Therefore , he is not placed indifferent and distinct footing than the bearer serving in non- statutory canteen / tiffin room located in the Central Government offices . Consequently the claimant cannot be treated differently than those bearers of non statutory departmental canteens . The management , who is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot be permitted to discriminate the claimant . Therefore , Ex . WW1 / MI , which does not provide financial upgradation to a matriculate bearer in the scale of Rs.4000- 6000 is to be discarded on that point .

10. Whether these lapses on the part of the management is in accordance with the principles ofequality. Answer lies in negative . As propounded equality before law and equal protection of laws are fundamental rights of every person, ordains Article 14 of the Constitution . The guiding principles laid in Article 14 are that persons, who are similarly situated , shall be treated a like both in privileges conferred and liability imposed , which means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated a like . Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equality of. opportunities for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State . What is guaranteed is the equality of opportunity. Like all other employers , government is also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large number of candidates offering themselves for employment . But the selection process must not be arbitrary The guarantee given by clause (a) ofArticle 16 ofthe Constitution will cover (a) initial appointments (b) promotions (c ) termination of employment (d) and matters relating to salary , periodical increments , leaves , gratuity, pension , age of superannuation etc. Matters relating to employment or appointments include all mattes in relations to employment both prior and subsequent to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment .

14. Demand raised by AICEA Canteen Mazdoor Sabha for seeking 2nd financial upgradation for Rajinder Sharma in the scale of Rs . 4000-6000 is found to bejustified and legal . Management cannot be permitted to treat him differently than the employees , who are similarly situated . According to fundamental rights of equality to the claimant, the management is commanded to grant him 2nd financial upgradation in the scale of Rs . 4000-6000 w.e.f. 22-10-2004, in pursuance of EX.WW1/5 . Since the claimant stands superannuated , the management shall refix his pay, sanction his pension in accordance with revised pay and grant retiral benefits accordingly . An award is passed on the same terms . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated 29-4-2010

11. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 forbids class legislation , but does not forbid classification or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of discretion . Classification is the recognition of the relations , and in making it the Government must be allowed a wide latitude of discretion and judgment . In away , the consequences of such classification would undoubtedly be to differentiate persons belonging to that class from others . The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought

Dr. R. K. YADAV , Presiding Officer 3227 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010 ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1473.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रेलवे फाईनान्स कार्पोरेशन लिमिटिड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 62/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

regularization of her services by the management , though the Contractor was also impleaded as a party to that petition. Her petition was disposed of with directions to her to approach industrial adjudicator , through legal process . Consequently she filed a claim before the Conciliation Officer. Since no settlement could arrive at , a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer. On consideration of the said failure report , appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. L-41012/ 19/2007- IR(B - I) , New Delhi , dated 17-8-2007, with the following terms :-

[सं. एल-41012/19/2007- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th May, 2010

"Whether the demand of All India General Mazdoor TradeUnion in respect of Smt . Jaspreet Kaur Ex - workman for re- instatement & regularization in the establishment of Indian Railway Finance Corporation, New Delhi is just, fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

S.O. 1473.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.62/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court No. I , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Railway Finance Coporation Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14-05-2010 .

[No. L-41012/ 19/2007- IR (B- 1 ) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, No. 1 , NEW DELHL

I.D. No. 62/2007

2. Claim statement was filed pleading therein that Smt. Jaspreet Kaur was serving as Private Secretary to Group General Manager ( Bonds) , Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. since 2nd of September , 1996. She was paid 3300 PM as her wages . She was working honestly and diligently. She never gave any chance of complaint to her employer . No charge sheet was ever served upon her . She was not paid overtime wages at double rate of her pay , annual increment , transport allowance , house rent allowance , weekly off, leave and holidays etc. Neither appointment letter nor attendance card nor identity card were given to her . When she demanded aforesaid facilities , besides her wages in accordance with minimum wages fixed by the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi , her services were terminated on 29-2-2002 . Termination ofher services was inviolation ofthe provisions of section 25 -F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act) .

Smt. Jaspreet Kaur, daughter of Shri Preet Pal Singh , Through All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd . ) AITUC R/ o 170, Balmukund Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110019 .

....Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. FastTower, ( Upper Ground Floor) , NBCC Bhism Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar , Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003

....Management

AWARD

3. She filed a writ petition bearing No. 183 of 1999 before High Court of Delhi . While disposing that writ petition, High Court observed in its order dated 29-1-2003 that she may file her claim before the Conciliation Officer . Accordingly, she had filed her claim before the Conciliation Officer demanding her unpaid wages, reinstatement in services with continuity and full back wages . Management was summoned by the Conciliation Officer but Conciliation proceedings failed and a failure report was submitted under sub-section (4) of section 12 of the Act . The Management had adopted unfair labour practice and her services were terminated with a view to exploit her. She claims reinstatement of her services with continuity and full back wages , besides payment of her unpaid wages , bonus , weekly off and holidays .

A girl was engaged for rendering stenographic services in Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the management) through a contractor . She was paid her wages by the contractor , to which proposition she never raised any objection . A writ petitionwas filedby her before High Court ofDelhi , claiming

4. Management demurred her claim pleading that the claimant was not its employee . There existed no relationship of employer and employee between the parties . The management is not an " industry " within the meaning [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15, 1932

3228

of the Act. It was pleaded that in her writ petition the claimant impleaded the contractor as a party and sought regularization of her services with the management . Now she has taken a different stand and claimed that she was an employee of the management . It has been projected that she was an employee ofthe contractor , who paid her wages for considerable long period . She was well aware about her status, as emerge out of facts pleaded by her in the writ petition, filed before High Court of Delhi . With ulterior motive she had taken altogether different stand in her claim statement . Her claim statement is liable to be dismissed. She is not entitled to any relief, much less relief of reinstatement in service of the management with continuity and full backwages .

Secretary. Letter Ex. WW1 / 1 bear signatures of Shri Verma, on the strengh of which her antecedents were got verified from police . This letter was written by Shri Verma when she was to join services with the management . Letters Ex . WW1 /2 and Ex.WW1 /3 were written by her to Ms. Meenakshi Dhanda and G.Ramchandran in the capacity of Private Secretary to Group General Manager and Company Secretary.Manoj Kriplani , Relation Manager of Citi Bank, wrote letter Ex . WW1 /4 . All these documents go to show that she had worked with the management for the period referred above . She concedes that management never issued cheques towards her salary . M/ s Allied Computers used to issue cheques to her for her salary. She never demanded her wages from M/ s Allied Computers , since they were not known to her . Company Secretary used to hand over those cheques to her . She projects that she came to know about vacancy with the management through Rajinder Prasad, who was working there.

5. In the written statement facts pleaded by the management were found to be very vague and ofuncertain terms . Instead of giving direct reply to the proposition put forward by the claimant, the management went on to narrate stories . With difficulty, real controversy put forward in the written statement could be ascertained . Such form of pleading is depricable .

6. Claimant has examined herself in support of her claim . Ms. Neera Kuntia tendered her affidavit to substantiate the stand of the management . She was cross- examined at length on behalf of the claimant.

9. Ms. Neera Khuntia swears that the claimant was employed by Ms. Karvi Consultants Ltd. , M / s . Allied Computer Technics Pvt . Ltd. , and M/ s Shiv Associates , who paid her wages all throughout . The arrangement made bythe management continued for a very long period. Claim ofthe claimant that she was an employee of the management isfalse to her knowledge . In communication Ex . WWI/ 1 it has nowhere been mentioned that she was to be emlployed on the post of Stenographer. On the strength of documents Ex.WW1 /2, Ex . WW1 /3 and Ex . WW 1/4 , the claimant cannot establish that she was an employee of the management . She was not appointed by the management in its services . No appointment letter was issued to her . Letter Ex . WW1/ 4 was addressed to the claimant and not to the management . She projects that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties .

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri anil rajput, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf ofthe workman. Shri R.P. Kapur , authorised representative, raised his submissions on behalf of the management . Shri Kapur had filed written arguments too . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advance at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows: -

10. When facts presented by Smt . Jaspreet Kaur and Ms. Neera Khuntia were closely appreciated , it came to light that much emphasis has been laid by the claimant on letter Ex . WW1 / 1 . Perusal of Ex . WW1 / 1 makes it clear that the said letter was addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Police , Ambedkar Nagar Police Station . New Delhi , by Shri C.S. Verma, Group General Manager (B) and Company Secretary , Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. , New Delhi . In that letter he mentionec that they propose to engage Km . Jaspreet Kaur for rendering stenographic services with the management . A request was made to verify her antecedents . It would be expedient to reproduce the contents ofthe said letter , which are extracted thus :

"To

The Assistant Commissioner of Police , AmbedkarNagar , Police Station , Ambedkar Nagar, NewDelhi , DearSir, Sub: Verification of Antecedents .

8. Smt . Jaspreet Kaur deposed that on 2-9-96 she joined as private secretary to Group General Manager (Bonds) and Company Secretary , Indian Railway Finance Corporation, New Delhi . She was getting consolidated salary ofRs . 3300 pm . No facility such as overtime , travelling allowance etc. was given to her . Appointment letter was not issued in her favour . She used to mark her attendance in attendance register kept for that purpose. She worked with the management continuously upto 29-1-2002 . She filed a writ petition before High Court of Delhi for regularization of her services with the management . High Court passed an order , directing her to approach Industrial Tribunal through the appropriate Government . Her services were terminated by the management on 29-1-2002 . No notice was served upon her prior to termination of her serivces . No wages in lieu of notice were paid . No retrenchment compensation was paid to her . Till the date of her termination , she has rendered seven years continuous service with the management . Action of the management , in terminating her services , was not in consonance with law. She was working as Private Secretary to Shri G. S. Verma, Group General Manager (Bonds ) and Company 3229 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010 /ज्येष्ठ15 , 1932

"We propose to engage Kumari Jaspreet Kaur daughter of Shri Pirthi Paul Singh , Resident of F- 2/ 354, Sangam Vihar , New Delhi , for rendering stenographic services to this Corporation. We shall be greatful ifyou could verify her antecedents at the earliest so as to enable us to proceed further in the matter.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully, for and on behalf of Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. Sd/- (C. S. Verma)

G.G.M.(B) & Co. Secy. "

directions he is performing the job . Lagal connotation of word " employed" is well known . It connotes existence of relationship of master and servant between the employer and the employee . In other words , it involves the concept of employment under a contract of service . The word "employed" does not necessarily mean employed in casual work. It may merely mean " keeping ( him ) in the service" . Where A agreed with B that he , as solicitor ofthe company, should receive and accept a salary at Rs . 1200 per annum , instead of sending him an annual bill of costs , and would act for the company for that salary , in all matters connected with the company, with certain exceptions , it may be pertinent to determine what are the obligations upon the parties to such an agreement . It appears that for a year , at least, the attorney would be bound transact the general business ofthe company for that salary only , and A would be bound for the same period at least to keep him in his retainer and employment as an attorney and solicitor ; though A might have no work to do . Similarly , medical advisers may be employed at a salary to be ready in case of illness , members of theatrical establishments in case their labours should be needed; household servants in performance of their duty when their masters wish ; in these and other similar cases, the requirements of actual service is distinct from the employment by the party employing. The test which has to be applied in determining the question as to whether a person is employed in a commercial establishment is whether he is wholly or principally employed in connection with the business of the said establishment . As soon as it is shown that the employment of the person is either wholly or principally connected withthe business of the establishment , he falls within the definition of an employee . Reference can be made to T.Devdasan [ 1972 (25) F.L.R. 226 ] .

11. Key -note of this letter are the words " we propose to engage ...... for rendering stenographic service to this corporation " . Shri Rajput argued that this letter makes it clear that Shri Verma wrote to the Assistant Commissioner of police seeking verification of antecedents ofKumari Jaspreet Kaur, since the management was to engage her for rendering stenographic services to it . Engagement of Kumari Jaspreet Kaur makes it clear that the management had employed her for the post of stenographer. This letter highlights in unequivocal words that Kumari Jaspreet Kaur was appointed for rendering stenographic services with the management . Contra to it Shri Kapur presents that engagement of Kumari Jaspreet Kaur for rendering stenographic services does not mean that she was appointed by the management for that post . He argued that Kumari Jaspreet Kaur was appointed by the contractor, who lend her sevices to the management . Therefore , this document nowhere establishes that Kumari Jaspreet Kaur was appointed by the management as a stenographer .

12. Dictionary meaning of word " engage" is to attract or involve, employ or hire , enter into a contract to do, participate or become involved, enter into combat with , morallly committed to a particular cause , pledge to be married, betrothed , occupied or busy . In Benninga ( 1946 K. B. 58) word engaged was defined . It was announced therein that word " engaged" is a deplorably ambiguous . An employer engages a servant when he makes an agreement with him for his services . Aworkman is engaged onwork when he is actually carrying it out . In fact, " engage" ofa master has an entirely different meaning from "engaged" in of a workman . When it is said that a person is engaged in any business , it usually means he is engaged mainly or principally in that business , and the same would be the position, when relevant clauses refers to an establishment engaged in the specified ' industry ' . That is , common sense view which is consistent with the current and expected denotations of the words " engaged in " . Reference can be made to National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. [1969 (74) ITR 465] .

14. Aperson will be an employee, ifhe is employed for wages in or in connection with the work of an establishment or ifhe is directly employed by the principal employer on any work of or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of the establehment or if he is employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the establishment or if his services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into contract of service . The term also includes any person employed for wages connected with the administration of the establishment or any part, department or branch there of with the purchase ofrawmaterial for or the distribution or sale ofthe products of the establishment . Reference can be made to Gnanambikai Mills Limited [ 1974(2 ) LLJ 530] . The word "employee" takes within its sweep any person wholly or mainly employed on wages by an employer in or in connection with any trade, business or manufacture carried on by him . Existence of a Ejural relationship of master and servant is the main attribute of the word " employee" . It involves the concept of employment under a contract of service; in contradiction to contract for service .

13. A person acting under the direction of another is obviously employed by the person under whose 1975 G1/10-36 3230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 15. In Food Corporation of India [ 1985 II LLJ (4) ] , the Apex Court ruled that the expression " employed " has at least two known connotations , viz . relationship brought by express or implied contrat of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind, as agreed between them. It discloses a relationship of command and obedience as essential condition for a person being an employee and that there should be , in other words , a relationship between the employee and him as that of master and servant. Where a contractor employs a workman to do work which is connected with a third person, the workman of the contractor would not , without something more, become the workman of the third person .

word " engage" was not used in Ex . WW1 / 1 with a view to createjural relationship of master and servant between the managemnet and Km . Jaspreet Kaur. It was loosely used with a view to express that Km . Jaspreet Kaur was to perform stenographic services with the management on behalf of the contractor and her services were to be utilized in that regard . The words " propose to engage ..... for rendering stenographic services " were not used with a view to establish a relationship of employer and employee between the parties . It were used to denote remote or far fetched relationship with her , that is , relationship of a contract employee. It nowhere tells that she was engaged asan employee by the management . Therefore , the words "propose to engage " used in Ex . WWI / I nowhere go to show that Shri Verma made it clear from contents of that letter that Ms. Jaspreet Kaur was an employee of the management .

16. In the light of the definition of the word " engage" and " employed " , it would be ascertain as to whether Ex . WWI/ A brings it over the record that Km . Jaspreet Kaur was engaged by the management directly in its services . As detailed above , the letter speaks that management proposed to engage Km . Jaspreet Kaur " for rendering stenographic services in its establishment " . These words are to be appreciated alongwith the attending circumstances . As testified by Km . Jaspreet Kaur her salary was released in her favourby M/s Allied Computers .. Cheques of her salary were issued by M/ s Allied Computers and the same were handed over to her by the management . It has been contended by Shri Kapur that Km . Jaspreet Kaur was in the service of the contractor , namely, M/ s Allied Computers and that fact was well known to her . In her writ petition Km . Jaspreet Kaur arrayed M /s Allied Computers as a party and attempted to seek relief of regularization in the services of the management . Consequently it is evident that Km . Jaspreet Kaur projected a claim befor the High Court that she was employed by the management through the contractor , namely , M/ s Allied Computers . Her claim was that stenographic job was of permanent in nature and contract between the management andM/s Allied Computers was sham and bogus and she would be deemed to have been in the ervices of the managenient . Those surrounding circumstances , pleaded in the writ petition , are to be taken note of while giving interpretation to the words , " propose to engage Km. Jaspreet Kaur ...... for rendering stenographic services to this corporation" .

18. Emphasis has been laidby the claimant on letters Ex. WW1 / 2 , Ex. WW1 /3 and Ex . WW1 /4 with a view to project that she was working as Private Secretary to Shri C.S. Verma, Group General Manager (B ) and Company Secretary to the management . She projects that these letters bring it over the record that she was an employee of the management. Letters Ex . WW1 /2 was writtenby the claimant to Ms. Meenakshi Dhanda of Standard Chartered Bank , D.L.F. Centre , Parliament Street, New Delhi . In that letter Ms. Dhanda was requested to arrange for admission passes for a show, " Comedy of Errors" scheduled for 14th April , 1997 at Kamani Theatre , New Delhi, which passes were needed for Smt . and Shri C.S. Verma . In that letter the claimnat had designated herself as PS to Group General Manager/ I.R.F.C. Letter Ex . WW1 / 3 was written by the claimant to Shri R. Ramchandran , Senior Vice President , Corporate Finance Advisor , U.T.I. Securities Exchange Ltd. , Indane House, 82, Dr. Annie Basant Road , Worli , Mumbai , in which letter too she claims herself to be Private Secretary to Group General Manager & Company Secretary of the Management. Ex . WW1/ 4 was written by Shri Manoj Kriplani ofCiti Bank to the claimant , in respect to telephonic conversation, demanding annual report of the management for the year 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 . Ex. WW1/ 4 was addressed to Km. Jaspreet Kaur at official address of the management . Her designation has not been detailed in the said letter . Ex . WW1 /4 nowhere projects that she was an employee of the management . A contract employee , working on behalf of the contractor , can be addressed in the fashion in which claimant has been addressed in Ex . WW1/4. Therefore , Ex . WW1 /4 nowhere espouse her claim .

17. Facts pleaded by the claimant in her writ petition, make it clear that Km . Jaspreet Kaur was employed by M/ s Allied Computers to do work , which was outsourced by the managemnet . Contract system was invoked and M/ s Allied Computers employed Km. Jaspreet Kaur to render stenographic services to the management . Though Km . Jaspreet Kaur was an employce of M/ s Allied Computers , yet Shri C.S. Verma thouglit it expedient to get her antecedents verified . He wrote letter Ex . WW1 / 1 wherein he mentioned that the management propose to engage her for rendering stenographic services to it. The

19. In Ex . WW1 /2 and Ex . WW1 /3 , claimant presents her designation as that of Personal Secretary to Group General Manager and Company Secretary of the management . therefore, these two letters are in the form of an admission made by the claimant in respect of her designation and status . Whether such an admission can be proved by the claimant ? Answer lies in negative .

中 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010 /ज्येष्ठ 15, 1932

3231

which reference may be made to Section 23 and 25. Merely because contrator or employer had violated any provisions of the Contract Labour Act or the rules , the contract labour would not be deemed to have become the employee of the principal employer . Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Dina Nath ( 1992 Lab . I.C. 75) . Therefore , it is evident that the claimant was a contract labour employed by the contractor , namely, M/s. Allied Computers to render stenographic services to the management . Non registration of the management or violation of the provisions of Section 12 of the Contract Labour Act by the contractor would not confer a status of an employee of the principal employer.

22. When claimant was an employee of the contractor in such a situation it does not lie in her mouth to claim that her services were dispensed with by the management. She does not have an ; claim for notice or pay in lieu thereof from the management . No right to receive retrenchment compensation ever accrued in her favour . The management was not under an obligation to provide her benefits under section 25 -F of the Act . Demand ofAll India General Mazdoor Trade Union for her reinstatement and regularization in the services of the management is neither legal nor fair nor just.

Admissions cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest except -(i)when it is of such a nature , that if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant between third persons as dying declaration ,, ( ii) when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body , made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable , and (iii) when it is relevant otherwise than as an admission , enacts Section 21 of the Evidence Act . Though technical rules of evidence are not applicable before this Tribunal , yet principles in respect of proof of admission by the party making it are to be applied. When admissions , regarding her status and designation , made by the claimant in Ex . WW1 /2 and Ex. WW1 /3 , are assessed onprinciples referred above , it became evident that those admissions cannot be proved by her, since contents of these letters would not operate either as a dying declaration , not it project existence of any state of mind or body of the claimant , which was in existence at the time when she made aforesaid admissions nor those admissions are otherwise relevant other than admission . Therefore , contents of Ex . WW1/2 and Ex . WW1/3 do not espouse her claim . She cannot prove these admissions to show that at the relevant time she projected her status and designation as that br Private Secretary to G.G.M. and Company Secretary

23.1There is other fact of the coin In Uma Devi (2006 ( 4) SCC I) the Apex Court considered the proposition as to whether the persons who got employment without following of a regular procedure or even from the back door or on daily wages can be ordered to be made permanent in their posts , to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned. Catena of decisions over the subject were considered and the Court declined the submissions of the workmen to be made permanent on the posts which were held by them in temporary or adhoc capacity for a fairly long spell . The Court ruled thus :

se with respect, Why should the State be'allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary 20. She admits that she filed a writ petition before High Court of Delhi wherein M/s . Allied Computers was arrayed as a party. It is her case that in that writ petition she made prayer for regularization of her job with the management . Therefore , out of these facts it stands crystalised that claimant projects that she was an employee ofthe contractor , namely , M/s , Allied Computers , but she made an effort to get her services regularized with the management . Therefore , it is clear that she is an employee of the contractor . It is not her case that employment of contract labour in any process / operation or other work in the establishment of the management was prohibited by way ofnotificatin issued by the Central Government under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act , 1970 ( in short the Contract Labour Act) . When employment of contract labour in any process , operation or other work of the establishment was not prohibited , the employment ofthe claimant as a contract labour by the managemnet will not show that she was a direct employee of the management.

21. No evidence worth name has come over the record that the management was registered under Section 7 of the Contract Labour Act or M/s . Allied Computers was a licensee under section 12 of the Act. When a principal employer or contractor violates the provisions of section 7 or ka of the Contract Labour Art, the only consequence provided under the Contract Labour Act is the penal provision as envisaged under the Contract Labour Act, for

employment in permanent posts This Court , in our view, is bound to insists on the State making regular and proper recruitments , and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment . The direction to make permanent the distinction between regularization and making permanent was not emphasized here can only enourage the State , the model employer , to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete. With respect the directions made in Piara Singh ( 1992 ( 4) SCC 118 ) is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusión in para 45 of the saidjudgement therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment aniworecognized in the earlier part of the decision. Really . it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3232

law that all ad-hoc , temporary or casual employees engaged without following a regular recritment procedure should be made permanent . "

24. Taking note of some of recent decisions, the Apex Court held that the state does not enjoy a power to make appointments in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution . The Court quoted its decision in Girish Jyanti Lal Vaghela (2006 (2) SCC 482) with approval , wherein it was ruled thus .

"The appointment to any post under the state can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of a selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted comittee , whose members are fair and impartial , through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates , who have applied in response to the advertisement made . A regular appointment to the post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange , where eligible candidate get their names registered . Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to competewouldviolate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution . "

25. In P. Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others (2006( 7) SCC 488 ) the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's case (supra) with approval . It also relied the decision in Uma Rani (2004 (7) SCC 112) and ruled that no regularization is permissible in exercise of statutory powers conferred in article 162 of the Constitution , if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules . In Somveer Singh (2006 (5 ) SCC 493 ) the Apex Court ruled that appointment made without following due procedure cannot be regularized . In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007 ( 1 ) SCC 408 ) the Apex Court reiterated the law and announced that the rules of recruitment can not be relaxed and court can not direct regularisation of temporary employees dehors the rules , nor can it direct continuation of service ofa temporary employee (whether called a casual , ad-hoc or daily rated employee ) or payment of regular salaries to them .

26. In Uma Devi ( ( suprą) it was laid that when a person enters a temporary employment or get engagement as contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure , he is aware of the consequence of the appointment being temporary , casual or contractual in nature . Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed for the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure or selection in any concerned cases , in

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] consultation with the public service commission. There fore , the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees . It cannot also be held that the State held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue then where they are or to make them permanent . The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise . It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek relief of being made permanent in the post. In view of these precedents neither continuance nor regularisation ofservices of the claimant can be ordered .

27. In view ofthe law laid above the claimant cannot seek a back door entry in the services of the management under the garb of reinstatement and regularization of her services . Her claim is found to be devoid of merits . The same is liable to be discarded . Consequently her claim is discarded. An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication

Dated: 15-4-2010 Dr. R. K. YADAV , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 14 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1474.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ ट्रावनकोर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , एरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 238/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/114/2002- आईआर( बी -1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th May, 2010

S.O. 1474.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Goverament hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.238/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Travancore and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 14-5-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/ 114/2002 - IR (B - I) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present : Shri P. L. Norbert , B.A. , LL B. , Presiding Officer (Monday the 26th day of April , 2010/6th Vyshagam , 1932) D. 238/2006 (I.D. 12/2002 State Labour Court, Ernakulam) [भाग -खण्ड ( ) ]

भासत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

Workman:

S. Sanathana Krishnan

T.C. 40/1659, Panachira Dam Road, Jagathy, Trivandrum.

By Adv . Sri . T. P. Sajan .

Management:

The Chairman, State Bank ofTravancore , HeadOffice, Poojappura, Trivandrum - 695012 .

ByAdv . C. Anilkumar.

This case coming up for hearing on 21-04-2010, this Tribunal -cum -Labour Court on 26-04-2010 passed the following.

AWARD

This is a reference made under Section 10( 1 )( d) of Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was made to state Labour Court , Ernakulam initially and was transferred to this court as per the order of Hon'ble High Court . A preliminary order was passed by this court finding that the enquiry is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice . Thereafter the management adduced evidence afresh.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : - The claimant Sri . Santhana Krishnan was a Typist /Clerk in State Bank of Travancore , Broadway Branch. He was charge sheeted on the ground that he had stealthily removed two cheque leaves from the cheque book kept for issuing it to account holder of SB Account No.14229 . Later by using one of the cheque leaves an amount of Rs . 2,20,000 was withdrawn by him from the above SB Account on 11-06-1994 . He was suspended from service on 26-08-1994 and an enquiry was ordered . In the enquiry he was found guilty of the charges and was dismissed from service .

3. According to the workman the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice . The procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer was irregular . Documents were marked without proving them through competent witnesses . The workman was not allowed to be represented by an officer conversant with the procedural formalities of departmental enquiry. He was not allowed to take the assistance of a legal expert . He was not allowed to cross examine management witnesses . The witnesses on management side were tutored witnesses . The officers of the bank, who appeared as witnesses in the enquiry were interested witnesses as they were the persons who issued the cheque book , passed the cheque without proper verification etc. The disciplinary authority confirmed the findings of Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal at a time when regarding the same incident a criminal case was pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. Later the accused (the workman and another ) were acquitted by the Magistrate Court .

3233 4. The management contends that the enquiry was conducted in coinpliance with the principles of natural justice. The workman mad fully participated in the enquiry. Hewas allowed to be represented in the enquiry by a mion representative ofhis choice . But he did not avail the sarme. Theworkmanbad cross examined some of the management witnesses . He was afforded opportunity to adduce defense evidence. Copies of documents and list of witnesses of management were furnished to him. On the basis of the evidence the enquiry officer found the workman guilty of the charges. He was given a copy of enquiry report by the Desciplinary Authority calling for his remarks on the findings ofenquiry officer . The workman was given notice ofthe proposed punishment and opportunity of personal hearing. Theworkman did not file appeal . Considering the gravity of the charges the punishment of dismissal was imposed. There is no bar in proceeding with departmental enquiryduring the pendency of criminal case . The acquittal in the criminal case was nat on merits but due to delay in prosecuting the case . There is no irregularity in the procedure adopted in the enquiry. The demand for engaging a lawyer was declined for the reason that the Presenting Officer was not a leglly trained person . The enquiry is valid andthe punishment is quite commensurate with the gravity ofthe offence .

5. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration.

1. Is the workman guilty of the charges ?

2. What , if any, is the punishment ?

The evidence consists of the oral testimony ofMWI to 4 and the documentary evidence of Exts . M'l to M1 (x) on the side of the management and no evidence on the side ofworkman .

6. Point No. 1: - The allegations against the workman Sri . S. Santhana Krishnan as per Ext. M1 (b) charge sheet is that he had stealthily removed two cheque leaves from the eheque book kept for issuing it to the account holder . Using one of the cheque leaves he withdrew Rs. 2,20,000 from the account of the customer by forging the signature of customer. Ext . Ml (e) is the reply of the workman to the charge sheet. He has deve all the allegations .

7. MW1 is the Enquiry Officer. MW2 is the Special Assistant of the bank . he had issued the cheque book to the representative ofjoint account holders (Sri. A. M. Jaini A. K. Shaji & Smt . Rabiya Jaini ) . According to MW2 the broadway branch of the bank was functioning in two buildings , one in CSI Church building where the usual bank transactions were carried on and the other behind Chackolas building where Government transactions afong were carried on . as per the instructions of the bank on 13-05-1994 after attending the duty in the office behind Chackolas building for sometime he took charge in the office in CSI Church building vice the workman was 3234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

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

But it relates to transactions of one month only from 16-05-1994 to 13-06-1994 . According to the management the cheque leaves were removed with their counter foils by theworkman during the time he handled the cheque book . Butnobody has witnessed such removal naturally because such things are done in secret . In order to remove the cheque leaves with counter foils the pins that hold the cheque leaves too have to be removed. Thereafter the leaves have to be stapled again . Broadway branch is a big branch having many staff. For doing such things it is not easy to avoid the notice of others in a busy branch like broadway branch . It was the duty of MW2 and 3 to verify the cheque leaves before the cheque book was issued to the customer . MW2 had written SB account No. , ledger folio number in each of the leaves admittedły . But he had failed to count the leaves . When MW2 was asked about the procedure for issuance of cheque books he pretends ignorance about the guidelines in the books of instructions . He was evading answers regarding each step to be taken in the matter of issuance of cheque books . Both MW2 and 3 were negligent in handling the transaction and issuing cheque book to the customer. MW3 has admitted that the cheque book was in the custody of Sri . jaini , the customer for about one month before the disputed transaction took place . She also has stated that anybody could remove cheque leaves during this period from the office of Jaini . The representative of Jaini Sri . Ashraf is not examined . Sri . jaini is also not examined. There is no evidence to prove that the disputed cheque Ext . MI ( r) was written by the workman (that aspect will be dealt with later) in order to connect him to the incident of removal of cheque leaves . Thus there is no evidence to fink the workman to the incident of removal of cheque leaves from the cheque book .

9. The next allegation is that the workman utilising a cheque leaf withdrew Rs . 2,20,000 on 11-06-1994. Ext. M1 (r) is the disputed cheque ( copy) . The case of the management is that the signature in the cheque was forged by the workman. Ext.M1 (s ) is the account opening form. It contains the specimen signatures ofjoint account holders . Ext.M1 ( r) cheque is purported to contain the signature of Sri. Jaini , one of the acount holders . The signatures in Ext.M1 (s) specimen signature form and Ext . M1 ( r) disputed cheque appear to be similar . It is for the managgement to prove that the signature was forged either by the workman himself or by his person.

transferred to office behind Chackolas building . MW2 testifies that by that time he took charge from the workman the letter had received requisition from customer A.M. Jaini's representative , Ashraf for cheque book . The workman himself got the requisition sanctioned by Deputy Manager (MW3 ) and brought the cheque book along with the requisition to MW2 . The workman reminded MW2 to note the account number and ledger number in the leaves of the cheque book . Accordingly MW2 noted the account number and ledger number (page 5of MW2) . MW2 thên made entries in Chèque Issued register and the register and the cheque book were taken to deputy Manager (MW3 ) to get her initial . Thereafter MW2 issued the cheque book to the customer ( page 4). He admits that he did not count the cheque leaves before the cheque book was issued to Ashraf ( page 5) . The witness admits that Deputy Manager and himself had verified the cheque book and were convinced of its correctness before it was issued to Ashraf (page- 11 ) . When he was asked whether the workman had violated the procedure for issuance of cheque book , his answer was that he was not able to say that the workman had violated the procedure ( page - 12) . he admits that it was his duty to verify the cheque leaves , put the account number and ledger number and count the leaves before issuing the cheque book to the customer . Though the account number and ledger number are written by him he did not count the leaves . According to him the Deputy Manager who was the custodian of cheque books has also the duty to verify and be convinced of the correctness of cheque leaves . MW3 is the Deputy Manager , who was the custodian of cheque books and who had to order the requisition for issuing cheque books . MW3 admits that she had ordered the requisition which was brought by the workman and handed over the cheque book to the workman . thereafter the cheque book and the cheque issued register were brought to her for initial by MW2 ( page 6 and 7 ofMW3) . She admits that the cheque book was issued to the customer by MW2 ( page 7), that she has the duty as custodian of cheque books to count the leaves before cheque books are issued (page 14) , that the concerned clerk has to note the account number and the ledger folio number in each cheque leaf (page - 15) , that she had to count the leaves but she did not do so ( page 15 and 16) , that the procedural instructions are there in the book of instructions and that the cheque book issued to the customer was in the custody of the customer after 13-05-1994 until one of the cheque leaves was utilized for withdrawing Rs . 2,20,000 (page 17) . regarding the responsibility and procedural compliance in the matter of issuance of cheque book by the workman , she has no answer . MW4 has no role in fegard to the issuance of cheque book .

10. The cheque was presented am 11-06-1994 to MW4 Valsala E. S. She was Computer Terminal Operator . She was in the Accounts Section on 11-06-1994 . On that morning she was asked by the Manger to attend P & SB section as the person who was handling that section was on leave on that day . The disputed cheque was received by MW4 and token was issued by her to the customer . When the cheque was being posted the workman who was nearby told MW4 that the cheque was not signed on its reverse side by the person who presented the cheque .

8. As per Ext.M1 (t) complaint of Sri . Jaini (Account holder) the cheque book containing cheque leaves No. 136081 to 136100 were not used until the disputed transaction . The cheque book is not before the court . The pass book is also not produced. But the management has produced a copy of the statement of account, Ext.M1 (f).

3235

HT1ASAD SUIT

[भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 5, 2010 ज्येष्ठ 15,119320

bearer who was a stranger to the bank and he was late to present the cheque. This is not denied by the management. If so , the manager would have given instruction to the . concerned clerk to do the needful to encash the cheque .. MW4 was the clerk, who received the cheque and issued the token . She does not say that she was told, anything by the manager.adoret hosille notone od samad

13. The customer came to know about the transaction on the same day when his manager went to bank for another transaction in respect of another account and happened to see the Manager , The manager then mentioned to him about the withdrawal of a large sum from the SB account in question . The customer's manager contacted the customer and bank was informed that the customer had not authorised the withdrawal . MW3 says that the fraudulent transaction was detected within half an hour . On the next day customer gave Ext. M1 (t) complaint. The workman was suspended from service 2½ months thereafter on 26-08-1994 . He was arrested by the police sometime around 19-08-1994 as the paperreport of the arrest was published on 19-08-1994 . The charge sheet was issued after more than three years on'l 1-11-1997. There is no explanationwhy there was so much delay in taking action against the workman despite his arrest by the police. The criminal case ended in acquittal admittedly. But the records of the criminal case are not brought in evidence by the management.

1 Hence the signature of the customer was obtained on the reverse side of the cheque . According to her it was the duty of the Deputy Manager MW3 to verify the signature in the cheque with specimen signature and pass the cheque. She says that without verification MW3 would not have passed the cheque (page 5 - MW4 ) . The witness states that she was called to police station to identify the person who received the money. She had identified the person in the police station . On that morning when she reaced the bank the staff had told her that the uncle of workman was the person who had presented the cheque . She had also seen. the paper report about the incident which she identifies as Ext. M 1 (u) (page-4). She states that she has only hearsay knowledge that it was the uncle of workman who had: presented the cheque . She also deposes that if it is said that it was not the uncle ofthe workman , who had presented the cheque , she was not able to deny (page - 6) . She says that she remembers the person who presented the cheque because he was called again for the purpose of getting his signature on the reverse side of the cheque . She admits that it was a busy day and there were many transactions . Identification of Jayapalan, the uncle of workman by MW4 is not proper . Before she went to police station to identify the person she came to know from the staff of the bank that it was the uncle of workman who had presented the cheque on 11-06-1994 . She had also seen the paper report [Ext. M1 (e) ] which contained the photographs of workman and his uncle , Jayapalan . It is thereafter that she identified Jayapalan in the police station . No record concerning the crime registered by the police is before court . The incident was on 11-06-1994 and the paper report regarding the arrest ofthe accused is of the date 19-08-1994 , after two months from the date of incident . The witness says that the fraudulent transaction was detected before lunch itself. After her lunch while she was returning to her seat she saw the officers and staff standing near the cabin of the Manager . When she enquired, she came to know about the incident.wol gais

11. MW3 the Deputy Manager who passed the cheque says that she was also called to police station to identify the accused . When she reached there she was told by the police that monmoney was received from the bank by workman's uncle . The staff who accompanied her also told her that the person who was with the workman had received the money from the bank ( page 9). MW3 then identified Jayapalan . The identification of the accused Jayapalan by MW3 is thus not proper . She came to know through police as well as staff that the person with the workman was his uncle and he was the person who had received the money.

14. It is not known whether the handwriting in the disputed cheque including the SB account number and the ledger folio number is that of the workman . There was no question to MW2 who wrote SB account frumber and ledger folio number in all the cheque leaves , whether SB account number and ledger folio number were written in the disputed cheque by him or by workman or by someone else. No attempt was made by the management as to who had written the SB account number and the ledger folio number in the disputed cheque . There was no chance for MW2 to write it in the disputed cheque because after writing the numbers in the cheque leaves the cheque book was handed over by MW2 himself to the customer's representative. Therefore the possibility is that someone else has written it . Was it done by the workman or someone under his instructions ? There is no evidence . So also the signature on the reverse side of the disputed cheque is not proved to be that of Jayapalan . Just because Jayapatan is the uncle of the workman it is alleged by the management that the money was withdrawn by Jayapalan for workman . However the withdrawal of the money by Jayapalan itself is not proved by the management . No money is seen recovered by the police. There is no evidence regarding appropriation ofmoney either by workman or Jayapalan.

15. There is no evidence that the signature was forged by the workman or on his behalf by someone else. Important witrwitnesses like the complainant , the cashier who gave the money to the token holder, Sri . Ashraf who received the cheque book from the bank,bank, the Manager of

M 12. That apart the cashier who actually handed over the money to the token holder is not identified by the bank and examined . It is relevant to note that in the complaint of Jaini [ (Ext.M1 (t) ] it is mentioned that the Manager had told him, when he had enquired about the transaction , that someone had telephoned to the manager saying that Sri. Jaini was calling and he was sending a cheque through a THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2010/JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

3236

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] MW2- Ajayan K.K.- SpecialAssistant, SBT.

MW3- Valsala Varghese Deputy Manager

MW4- Valasala E. S. CTO, SBT.

-Nil

Exhibits for the Workman

Exhibit for the Management

M1 EnquiryFile.

Proceedings of enquiry

Ext.Ml (a)

-do-

Ext.M1 (b)

Ext.M1 (c)

Memo of suspension dt.26-08-1994 issued to workman

Charge sheetdt . 11-11-1997

Ext.M1 (d)

Reply of workman to the charge sheet .

Ext.M1 (e)

Jaini and the manager of the bank are not examined. Jayapalan could be summoned to identify the signature on the reverse side of the cheque . I have already mentioned that the identification of Jayapalan by MW3 and 4 is not proper . The case of the management, that the SB account No. 014229 in question is a rarely operated account and hence the workman utilised this opportunity to commit the fraud, is not convincing . Ext . M1 (f) is a copy of the account. But it relates to a period of one month only from 16-05-1994 to 13-06-1994. It is seen that even during this short span of one month there were a number of deposits ( 7 deposits) and 2 withdrawals including the disputed withdrawal . Had the pass book or the full account statement been produced itwould have been clear as to the nature of transactions in respect ofthe account . But even Ext . M1 ( f) shows that it is not a rarely operated account , but a frequently operated account and a bank employee who is quite aware of the nature of operation of the account would not dare to withdraw such a large sum from such an account.

Copy of the statement of account Ext.M1 (f)

Ext.M1(g)

16. Despite the detection of the culprit within a short span and arrest of workman by police, there is long delay ofmore than 3 years in taking disciplinary action and the delay is not explained by the management . There was negligence on the part of MW2 and 3 in issuing cheque book as well as passing disputed cheque . There is lack of even probable circumstances to show the involvement of the workman in the incident . There is no previous misconduct or disciplinary action against the workman admittedly (MW3 ) . Besides MW3 says that he is a pleasing personality.

17. In the light of the above circumstances I find that the management has failed to prove the charges levelled against the workman and he is not guilty of the charges .

18. Point No. 2: - Ext . M1 (x) is the final order of the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of dismissal from service . In view of the above finding I hold that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is unsustainable .

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in dismissing Sri . S. Santhana Krishnan from service is illegal and unjustified and he is entitled to be reinstated with back wages and all consequential benefits .

Copy of Cheque Book Issued Register Copy ofAttendance Register Ext.M1 (h)

Ext.M1 (i) -do-

Ext.M1 (j ) -do-

Ext.M1 (k) -do-

Ext.M1 ( 1) -do-

Ext.M1 (m) -do-

Ext.M1 (n) Cashier's Scroll

Ext.M1 (0) Deputy Manager's Scroll

Ext.M1 (p) Copy of Attendance Register Ext.M1(q) Copy of Savings Bank Withdrawal Form

q ( i) - -do-

q (ii )- -do-

q (iii)- -do-

q ( iv)- Copy of Cheque

Ext.M1(r)

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 26th day ofApril 2010 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer Copy of Disputed cheque

Ext.M1(s) Account opening form of Jaini & Others Ext.M1(t) Complaint ofcustomerdt. 12-06-1994 Ext.Ml (u) Paperreport

Ext.Ml (v)

APPENDIX

-Nil

Witnesses for the Workman

Copy of Bank's protest bill account.

Ext.M1 (w)

Witnesses for the Management

MW1- T.B. Sasidharan- Enquiry Officer

Preliminary Order proposing punishment issued to the worker Ext.M1 (x) Final order of the disciplinary authority.

ام 3237 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 13 मई , 2010

transfer policy sought by Karur Vyasya Bank EmployeesUnion, if fair andjustified? If not, to what relief the union is entitled?

का.आ. 1475.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार करुर व्यस्या बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकर बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 125/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011 /13/2007- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

2. Pursuant to the notices issued by this tribunal to both the parties , the first party entering its appearance through an Advocate filed a detailed Claim Statement on 16-11-2007 running into 21 pages . Whereas , the Second Party entering its appearance through an advocate instead of filing the Counter Statement, to the Claim Statement filedbythe first party, approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 17390/2007 (L - Res .) questioning the reference .

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2010

3. The Hon'ble High Court after causing notice to the Union of India, Ministry of Labour , Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( C) , Government of India and the first party union arrayed as Respondents ( 1 ) & (2) and (3) in the Writ Petition and after hearing the learned advocates appearing for both the sides by order dated 6-3-2009 quashed the reference in question.

S.O. 1475. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.125/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Karur Vyasya Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13-5-2010 .

[No. L- 12011/ 13 /2007- IR(B-I) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

Dated: 30thApril 2010

PRESENT

4. After the order of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition referred above , the learned advocate appearing for the Second Party producing its certified copy with his memo requested to dispose off the matter . On 28-4-2010 whenthe matter was called before this tribunal , the learned advocate appearing for the Second Party producing the Xerox copy of the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 17390/2007 (L -RES) reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2069 brought to the notice that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court quashing this reference being reported in ILR 2009 Kar2069 .

Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer C. R. No.125/ 2007

5.Having regard to this decision of the Hon'ble High Court Shri Hanumanthe Gowda claims to be the Clerk of the first party advocate submitted that he has been instructed by his Advocate that he has no objection to closethe reference in view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 17390/2007 dated 6-3-2009 .

I PARTY TheGeneral Secretary, Karur Vyasya Bank Employees Union, 20, West Anjaneya Temple Street, Basavangudi , Bangalore -560004

II PARTY

TheGeneral Manager ( P) , KarurVyasya Bank , HeadOffice, Erode Road, Karur(TN) Karur- 639002

6.The Hon'ble High Court holding that the transfer being an incidental to the service and it is prerogative of the management, there cannot be any imposition of particular formula in the matter of transfer , in so far as the employees of the banks are concerned , who are party to All India Bank Employees Association and other employees of the Association, who have already entered into a settlement and are bound by Sastri Award quashed the reference in question.

AWARD

7. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court quashing the reference in question , this tribunal has nothing to do except to reject the reference. In the result, I pass the following Award :

AWARD

The reference is rejected. No costs .

The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2A of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide order No. L - 12011/13/ 2007- IR (B- I ) dated 31-8-2007 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 30-4-2010)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer Whether the action of the management of Karur Vyasya Bank in denying the formulation of specific

1975 GI/10-37 人のナーナヤCOTAT 3238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई , 2010

का.आ. 1476- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1,चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या संलग्न सूची के अनुसार ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

संलग्न सूची के अनुसार (1-41)

उन फाइलों की सूची जिसमे एक जैसा पंचाट प्राप्त हुआ [1.सं. एल-42012/3 /2001-आई. आर .डीयू- संदर्भ संख्या-157/2001 2.सं. एल-42012 / 168/2000- आई.आर. डीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-296/2000 3.सं. एल -42012/ 186/2000- आई. आर. डीयू- संदर्भसंख्या -298 /2000 4.सं. एल-42012/157/2000- आई.आर. डीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-272/2000 5.सं. एल -42012/97/2000- आई.आर डीयू- संदर्भ संख्या-241/2000 6.सं. एल-42012/ 193/2000- आई.आर.डीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-305/2000 7.सं. एल -42012/292/2000- आई.आर.डीयू- संदर्भसंख्या -317/2000 8.सं. एल-42012/311 /2000- आई.आर. डीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-399/2000 9.सं. एल-42012 /263/2000-आई. आर.डीयू- संदर्भसंख्या -332/2000 10.सं. एल -42012/ 98/2000- आई.आर.डीयू- संदर्भसंख्या -229/2000 11.सं एल -42012 /200/2000- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-311/2000 12.सं. एल -42012/334/2000- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-401/2000 13.सं. एल-42012/452/2000- आईआरडीयू-संदर्भ संख्या-38/2001 14.सं. एल-42012/517/2000- आईओरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या-70/2001 15.सं. एल-42012/ 12/2001- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या-205/2001 16.सं. एल-42012/118/2001- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या -263/2001 17.सं. एल -42012/ 120/2001 - आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-265/2001 18.सं. एल-42012/515/2000- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या-68/2001 19.सं. एल-42012/519/2000- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या -72/2001 20.सं. एल -42012 /587 /2000 - आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या -135/2001 21.सं. एल -42012/569/2000 - आईआरडीयू-संदर्भसंख्या -129/2001 22.सं. एल -42012/244/2001- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-323/2001 23.सं. एल -42012/455/2000 - आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-118/ 2001 24.सं. एल-42012/245/2001- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या -321 /2001 25.सं. एल -42012 /44/2001- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या -223/2001 26.सं. एल -42012/30/2001-आईआरडीयू-संदर्भ संख्या-227/2001 27.सं. एल -42012/242/2001- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-327/2001 28.सं. एल-42012/ 165/ 2000- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-276/2000 29.सं. एल -42012/ 7/2002- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या-116/2002 30.सं. एल -42012/ 10/2002- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या -113/2002 31.सं. एल -42012/281/2001-आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या -45/2002

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 32.सं. एल-42012/221 /2002- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या-66/2003 33.सं. एल-42012/227/2002- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या-69/2003 34.सं. एल -42012/208/2002- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या-63/2003 35.सं. एल-42012/ 199/2002-आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या -62/2003 36.सं. एल -42012 /121 /2003- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-153/2004 37.सं. एल -42012/145/2003- आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-177/2004 38.सं. एल-42012/182/2003- आईआरडीयू-संदर्भसंख्या-191 /2004 39.सं. एल-42012 / 179/2003 - आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-215/2004 40.सं. एल-42012/207/2002 - आईआरडीयू- संदर्भ संख्या-64/2003 41.सं एल-42012/161/2000 - आईआरडीयू- संदर्भसंख्या-274/2000]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 14 May, 2010

S.O. 1476.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. as per list enclosed) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, No. 1 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 14-5-2010 .

(Asper list enclosed)

(1-41) List files in which common award is received [1. L-40012/3/2001 - IR (DU) ( Ref. No. 157/2001 ) 2. L-40012/ 168/2000 - IR ( DU) (Ref. No. 296/2000) 3.L-40012/ 186/2000 -IR (DU) (Ref. No. 298/2000) L-40012/ 1157/2000- IR (DU) (Ref. No. 272/2000) 5.L-40012/97/2000 - IR (DU) (Ref. No. 241/2000) 6. L-40012/193/2000 - IR ( DU) (Ref. No. 305/2000) 7.L-40012/292/2000- IR (DU) (Ref. No. 317/2000) 8. L-40012/311 /2000- IR (DU) (Ref. No.399/2000) 9.L-40012/263/2000 - IR (DU) (Ref. No. 332/2000) 10. L-40012/98 /2000- IR (DU) ( Ref. No. 229/2000) 1.L-40012/200 /2000- IR (DU) (Ref. No. 311/2000) 12. L-40012/334 /2000 - IR (DU) (Ref. No. 401/2000) 13. L-40012/452/2000- IR (DU) (Ref. No.38/2001 ) 14. L-40012/517/2000- IR (DU) (Ref. No.70/2001 ) 15. L-40012/ 12/2001 - IR (DU) (Ref. No.205/2001 ) 16. L-40012/ 118/2001 - IR (DU) (Ref. No.263/2001 ) 17. L-40012/ 120/2001 - IR (DU) (Ref. No.265/2001 ) 18. L-40012/515/2000- IR(DU) (Ref. No.68/2001 ) 19. L-40012/519/2000- IR (DU) (Ref. No. 72/2001) 20. L-40012/587/2000- IR (DU ) (Ref. No. 135/2001 ) 21.L-40012/569 /2000- IR (DU) (Ref. No. 129/2001) 22. L-40012/244/2001 - IR (DU) (Ref. No.323/2001 ) 23.L-40012/455 /2000 -IR ( DU) (Ref. No 118/2001) 24. L-40012/245/2001 - IR (DU) (Ref. No.321 /2001 )

ام 3239

भारतका राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ 15 ,1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Versus

25.L-40012/44/2001- IR(DU) (Ref. No.223/2001)

26. L-40012/30/2001 -IR (DU) (Ref. No.227/2001)

TheGeneral Manager , Telecommunication

27.L-40012/242/2001 - IR (DU) (Ref. No.327/2001 )

Respondent 20. L-40012/165/2000- IR (DU) (Ref. No.276/2000)

APPEARANCES

29.L-40012/7/2002-IR (DU) (Ref. No. 116/2002)

Forthe Workman

30. L-40012/10/2002-IR (DU) (Ref. No. 113/2002)

31.L-40012/281 /2001 - IR (DU) (Ref. No.45/2002)

32.40012/221 /2002- IR ( DU) (Ref. No.66/2003)

33.L-40012/227/2002- IR (DU) (Ref. No.69/2003)

34. L-40012/208/2002- IR (DU) (Ref. No.63/2003)

: Shri Amit Sharma , Subhash Sharma Arun Batra, Karam Singh , N.K. Nagar, D.R. Kaith , Manjit Dhiman, O.P Batra , Hardial Singh , M. R. Dhiman R. P. Rana . Advocates.

35.L-40012/ 199/2002- IR (DU) (Ref. No.62/2003)

For theManagement

36. L-40012/ 121 /2003 - IR (DU) (Ref. No. 153/2004)

: Shri G. C. Babbar & Anish Babbar Advocates .

37. L-40012/ 145/2003 - IR (DU) (Ref. No. 177/2004)

AWARD

38. L-40012/ 182/2003 - IR (DU) (Ref. No. 191/2004)

Passed on :- 27-4-10

39. L-40012/ 179/2003 - IR (DU) (Ref. No. 179/2004)

40. L-40012/207/2002- IR (DU) (Ref. No.207/2003)

41.L-40012/161 /2000- IR (DU) (Ref. No. 161/2000) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

This award shall dispose off 41 references and industrial disputes pending adjudication before this Tribunal relating to different workmen against the same management , Telecommunication . The references and industrial disputes which are being disposed off by this award are as follows:--

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

Case L. D. No's . (as per list mentioned below)

Shri . Mohan Lal and 40 others

Applicants

Common question of law and facts are involved in all these reference accordingly , for ends ofjustice, all the references are answered by this single award . After perusal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties , the main issues for adjudication before this Tribunal in all the references and industrial disputes are as follows:--

PartiesName

Reference No's & dated

S.No. I.D. No.

Mohan Lal versus Telecommunication 1.

157/2001 L -40012/3/2001 /IR (DU) dated 12-4-2001

296/2000 L -40012/168 /2000/IR (DU) dated 31-7-2000 HarjitSingh versus Telecommunication 298/2000

Amrik Singh versus Telecommunicationn L -40012/ 186/2000/IR (DU) dated 31-7-2000

272/2000 L -40012/ 157/2000/IR (DU) dated 31-7-2000

Shamsher Singh versus Telecommunication 5.

Rakesh Kumar versus Telecommunication L -40012/97/2000/IR (DU) dated 31-5-2000

241/2000

305/2000

Hare Ram Mehta versus Telecommunication L -40012/193 /2000/IR (DU) dated 31-7-2000

317/2000

Sukhdarshan Singh versus Telecommunication L -40012/292/2000/IR (DU) dated 24-8-2000

399/2000

Vinod Kumar versus Telecommunication L -40012/311/2000/IR (DU) dated 28-9-2000

332/2000

Bhikhari Ram versus Telecommunication L -40012/263/2000/IR(DU) dated 29-8-2000

10. 229/2000 L -40012/98/2000/IR (DU) dated 30-5-2000

Satpal versus Telecommunication

11. 311/2000 L-40012/200/2000/IR (DU) dated 31-7-2000

Bejinder Kumar versus Telecommunication 12. 401/2000

Manoj Kumar versus Telecommunication L-40012/334/2000/IR (DU) dated28-9-2000

Salik Ram versus Telecommunication 13. 38/2001 L -40012/452/2000/IR (DU) dated 18-1-2001

70/2001

14.

Satinder Singh versus Telecommunication L-40012/517/2000/IR (DU) dated 31-1-2001

15. 205/2001 L -40012/ 12/2001/IR (DU) dated 24-4-2001

Ranjit Singh versus Telecommunication

Rao Virender versus Telecommunication 16. 263/2001 L -40012/ 118 /2001 /IR (DU) dated 16-7-2001

17. 265/2001

Ram Yash versus Telecommunication L-40012/120/2001 /IR (DU) dated 16-7-2001

18. 68/2001 L -40012/515 /2000/IR (DU) dated 31-1-2001. Karamjit Singh versus Telecommunication 72/2001

19.

Mukhtiar Singh versus Telecommunication L -40012/519 /2000/IR (DU) dated 31-1-2001

20. 135/2001 L -40012/ 587/2000/IR(DU) dated 26-3-2001

Balwant Singh versus Telecommunication 3240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] S.No. I.D. No. Reference No's & dated

PartiesName

21 . 129/2001

Prema Devi versus Telecommunication L -40012/569/2000 /IR (DU ) dated 26-3-2001

22. 323/2001

Chhati Lal versus Telecommunication L -40012/244/2001 /IR ( DU) dated 6-11-2001

23. 118/2001 L -40012/455/2000 /IR (DU) dated 1-2-2001

Paramjit Singh versus Telecommunication 24. 321/2001

Surjit Singh versus Telecommunication L -40012/245/2001 /IR (DU) dated 6-11-2001

25. 223/2001

Ashwani Kumar versus Telecommunication L -40012/44 /2001 /IR (DU ) dated 15-5-2001

26. 227/2001 L -40012/30/2001 /IR (DU) dated 27-4-2001

Jasmer Singh versus Telecommunication 27. 327/2001 L -40012/242/2001 /IR ( DU) dated 6-11-2001

Labh Singh versus Telecommunication 28. 276/2000 L -40012/165/2000/IR (DU) dated 31-7-2000

Jag Mohan Singh versus Telecommunication 29. 116/2002 L -40012/ 7 /2002/IR ( DU) dated 3-6-2002

Kulwant Singh versus Telecommunication 30. 113/2002 L -40012/10 /2002/ IR (DU) dated 3-6-2002

Paramjit Kaur versus Telecommunication 31. 45/2002 L -40012/281 /2001 /IR (DU) dated 5-2-2002

Gurdeep Singh versus Telecommunication 32. 66/2003 L -40012/221 /2002/IR(DU) dated 21-3-2003

Darshan Singh versus Telecommunication 33. 69/2003 L -40012/227 /2002 /IR (DU) dated 21-3-2003

Ram Kumar versus Telecommunication 63/2003

34.

L -40012/208 /2002/IR (DU) dated 21-3-2003

Sarwan Kumar versus Telecommunication 35. 62/2003 L -40012/199/2002/IR ( DU) dated 21-3-2003

Ranbir Singh versus Telecommunication 36. 153/2004 L -40012/ 121 /2003 /IR (DU) dated 9-3-2004

Iqbal Singh versus Telecommunication 37. 177/2004 L -40012/145 /2003 /IR (DU) dated 19-4-2004

Ravinder Singh versus Telecommunication 38. 191/2004 L -40012/ 182/ 2003 /IR (DU) dated 27-5-2004

Ranbir Singh versus Telecommunication 39. 215/2004

Ram Jeet versus Telecommunication L -40012/179 /2003 /IR(DU) dated 25-5-2004

40. 64/2003 L -40012/207/2002 /IR ( DU) dated 21-3-2003

Jasbir Singh versus Telecommunication 41. 274/2000 L -40012/ 161 /2000/IR (DU) dated 31-7-2000

Swaran Singh versus Telecommunication (1) Whether any contract was entered into in between the contractor and the management of BSNL for supplying contract labour?

(2) Whether it is possible under the law to execute a contract to supply labour in number without identity of the workmen? If no , its effects ?

retrenchment compensation . Juniors were retained , new hands were recruited after the termination of their services . Almost in all the references there is one more plea taken by the workmen that the management has shown them on contract but the so called contract is the paper arrangement , combafalgue and shame. Actually they were emgaged by the management directly. Wages were paid by the management and all the workmen had been under the administrative control of the management .

(3) Whether the supply of labour without disclosing the identity of workman violates his right to life and personal liberty as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution?

(4) Ifthere is any irregularity or illegality in executing a contract and or in supplying the labour , what will be its effects?

(5) Whether the workman has established that they have directly engaged and worked with the management under the supervision of telecommunication ?

(6) The relief, if any?

On the other hands , management in all the cases has contended that there was no master servant relationship between the management and the workman . The services of workmen were provided with to the management by a contractor and no one was appointed directly by the management. Evidence of every workman was recorded at length . In most of the cases Shri ashok Kumar E.D. Legal Telecommunication, Shri Khuswant Lal , Deputy General Manager, Mobile and Shri Ramesh Kumar Mittal the so called contractor was cross -examined on behalf of the management at length .

All these issues have been raised by the learned counsels for the workman during arguments .

Asstated earlier , arguments of the parties were also heard at length . Learned counsels for the workmen have relied upon the following case laws :-

The case of the workmen is that they were appointed bythe management for discharging various available work ondifferent dates . Their services were terminated without any notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and

(1) S. M. Nilajkar and others versus Telecom District Manager , Karnataka 2003 (4) Supreme Court cases 27 .

ام 3241 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2010/ज्येष्ठ15, 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(2) FCI , Haryana Versus Presiding Officer CGIT- cum-LC- I Chandigarh and other 1987 (2) , Service Law Reporter 678 .

(3) Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited versus State of U.P. and Others 2003 (6) Supreme Court Cases 528.

(4) Bank of Baroda versus Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari 2005 ( 10) Supreme Court Cases 972.

(5) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another versus Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghatana 2009 (8 ) Supreme Court cases, 556.

(6) Steel Authority of India Limited and Others versus National Union Water Workers and Others AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3527 (1 ) .

On the other hand learned counsel for the management has cited and relied upon following case laws:-

labour to the management. He was also having a contract with the management . Written contract has also been filed by the management. No doubt written contract has not been field in original . Its certified copies have been filed. It has been the contention of the management that original contract is not available and traceable in the department . This Tribunal by passing an order suo muto directed the management to file the original documents regarding the contract entered into by the department with the contractor, documents relating to the supply of labour by the contractor to the management and the documents relating to the payment of wages by the management to the contractor and by contractor to the workman . All the documents have been filed but the same are not in original. Few original documents were filed in the Court but rest such as the contract agreement etc. were not filed in original . This issue regarding failure of the management for filing the original documents shall be dealt with in another issue , whether the contract was shame and camouflage ? In this issue, it is established before this Tribunal that there was a Contractor with whom a contract was entered into by the management for supplying the contract labour . Thus , issue no . 1 is disposed of accordingly.

(1) Steel Authority of India Limited and Other versus National Union Water Workers and Others AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3527 (1 ) .

(2) GM, ONGC , Shilchar versus ONGC Contractual Workers Union, 2008 (LLR) 801 , Supreme Court Cases.

(3) Food Corporation of India and Others Versus Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court - I Chandigarh and Others 2008 LLR 391 .

I have gone through all the case laws cited and relied upon by both of the parties . I have also perused the evidence oral and documentary and other materials on record . I am adjudicating and answering all the issues mentioned above one by one .

Issue no.2 is regarding the nature of the contract entered into between the management and the contractor for supplying contract labour . The conditions under which a contract can be shame and camouflage have been very well established by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Another versus National Union Water Workers and Others AIR 2001 Supreme Court 352. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the same judgment has dealt with the issue very elaborately . I have gone through the entirejudgment and the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court, particularly the circumstances under which aworkman in spite of being supply to the management by aso called contractor can be deemed to be the employee of the principal- employer ? Without quoting the relevant paragraphs , I will apply the ratio ofthe judgment in the fact and circumstances of the presence references and industrial disputes .

So far as the issue no . 1 is concern , it is admitted almost by all the workmen that there were some man in between the management and the workmen . The evidence of Shri Mohan Lal makes it clear that payment was made good in the presence of SDO Telecommunication Department Sector - 17, Chandigarh . The man use to come to the office for the payment of wages and the same was made good in the presence of SDO . He does not known that man. The circumstances speak themselves . No workman has denied for presence of a contractor but they all have said in unanimous words that the contract, if any was shame and camouflage . It was contended by learned counsels for the workmen that when the contract was shame and camouflage the contract became void abinitio and all the workmen shall be treated as the direct employees ofthe principal employer .

Thereafter , Hon'ble the Apex Court in GM, ONGC Shilchar versus ONGC Contractual Workers Union , 2008 LLR 801 has also dealt with the issue in specific terms . Hon'ble the Apex Court inGM ONGC Shilchar's case (supra) has also relied upon the principal laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India limited's case (supra). Hon'ble Punjab . & Haryana High Court in FCI and Other versus Presiding Officer Central Government Industiral Tribunal- cum- Labour Court - I Chandigarh and others 2008 LLR 391 on relying upon the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited's Case (supra) and G. M. ONGC Shilchar's case (supra) has also dealt with the issue of employer and employee relationship between the workman and the management of any organization . Hon'ble Punjab & The management has also produced the contractor who has categorically deposed that he provided with the 3242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Haryana High Court in the said judgment has also dealt with the circumstances under which a contract can be held to be camouflage , shame merely an eye wash and just a paperarrangement. If the ratio of all thejudgment mentioned above is taken into considered every workmen has to be eatablished the following facts:-

also admitted that payment was also made good by the Contractor in the presenceesence of the SDO . For the administrative control , the workman also failed to file any cogent evidence like sanction of leave application , disciplinary action taken by the management etc. Thus the workmen have also failed to prove that they were under the administrative control of the management of telecommunication.

(1 ) That their existed a master and servant relationship between the workman and the management (workman was directly engaged by the management) .

(2) That the workman was under the administrative control of the management.

(3) That there was no contractor in between the management and the workmen .

(4) That the payment of wages was made good by the management to the workman directly and not by the contractor.

(5) At the cost of the repetition the remittance rolls for the payment of wages were made by the management and not by the contractor .

The department of telecommunication has filed the record relating to the payment of wages through contractor. This has been challengaed by learned counsel for the workman on the ground that it is not mentioned in these documents to whom the payment is made good and for what workmen the payment was made good ? The evidence of WW1 Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Ramesh Mittal makes it clear that contact was to supply the labour in numbers for a particular work and not by name . The contractor was at liberty even to change the workers everyday. Dapartment was counting the workers in number and has no concern with the identify of the workmen . On the basis of the number of workers , the bill was prepared by the contractor . 'The officers of the telecommunication used to verify the bills by going through the work executed by the labour and the bills were accordingly passed . This system, as per the arguments of learned cousel for the workman, is against the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. The violation of any provision of the above Act are to be dealt with in another issue. For the purpose of this issue , I am of the view that none of the workman was directly appointed by the management . None of the workmen was under administrative control of the management and the payment of wages were made good by the management to the contractor , and thereafter by contractor to the workmen. Thus , this issue is disposed off with the direction and finding that contract was not camouflage . It was a legally binding and enforcing contract between the management and the contractor .

If the above mentioned ratio of the judgments menioned above are applied to the present industrial disputes, it is clear that workman failed to prove that they were appointed/ engaged by the management of telecommunication . Every workman has stated in very clear terms that no appointment letter was given to any of them by the management . The above menionted facts have to be proved by the workmen . There is no iota of evidence on record to prove that any of the workmen was under the administrative control of the management. No documents execpt the affidavit and oral contention regarding the affidavit have been filed by the management to prove their initial appointment , administrative control over them and the payment of wages . It is settled law of services jurisprudence that to discharge the burden of prove mere filing the affidavit is not sufficient . Some cogent evidence has to be field by the workmen to prove that they were appointed directly by the management , they were under the administrative control of the management and they were paid wages by the management directly. Ifthe workmen are able to prove above facts , they will be treated directed under the service of principal employer irrespective of any Contractor in existence to supply contract labour . Under such circumstances the contract shall be deemed to be camouflage , shame and arbitraryjust asthe paper arrangement to make the payment good to the workman and to prevent the workmen for claiming their rights under the Industrial Disputes Act. But it is not the case inthe present industrial disputes . Contract agreement ison record. Documents regarding the payment of wages are also on record . Few workmen in their evidence recorded before the Tribunal admitted the some person used to visit the office of the management for payment of wages. They

Issue no . 3 is regarding the illegality and irregularity in making contract and supply contract labour. Number of instances has been mentioned by learned counsels for the workmen regarding illegality of contract . As per learned counsels for the workmen , there was no permanent office of the contractor . No documents were supplied by the contractor . There were irregularities in entering into the contract. Contract for complete period has not been filed. On irregularities in supplying of labour , learned counsel for the management has argued that in spite of irregularities and illegalities the contract labour cannot be treated s the employees of the principal employer . Learned counsel for the workman has stressed upon the issue of violation of Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. In Steel Authority of India Limited's case ( supra) the issues of violation ofthe provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 have been dealt with 3243 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2010/ज्येष्ठ15 , 1932

that on any irregularity or illegality in the contract or supply ofcontract labour only penal provisions mentioned under Sections 23 and 25 ofthe Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 shall follow and none ofthe workmen can be deemed to be the employee of the principal employer.

Moreover, the law prefers the lawful recruitment . If such practice is adopted that on account of irregularity and illegality in making the contract or supplying the contract labour, the contract labour is deemed to be the direct employees of the management, the very purpose of law preferring the lawful appointment will be frustrated. It is not the intention of the legislature . Legislature intends regular and lawful appointments against substantial vacancies and cannot permit to bye pass this process .

in detail . Under what circumstances the contract may held to be camouflage and shame has been discussed in previous issues ? It depends on facts and circumstances of each case whether the contract execute in between the management and the contractor is camouflage and shame? The Court has to see whether there is any genuine contractor , whether there is proper master servant relationship and whether administrative control over the workman was that of the management ? The term contract is defined in the Indian Contract Act. All the agreements enforceable by law are contracts . Agreements are made by two persons when they agree on the same thing in the same sense. The contract may be in oral or in writing . Ifthe management and the Contractor agreed on the same thing in the same sense, there was a enforceable agreement and contract, whether the workman can be treated under firect administration of the management of telecommunication on account of violation of provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970? It is the issue of law and has very limited concern with the facts . This issue of law has been raised by learned counsel or the workman very forcely. There may be several conditions to constitute the violation of any provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. There may be a case where practice of contract labour is prohibited by appropriate Government under Section 10 ( 1 ) of the Act. There may be another issue regarding registration of the principal employer under section 7 of the Act . There may one more issue regarding licenses by the contractor under section 12 of the Act . The issues raised before the Tribunal is whether on account of any irregularity and illegality betweenthe contractor and the management, if any, or any provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 have been violated the workman shall be deemed to be the employees of the principal employer (Telecommunication)?

The next issue is regarding supply of labour without identity of the workman. It is a well established beforethis Tribunal that contract was to supply the contract labour in numbers . The documents also make it clear that some times the bill was made to the contractor in number of labour supplied and sometimes by name . In both of the conditions , in my view, it was lawful for the contractor to supply the labour in numbers or by name . If the labour is supplied in number and after execution of work payment is also made good to the contractor on the basis of the number of labour supplied, it is not bad in law . Thus , law permits the management and the contractor to enter into such contract for supplying of labour in number even without disclosing the identity of the person. If this act is not against he provisions of the law that is deemed to be good and valid. Any agreement can only be frustrated when it it barredby law. Learned Counsel for the workman shri Amit Sharma has raised another issue that it violates Article 21 of the Constitution regarding right of personal lifeand liberty. Learned Counsel argued that on supply the contract labour in number, the Contractor and the Management have undermined the dignity of the workers . At least it should have come before the Tribunal that the contractor has supplied a particular labour for doing a particular work. Learned Counsel has argued that the very contract is violative of Article 21 ofthe Constitution . Article 21 ofthe Constitution is relating to life and personal liberty of human being article 21 provides that State shall not denied the right to life and personal liberty of any person without the procedure established by law . Article 21 contended the very important fundamental right which cannot be violated otherwise than the procedure established by law and the procedure should also be reasonable . The purpose beyond the contract was the execution ofwork through the contract labour. The work was executed and the payment was made good to the contractor. In none of the case, the workman has challenged the payment of wages by contractor to the workman. It is not in question that the contractor failed to make the payment good to the workman . Ifthe work was discharged This issue has been settled by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited case (supra) . Moreover , Hon'ble Pb . & Haryana High Court in FCI and others Versus Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -I and others , 2008 LLR 1931 hasdecided the issue after relying upon the ratio of Steel Authority of India Limited case (supra) . Without quoting the relevant paragraphs of above mentioned judicial pronouncements ,. Iam applying the ratio of the judgment that on account of violation of any provisions of Section 7, Section 10 and Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the contract labour cannot be deemed to be the direct employees of the management of Telecommunication. In case of violation of the above mentioned provisions of the Act, only penal provisions mentioned under Sections 23 & 25 of the Act are attracted. Hence, it is nowhere provided that such employees through the contractor would become employees of the principal employer . Thus this issue is answered with the direction 3244

[PART II-SEC . 3( il)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2010 / JYAISTHA 15 , 1932

by the workman and the payment was made good to him, the disclosure of identify makes no different . The motive of the workmen was to get the work done and received wages for livelihood and it was satisfied.

प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार द्वारा दी गई छूट को रद्द करने हेतु आवेदन दिया है ।

2. जबकि, उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 ( 1) के अंतर्गत1-12-1952 से छूट देने संबंधी दिनांक 16-7-1953 की अधिसूचना भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित की गई थी । Moreover this was under the scheme of the Central Government, the work was carried through the contract labour . So the procedure for supplying the labour in number was in ecistence and I am unable to smell any violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution . The vires of the scheme is not subject matter before this Tribunal and cannot be because ofthe limited jurisdiction conferred upon this Tribunal .

3. और जबकि, यह देखने में आया है कि प्रतिष्ठान ने दिनांक 1-12-2008 को छूट अभ्यर्पित कर दी है तथा यह अब कोई क्रियाकलाप नहीं कर रहा है ।

4. अतः अब केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप- धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतदद्वारा , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दी गई छूट को दिनांक 1-12-2008 से रद्द करती है ।

[सं. एस -35017/10/2010 -एस एस- II ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 19th May, 2010 Without commenting on the procedure , law and regulations , I am personally pained by this contractual system. But my personal views cannot over sight the provisions of law. As a disciplined judicial Officer . I am bound to abide by the law and my personal feelings and sentiments have no role to play and cannot obstruct the way ofjustice delivery by law. I have also one more feeling thatworkmen themselves are responsible for such contract system. Decline indiscipline deterioration in work culture in organization , in my view has been main cause for introducing this contract system . To improve the work culture and decorum in the office was cause for an introduction of such scheme . Otherwise then this , the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to say anything about the Government scheme . The Tribunal has to confine itself to references referred by the Central Government .

S.O. 1477-Whereas M/ s . Saroja Mills , Coimbatore (under Code No. TN/ 73 Coimbatore Region) (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for cancellation ofexemptiongranted by Government of India under clause (a) of sub -section ( 1 ) of section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 (19 of 1952) ( hereinafter referred to as theAct) .

2. Whereas a notification dated 16-7-1953 granting exemption w.e.f. 1-11-1952 under Section 17 ( 1 ) ( a) ofthe said Act to the said establishment was published in the Gazette of India .

3. And whereas now it has come to the notice to the Government that the establishment has surrendered its exemptionwith effect from the 1-12-2008 and it is no longer carrying on any activity.

I have answered all the issue including the last issue that none of the workman was directly engaged or appointed by the management . They have not directly worked under the administrative control ofthe management and payment of wages were made good by the contractor and not by the management . Accordingly , on last issue which is regarding relief, I am of the view that none ofthe workmen is entitled for any relief. All the references are accordingly answered. Let Central Government be approached for publication of award and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 मई , 2010

4. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act the CentralGovernment , hereby cancels the exemption granted to the said establishment with effect from the 1-12-2008 .

का.आ. 1477-, जबकि मैसर्स सरोजा मिल्स , कोयम्बटूर (कोयम्बटूर क्षेत्र के अन्तर्गत कोड संख्या टी एन/73 ) ( एतदुपरान्त

[No. S - 35017/10/2010- SS- II ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi -110054 .