This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

सत्यमेव जयते

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 36]

No. 36

नई दिल्ली , अगस्त 29 सितम्बर 4 , 2010 , शनिवार / भाद्र 7- भाद्र 13 , 1932 NEW DELHI , AUGUST 29 -SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 , SATURDAY /BHADRA 7 - BHADRA 13,1932

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 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 )

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय ( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2138.केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए बिहार राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवाअपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1 . श्री लतिफुर रहमान अंसारी

2. श्री मनोरंजन प्रसाद सिंह

3. श्री अख्तर हुसैन खान

[सं. 225 /36 /2010 - एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव 3296 ( 月 / 2010

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2138.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Bihar instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law : -- Sh . Latifur Rehman Ansari

2. Sh . Manoranjan Prasad Singh

3. Sh . Akhtar Hussain Khan

[No. 225/ 36/2010 - AVD- 11 ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy.

(5503 ) 5504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2139 ,-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए उड़ीसा राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ता को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :

1. श्री प्रवाकर जेना

मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव [सं. 225/36/2010- एवीडी- II ] New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2139. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Orissa instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law : - 1 . Sh . Pravakar Jena

[No. 225 /36 /2010 - AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2140.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं . 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए झारखंड राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवाअपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भुत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1. श्री आशिष चंद्र कुमार

2. श्री प्रभाश चंद्र मेहतो

3. श्री ब्रज मोहन प्रसाद सिंह

4. श्री एस. पी. मिश्रा

[सं. 225 /36/2010 - एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2140.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2 ) ofSection 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Jharkhand instituted by theDelhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law :-

1. Sh . Ashish Chandra Kumar

2. Sh . Prabash Chandra Mahato

3. Sh . Braj Mohan Prasad Singh

4. Sh . S.P. Mishra

[No. 225/ 36/2010-AVD- II] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2141.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस ,स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1. श्री पार्थ सारथी दत्ता

2. श्री शेखर चक्रवर्ती

[सं. 225/36/2010- एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2141. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of West Bengal instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established bylaw:-

1. Sh . Partha Sarathi Dutta

2. Sh . Sekhar Chakrabarti

[No. 225/ 36/2010- AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy .

5505

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2142. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए अंडमान एंव निकोबार राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ता को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1. श्री नदीम अख्तर खान

[सं. 225 / 36/2010- एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010 S.O. 2142.- In exercise of the powers conferred by 'sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974 ), the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocate in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Andaman & Nicobar instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) intrial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law : -

1 . Sh . Nadeem Akhtar Khan

[No. 225/36/2010- AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2143. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए राजस्थान राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ता को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :

1. श्री अनिल शर्मा

[सं. 225 /36/2010 - एवीडी -11 ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2143. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Rajasthan instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law :--

1. Sh . Anil Sharma

[No. 225 / 36/2010- AVD- II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy . नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2144, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ता को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1. श्री कुशलेंदर प्रताप सिंह

[सं. 225 /36/2010 - एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2144. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Uttar Pradesh instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts, established bylaw:--

1. Sh . Kushlendra Pratap Singh

[No. 225 /36 /2010 - AVD-II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2145.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेप 5506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए एनसीटी दिल्ली राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवाअपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1 . श्री जितेंद्र बहादुर सिंह

2. श्री जतिन्दर सिंह वाडिया

3. श्री मोहम्मद आजाद

4. श्री सतीश कुमार जैन

5. श्री तेज वीर सिंह दुआ

6. श्री अतुल शर्मा

7. श्री अरुनेन्दर सिंह

[सं. 225/36/2010- एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August, 2010

S.O. 2145.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of NCT Delhi instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established bylaw:--

1 . Sh. Jitender Bahadur Singh

Sh . Jatinder Singh Wadia 2.

3. Sh . Mohd . Azed

Sh . Satish Kumar Jain 4.

5. Sh . Tej Vir Singh Dua

6. Sh . Atul Sharma

7. Sh . Arunendre Singh

[No. 225 /36/ 2010 - AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2146 , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए पंजाब और हरियाणा राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों

[ PART 11 - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] और पुनरीक्षण अथवाअपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1. श्री लाभ सिंह

2. श्री उमेश कुमार शर्मा

[सं. 225 /36/2010 - एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2146. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Punjab & Haryana instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law :-

1. Sh . Labh Singh

2. Sh . Umesh Kumar Sharma

[No. 225 /36/ 2010 - AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy . नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2147. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 कीउप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए उत्तराखंड राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ता को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1. श्री हरि ओम मिगलानी

[सं. 225 /36/ 2010 - एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2147.- In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 2) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocate in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Uttrakhand instituted [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law:--

1. Sh . Hari Om Miglani

[No. 225/36/2010- AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2148. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए जम्मू एवं कश्मरी राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ता को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :--

1. सुश्री आसिफा अली पादरू

[सं. 225 /36/ 2010 - एवीडी-11 ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2148.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocate in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Jammu & Kashmir instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law : ---

1. Ms. Aasifa Ali Padroo [No. 225 /36/2010- AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy . नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2149, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए महाराष्ट्र राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

5507

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

1. सुश्री कविता संदेश पाटिल

2 श्री राजन मोजिज साल्वी

श्री गानसाल्वस सुनील डामिनिक 3.

4. सुश्री सुवर्ण बालकृष्णा खांडेलवाल

5. सुश्री शैला विजय गोखले

6 श्री रतन कुमार नंद कुमार शर्मा

7. श्री रमाकांत रघुराज यादव

8. श्री शेख सलिमुद्दीन आजिजूद्दीन

9. श्री अयूब एस. पठान

10. श्री किरतीकुमार कचरादास गुजर

[सं. 225/36/2010 - ए.वी.डी. - 11 ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2149.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Maharastra instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out ofthese cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law:-

1. Ms. Kavita Sandesh Patil

2. Sh . Rajan Moses Salvi

3. Sh . Gonsalves Sunil Dominic

Ms. Suvarna Balkrishna Khandewal 4.

Ms. Shaila Vijay Gokhale 5.

Sh . Ratan Kumar Nandakumar Sharma 6.

7. Sh . Ramakant Raghuraj Yadav

8. Sh . Shaikh Salimuddin Azizuddin

9. Sh. Ayub S Pathan

10. Sh . Kirit Kumar Kachradas Gujar

[No. 225 36 2010- AVD- II MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2150.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए 5508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1. श्री प्रतीश जैन

2. श्री पंकज दीक्षित

3. श्री सुभाष भट्टाचार्य

4. श्री बी. एस. रघुवंशी

[ सं. 225/36/2010 - एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2150.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Madhya Pradesh instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law :--

1. Sh . Pratish Jain

2. Sh. Pankaj Dixit

3. Sh . Subhash Bhattachharya

4. Sh . B.S. Raghuvanshi

[No. 225/36/2010-AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy . नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2151. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए कर्नाटक राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है : -

1 . श्री आर. मल्लैया

2. श्री हेगडे देवारु गणपति

[ सं. 225 /36/2010 - एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 25th August, 2010

S.O. 2151. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Karnataka instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law:-

1. Sh . R, Mallaiah

2. Sh . Hegde Devaru Ganapati [No. 225/ 36/2010-AVD- II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2152.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भुत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1. श्री वी. विक्रम कुमार

2. श्री यू. एस . आर. राजू

[सं. 225/36/2010 - एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2152. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 2) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Andhra Pradesh instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law :-

1. Sh . V. Vikram Kumar

2. Sh . U.S. R. Raju

[No. 225/36/2010- AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy.

5509

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2153, केंद्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं, 2) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए असम राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन गामलों के अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है : -

1. श्री अभिजीत भट्टाचार्य ( जन्मतिथि- 26-12-1971 ) 2. श्री अभिजीत भट्टाचार्य ( जन्मतिथि -12-12-1975 ) [सं. 225/36/2010 -एवीडी- II ]

मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2153.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Assam instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out ofthese cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law: - 1. Sh . Abhijit Bhattacharya (DoB : 26-12-1971 ) 2. Sh . Abhijit Bhattacharya ( DoB : 12-12-1975 )

[No. 225 / 36/2010- AVD- II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2154, केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2. की धारा 24 की उप- धारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए मेघालय राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है : -

1 . सुश्री अनिन्दिता वाई. सारकी

[सं. 225/ 36/2010 - एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2154.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Meghalaya instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out ofthese cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law:--

1. Ms. Anindita Y. Sarki

[No. 225/36/2010- AVD- II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2155. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए केरल राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है : -

1. सुश्री राधिका राजशेखरन [सं. 225/36/2010 - ए वी डी-11 ]

मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2155. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Kerala instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law: - 1. Ms. Radhika Rajasekharan [No. 225/36/2010-AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2156. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस 5510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए मणिपुर राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1. सुश्री येनसेनबाम चित्रभानू देवी

[ सं. 225/36/2010 - एवीडी -11 ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2156.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Manipur instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out ofthese cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law: - 1. Ms. Yensenbam Chitrabhanu Devi [No. 225 /36/2010 - AVD- II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2157. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए तमिलनाडु राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है : -

1. श्री वी.वी. सोमासुंदरम

2. श्री ई . एन. जयनंदन

[सं. 225/36/2010--एवीडी- II ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2157.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Tamil Nadu instituted

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out ofthese cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law:-

1. Sh . V.V. Somasundram

2. Sh . E.N. Jayanandan

[No. 225 /36/2010- AVD- II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy.

कार्यालय , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जयपुर , 23 अगस्त , 2010 सं. 7/2010-11

का.आ , 2158.-आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एतद्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-11 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " डिफेन्स पब्लिकस्कूल, जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 के उपखण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[क्रमांक:मुआआआआआ/( मु. ) /जय/10( 23 सी ) ( vi ) / 10-11 / 1828 ] मुकेश भान्ती , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX Jaipur , the 23rd August , 2010 No. 7 / 2010-11

S.O. 2158.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - clause ( vi ) of clause ( 23C) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income - tax , Jaipur hereby approves " Defence Public School , Jaipur " for the purpose of said section for the A.Y. 2010-11 & onwards .

Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub - clause ( vi ) of clause ( 23C ) of Section 10 of the Income - tax Act , 1961 read with rule 2CA of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 .

[No. CCIT/ JPR / Addl.CIT ( Hqrs . ) / 10 ( 2.30 ) ( vi ): 2010-11 / 18281 MUKESH BHANTI , Chief Commissoner of Income - tax

वित्त मंत्रालय (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2159. भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदन्न शक्तियों का प्रयोग [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री कमल किशोर गुप्ता , सनदी लेखाकार , कमल एंड कंपनी , 1372 , कश्मीरी गेट , दिल्ली -110006 को उनकी नियुक्ति की अधिसूचना की तिथि से चार वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के उत्तरी क्षेत्र स्थानीय बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा.सं. 9 / 18 /2008- बीओ -1 ]

सुमिता डावरा , निदेशक MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services ) New Delhi , the 26th August , 2010

S.O. 2159. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 ( 2 of 1934 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Kamal Kishore Gupta , Chartered Accountant , Kamal & Co. , 1372, Kashmere Gate , Delhi - 110006 to be the Member of the Northern Area Local Board of the Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders whichever is earlier .

[ F.No. 9/ 18 /2008 - BO.1 ] SUMITA DAWRA , Director स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2160.- भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार , भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके , संबद्ध विश्वविद्यालय के नाम में परिवर्तन के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , नामतः

उक्त अनुसूची में -

(क ) मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कालम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट के अन्तर्गत " दत्ता मेघे आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान विश्वविद्यालय ( मानद विश्वविद्यालय ) , नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः-

(3) ( 2)

डीवीडी

डिप्लोमा इन वेनेरियोलोजी एंड डर्मेटोलोजी

डीसीएच डिप्लोमा इन चाइल्ड हेल्थ

डी ओर्थो डिप्लोमा इन ओर्थोपेडिक्स

3296GI /10-2

5511

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

(3) ( 2)

डीएलओ डिप्लोमा इन ओटो- राइनो-लैरिंगोलोजी

डिप्लोमा इन मेडिकल रेडियो डायग्नोसिस डीएमआरडी डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( एनस्थिसियोलोजी ) एमडी

(एनस्थिसियोलोजी) डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( डर्मेटोलोजी) एमडी ( डर्मेटोलोजी)

एमडी ( पैथोलोजी) डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( पैथोलोजी )

एमडी ( फार्माकोलोजी ) डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (फार्माकोलोजी )

एमडी (फिजियोलोजी) डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन( फिजियोलोजी)

एमडी ( एनाटोमी) डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( एनाटोमी )

एमएस ( ईएनटी) मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( ईएनटी )

डीसीपी

डिप्लोमा इन क्लिनिकल पैथोलोजी

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( जनरल सर्जरी )

एमएस ( जनरल सर्जरी )

एमडी ( जनरल मेडिसिन ) डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( जनरल मेडिसिन )

एमडी ( ओबीजी ) डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( ओब्सटेट्रिक्स एंड गायनोकोलोजी)

डीजीओ डिप्लोमा इन ओब्सटेट्रिक्स एंड गायनोकोलोजी

डिप्लोमा इन एनेस्थीसिया

डी ए

डिप्लोमा इन ऑप्थलमोलोजी

डीओ

(शैक्षिक सत्र 2006-07 से जे. एन. मेडिकल कालेज , स्वांगी , वर्धा, महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध में " दत्ता मेघे आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान विश्वविद्यालय ( मानद विश्वविद्यालय ) , नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र " द्वारा प्रदान की गई चिकित्सा अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त होगी ) ।

[सं.यू. 12012 / 10/ 2010 - एमई ( पी. II ) पीटी. ]

अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health and Family Welfare ) New Delhi , the 13th August , 2010

S.O. 2160.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2 ) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, due to change in name of affiliating University namely: -

In the said First Schedule against " Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University ( Deemed University ) , Nagpur , Maharashtra " under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification ' ( hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating 5512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration ' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely : -

(3) (2)

D.V.D.

"Diploma in Venereology & Dermatology "

D.C.H.

"Diploma in Child Health "

D.Ortho

"Diploma in Orthopaedics "

D.L.O.

"Diploma in Oto- Rhino- Laryngology "

D.M.R.D.

"Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis "

MD( Anaesthesiology) "Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology) "

MD ( Dermatology) "Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology) "

"Doctor of Medicine ( Pathology ) " MD ( Pathology ) "Doctor of Medicine ( Pharmacology) " MD ( Pharmacology ) "Doctor of Medicine ( Physiology ) " MD ( Physiology ) "Doctor of Medicine ( Anatomy ) " MD ( Anatomy )

MS ( ENT) "Master of Surgery ( ENT) "

D.C.P.

"Diploma in Clinical Pathology "

MS ( General Surgery) "Master of Surgery ( General Surgery) "

MD( GeneralMedicine ) "Doctor of Medicine ( General Medicine)

"Doctor of Medicine

MD(OBG) (Obstetics & Gynaecology ) "

D.G.O.

"Diploma in Obstetrics & Gynaecology"

D.A.

"Diploma in Anaesthesia

D.O.

"Diploma in Ophthalmology "

( These shall be recognised medical qualification when granted by " Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University ( Deemed University) , Nagpur , Maharashtra " in respect of students admitted at J.N. Medical College , Swangi , Wardha , Maharashtra from the academic session 2006-07 ) .

[ No. U. 12012/ 10 / 2010 - ME ( P.II ) pt . ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secу .

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

S.O. 2161. In continuation to this Department's Notification No. U. 12012 /2/ 2010 -ME ( P.II ) dated 10-3-2010 , and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2) ofthe section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956

PART II S3( it ) | (102 of 1956 ) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act . namely: -

In the said Schedule-

" against " National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences ( Deemed University ) " , under the heading 'Abhreviation for Registration ' ( column 3 ) , the " DM (Neurology ) " qualification may be substituted with " DM ( Neuroradiology ) " , which shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by National Institute ofMental Health & Neuro Sciences ( Deemed University) , Bangalore in respect of students being trained at National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences , Bangalore on or after 2003 ".

[No. U. 1201222010 - MF ( P.II ) ! ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secv.

संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय

(दूरसंचार विभाग )

( राजभाषा अनुभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 19 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2162, केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय , दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को, जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है । महाप्रबंधक ( पश्चिम -1 ) , महानगर टेलीफोन निगम लिमिटेड, मुम्बई-400050

[ सं. ई . 11016-1: 2009 1.भा.

सुधा श्रोत्रिय , संयुक्त सचिव ( प्रशासन ) MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Telecommunications )

(O.L. Section)

New Delhi , the 19th August , 2010

S.O. 2162. In pursuance of rule 1064 ) of the Official Language ( Use for official purposes of the Union) , rules , 1976 ( as amended - 1987 ) , the Central Government herchy notifies the following Office under the adminstrative control of Ministry of Communications and Information Technology , Department of Telecommunications whereot more than 80 % of staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .

General Manager ( West - I ) , Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited , Mumbai -400050 .

[No. 1. 11016 1 2009-0.1 |

SUDHA SHROTRIA , Jt . Secy . Adma 5513 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मायले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2163.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मामक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स हाई - टैक इंडस्ट्रज , 62/10 जीआईडीसी , फेज -1 , वटवा, अहमदाबाद -382445 ( भारत ) द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग X ( 1 ) वाले स्वचालित ग्रेविमेट्रीक फिलिंग इंस्ट्रिमेंट ( मल्टी हैडिड व्हीयर ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " हाई - टैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 09 / 507 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित ग्रेविमेट्रीक फिलिंग इंस्ट्रूमेंट ( मल्टी हैडिड व्हीयर ) है । इसकी आऊटपुट 10 कि. ग्रा. के साथ न्यूनतम वेट 1 कि. ग्रा. सहित 40 पैकेट प्रति मिनट की बारम्बारता सहित , जो उत्पाद की प्रकृति और मात्रा पर निर्भर है । मशीन को मुक्त प्रवाह , नॉन स्टिकी , नॉन डस्टी उत्पाद जैसे स्नैक फूडस , कैंडीज , चाकलेटस , कोंडीमेंटस , वैफर्स , चिप्स , पेडीग्री , आकार में छोटे बिस्कुट आदि के भरने के लिए डिजाइन किया गया है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

1234

567 ( )

89 ESC ENT

OCLR FIRST

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले के ऊपरी धरातल के अग्रभाग से तार डालकर डिस्प्ले के अग्रभाग की सीलिंग की जाती है । ताकि सीलिंग के बाद सीलिंग को हटाए बिना डिजिटाइलर को खोला न जा सके । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उमी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का र्वािनर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जी 10 कि. ग्रा. तक की क्षमता वाले हैं ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 291 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 5514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

S.O. 2163.- Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument (multi headed weigher) belonging to Accuracy Class , X( 1 ) with brand " Hi - Tech " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Hi - Tech Industries , 62/10 GIDC , Phase I , Vatva , Ahmedabad- 382445 ( India ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 09 / 507 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument ( multi headed weigher) . It has the output up to 10kg with minimum weight of 1kg a frequency of weighing 40 packs per minute depending upon the quantity and nature of the product . The machine is designed for filling the free flowing , non - sticky , non - dusty products like snack food , candies , chocolates , condiments , wafers , chips , pedigree , biscuits of small sizes , etc. The Liquid Crystal Diode ( LCD) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

Figure- 1 Model

123

567 ( )

89 ESCENT

CLR FIRST

Figure- 2- Sealing diagram of the sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the top of the display by passing wire in base top cover of the display , so that after sealing digitizer cannot be opened without removing the seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/ D card / mother board to disable access to external calibration.

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 291 )/ 2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 5515 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010 /भाद्र 13 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2164.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स सैसन इंजीनियर # 26 , अजंता कम्पलैक्स कनाट प्लेस टाऊन सेंटर , एन -5, सिडको , औरंगाबाद -431003 महाराष्ट्र ( भारत ) द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग X ( 1 ) वाले स्वचालित ग्रेविमेट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सैसन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 09/ 523 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित ग्रेविमेट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण है । उत्पाद की मात्रा और प्रकृति पर निर्भर करते हुए इसकी वेइंग रेंज 100 ग्रा. से 20 कि. ग्रा. तक उत्पादकता 60 पैकेट प्रति घंटा की बारम्बारता के साथ है । मशीन को सभी प्रकार विसकॉस/नॉन -विसकॉस आयल जैसे मस्टर्ड आयल , जिंगिली आयल , सूरजमुखी का तेल आदि के भरने के लिए डिजाइन किया गया है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

WiKg.Liter

1.Price

T.Price.

SSOVM-SERIES

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

स्टाम्प और सीलिंग के सत्यापन के लिए बाटम प्लेट और कवर को काट कर दो छेद किए गए हैं और इन छेदों में से लीड वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले के बायीं तरफ सीलिंग की गई है । इंडीकेटर को सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना नहीं खोला जा सकता । मॉडल को सील बंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/ डी कार्ड /मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भीदिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 ग्रा. से 20 कि. ग्रा. तक की क्षमता वाले हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (304) /2009] बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 5516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ PART II S300 )

New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

S.O. 2164. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescrib . d authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 50 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Automatic Gravimetric Filing Instrument belonging to Accuracy Class , X( 1 ) with brand " SAISUN " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Saisun Engineers # 26 , Ajanta Complex Connaught Place Town Centre , N - 5 , Cidco Aurangabad --431003 Maharashtra ( India) and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 / 09 / 523 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument . It has the weighing range from 100g . to 20kg . and a frequency of weighing 60 packs per hour depending upon the quantity and nature of the product . The machine is designed for filling all type of viscous and non viscous oils like mustard oil , Gingili oil , Sunflower oiletc. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

Figure - 1 Model

W.Kg. Liter UPrice

1.Price.

SSOVM- SERIES

Figure- 2-- Sealing diagram of the sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the left side of the display two holes are made by cutting bottom plate and cover to pass a lead wire through it which will receive the verification stamp and seal . The indicator cannot be opened without breaking the seat A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/ D card mother board to disable access to external calibration .

[ F. No. WM - 21 (304 ) 2009

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 5517 भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त , 2010

का. आ. 2165.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) , ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स युचेंग हुआलिन टूल एंड मैजरिंग कं. लि. , साउदर्न लिजिआंग रोड , युचेंग काउंटी , शांगकियु , हेनान , चाइना द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग -11 के " स्टील टेप मैजर " के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " होंगलिंग " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स सिद्धार्थ इम्पैक्स , 1892 /डी-2 , तीसरा तल , कटरा बाबू राम , हरी राम मार्कीट , भागीरथ प्लेस , चाँदनी चौक, दिल्ली -110006 द्वारा बिक्री से पूर्व या बाद में बिना किसी बदलाव के भारत में विपणीत किया है , और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 09 / 355 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल स्टील टेप मैजर ( स्टील फीता माप ) है । जिसकी अधिकतम लम्बाई 3 मीटर है तथा न्यूनतम भाग । मिलीमीटर है जिसका उपयोग लम्बाई को मापने के लिए किया जाता है । इसका उपयोग लम्बाई को मापने के लिए किया जाता है जहां कड़े माप की लम्बाई सुविधाजनक यो व्यवहारिक न हो ।

WONGLING

LAYCH

PUTTING

FOR STAMPINA SEAL

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

सत्यापन स्टाम्प और स्टील टेप मेजर के शुरू में दी गई है , आकृति में दिखाया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के स्टील टेप मैजर भी होंगे जिनकी रेंज 0.5 मीटर से 5 मीटर तक है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 207 ) /2009 ]

बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 5518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

S.O. 2165. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by the 3rd Proviso to sub - sections ( 3 ) , ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of ' Steel Tape Measure'of Accuracy Class , III with brand name " HONGLING" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Yucheng Hualin Tools & Measuring Co. Ltd , Southern Lijiang Road , Yucheng County , Shangqiu , Henan , China and marketed in India without any alteration before or after sale by M/ s. Siddarth Impex , 1892 / D - 2 , IIIrd Floor , Katra Babu Ram Hari Ram Market , Bhagirath Place , Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/09 / 355;

The said model is a steel tape measure of maximum length 3m and smallest division is of 1 mm which is used for measurement of length . It is used for measurement of length where the use of rigid length measure is not convenient or practicable.

Figure- 1 Model

NONG LING

LATCH FOR PUTTING STAMPING SEAL

Figure- 2- Scaling provision

The verifcation stamp is given at the begining of the Steel tape measure as shown in the figure above.

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 207 )/ 2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 5519 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2166.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) , ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स युचेंग हुआलिन टूल एंड मैजरिंग कं. लि. , साउदर्न लिजिआंग रोड , युचेंग काउंटी , शांगकियु , हेनान , चाइना द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग- II के " स्टील टेप मैजर " के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बाओफेंग " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स सिद्धार्थ इम्पैक्स , 1892 /डी-2 , तीसरा तल, कटरा बाबू राम , हरी राम मार्कीट, भागीरथ प्लेस , चाँदनी चौक , दिल्ली -110006 द्वारा बिक्री से पूर्व या बाद में बिना किसी बदलाव के भारत में विपणीत किया है , और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/356 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ;

BAOFENG

3mx16mm

MEASURINGTAPE

PUTTING

LATCH FOR STAMPING SEAL

आकृति-2

सत्यापन स्टाम्प और स्टील टेप मेजर के शुरू में दी गई है , जैसा कि आकृति में दिखाया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के स्टील टेप मैजर भी होंगे जिनकी रेंज (0.5 मीटर से 5 मीटर तक है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम 21 ( 207 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3296GI/10-3 5520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 20th August, 2010

S.O. 2166. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub - section , ( 3 ) , ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of ' Stcel TapeMeasure'of Accuracy Class- III with brand name " BAOFENG " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Yucheng Hualin Tools & MeasuringCo. Ltd , Southern Lijiang Road , Yucheng County, Shangqiu , Henan , China and marketed in India without any alteration before or after sale by M/ s . Siddarth Impex , 1892/D -2 , IIIrd Floor , Katra Babu Ram , Hari Ram Market, Bhagirath Place , Chandni Chowk , Delhi - 110006 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/356 ;

Figure- 1 Model

BAOFENG

3mx16mm

MEASURINGTAPE

LATCH FOR PUTTING STAMPING SEAL

Figure- 2---Sealing provision

The verifcation stamp is given at the begining of the Steel tape measure as shown in the figure above .

F. No. WM -21 ( 207) 2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director ofLegal Metrology HE 5521 भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2167.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स डीईएल इंजीनियरिंग , जी -5 , धनलक्ष्मी कॉम्पलैक्स , नगर पालिका गुंज रोड, आनंद-368001 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " टीटी -15 / 30 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डीईएल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 /09/342 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15/30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 2/5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) /लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

DEL

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

स्केल के बाटम प्लेट और टाप कवर में बने दोनों होल्ज में से सीलिंग वायर निकाली जाती है । स्टाम्पिग के लिए लीड सील के साथ स्केल की बाड़ी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/ मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा . से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2 × 10 % और 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 171 ) /2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 5522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ PART II Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

S.O. 2167. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy ( Accuracy Class - III ) of Series " TT - 15 / 30 " and with brand name " DEL " manufacturedby M / s . DEL Engineering ,G - 5 , Dhan Laxmi Complex , Nagarpalika , Gunj Road , Anand - 368001 ( Gujrat ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/09 /342 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top type ) with a maximum capacity of 15/30 kg . and minimum capacity of 40g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 2 / 5g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) / Liquid Crystal base ( LCD ) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1 Model

DEL

Figure- 2 Schematic diagram of sealing Provision of the model

The Sealing is done through the hole , made in the bottom plate and Top cover of the scale , than sealing wire is passed through these two holes . Stamping plate is connected through the sealing wire passing from the body of scale with the lead seal , to get the stamping . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/ D card / mother board to disable access to external calibration .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg . with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10.000 for ' e ' value of 5 g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2x10 or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 171 )/ 2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 5523 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2168 , केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रत्तत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स डेल इंजीनियरिंग , जी-5 , धनलक्ष्मी कॉम्पलैक्स , नगर पालिका गंज रोड , आन्नद-368001 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " पीएस -200/500 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डीईएल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी /09/ 09/343 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 200/500 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 20/50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) /लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । OFFAIR SID SPA13140

LAL WII11

AMMING

DEL

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

स्टाम्पिंग के लिए लीड सील के साथ सीलिंग वायर स्केल की बाड़ी में से निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/ डी कार्ड / मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2× 10 और 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 171 )/ 2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 5524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA'13 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

S.O. 2168.- Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type) with digital indication of " PS - 200/ 500 " series of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy Class - III ) and with brand name " DEL " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . DEL Engineering , G - 5 , Dhan Laxmi Complex , Nagarpalika , Gunj Road , Anand - 368001 ( Gujrat ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 09/ 343 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (" Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 200/500 kg . and minimum capacity of 400g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 20 / 50g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) /Liquid Crystal base ( LCD) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

Figure- 1 Model

OTHER SIDE SEALING

WIT

DEL

Figure - 2 Schematic diagram of sealing Provision of the model

Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body of scale with the lead seal , to get the stamping. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/ D card / mother board to disable access to external calibration .

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg . and upto 5000kg . with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 , 2 × 10k or 5x10% , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 171 )/2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 5525 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2169.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखोगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स डेल इंजीनियरिंग , जी-5 , धनलक्ष्मी कॉम्पलैक्स , नगर पालिका , गंज रोड , आनंद -368001 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग II ) वाले " गोल्ड -600 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डीईएल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 09 / 344 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक ईएमएफ बेस प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 600 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 मि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 10 मि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

A6879

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायाग्राम

स्केल के बाटम प्लेट और टाप कवर में बने दोनों होल्ज में से सीलिंग वायर निकाली जाती है । स्टाम्पिंग के लिए लीड सील के साथ स्केल की बाड़ी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 60,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2 × 10 और 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 171 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 5526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 20 August , 2010

S.O. 2169.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy Class - II ) of series " GOLD - 600 " and with brand name " DEL" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M / s . DEL Engineering , G - 5 , Dhan Laxmi Complex, Nagarpalika , Gunj Road , Anand - 368001 ( Gujarat) and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 / 09 / 344;

The said model is a EMF Base load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 600g and minimum capacity of 200mg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 10mg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

Figure- 1 Model

A6879

46879

Figure- 2 Schematic diagram of the model

The Sealing is done through the hole , made in the bottom plate and top cover of the scale , than sealing wire is passed through these two holes . Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body of scale with the lead seal , to get the stamping . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make . accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg to 50 mg and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5,000 to 60,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 171 )/2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 5527 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2170,-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स गोल्डफेस इलोक्ट्रोनिक वेइंग इक्यूपमेंट, सी -157, मायापुरी , दिल्ली द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " जीएफडब्ल्यूबी -4 " शृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रानिक वेब्रिज ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " गोल्डफेस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडलं कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 09 / 524 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक बेब्रिज ) । इसकी अधिकत्तम क्षमता 30 टन है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 5 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

GOLDFACE

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायाग्राम

स्केल के फ्रंट, दायीं और बायीं ओर छेद बनाकर और स्केल की बाटम और टाप बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/ डी कार्ड/ मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 150 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2 × 10 और 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 305 ) /2009]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3296GI/10-4 5528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

[PART

300

New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

S.O. 2170.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submittedto it by presepted is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in confo mity with the pers the Standards of Weights and Measures Act . 1976 160 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Maste Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of asthaned at accurate service under varied conditions :

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) on Secion 16 Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model a non- autote the instrument ( Electronic Weighbridge ) with digital indication of medium Accuracy ( Accuracy Chos -fi ) of sera and with brand name " GOLDFACE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by Ms. Goldfare it Weighing Equipments , C - 157 Mayapuri , Delhi and which is assigned the approval mark IND/0909-524;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronie wiek with a maximum capacity of 30 tonne and minimum capacity of 100kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates K result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 FHertz alternative current power supply

Figure- 1 Model

GOLDFACE cool

Figure -2 Sealing provision of the indicator of the model

The sealing is done through the hole , made in front , right and left side of the scale , than sealing wirespe through bottom and top body of scales . Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine practice . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above . A dip switch has also b in A / D card / mother board to disable access to external calibration .

Further , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Centralfiosen hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of sumailad accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 150 tonne with verificatietes ale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or above and with ' e ' value of 110 , 210 or 5-10 , where kis a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance v itathe principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No WM - 21 (305 ) 40

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Marolus 5529 भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

भाग 11 खण्ड 3 ( 1) ]

भारातीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 18 अगस्त , 2019

का.आ. 2171.--भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ए‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया /किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

भारतीयानक (कों ) की क्रम संशा

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संख्या संख्या औरशर्थिक

(4) ( 11

(2)

(3)

3-8-2010

संशोधन संख्या । जून , 2010

! . आई एस 9523 : 2000 पानी , गैस एवं मल जल के लिए दाब पाइप हेतु तन्द लोहे की फिटिंग विशिष्टि (पहल्ला पुनरीक्षण

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

[संदर्भ: एमटीडी 6 /टी 25 ]

पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी )

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 18th August , 2010

5.0. 2171. ir pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards mules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendment to Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule increto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each: -

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the amendment

Sl . No No. and title of the standard ( s )

Date from which the amendment shali have effe

(4) (2

(3)

Amenon.ent No. 1 June , 2010

3 August , 2010 95.000 Ductile iron fittings for presare pipes for water , gas and sewage Specification (first revision )

topy of the amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9. Bahadur Shah Zafer 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 , Fans , Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref: MTD 6 /7-251

P. GHOSH , Scientist ' F' & Head ( Met . Engg . )

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2172.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) को अनुसरण में भारतीय शाबत पूर्व सद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किए गए हैं :

5530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] अनुसूची

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक संशोधनों की संख्या और तिथि

क्रम संख्या

(2)

(1)

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि (3)

(4)

16अगस्त, 2010 संशोधन संख्या 2 , जून , 2010

1, आई एस 3074 : 2005 मोटर वाहन हेतु इस्पात नलिकाएँ विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

2. आई एस 5504 : 1997 सर्पिल वैल्ड़ित पाईप विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

16 अगस्त , 2010 संशोधन'संख्या 4 , जून, 2010

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

[ संदर्भ : एमटीडी 19 /टी -7,24 ] पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी )

New Delhi , the 18th August, 2010

S.O. 2172. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :---

Sl . No. No. and title of the standard ( s)

(2)

(1)

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the amendment

(3)

Date from which the amendment shali have effect (4)

16 August , 2010 Amendment No. 2 June 2010

1 . IS 3074 : 2005 Specification for steel tubes for automotive purposes ( second revision )

16 August , 2010 Amendment No. 4 June 2010

2 . IS 5504 : 1997 Specification for spiral welded pipes ( first revision)

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

[ Ref : MTD 19 /T - 7,24 ] P. GHOSH , Scientist 'F' & Head (Met . Engg . )

नई दिल्ली , 19 जुलाई , 2010

का.आ. 2173.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किए गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

( 2)

(1)

1 .

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि ( 3)

(4)

23 जून , 2010 संशोधन संख्या 6 , जून , 2010

आई एस 1537 : 1976 जल गैस एवं मल जल के लिए ऊर्ध्वाधर ढलाई वाले इस्पात के दाब पाइपों की विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण) 5531 भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

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

[ संदर्भ : एमटीडी 6 /टी -12 ]

पी. घोष, वैज्ञानिक ' ई' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी )

New Delhi , the 19th July , 2010

S.O. 2173 .-- In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendment to Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each: ---

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. No. and title of the standard ( s)

No. and year of the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

23 June , 2010

Amendment No. 6

June 2010

1 . IS 1537 : 1976 Specification for vertically cast iron pressure pipes for water , gas and sewage ( first revision )

Copy of this 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 , Thiruvananthapuram .

[ Ref : MTD 6 / T - 12 )

P. GHOSH , Scientist ' E' & Head ( Met . Engg .)

नई दिल्ली, 19 जुलाई , 2010

का.आ. 2174.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/ किए गये हैं : -

अनुसूची

संशोधनों की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संख्या क्रम

(3)

(2)

(1 )

(4) 1 .

23 जून , 2010

संशोधन संख्या 3 , जून, 2010

आई एस 7181 : 1986 जल , गैस एवं मल जल के लिए क्षैतिज ढलाई वाले इस्पात के फ्लैंजदार पाइपों की विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

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

[ संदर्भ : एमटीडी 6/टी -50 ]

पी . घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुसा ( एमटीडी) 5532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13. 1932

PAR. il Sig

New Delhi , the 19th July , 2010

S.O. 2:74.--In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 198 Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule here annexed have been established on the date indicated against each

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. No card title of the standard ( s )

No. and year of the amendment

Date from which the amendment sho have let ( 1 )

(4) (2)

(3)

Amendment No. 3

23 June ,

June 2010

IS : 1986 Specification for horizontally cast iron double flanged pipes for water , gas and wage (first revision)

Cep of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9. Bahadur Shab Zafar barg, 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 , Nagoth Patna . Pune . Thiruvananthapuram

[ Rer: MTD 씨

P. GHOSH , Scientist ' E' & Head ( Met . hingg )

नई दिल्ली , 20 जुलाई , 2010

.. 2175,--भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानवा युग एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया किए गये हैं : -

अनुसूची

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय मानक( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक संशोधनों की संख्या और तिधि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संख्या

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) आई २० 11/22 1986 पतली भति वाला नन्य

संशोधन संख्या 4 ,

16 जुलाई , 2010 शीध युग्मन पाइप

जून 2010

इसाधन की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्या. मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों मई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, गुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराभद , जयपुर, कानपुर नागपुर, पटना, पूर्ण तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरभ में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

संदर्भ : एमटीडी 19/1

पी. घाः वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख एमी हो ।

New Delhi , the 20 July, 2010

S.O. 2175. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 198 , e Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Amendment Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each

SCHEDULE

SI No. No. and year of the amendmcat ( s)

No. and year of the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have eftert (1)

(2)

(3)

14:

1 .

Amendment No. 4 ,

16July.20

June 2010

IS 11722: 1986 Specification for thin walled flexible quick coupling pipes

of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards . Manak Bhavan . 9 , Basadur Shah Zafar ing . New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai analiso भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5533 Branch Offices: Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kaurur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref: MTD 19 /T - 68] P. GHOSH , Scientist ' F ' & lead (Met . Engg.)

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2010

का.आ. 2176.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में आरतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए ह

अनुसूची

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

(2)

(1)

1. आई एस 13935 : 2009 चिनाई वाले भवनों के भूकंपीय मूल्यांकन , मरम्मत और सुदृढ़ीकरण मार्गदर्शिका ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

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

(4) (3)

31 दिसम्बर , 200 ) आई एस 13935 : 1993

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

[संदर्भ ईडी/राजपत्र ] ए. के. सैनी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सि 'ल इंजीनियरी )

New Delhi , the 20th July , 2010

S.O. 2176.--- In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against each : -

SCHEDULE

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

(2)

(1)

Date of

Establishment

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

(4) (3)

IS 13935 : 1993

1. IS 13935 : 2009 Seismic Evaluation , Raepair and Strengthening of masonry buildigs- Guidelines ( First Revision )

31 December , 2009 Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards . Manak Bhavan , ahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur . Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .

[ Ref: CED/ Gazette ] A. K. SAINI . Scientist ' F ' and Head ( Civil Engg . ) 5534

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 23 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2177. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :----

अनुसूची

स्वीकृत करने की लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

भाग अनु. वर्ष क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

भारतीय मानक काशीर्षक

तिथि वर्ष/माह

भामा संख्या

(2)

(3)

(5)

(6)

( 8 ) ( 9 )

(4)

(1)

(7)

भामा 12785 1. सीएम/एल -3341546 05-04-2010

1994

इरिगेशन एक्युपमेंट- स्ट्रेनर - टाइप फिल्टर्स

सिगमा परफॉरेटर्स नं. आर -4 , केएसएसआईडीसी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , वीरसंद्रा दूसरी स्टेज , ऑफ होसूर रोड , हुस्कूर रोड, बेंगलौर-560 099 कर्नाटक

2004 2. सीएम/एल-3344249 05-04-2010

भामा 14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा)

पद्मावति नेचुरल प्रोडेक्ट्स कम्पासागर , मुनिराबाद ( आरएस ) , जिला- कोप्पल कर्नाटक

3. सीएम/एल -3344451 05-04-2010

भामा 14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा)

श्री लक्ष्मी मिनरल्स नं. 12 , 8वांक्रॉस , जगतज्योति बसवन्ना रोड , सदगुरु लेआउट , लक्ष्मीपुर एक्सटेंशन , विद्यारण्यापुरा ( पोस्ट) , बेंगलौर -560 097 कर्नाटक

भामा 14543 4. सीएम /एल -3348055 15-04-2010

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा)

कावेरी मिनरल वाटर ( प्रा ) लिमिटेड सर्वे नं. 141 , शिवांपुरा विलेज , दासनपुरा होब्ली , बेंगलौर नार्थ तालुक , बेंगलौर -562 123 कर्नाटक

5. सीएम/एल -3348257 19-04-2010

भामा 1660 भाग 1982

पिटवां एल्युमीनियम के बर्तन की विशिष्टि भाग 1 भोजन पकाने , परोसने और रखने के बर्तन

स्टॉवक्राफ्ट प्राइवेट लिमिटेड नं. 81/1 , मेडरामारनहल्ली , हारोहल्ली होब्ली, कनकपुरा तालुक, जिला रामनगर , बेंगलौर रूरल , बेंगलौर -562 112 कर्नाटक

6. सीएम/एल -3349562 19-04-2010

भामा 14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा)

प्यूर सिस्टम्स नं. 502 , 16वां क्रॉस , बेगूर , माइको लेआउट , होंगासंद्रा, बेंगलौर -560 068 कर्नाटक

भामा 4145 7. सीएम/ एल 3351145 21-04-2010

1993

सुरक्षा हैलमेट ( स्कूटर एवंमोटर साइकिल सवारों के लिए)

मेहता ऑटो इंडस्ट्रिज पहली मंजिल , प्लॉट नं. 181/1 , सर्वे नं. 347/1 बी , " श्री गणेश कॉम्प्लेक्स" अपोजिट चैवन एंटरप्राइजस , उद्यमबाग , बेलगाम 590 008 कर्नाटक 5535

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्र 13 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) )

(4) ( 1)

(2)

(3)

23-04-2010

8. सीएम /एल -3353048

युनिक बेवेरेजस प्राइवेट लिमिटेड नं. 48/पी-6 , शैड 1 , महंता लिंगापुरा विलेज , दाखलेकृष्णा डोड्डी, आनेकल तालुक, बेंगलौर -560 083 कर्नाटक

23-04-2010

9. सीएम/ एल -3354252

श्री चौडेश्वरी अक्वा टेक वाटर्स सर्वे नं. 191 / 1 ए , राजेगौवडना डोड्डी , महूर तालुक, जिला मांड्या-571433 , कर्नाटक

सीएम/एल -3353149 28-04-2010

10.

इन्नोवेटिव प्रोसेस एक्युपमेंट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, बी 475 इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट गोकुल रोड, हुब्ली-580 030 धारवाड, कर्नाटक

(6)

(7) (8 ) (9 ) (5)

भामा 14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा)

2004

भामा 14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा)

भामा 9283

1995 मोटर्सफॉर सबमरसिबल पम्पसेट्स

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

New Delhi , the 23rd August, 2010

S.O. 2177.-In pursuance of Sub - regulation ( 5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the grant of licences particular of which are given in the following schedule : --

SCHEDULE

Grant Date

Sl . No.

Licences No.

Part Sec . Year Title ofthe Standard IS No.

Name & Address of the

Party

(3)

(4) (1) (2)

1. CM/L - 3341546 05-04-2010 Sigma Perforators No. R -4 , KSSIDC Industrial

Estate, Veerasandra IInd Stage, off Hosur Raod , Huskur Raod , Bangalore , Karnataka 560099 2. CM/1-3344249 05-04-2010 Padmavathi Natural Products Kampasagar , Munirabad (RS) , Koppal District ,

Koppal, Karnataka

Sree Lakshmi Minerals

05-04-2010

3. CM/L - 3344451

No. 12 , 8th cross , Jagath Jyothi Basavan Road , Sadguru Layout, Lakshmipur Extension , Vidy Aranyapura ( Post ) , Bangalore- 560097 , Karnataka 3296 GI /10-5

(5)

(6)

(7) (8 ) (9)

IS 12785

1994 Irrigation equipment- Strainer- type filters

2004

IS 14543

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

2004

IS 14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water) 5536

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

(3)

(5)

(1) (2)

(8 ) (9)

(4)

(6)

(7) 4. CM/L - 3348055

IS 14543

2004 15-04-2010

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Cauvery Mineral water ( P) Ltd Survey No. 141 , Shivanpura village , Dasanpura Hobli , Bangalore North Taluk , Bangalore - 562123 Karnataka

5. CM/ L - 3348257

IS 1660 Part 1 19-04-2010

1982

Wrought aluminium utensils- part 1 : cooking table , serving storing and baking utensils

Stovekraft Pvt . Ltd. No. 81/1 , Medaramaran Halli , Haroballi Hobli , Kanakapura Taluk , Ramanagara Distt. Bangalore Rural , Bangalore -562112 Karanataka

6. CM/L -3349562

IS 14543

2004 19-04-2010

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Pure Systems No. 502 , 16th cross , Begur , Micolayout, Hongasandra , Bangalore - 560068 Karnataka

7. CM/ L - 3351145

IS4151 21-04-2010

1993

Protective helmets for scooter and motorcycle riders

Mehta Auto Industries 1stFloor, Plot No. 181/1 , Sy . No. 347 / 1B , " Shree Ganesh Complex " Opp . Chavan Enterprises , Udy Ambag , Belgaum , Karnataka - 590008

8. CM/L - 3353048

IS 14543

2004 23-04-2010

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

Unique Beverages Pvt . Ltd No. 48 /P - 6 , Shed 1 , Mahantha Lingapura Village, Dakhale Krishna Doddi , Anekal Taluk , Bangalore-560083 , Karnataka

9. CM/L -3354252

IS 14543

2004 23-04-2010

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Shri Chowdeshwari Aqua Tech waters S. No. 291 / 1A , Rajegowdana Doddi , Maddur Taluk , Mandya District-571433 Karnataka

10. CM/L- 3344249 28-04-2010

IS 9283

1995

Motors for submersible pumpsets

Innovative Process Equipments Pvt . Ltd. B 475 Industrial Estate Gokul Road , Hubli -580030 Dharwad , Karnataka

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

C. K. MAHESHWARI , Scientist " G " ( Certification) [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5537

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2178. केन्द्रीय सरकार , सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप - खण्ड ( ii ) , तारीख 26 सितम्बर , 2009 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2642 , तारीख 15 सितम्बर , 2009 को उन बातों के सिवाय जो ऐसे अधिक्रमण से पहले की गई या किए जाने का लोप किया गया है , को अधिक्रांत करते हुए नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) के अधिकारियों को जो सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के अधिकारी हैं और केन्द्रीय सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी की पंक्ति के समतुल्य हैं, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रायोजन के लिए , सम्पदा अधिकारियों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है , जो उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 3 ) की तत्संबंधी प्रविष्टि में विनिर्दिष्ट सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवर्गों की बावत अपनी अधिकारिता की सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन सम्पदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और उन पर अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेंगे ।

क्रम संख्या

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के अधिकारी का पद नाम

(2)

(1)

1. उप मुख्य इंजीनियर ( सिविल ) / भूमि और राजस्व , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , रांची । पिन कोड -834 029 2 स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , कथारा , पिन कोड 829 116 3. स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , ढोरी , पिन कोड-825 102 4. स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , करगली , पिन कोड -829 104 5. स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , बरका- सयाल , पिन कोड -829 103 6. स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , अरगडा , पिन कोड -829 101 7. स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, कुज्जु, पिन कोड -825 316 8. स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , चरही , पिन कोड -825 336 9. स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , पिपरवार , पिन कोड-829 201 10. स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, उत्तरी कर्णपुरा डकरा , पिन कोड-829 210

सारणी

सरकारी स्थान के प्रवर्ग और अधिकारिता की स्थानीय सीमा (3)

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , रांची के और उसके प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन सभी परिसर ।

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो कथारा क्षेत्र के भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित बोकारो तथा गिरिडीह जिलों में फैले हुए हैं ।

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो ढोरी क्षेत्र का भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित बोकारो जिले में फैले हुए हैं । सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो बोकारो और करगली क्षेत्र के भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित बोकारो तथा गिरिडीह जिलों में फैले हुए हैं ।

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो बरका सयाल क्षेत्र के भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित रांची हजारीबाग और रामगढ़ जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो अरगडा क्षेत्र के भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित रामगढ़ तथा हजारीबाग जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो कुज्जु क्षेत्र के भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित रामगढ़ तथा हजारीबाग जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो चरही क्षेत्र के भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित हजारीबाग तथा रामगढ़ जिले में फैले हुए हैं।

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो पिपरवार क्षेत्र के भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित हजारीबाग , चतरा और रांची जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो उत्तरी कर्णपुरा क्षेत्र के भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित चतरा और रांची जिले में फैले हुए हैं । 5538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

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

(3)

(1)

11 . स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , राजष्हारा , डाल्टेनगंज , पिन कोड -822 101

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो तलहारा क्षेत्र भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित लातेहार, पलामू, चतरा जिल्ल में फैले हुए हैं ।

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो बरकाकाना क्षेत्र के भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित रामगढ़ जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

12. स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , केन्द्रीय कार्यशाला बरकाकाना , पिन कोड-829 103

13. स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( कार्मिक ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, खनन बचाओ केन्द्र , नईसराय , पिन कोड -829 122

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो खनन बचाओ केन्द्र, नईसराय क्षेत्र के भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित रामगढ़ जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो नईसराय अस्पताल के भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित रामगढ़ जिले में फैले हुए हैं ।

14. स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( कार्मिक ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , नईसराय अस्पताल , नईसराय , पिन कोड 829 122

15.

सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के सभी परिसर जो राजरप्पा क्षेत्र क भाग रूप हैं और झारखंड राज्य में स्थित रामगढ़ और बोकारो जिले में फैले हुए हैं।

स्टाफ ऑफिसर ( परियोजना और योजना ) , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, रजरप्पा , पिन कोड -825 101

[फा, संख्या 43022/2/1997 पी. आर. आई.डब्ल्यू- । । एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2178. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants ) Act , 1971 ( 40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2642 , dated the 15th September , 2009 , published in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) , dated the 26th September , 2009 , excepts as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession , the Central Government hereby appoints the officers of the Central Coalfield Limited mentioned in column ( 2 ) of the Table below , being the officers equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officers of the Central Government , to be the Estate Officers for the purpose of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act , within the local limits of their respective jurisdictions in respect of the categories of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column ( 3 ) of the said Table .

TABLE

Serial Designation of the Officer of the Central Number Coalfield Limited

Categories of the public premises and local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(3)

(2)

All the premises belonging to and under the administrative control of Central Coalfields Limited . Ranchi .

1. Deputy Chief Engineer , ( Civil ) / Land and Revenue , Central Coalfields Limted , Ranchi , Pin Code - 834 029

2. Staff Officer ( Peroject and Planning ) , Central Coalfield Limited , Katharu , Pin Code - 829 116

All the permises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Katharu Area spread over in the Districts of Bokaro and Giridih , in the State of Jharkhand .

3. Staff Officer ( Peroject and Planning ) , Central Coalfield Limited , Dhori , Pin Code - 805 102

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfield Limited and forming part ofDhori Area spread over in the Districi ofBokaro in the State of Jharkhand .

| भान 11- खण्ड (ii ) ]

(2)

(1)

4. Staff Officer ( Peroject and Planning ) , Central Coalfields Limited , Kargali , Pin Code - 829 104 5. Staff Officer ( Peroject and Planning ) , Central Coalfields Limited, Barka Sayal, Pin Code - 829 103 6. Staff Officer ( Peroject and Planning ) , Central Coalfields Limited , Argada , Pin Code - 829 101 7. Staff Officer ( Peroject and Planning ) , Central Coalfields Limited , Kuju , Pin Code - 825 316 8. Staff Officer ( Peroject and Planning ) , Central Coalfields Limited, Charhi , Pin Code- 825 336 9. Staff Officer ( Peroject and Planning ) , Central Coalfields Limited, Piparwar , Pin Code - 829 201 10. Staff Officer ( Peroject and Planning ) , Central Coalfields Limited , North Karanpura , Dakra, Pin Code - 829 210

11. Staff Officer ( Peroject and Planning ) , Central Coalfields Limited , Rajhara , Daltonganj , Pin Code-822 101

12. Staff Officer ( Personnel ) , Central Coalfield Limiteds Central Workshop , Barkakana , Pin Code - 829 103 .

13. Staff Officer ( Personnel ) , Central Coalfields Limited , Mines Rescue Station , Naisarai , Pin Code - 829 122 .

14. Staff Officer ( Personnel ) , Central Coalfields Limited , Naisarai Hospital , Naisarai , Pin Code- 829 122

15. Staff Officer ( Project and Planning ) , Central Coalfields Limited, Rajrappa . Pin Code - 825101

5539

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010 / भाद्र 13 , 1932

(3)

All the permises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited andforming part of Bokaro and Kargali Area spread over in the Districts of Bokaro and Giridih , in the State of Jharkhand.

All the permises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Barka - Sayal Area spread over in the Districts of Ranchi , Hazaribagh , Ramgarh , in the State ofJharkhand.

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

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

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

All the permises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Piparwar Area spread over in the Districts of Hazaribag , Chatra and Ranchi , in the State ofJharkhand .

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

All the permises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Rajhara Area spread over in the Districts of Latehar , Palamau , Chatra, in the State of Jharkhand.

All the permises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Central Workshop , Barkakana Area spread over in the District of Ramgarh , in the State of Jharkhand .

All the permises belonging to Central Coalfields Limited and forming part of Mines Rescue Station , Naisarai Area spread over in the District of Ramgarh , in the State of Jharkhand .

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

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

[F. No. 43022 /2/ 1997 - PRIW - 1 ] M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

5540

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त , 2010

मा. आ. 2179, 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 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत सरकार के कोचला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 3445 , तारीख 11 दिसम्बर , 2009 द्वारा जो भारत सरकार के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) , तारीख 19 दिसम्बर, 2009 को प्रकाशित की गई थी , उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट अवस्थापन में ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकारों के अर्जन करने के अपने आशय को सूचना दी थी;

और , सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का, पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और महाराष्ट्र सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इसे संलग्न अनुसूची में यथा वर्णित 21.00 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 51.89 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किये जाने चाहिएं;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में वर्णित 21.00 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 51.89 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किये जाते हैं ।

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. सी-1 ( ई ) / 111/जेजेएमआर/ 816-0210 तारीख 22 फरवरी , 2010 का निरीक्षण कलक्टर , चन्द्रपुर ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता 700 001 के कार्यालय में या वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) , कोल इस्टेट , सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर-440 001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

तेलवासा विस्तार ओपनकास्ट ब्लॉक

माजरी क्षेत्र

जिला चन्द्रपुर ( महाराष्ट्र)

रेखांक संख्या:- सी-1 / ( ई ) / III /जेजेएमआर/ 816-0210 तारीख 22 फरवरी , 2010 ]

सभी अधिकार :

पटवारी सर्किल संख्या तहसील

ग्राम का नाम

जिला

क्षेत्रफल

टिप्पणी क्रम सं.

(हेक्टेयर में) 28

तेलवासा

भद्रावती

21.00

भाग

चंद्रपुर

21.00 हेक्टर ( लगभग )

कुल क्षेत्र :

या

51.89 एकड़ ( लगभग )

ग्राम तेलवासा में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्यांक:

1 , 2 , 3 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 68/1 भाग , 68/2 , 69/1 , 69/2 , 70 , 71/1 , 71/2 , नाला भाग । सीमा वर्णन :

कख

रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा में बिन्दु ' क ' से आरंभ होती है और वर्धा नदी के पूर्वी तट के साथ प्लाट संख्यांक 1 , 3 की बाहरी सीमा से होते हुए गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है।

ख-ग

रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा से होती हुई प्लाट संख्या 3 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ गुजरती है फिर नाले के साथ जाती है फिर नाला पार करती है और प्लाट संख्या 68/1 से होकर गुजरती है और फिर प्लाट संख्यांक 65 , 62 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है । 5541 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग li- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

रेखा ग्राम सड़क के साथ जाती है और प्लाट संख्यांक 62,71 / 1 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ जाती है और बिन्दु ' घ ' पर मिलती है।

रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा में प्लाट संख्यांक 71/1 , 71/2 , 70 , 2 , 1 की बाहरी सीमा से ष्ठोते हुए गुजरती है और आभिक बिन्दु ' क' पर मिलती है ।

[फा. संख्या 43015 / 7/ 2009- पी. आर. आई. डब्ल्यू- । ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 25th August , 2010

S.O. 2179. Whereas , by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S. O. 3445 dated the 11th December , 2009 , issued under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 ( 20 of 1957 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) and published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section - 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) dated the 19th December , 2009 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the lands and all rights in or over such lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification ;

And , whereas , the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act , has made his report to the Central Government;

And , whereas, the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting to the Government of Maharashtra , is satisfied that the lands measuring 21.00 hectare (approximately ) or 51.89 acre ( approximately ) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule appended hereto , should be acquired ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 , ( 20 of 1957 ) the Central Government hereby declares that the land measuring 21.00 hectare ( approximately ) or 51.89 acre ( approximately ) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number C - 1 ( E ) III / JJMR/ 816-0210 , dated the 22nd February , 2010 of the area covered by this notification , may be inspected at the Office of the Collector , Chandrapur ( Maharashtra ) or at the Office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata ( Pin 700 001 ) or at the Office of the General Manager , Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department ) , Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur - 440 001 ( Maharashtra ) .

SCHEDULE

Telwasa Expansion Opencast Block

Majri Area

District - Chandrapur ( Maharashtra )

Plan number : C- 1 ( E ) III / JJMR/ 816-0210 , dated the 22nd February, 2010 ]

ALL RIGHTS :

District

Remarks

Tahsil

Area in hectares

SI . No.

Name of village

Patwari Circle number

21.00

Part

Bhadrawati

Telwasa

Chandrapur

Total : 21.00 hectares (approximately)

or 51.89 acres ( approximately) 5542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

. :

Plot numbers acquired in village Telwasa:

1, 2, 3, 62, 63, 64 , 65 , 68/1 part , 68/2 , 69/1 , 69/2 , 70 , 71/1 , 71/2 , Nallah Part .

Boundary description:

A - B : Line starts from point ' A ' in village Telwasa and passes along with the Eastern Bank of Wardha River and outer boundary of plot numbers 1 , 3 and meets at point ' B ' .

B-C : Line proceed through village Telwasa along the outer boundary of plot number 3 , then passes along with the Nallah then crosses Nallah and passes through plot number 68/1 then passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 65 , 62 and meets at point ' C ' .

C-D : Line passes along with the village road and outer boundary of plot numbers 62. 71-1 and mects at point' D' .

D-A : Line proceed through village Telwasa along the outer boundary of plot numbers 71/1 , 71 : 2 , 70 , 2 , i and meets at starting point ' A ' .

[F. No. 43015 / 7/2009 - PRIW - 1 | M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2180. - केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए इससे उपबद्ध अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को उक्त अधिनियम की ऐसी धाराओं के प्रयोजन के लिए जो नार्थ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स कोल इंडिया लिमिटेड , उप - प्रभाग मारघरेटा , जिला- तिनसुकिया , असम-786 181 की अधिकारिता के भीतर आने वाले क्षेत्रों के संबंध में इसमें स्तंभ ( 4 ) में तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में उक्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी के सामने , सक्षम प्राधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

अनुसूची

शासकीय पता

अधिनियम अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र की धारा

क्र. सं. सक्षम प्राधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त व्यक्ति का पदनाम

( 1)

(2)

(4)

(5)

(3)

4(3)

निदेशक ( तकनीकी )

सर्वेक्षण , खुदाई , बोर , पूर्वेक्षण, पूर्वेक्षण तथा तत्संबंधी कार्य की सीमा और दिशा का संबंधित कार्य । कोल इंडिया लिमिटेड , 10 , नेताजी सुभाष रोड , कोलकाता-700 001

सर्वेक्षण, खुदाई , बोर , पूर्वेक्षण , पूर्वेक्षण तथा तत्संबंधी कार्य की सीमा और दिशा का संबंधित कार्य। मुख्य महा प्रबंधक , महाप्रबंधक , क्षेत्र सर्वेक्षण अधिकारी , सर्वेक्षण अधिकारी

नार्थ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स कोल 4 ( 3 ) इंडिया लिमिटेड , मारघेरिटा , जिला-तिनसुकिया , असम -786181

4(3) सर्वेक्षण , खुदाई, बोर , पूर्वेक्षण , पूर्वेक्षण तथा तत्संबंधी कार्य की सीमा और दिशा का संबंधित कार्य। सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एंड डिजाइन इंस्टीट्यूट लिमिटेड , गोडवाना प्लेस , कांके रोड , रांची-834 031

निदेशक ( सीआरडी ) , मुख्य महाप्रबंधक ( खोज ) , महाप्रबंधक ( भू- वैज्ञानिक सेवाएं ) , उप - मुख्य भू- विज्ञानी , अधीक्षक भू- विज्ञानी, उप - मुख्य भू- विज्ञानी, भू- विज्ञानी भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3) (1)

(2)

2. निदेशक ( तकनीकी)

कोल इंडिया लिमिटेड 10 , नेताजी सुभाष रोड , कोलकाता-700001

नार्थ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स , कोल 6 इंडिया लिमिटेड , मारघेरिटा , जिला-तिनसुकिया , असम -786181 मुख्य महाप्रबंधक , महाप्रबंधक , क्षेत्र सर्वेक्षण अधिकारी , स्टाफ अधिकारी ( भूमि और राजस्व ) / सम्पदा अधिकारी

उप- मुख्य भू- विज्ञानी

सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एंड डिजाइन इंस्टीट्यूट लिमिटेड, गोंडवाना प्लेस , कांके रोड रांची-834031 3. कोयला नियंत्रक

कोयला नियंत्रक का कार्यालय , 8 ( 2) 1 , काउंसिल हाउस , स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700001 4. निदेशक ( तकनीकी )

कोल इंडिया लिमिटेड , 10 , नेताजी सुभाष रोड , कोलकाता -700001 मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, महाप्रबंधक, स्टाफ अधिकारी ( भूमि और राजस्व) /सम्पदा अधिकारी

नार्थ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स , कोल इंडिया लिमिटेड , मारघेरिटा , जिला-तिनसुकिया, असम-786181 5. निदेशक (तकनीकी)

5543

(5)

(4)

धारा 4 ( 3 ) के अंतर्गत हुई किसी नुकसानी के लिए प्रतिकर ।

धारा 4 ( 3 ) के अंतर्गत हुई किसी नुकसानी के लिए प्रतिकर।

सुनवाई में आपत्ति।

12 अर्जित भूमि का कब्जा लेने की शक्ति।

12 अर्जित भूमि का कब्जा लेने की शक्ति। 13 (6)

कोल इंडिया लिमिटेड, 10 , नेताजी सुभाष रोड , कोलकाता -700001 हानि के लिए प्रतिकर इस अधिनियम में उपबंधित नहीं किया गया है।

13 (6 )

मुख्य महाप्रबंधक , महाप्रबंधक , स्टाफ अधिकारी ( भूमि और राजस्व) /सम्पदा अधिकारी

नार्थ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स, कोल इंडिया लिमिटेड , मारघेरिटा , जिला-तिनसुकिया, असम -786181 निदेशक ( तकनीकी )

कोल इंडिया लिमिटेड , 10 , नेताजी सुभाष रोड , कोलकाता-700001

नार्थ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स , कोल 22 इंडिया लिमिटेड , मारघेरिटा , जिला-तिनसुकिया, असम-786181 मुख्य महाप्रबंधक , महाप्रबंधक , स्टाफ अधिकारी ( भूमि और राजस्व ) स्टाफ अधिकारी ( खनन ) क्षेत्र सर्वेक्षण अधिकारी

हानि के लिए प्रतिकर इस अधिनियम में उपबंधित नहीं किया गया है ।

प्रवेश करने और निरीक्षण करने का अधिकार । प्रवेश करने और निरीक्षण करने का अधिकार । [फा. सं. 43015 / 1 /2007 - पी. आर. आई.डब्ल्यू-1 ( खण्ड- II ) ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव 5544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2010

S.O. 2180.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the officers specified in column ( 2) of the Schedule hereto annexed , to be the competent authority for the purpose of such of the sections of the said Act , as are specified against the said competent authority in the corresponding entry in column (4 ) thereof in respect of the areas failing within thejurisdiction of the North Eastern Coalfields , Coal India Limited , Sub- Division Margherita , District-Tinsukia, Aspan - 786181 .

SCHEDULE

Official address

Area ofjurisdiction Sl .

Sections of the Act

No. Designation of person appointed as competent authority

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

i .

4(3)

Director ( Technical )

Coal India Limited, 10 , Netaji Subhash Road , Koikata- 700001

Survey , Dig . Bore Prospective , Set out boundary and line of prospecting and work relating thereto.

4(3) Survey , Dig . Bore Prospective , Set out boundary and line of prospecting and work relating thereto .

Chief General Manager General Manager , Area Survey Officer Survey Officer

North Eastern Coalfields , Coal India Limited, Margherita, District, Tinsukia, Assam- 786181

4(3 ) Survey , Dig . Bore Prospective , Set out boundary and line of prospecting and work relating thereto.

Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited , Gondwana Place , Kanke Road , 1 Ranchi -834031

Director ( CRD), Chief General Manager ( Exploration ) General Manager (Geological Services ) , Deputy Chief Geologist , Superintending Geologist , Deputy Chief Geologist , Geologist

Director Technical ).

Compensation for any damage done under section 4(3)

Coal India Limited , 10 , Netaji Subhash Road , Kolkata -700001

Compensation for any damage done under section 4(3)

North Eastern Coalfields , 6 Coal India Limited , Margherita , District , Tinsukia , Assam - 786181

Chief General Manager , General Manager . Area Survey Officer , Staff Officer (Land and Revenue) / Estate Officer

Deputy Chief Geologist

Compensation for any damage done under section 4 (3)

Central Mine Planning 6 and Design Institute Limited , Gondwana Place , Kanke Road , Ranchi -834031

3 . Coal Controller

8(2) Hearing objection

Office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001

Director ( Technical )

Power to take possession of land acquired Coal India Limited , 10 , Netaji Subhash Road , Kolkata - 700001

Power to take possession of land acquired North Eastern Coalfields , 12 Coal India Limited , Margherita , District , Tinsukia . Assam - 786181

Chief General Manager, General Manager, Staff Officer ( Land and Revenue) / Estate Officer 5545

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

(1) (2)

5. Director ( Technical )

Coal India Limited, 10 , Netaji Subhash Road , Kolkata - 700001

North Eastern Coalfields , Coal India Limited, Margherita , District, Tinsukia, Assam - 786181

ChiefGeneral Manager , General Manager, Staff Officer ( Land and Revenuc) / Estate Officer

6. Director ( Technical )

Coal India Limited , 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata - 700001 22

North Eastern Coalfields , Coal India Limited, Margherita, District, Tinsukia, Assam -786181

ChiefGeneral Manager , General Manager , Staff Officer ( Land and Revenue) Staff Officer (Mining) , Area Survey Officer

(5)

(4)

13(6) Compensation for damage not provided in this Act .

13 (6) Compensation for damage not provided in this Act .

Power to enter and inspect .

[F. No. 43015 / 1 /2007 - PRIW - I (Vol . II ) j M. SHAHBUDEEN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 27 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2181 , 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 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 2645 ( अ ) तारीख 18 सितम्बर , 2009 जो भारत सरकार के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 26 सितम्बर , 2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट ऐसी भूमियों और उस पर के सभी अधिकारों के अर्जन के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को, पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और मध्य प्रदेश सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 53.822 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 132.99 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किये जाने चाहिए;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 53.822 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 132.99 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किये जाते हैं ।

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. एसईसीएल /बीएसपी/ जीएम ( पीएलजी ) / भूमि/ 383 , तारीख 21 मई, 2010 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , उमरिया ( मध्य प्रदेश ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता 700001 के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफल्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता हैं। ।

अनुसूची

कंचन ओपनकास्ट विस्तार ब्लाक जोहिला क्षेत्र

जिला- उमरिया ( मध्य प्रदेश )

रेखांक संख्या: - एसईसीएल/बीएसपी /जीएम ( पीएलजी ) / भूमि/ 383 , तारीख 21 मई , 2010

सभी अधिकार

जनरल संख्या ग्राम का नाम पटवारी हल्का संख्या

क्रम सं.

658

103

लहंगी कोठार

1 .

246

103

छुईहाई

351

धनबाही

104

380 नौसेमेर

कुल क्षेत्र

या

टिप्पणियां

तहसील जिला

क्षेत्र (हेक्टेयर में )

भाग उमरिया

20.304

बान्धवगढ़

6.540

भाग उमरिया

बान्धवगढ़

भाग उमरिया

21.463

बान्धवगढ़

भाग उमरिया

5.515

बान्धवगढ़

53.822 हेक्टर ( लगभग )

132.99 एकड़ ( लगभग ) 5546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

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

1. ग्राम लहंगी कोठार ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्यांक:

4/279( भाग ) , 13 ( भाग ) , 14( भाग ) , 15 , 16 , 17 ( भाग ) , 19 ( भाग ) , 20( भाग ) , 24( भाग ) , 30 ( भाग ) , 33 ( भाग ) , ( ४ ) 35 ( भाग ) , 37 ( भाग ) , 38 ( भाग ) , 39 ( भाग ) , 40 ( भाग ) , 41 ( भाग ) , 45 ( भाग ) , 46( भाग ) , 47 ( भाग ) , 48( भाग ) , 49 ( भाग ) ( ) 52( भाग ) , 56 ( भाग ) , 57 ( भाग ) , 59 ( भाग ) , 60 ( भाग ) , 61 से 63 , 64 ( भाग ) , 65( भाग ) , 67( भाग ) , 68( भाग ) , 212 से 215 , 221 ( भाग ) , 222( भाग) ।

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

1 ( भाग ) , 2 ( भाग ) , 2/300 ( भाग ) , 56( भाग ) , 59( भाग ) , 60( भाग ) , 61 , 62 , 63 ( भाग ) , 65 ( भाग ) , 66 ( भाग ) , 67 , 68 ( भाग ) , 69( भाग ) , 70 ( भाग ) , 73 ( भाग ) , 76( भाग ) , 91 ( भाग ) ।

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

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

4. ग्राम नौसेमेर ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्यांक :

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

सीमा वर्णन :

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

घ-ङ- च : रेखा ग्राम लहंगी कोठार में प्लाट संख्यांक 51 , 52 , 56 बिन्दु " ङ " 57 ,65 ,64, 59 , 67 , 68 से होती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।

च -छ

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

छ-ज -झ : रेखा , ग्राम धनबाही के प्लाट संख्यांक 17 , 37 , 36 , 44 बिन्दु " ज " से होते हुए प्लाट संख्यांक 60 के उत्तरी सीमा से होती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु " झ " पर मिलती है ।

रेखा , ग्राम धनबाही के प्लाट संख्यांक 60 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होती हुई जाती है फिर ग्राम नौसेमेर में प्रवेश करती है और बिन्दु " अ " से टोकर प्लाट संख्यांक 60 की दक्षिणी सीमा से होती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु " ट " पर मिलती है। झ-ञ-ट :

ट-ठ -ड : रेखा, ग्राम नौसेमेर के प्लाट संख्यांक 50 की पश्चिमी सीमा से होकर प्लाट संख्यांक 50 , 51 , 53 , 55 से होती हुई ग्राम छुईहाई में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्यांक 2 से होती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु " ड " पर मिलती है । ड-ढ-ण-त : रेखा , ग्राम छुईहाई के प्लाट संख्यांक 2 , 1 से होकर जाती है फिर ग्राम धनबाही में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्यांक 159/163 , 159 बिन्दु " ढ " 60 बिन्दु " ण " 61 , 43 , 42 , 40 , 37 से होती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु " त " पर मिलती है । त - थ- द- ध : रेखा , ग्राम धनबाही के प्लाट संख्यांक 37 , 39 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 159 , 70 बिन्दु " थ " बिन्दु " द " , 159 , 155/170 , 155 से होते हुए जाती है फिर ग्राम छुईहाई में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्यांक 65 , 56 , 59 , 60 से होकर61 , 62 , की दक्षिणी सीमा तथा66 , 76 , 70 , 73 से ग्राम लहंगी कोठार में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्यांक 17 ,19 , 20 , 24 , 20 , 14 , 13 , 59 से होती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु " ध " पर मिलती है।

ध - न-प : रेखा , ग्राम लहंगी कोठार के प्लाट संख्यांक 59 से होती हुई जाती है फिर प्लाट संख्यांक 61 की पश्चिमी सीमा तथा प्लाट संख्यांक 60 , 57 , 52 , 56 बिन्दु " न " 52 , 51 , 49 , 48 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 30 , 39 , 37 , 38 , 37 , 35 , 34 , 33 से होती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु " प " पर मिलती है। 5547 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) |

प- फ-ब : रेखा , ग्राम लहंगी कोठार के प्लाट संख्यांक 33 , 222 से होती हुए जाती है फिर ग्राम छुईहाई में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्यांक 91 बिन्दु " फ " से होकर प्लाट संख्यांक 91 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु " ब " पर मिलती है । ब-क

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

[फा. संख्या 43015 / 17/2008 - पी. आर. आई .डब्ल्यू- 1 ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th August , 2010

S.O. 2181.- Whereas , by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2645 dated the 18th September , 2009 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India , Part - II , Section 3 , sub - section ( ii ) dated the 26th September , 2009 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire 5.3.822 hectares or 132.99 acres land as all rights in or over such lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification ;

And whereas , the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Government:

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Government ofMadhya Pradesh , is satisfied that the lands measuring 53.822 hectares ( approximately ) or 132.99 acres ( approximately ) as all rights in or over such lands as described in the schedule appended hereto , should be acquired ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 the Central Government hereby declares that the land measuring 53.822 hectares (approximately ) or 132.99 acres (approximately ) as all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule appended hereto , are hereby acquired .

The Plan bearing number : SECL / BSP / GM / ( PLG ) / LAND / 383 , dated 21st May , 2010 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector , Umaria ( Madhya Pradesh ) or in the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata 700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Section ) Seepat Road , Bilaspur-495 006 ( Chhattisgarh) .

SCHEDULE

Kanchan OC Expansion Block , Johilla Area

District - Umaria (Madhya Pradesh )

(Plan number : SECL/ BSP / GM / ( PLG ) /LAND/ 383 , dated 21st May , 2010 )

ALL RIGHTS :

Remarks

Tahsil

District

Area in hectares

General number

SI . Nc .

Name of village

Patwari halka number

Part 658

Umaria

20.304

Bandhogarh

1 Lahangi Kothar 103

6.540

Part 246

Umaria

103

Chhuihai

Bandhogarh

21.463

Part

Umaria

351

3 Dhanbahi

Bandhogarh

Part

5.515

Umaria

380

104

Nausemar

Bandhogarh

Total : 53.822 hectares or 132.99 acres

(approximately) (approximately) 5548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ PART 11 SEC . 3 ( ii ) | 1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Lahangi Kothar ( Part ) :

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

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Chhuihai ( Part) :

I ( P ) , 2 ( P) , 2/300 ( P ) , 56 ( P ) , 59 ( P ) , 60( P ) , 61 , 62 , 63 ( P ) , 65 ( P ) , 66( P ) , 67 , 68 ( P ) , 69 ( P ) , 70(P ) , 73 ( P ) , 76( P ) , 91 ( P ) .

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

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

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

30 ( P ) , 50 ( P ) , 51 ( IP ) , 52 , 53 ( 1P ) , 55 ( P ) .

Boundary Description :

A - B - C - D

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

D-E-F

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

F-G

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

G-11-1

: Line passes in village Dhanbahi through plot no . 17 , 37 , 36 , 44 , point ' H ' , northern boundary of plot no . 60 and meets at point ' 1 ' .

I -J - K

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

K - L-M

: Line passes in village Nausemar along western boundary of plot no . 50 , through plot no . 50 , 51 , 53 , 55 then enter in village Chhuihai and passes through plot no . 2 and " meets at point M. M -N -O - P

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

P -Q - R - S

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

S - T -U

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

U-V-W

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

W-A

: Line passes in village Chhuihai through plot no . 91 then enter in village Lahangi Kothar and passes through plot no . 222 , 221 and meets at starting point ' A' .

[ F. No. 43015 / 17 / 2008 - PRIW - 1 ] M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy .

5549 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

| भान 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) |

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2182.-कंन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाच राज्य में रमन मंडी से हरियाणा राज्य में बहादुरगढ़ तक. पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि में , जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है, और जिसमें 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 उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषण , करती है ;

कोई भी व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री प्रहलाद सिंह , ( हरियाणा ) , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना, एस सी एफ नं . 29 , सैक्टर -6 , बहादुरगढ -124 507 , हरियाणा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य-पंजाब

जिला-मानसा

तहसील - सरदूलगढ़

गांव का

क्षेत्रफल हदबस्त

खसरा/किला

मुस्ततिल

संख्या

हेक्टेयर

संख्या

वर्ग मीटर

एयर 2

7 147

02 1. जटाना कलां

[फा. सं. आर-31015/ 11/2009 - ओआर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 3rd August , 2010

S.O. 2182.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " , should be laid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

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

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ PART 11-Suc . 3 (ii ) ) under the land to Shri Prahlad Singh , Competent Authority (Haryana) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Guru Gobind Singh Refinery Product Evacuation Project, SCF No. 29 , Sector - 6 Market, Bahadurgarh - 124507 , Haryana.

SCHEDULE

District : Mansa

Tehsil: Sardulgarh

Name of Hadbast Mustatil

No.

Village

3 1

147

26 Jatana Kalan

State: Punjab

Area

Khasra/

Killa No.

Hectare

Are Square Metre

53 16

[ F. No. R - 31015 / 11 /2009 -OR - 11 ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 16 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2183.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में रमन मंडी से हरियाणा राज्य हो बहादुरगढ़ तक , पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजन के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि में , जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , और जिसमें 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 ( 1967 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अधो आशय की घोषण , करती है ;

कोई भी व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि को नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री गगनदीप सिंह , ( पंजाब ) , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी सत्याद निष्क्रमण परियोजना , गांवः फुलो खारी , रिफाइनरी गेट , तहसीलः तलवंडी साबो , जिलाः भटिंडा, पंजाब को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज तहसील -सांपला

अनुसूची

जिला-रोहतक

गांव का

हदबस्त

संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या नाम

21/1 1. शकस्मा 57

2. भैसरू खुर्द 31

राज्य- हरियाणा

खसरा/किला

क्षेत्रफल

संख्या

हेक्टेयर

पथर

मोटा 4

[ फा. सं . आर-31015/5/2009- ओआर-11 ]

ए, गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव 5551 | भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 (is) )

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

New Delhi , the 16th August , 2010

S.O. 2183.Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " , should be laid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the General Public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Gagandeep Singh , Competent Authority ( Punjab ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Guru Gobind Singh Refinery Product Evacuation Project , Village: Phullo Khari . Refinery Gate . Tehsil: Talwandi Saboo , District: Bhatinda, Punjab .

SCHEDULE

District: Rohtak

State:Haryana Tehsil Sampla

Hadbast

Khasra/

Area Name of

Miustatil

No.

KillaNo.

Are No.

Hectare

Village

Square Metre

(0)

51 57

31/1

1. Pakasma

2. Bhansru Khurd

19 20

12 01

00 00

10 01

[ F. No. R- 31015 / 5 /2009 - OR - 11 ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2184. केंन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में रमन मंडी से हरियाणा राज्य में बहादुरगढ़ तक. पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई भी व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री प्रहलाद सिंह , ( हरियाणा ) , हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना , एस सी एफ नं.- 29 , सैक्टर-6 , बहादुरगढ -124 507 , हरियाणा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 3216/ 61/ 10-7 5552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( it ) j

अनुसूची

जिला-रोहतक

तहसील महम

गांव का

मुस्ततिल क्रम सं.

नाम

संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

4 2

1 .

111

75 गूगाहेडी

खरन्टी

223 3. चान्दी

राज्य- हरियाणा

खसरा/किला

क्षेत्रफल

संख्या

हेक्टयर

एयर

वर्ग मीटर 5

8 3

54 6

54 00

53 27

25 2

77 00

25/2

[फा. सं. आर-31015/6/2009 - ओआर -11 ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

S.O. 2184.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacution Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " , should be laid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ; And , whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid , and which is described in the schedule annexed to this notification; Now , therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein ;

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

Tehsil : Maham

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No. S. No.

Name of Village

4 1

75 1.

111

Gugaheri

27 2.

Khreanti

3 .

Chandi

SCHEDULE

District: Rohtak

State: Haryana

Khasra/ Killa No.

Hectare

Area Are

Square Metre

8 3

54 7

25 24

252

[ F. No. R - 31015 6 2009 - OR - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5553

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2185.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में रमन मंडी से हरियाणा राज्य में बहादुरगढ़ तक , पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

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

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

अनुसूची तहसील-रोहतक

जिला-रोहतक

गांव का

क्रम सं

मुस्ततिल संख्या

खसरा/किला संख्या नाम

हदबस्त संख्या

5 1

9/1 1. ब्राहमणवास

9/2

2. मकरौली कलां

186

8 3. किलौई खास

14 राज्य- हरियाणा

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टयर

एयर

वर्ग मोटर 6

8 00

25 00

60 00

30 00

31 00

(01

26 [फा. सं. आर-31015/9/2009- ओआर- II }

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

S.O. 2185 .-- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacution Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " , should be laid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

3554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 4, 2010 / BHADRA 13, 1952

[ PART II--SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais melines ( Acquisition of Right of User im Land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962) , the Central Covernment hereby declares its intention wswire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1) of Section 3 of tise said Act , as published in the Gazette of india , are made available to the General Public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of dhe pipehne under the land to Shri Prahiad Singh , Competent Authority ( Haryana ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation mited , Guru Gobind Singh Refinery Product Evacuation Project , SCF No. 29 , Sector- 6 Market , Bahadurgarh - 124507 , Haryana .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Rohtak

District : Rohtak

State: Haryana

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

ン ()

Khasra/ KillaNo.

Hectare

Area Are Name of Village

Square Metre 2

8 80

Brahmanwas

9/1

9/2

08 64

Makrauli Kalan

08 60

Kilei Khas

186

[F. No. R - 31015/ 9 / 2009 - OR - III

A. GOSWAMI . Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2186, केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में रमन मंडी से हरियाणा राज्य म वहादुरगढ़ तक , पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए :

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आप अभिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , और जिसमें पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि में, जा इस उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए:

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

कोई भी व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस आधसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचं पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री प्रहलाद सिंह , ( हरियाणा ) , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड, गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना , एस सी एफ नं. 29 , सेक्टर-6 , बहादुरगढ -124507 , हरियाणा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा। भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010 / শার 13 , 1932

|भाग (11)

अनुसूची नहसील -रशिया

5555

राज्य- हरियाणः

जिला-फतेहाबाद

गांव का

खसरा/किला

हदबस्त

मुस्ततिल

संख्या

संख्या सं

संख्या

नाम

5 1

25 1 .

109

साहरन

4/2

4 पंढ

102

108

103

14)

23/1

23/2

24/2

7/1

147

210

25/2 अहरवा

127

232

5/2

234

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टयर

एयर

दग मोटर

51 00

25 00

83 00

38 00

86 00

63 00

26 00

50 00

02 00

25 00

57 00

08 [फा. सं. आर-31015/ 15/2009- ओआर- II ]

ए, गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

S.O. 2186. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacution Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " , should be laid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

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

5556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

[PART 11 SP.3 ( i ) ) ..

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conterred 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 ta aequ re the Right of User therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the General Public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of't ser therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Prahlad Singh , Competent Authority ( Haryana ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Guru Gobind Singh Refinery Product Evacuation Project , SCF No. 29 , Sector- 6 Market , Bahadurgarh- 124 507 、 Haryana.

SCHEDULE

District : Fatehabad

Tehsil: Ratiya

Khasra

Hadbast No.

S No.

Mustatil No.

Killa No. Name of Village

Saharan

109

4/2

6 2

Madh

108

102

103

141

23/1

23/2

24/2

147

7/1

127

Ahearwa

210

25/2 3.

232

234

5/2 State : Haryana

Hectare

Area Are

Square Metre 6

8 00

25 00

88 00

34 00

38 00

78 00

86 00

50 00

(X)

())

61 00

02 00

25 00

(05

06 00

08 [ F. No. R-31015/ 15/2009 -OR - IIJ A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

5557

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4. 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्त, 2010

क्रा.आ. 2187. केन्द्रीय सरकार में 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 को उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3283 तारीख 23 नवम्बर , 2009 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उड़ीसा राज्य की तहसील : निआली , जिला : कटक की भूमि में पारादीप सम्बलपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना के कार्यान्वयन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं रांची ( झारखण्ड) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय कीघोषणा की थी;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 4 जनवरी , 2010 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ; और केन्द्रीय सरकार नं , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

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 इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- भाग ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को कंन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला कट

तहसील निलि

राज्य-उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं

क्रम गांव का नाम

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हक्टयर

म.

6 2

1043

आडपडा

1 .

414

415

416

432

481

480

482

00 506

ऑडपडा

00 505

(X )

504

(0)

03 483

00 479

(0)

502

00 500

494

000

10 495

493

75 484

485

34 489

23 490

03 491

10 492

02 488

20 463

10 462

10 292

10 540

65 541

02 291

542

00 543

01 289

15 290

00 299

287

27 270

01 269

64 264

00 265

27 261

70 263

(X)

262

21 260

16 259

255

10 256

00 257

10 251

01 250

00 249

00 235 5558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13.1932

i 233

सिठालो 248

236

81 237

13 239

46 232

78 211

70 231

236

53 213

71 225

(0)

62 1064

15 214

( X)

1065

(0)

216

215

(X)

220

221

222

223

ठालो

6468

6469

6434

6436

6435

6433

(20

6132

6431

( )

6430

さし

6722

6391

6392

6393

()

6394

6395

6347

6346

6398

6344

6021

6020

(X)

6022

6014

6063

6064

PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii ) !

(

5995

5996

5929

5932

(0)

5930

90 5931

( 1 )

5863

5864

5862

5861

5828

(X)

이

$827

( 1

5825

(X)

34 5826

(X)

(05

50 -4733

-1736

4732

4737

61 4707

36 4706

31 4705

4570

(0)

28 4569

4571

4524

4525

30 4523

(X)

32 4521

1522

4514

4515

4517

(0)

75 4518

68 4516

78 4414

30 4413

(Χ)

4412

35 4411

39 4365

58 4361

(00

13 4362

(x) 4363

10 4361

10 4366

(X)

36 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

भग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

सिठालो

4369

सिठालो

4370

अपरपडा 4181

4371

4374

4375

4180

4179

4178

4177

4176

4376

4172

4147

4146

4149

4148

4150

4151

4152

4038

4039

4041

4040

6493

4032

4044

4018

3755

3758

3757

3756

3745

3747

3748

3746

3749

3738

3723

3728

3729

3727

3724

3725

3726

5559

3730

3734

1502

1503

1632

1631

1504

01 38

1629

1630

1627

1628

1623

1620

00 93 1622

1621

1614

1612

1611

1610

1613

1602

1606

1603

1604

1601

1600

1605

1597

1598

1527

1596

1594

1595

1538

1539

1592

1540

1558

1534

1542

1541

1556

1555

1423

1730 5560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

1 अपरपडा

1420

अपरपडा 1896

64 1324

64 1323

92 1322

82 1919

517

10 दीधि 518

$19

520

521

523

522

528

529

530

531

549

548

547

532

533

534

535

536

538

539

620

622

637

636

635

634

639

641

1888

640

642

650

643

644

646

645

647

649

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

5 648

00 661

79 782

59 815

33 816

58 817

2959

82 2960

77 2955

30 2963

35 2938

54 2925

23 2924

28 2923

31 2921

92 2922

81 2920

20 2919

18 1307

42 1308

59 1310

(X)

41 1309

S 1300

15 1314

28 1316

81 1315

86 859

12 1294

10 871

860

76 870

02 40 872

42 869

82 868

10 874

85 3041

873

62 876

יא 878

10 3161

98 879

(X)

880

95 906

18 908

(X) 30 907

00 7) भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1 1

43 दीधि 904

00 914

915

28 916

बरिसण

10 917

913

39 918

923

62 922

921

925

98 3043

94 926

35 920

12 3008

978

977

979

981

10 980

61 982

1141

986

1119

3035

987

03 988

94 989

990

991

60 992

1073

34 1108

1109

1107

1106

88 1105

1104

1103

1102

1074

15 1083

1084

1086

1085

5561 2

1087

1088

1089

4282

4281

4280

5440

4279

(3)

5304

71 3885

3886

3884

S 3898

10 3900

3899

3901

3902

6 3903

(V)

3904

3905

3906

52 3914

3913

07 3907

3911

81 3908

10 5294

61 3912

43 3873

3872

27 3871

3962

99 3961

10 3960

33 3959

3887

3974

23 3833

24 3975

64 3976

69 3977

35 3978

3979

23 3995

58 3994 5562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

1 3993

45 बरिसण 3996

28 3828

36 3827

3826

10 3997

36 3998

85 3999

96 4011

10 4000

54 4010

62 4009

41 4003

45 4004

10 4007

10 4008

24 4015

60 3811

29 3810

71 4045

84 4049

91 3809

06 4054

4055

4056

24 4053

4052

2966

2967

2976

2975

2965

2968

2969

(0)

2972

बरगुडिकुद 2971

2970

2960

2959

2759

2761

2760

2762

2764

2763

2768

[ PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) | 2

2766

2767

2765

2770

(0)

M 2740

2739

2738

2737

2736

2684

2685

78 2686

66 2687

19 2688

กา

56 2654

93 2628

10 2627

10 2625

00 2624

44 2425

70 2626

10 2623

10 2426

30 2424

42 2423

85 2419

15 2422

25 2421

45 2460

25 2461

44 2496

60 2497

29 2462

26 547

14 535

45 534

80 849

75 853

95 852

05 858

16 866

30 865

10 867

12 868

76 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग 11 खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

5563

3659

बढिआ साहि

870

बरगुडिकुद्र

388

387

386

383

345

344

347

342

341

348

349

340

350

329

323

कसरदा 324

320

321

318

248

247

252

244

242

243

140

100

101

102

122

104

106

118

117

116

129

112

113

114

130

131

3481

बढिआ साहि

3657

3658

3662

3663

3660

3661

3664

3629

3669

3962

14 3665

3668

50 3667

3666

3652

3673

3687

2673

19 2664

(0)

2672

2663

2665

2671

2670

29 2662

2666

2669

2668

2667

2661

2677

2678

3810

2679

12 3593

3806

(X)

3807

3808

3809

2704

2703

2702

2758

2759

37 2760

2761 5564

कसरदा

2767

2768

2789

2787

2770

2771

2774

2786

2785

3576

2790

2791

2792

3728

3644

3203

3202

3201

3200

3199

3197

3192

3193

3188

3189

3168

3169

3172

3171

3170

3138

3137

3136

3135

3078

3691

3079

3080

3111

3112

3113

3114

3115

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] कसरदा

3116

3085

3026

3025

3028

3032

3033

3019

3037

3039

3619

3018

3017

3015

2499

2500

1912

3625

1911

1913

1925

1920

1919

1921

1922

1923

2434

2435

2432

2430

2431

2420

2421

2422

2423

2424

2339

खजरा

1475

1476

1443

1477

2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2762 00 00 39 00 00 10 00 05 59 00 08 45 00 12 66 00 00 45 00 00 20 00 02 57 00 06 47 00 01 55 00 01 53 3029 00 01 81 00 01 24 00 01 30 00 02 12 00 02 00 00 05 76 3036 00 01 33 00 00 22 00 00 10 00 04 23 00 04 56 00 03 87 00 02 26 00 04 08 00 00 14 00 01 82 00 07 75 00 04 96 00 05 28 00 03 04 00 02 08 00 01 98 00 01 11 00 01 91 00 04 61 00 04 61 00 03 70 00 01 92 00 06 35 00 03 33 00 04 00 03 91 00 00 24 00 03 70 00 00 35 00 00 18 00 04 09 00 03 64 00 10 44 00 06 77 00 00 10 02 58 12 00 10 00 00 20 52 00 02 00 00 10 70 00 02 94 00 00 76 00 04 36 00 03 20 00 08 43 00 02 67 00 03 68 00 02 92 00 ΟΙ 14 00 04 45 00 00 88 00 00 59 00 03 33 00 06 95 00 03 11 00 04 77 00 00 10 00 02 39 00 07 11 00 00 80 00 01 47 00 05 75 00 01 79 1527 00 06 06 3110 00 00 12 00 03 00 00 01 66 00 11 29 00 01 26 00 10 84 00 02 32 00 02 38 भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ খায় 13 , 1932

[ भाम ।। - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

खजरा

1442

खखजरा

1445

1446

1447

1266

1265

1264

1263

1262

1261

1259

1258

1257

1256

1255

1251

1250

1246

1244

1243

1242

1241

2402

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1217

कुसुनपुर

1222

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1225

1223

5565

2387

00 00

210

208

209

201

207

212

198

205

(0)

197

196

192

195

213

236

247 5566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

246

14 गोपालनगर कुसुनपुर

245

248

252

253

254

257

256

255

275

276

08 40

288

291

290

1226

गोपालनगर

1231

1229

1232

1221

1198

1199

1214

1213

1201

1200

1202

1203

1212

1211

1210

1147

1208

1154

1155

1161

1162

1163

1140

1131

1132

1128

1136

1088

1086

1087

PARI II -SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

1089

73 1091

1092

1090

64 1094

1095

1096

1097

1034

1035

1099

36 1026

1025

1027

1024

85 204

34 44

ΟΙ

59 57

SI 58

P 65

(X)

111

112

113

109

108

39 125

127

ก !

107

128

129

05 05 130

[फा.सं. आर-25011 / 15/2009- ओ. आर -1 ।

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1 New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

Orapara S.O. 2187. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3283 dated 23-11-2009 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 ) the Central Government declared its mention to acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil- Niali . District- Cuttack , in Orissa State , specified in the chedule appended to that notification for the purpose of Laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products From Paradip ( Orissa ) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh ) and Ranchi (Gharkhand ) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 4th January , 2010 ;

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

And whereas , the Central Government has after considering the said report , decided to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this otification;

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 appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by section ( 4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, Central moment hereby directs the right of user in the said shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest date of publication of this declaration , in Indian Oil poration Limited, free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

State : Orissa

District : Cuttack

Dehsil : Niali

Area

PlotNo.

Narne of the

Hectare Are Sq . Mtr .

Allage

81 1043

Drapara

10 414

87 415

37 416

432

481

480

20 482

506

505

504

89 483

5567

5 2

479

502

500

66 494

495

20 493

484

55 485

489

23 490

491

03 492

27 488

463

20 462

292

10 540

65 54

66 291

542

543

86 289

290

299

41 287

270

27 269

264

265

261

263

70 262

16 260

259

255

10 256

257

251

10 250

وز

249

65 235

66 233

97 248

81 236

237

00 5568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

1 239

Orapara

Sithalo 232

78 211

70 231

86 226

53 213

62 1064

15 214

41 1065

21 216

47 215

93 220

24 221

32 222

30 223

10 Sithalo

6468

39 6469

39 6434

6436

06 6-435

5433

6432

6431

(0)

6430

6722

6391

6392

6393

6394

6395

6347

6346

6398

6344

6021

6020

6022

6014

6063

6064

5997

5995

-10

5996

5929

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

5 5932

48 5930

90 5931

90 5863

46 5864

(0)

90 5862

97 5861

(0)

86 5828

05 5827

(0)

26 5825

34 5826

59 4733

(0)

15 4736

41 4732

(X)

59 4737

64 4707

36 4706

24 4705

4570

4569

4571

(0)

17 4524

40 4525

((X)

36 4523

32 4521

30 4522

B 4514

(X)

4515

4() 4517

75 4518

( X)

68 4516

78 4414

30 4413

23 4412

35 4411

39 4365

(0)

58 4361

4.362

60 4363

( X)

10 4364

10 4366

30 4369

10 4370

18 4181

(0)

99 4371

(0)

86 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

| भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4374

Sithalo

Amarpara

4375

4180

4179

4178

4177

4176

4376

4172

4147

4146

4149

4148

4150

4151

4152

4038

4039

4041

4040

6493

4032

4044

4018

3755

3758

3757

3756

3745

3747

3748

3746

3749

3738

3723

3728

3729

3727

3724

3725

3726

3730

3734

1502

Amarpara

1503

5580 2

1632

1631

94 1504

1629

1630

1627

1628

1623

1620

1622

62 1621

1614

1612

1611

1610

1613

(1)

1602

1606

1603

36 1604

1601

26 1600

1605

1597

1598

1527

1596

1594

60 1595

1538

1539

1592

1540

52 1558

1534

10 1542

1541

1556

1555

08 1423

04 1730

91 1420

1896

64 1324

92 1323 5570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 1322

816

Amarpara

1919

2959

Dighi

2960

2955

2963

2938

2925

2924

2923

529

2921

2922

531

2920

2919

1307

532

1310

1309

534

1300

535

1314

536

1316

1315

539

1294

637

636

869

868

641

874

1888

610

642

3161

644

646

645

647

649

648

904

661

914

782

916

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 00 01 82 00 05 58 00 00 75 817 00 00 29 517 00 00 10 00 00 518 00 00 11 00 07 519 00 03 62 00 00 30 520 00 05 94 00 0 521 00 01 49 00 00 523 00 00 10 00 00 2 522 00 00 60 00 01 528 00 00 53 00 02 31 00 00 49 00 01 530 00 01 12 00 00 81 00 21 00 00 20 549 00 00 39 00 03 18 548 00 00 27 00 42 547 00 00 15 1308 00 02 59 00 03 64 00 00 14 533 00 01 76 00 50 00 04 09 00 00 15 00 01 70 (3) 03 28 00 00 78 00 31 538 00 02 00 01 86 00 15 14 859 00 03 12 620 00 00 10 00 00 10 622 00 01 02 871 00 01 00 01 96 860 00 00 16 00 02 83 870 00 02 40 635 00 00 77 872 00 03 40 634 00 01 07 00 00 82 639 00 00 73 00 00 10 00 00 81 00 00 85 00 00 30 3041 00 02 11 00 28 873 00 01 62 00 00 81 876 00 01 82 650 06 92 878 00 00 643 00 01 49 00 01 98 00 01 43 879 00 00 44 00 03 33 880 00 00 95 00 00 10 906 00 02 18 00 02 43 908 00 00 30 00 02 08 907 00 00 79 00 02. 00 00 00 43 00 00 79 00 02 00 00 01 59 915 00 01 02. 815 00 03 33 00 02 28 5571

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

| भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

88 4281

Barisan

917

Dighi

913

918

28 923

922

02 921

14 925

98 3043

926

35 920

12 3008

03 978

36 977

979

20 981

10 980

61 982

24 1141

42 986

1119

54 3035

17 987

03 988

94 989

990

991

60 992

13 1073

1108

10 1109

1107

1106

88 1105

1104

04 1103

1102

38 1074

15 1083

1084

89 1086

1085

01 1087

1088

22 1089

4282

Barisan

83 4280

5440

20 4279

82 5304

3885

30 3886

10 3884

3898

10 3900

3899

3901

10 3902

3903

86 3904

3905

52 3906

3914

22 3913

3907

69 3911

3908

81 5294

3912

3873

3872

27 3871

3962

18 3961

(00

3960

33 3959

3887

3974

23 3833

24 3975

64 3976

69 3977

35 3978

74 3979

23 3995

58 3994

3993

45 3996

36 3828

43 3827

00 5572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

1 Barisan

3826

Barisan

3997

1998

3999

4011

4000

4010

000

4000

4003

4004

4007

4008

4015

3811

3810

4045

4049

3809

4054

4055

4056

4053

4052

2966

2967

2976

2975

2965

2968

2969

2972

Baragurikud 2971

2970

2960

2959

2759

2761

2760

2762

2764

2763

2768

2766

2767

2765

ΟΙ

[ PART II Sic. 3 ( ii ) ] 2

5 2770

2740

(6) 2739

(X)

10 2738

2737

(美)

( X)

73 2736

16 2684

(0)

15 2685

78 2686

66 2687

19 2688

2654

93 2628

10 2627

2625

00 2624

44 2425

70 2626

10 2623

10 2426

30 2424

42 2423

85 2419

000

15 2422

25 2421

45 2460

25 2461

44 2496

60 2497

29 2462

26 547

14 535

45 534

80 849

75 853

95 852

05 858

16 866

30 865

10 867

12 868

76 870

56 388

72 387

54 386

72 5573

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

| भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 (ii) |

Barhiasahi

383

Baragurikud

345

344

347

3-12

341

348

349

340

350

329

323

324

Kasarada

320

321

318

248

247

252

244

2.12

243

140

(X)

100

101

102

122

104

106

118

117

116

129

112

113

114

130

131

3481

Barinasahi

3657

3658

3659

3662

3663

3660

5 2

81 3661

82 3664

3629

3669

3962

14 3665

3668

50 3667

3666

30 3652

3673

3687

2673

2664

2672

06 2663

2665

2671

2670

2662

2666

2669

23 2668

40 2667

2661

00 2677

93 2678

88 3810

06 2679

3593

3806

18 3807

10 3808

20 3809

2704

29 2703

75 2702

66 2758

46 2759

37 2760

2761

2762

59 2767

2768

20 2789

00 5574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

1 sarada

2787

Kasarada 2770

2771

2774

2786

2785

3576

2790

2791

2792

3728

3644

3203

3202

3201

3200

3199

3197

3192

3193

3188

3189

3168

3169

3172

3171

3170

3138

3137

3136

3135

3078

3691

3079

3080

3111

Khajra 3112

3110

3113

3114

3115

3116

3085

3026

3025

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

5 3028

55 3029

81 3032

30 3033

00 3036

33 3019

10 3037

56 3039

26 3619

3018

75 3017

28 3015

08 2499

11 2500

61 1912

70 3625

35 1911

1913

4 1925

$5 1920

1919

44 1921

12 1922

20 1923

10 2434

76 2435

2432

67 2430

92 2431

45 2420

59 2421

2422

2423

39 2424

80 2339

75 1527

06 1475

00 1476

3 1443

84 1477

38 1442

44 1445

84 1446

58 1447

1266

26 5575

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

| भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 (ii) |

1265

Khajra Khajra

1264

1263

1262

1261

1259

1258

1257

1256

1255

1251

1250

1246

1244

1243

1242

1241

2402

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1217

Kusunpur 1222

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1225

1223

2387

3296 GI /10-10

5 2

36 16

58 11

92 10

78 9

39 8

37 6

10 47

82 44

33 43

ΟΙ

82 39

(09 35

(X)

31 32

84 31

10 30

210

(0)

002

75 208

209

000

(1)

201

207

(X)

20 212

(0)

198

(X)

52 205

(X)

(x) 197

(07

196

(X)

192

מ 195

30 213

236

247

(12

246

31 245

(X)

61 248

250

(X)

(A)

10 253 FUI: GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTIEMBER 4 , 2010 BHADRA 13 , 1932

251

Kusunpur

Gopalnagar 257

256

255

275

276

(04

288

291

1226

1231

1220

(X)

1232

1221

(X)

1198

1199

1214

1213

1201

1200

1202

1203

1212

1211

1210

1147

1208

1154

1155

1161

1162

1163

1140

1131

1132

1128

1136

1088

1086

1087

1089

1091

1092

1090

1094

יון

200 2

( X)

105 1095

(X)

1096

1097

(0)

(X)

01 1034

(0)

67 1035

(0)

(X)

( X )

1099

540 1026

(X )

1025

26 1027

(X)

1024

201

(0)

28 43

( X)

10 44

34 45

08 53

73 52

01 56

540

51 58

62 65

(0)

74 59

37 64

11 63

96 111

112

11 113

85 109

30 108

34 125

29 127

107

128

39 129

05 130

45 [No. R - 25011 / 15 / 2009 - OR - I ] B. K. DATTA, Under Secy .

5577

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्र 13 , 1932

| भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1 नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त, 2010

अत.आ. 2188.- 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;

2 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये यह 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 , अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां 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 दिलीप कुमार अग्रवाल, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पारादीप - सम्बलपुर - रायपुर राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , एन -17 , सेक्टर 2 , अवंति विहार , रायपुर -492006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

तहसील -बिलाईगढ

राज्य- छत्तीसगढ

अनुसूची जिला- रायपुर

खसरा सं.

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम गांव का नाम

सं.

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टयर

6 2

106/4

नरेश नगर

25 1 .

41 106/3

79 106/2

00 06

106/5

105

00 15

102

41 100/2

00 00

101

00 07

100/1

00 02

00 16

00 00

95/1

5 2

नरेश नगर

92 91 93 90

383/3

ढनढनी

407/2-407/1

408

403

410

402

78 401

00 00

413

50 411/1

12 412

414

416

417

48 415

425

92 424

423

422

71 433

435

30 434

10 420/2

1639

00 01

रायकोना

1638

57 1637

00 34

1384/1

1408

00 03

13 1407

00 01

1402

1412

1422

64 1421

00 01

61 1420

26 1419

1445

72 1418/2

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13. 1932

रायकाना

1446

00 03

69 रायकोना

701/1

00 03 1447

00 03

7142

( X )

00 1448

00 03

713

(1)

02 1450/2

00 04

702

( X ) 1450

00 04

707

(1)

00 1476

00 00

708

(0) 1475

703

01 1-474

701

() 1477

749

(X )

7 1493

748

(X ) 1480

00 00

747

(1) 03

10 1492

746

1491

744

00 00 1483

00 02

1413

मुडपार

10 1482

00 05

1412

55 830

00 05

1411

17 830/1

00 00

1410

01 803

1409

00 30

50 798

1249/3

47 799

1249/4

10 800

00 05

1349/5

05 669

00 03

1348

(X) 07 670

90 16

1347/3

01 679

1347/1

(X) 05 678

1346/3

00 691/1

00 05

1347/2

00 02

28 680/2

1359/1

00 689

00 00

1360

00 00

16 688

1343

00 05

07 687/1

1341

04 687/2

1342

00 04

06 686/1

1340

67 686/2

1328

17 697

1326

67 698

OC 05

1319

02 699

1325

1322

700/2,3

07 03

490

00 12

01 700/4

00 01

343/3

000 07 700/5

00 02

345-346

00 03 700/6

00 00

355

( X) भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

344

भुडपार

342

(17

341

00 00

358

00 00

3.10

337

00 08

336

00 10

25 322/2

82 322/1

321

00 02

11 316/2

317

316/1

314

117

00 02

118

00 00

306

119

00 08

120

33 124/1

123

122

150

08 151/2

152

00 07

151/1

00 05

151/3

143/2

164

170

177

178

(x)

1802

00 01

176

181

183/1

00 04

90 183/2

182

00 04

00 02

186

191

190

5579

6 2

89 192

मुडपार

00 03

29 189

00 01

193

71 190

(X)

00 09

196/1

195

31 207/8

पिपर डुला

(1)

305/2

72 211

83 431/1

00 00

53 431/2

212/2

52 425

424/2

426

89 419/20

48 419/14

419/19

12 419/21

00 06

-120/4

(00 00

19 419/8

00 12

420/1

(0)

419/16

419/7

(00)

419/6

419/3

419/1

51 408

00 00

51 410

45 411

407/1

43 393,394

(03

39 386

385

51 381/6

000

381/2

(00)

34 सरसीवाँ

00 40

24,776

34/1 5580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

SEC. 3 ( ii ) |

PART II 2

( ;

सरसीयाँ

607

पेण्ड्रावन

00 01

10 34/4

00 00

605/1

00 05 31

00 04

596/3

17 32

() 16

592/2

00 01 33

00 01

596/4

02 00

596/1

01 28

00 05

596/5

00 04

67 63

595

(0) 05

91 64

576

00 00

67 27

00 00

591/1

29 69

590/1,594/2

574

00 70

01 00

589

02 71/1

590

(0)

51 71/2

577

00 38

13 96/1

1/2

00 (X)

10 95

00 06

चारभाठा

56 94/1

00 13

77/1

00 03

08 93

65/1

(00

10 (7)

77/2

00 1-4

67 92

77/3

02 76/5

00 26

07 90/3

00 00

85/1

48 90/2

00 03

85 90/1

07 89

04 481

00 06

101/1

674

पेण्ड्रावन

00 09 06

101/13

00 28 675

92 01

101/12

00 01

51 673

101/15

36 668/1

00 05

104/5

7) 668/2

128/2

00 01

11 665

104/4, 109

00 13

91 652

110/1

00 05

(x) 651

115

(X)

21 622/1

121/13

(X) 01

61 650

00 05

125/1

00 02

34 625

125/12

55 626

00 06

27 627

00 08

118 / 1,118 /2 , 121/3 121/4 , 121/5 00 606

198/1

00 13

91 5581

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्र 13 , 1932

( भाग ।। खण्ड ( ⅲ)

(*)

00 03

198:2

(K)

196 , 1971 , 1972

679

बलारी

(03

10.

72 681/1

680

(X)

670/3

34 670/2,685/ 3

670/4

669

668

00 02

666

49 685/1

684

425

426

428

82 430/3

10 430/1

430/4

97 430/2

00 01

74/1 क

276

00 05

280

286/3

49 286/1

279

287

285/3

285/1

62 285/2

00 04

300

00 02

298

311

00 05

310

309

00 05

00 15

312/1

54 341/3

340

341/1

6 3

00 05

बलोदी 341/2,342

00 03

338

40 337

(X) 06

00 00

336

000

651/1

जैतपुर

00 02

650

654/5

00 04

654/4क

631/4

632/1 , 633/ 1,634/ 1 , 635/100

82 630

629

00 02

78 624/2

623

625

00 05

617/2

617/1,618

620

03 619

21 611/2

75 611/1

00 18

613

91 484

67 482

95 160

12 472,475 , 477/2

02 473

49 465/1

94 474

59 475/3

31 475/1

10 475/4

38 476

46 439/6

36 439/4

00 08

14 439/3

00 00

94 454/1

445/1

443

444 5582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13. 1932

442

00 जैतपुर

00 11

428/2

428/3

428/4

428/1

429

416/4

416/1

00 04

415/1

408/9

408/10

408/12

408/14

408/17

398/ 6,8

398/7

397/1

396

393

395

394

00 02

385

386/1

387/2

387/1

ΟΙ

365/3

84 387/ 1क

387/1 फ

387/1

365/1

10 368/ 1.382/ 1

369 368 /2.382 /2

349/1

00 12

349/3

370

350/2

00 00

349/4

348/1

00 04

238/1

340

Sra ( 1 )

PART II

5 2

(11

( X)

238/2

जैतपुर

00 01

238/3

(X)

336/2

(()

339

284/ 1,342/1

86 284/4,341/4

285-186

265/2

261/1

262

00 04

180/1

(1)

208/1

00 03

207

( 0)

209

(۲)

205

204

(税)

203

(X)

195 , 196

194

00 03

227/1

00 50

[सं. आर-25011/27/2010- अर : बी.के. दत्ता , अवर गांध Delhi , the 20th , August , 2010

to the Central S.O. 2188. Whereas , it appears Government that it is necessary in the public interest th for the transporatation of petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh ) & Ranchi ( Jharkhandha "Paradip - Sambalpur- Raipur - Ranchi pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited:

Andwhereas , it appears to the Central Govermen 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 contury by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of Liser in bond ) Act , 1952 ( 50 of 1952 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user ilma Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty - one days from thethir on which the copies of this notification , as published the Gazettee of India , are made available to the General Public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Stum Dilip Kumar Agrawal , Competent Authority . Indian Oil 5583 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010 /भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाम || - खण्ड 3( 11 ) ]

435

Naresh Nagar

Corporation Limited , Paradip -Sambalpur- Raipur- Ranchi Pipeline Project, N - 17 , Sector -2, Avanti Vihar , Raipur- 492006 , Chhattisgarh .

434

SCHEDULE

420/2

00 00

10 Tehsil-Biligarh District- Raipur State-Chhattisgarh

00 01

1639

Raikona

Area

Khasara No.

1638

Sr. Name of the

1637

Hectare Are Sq. iMtr .

Village

No.

1384/1

00 4

1408

106/4

1. Naresh Nagar

1407

106/3

00 03

00 07

1402

106/2

1412

106/5

1422

00 18

00 05

105

1421

102

1420

00 100/2

00 02

1419

101

1445

00 00

100/1

1418/2

69 98

1446

00 03

21 97

1447

1448

00 00

12 95/1

1450/2

1450

00 92

1476

1475

03 00

1474

73 00

1477

393/3

2. Dhandhani

00 03

1493

407/2-407/1 00 08

1480

408

1492

403

1491

410

1483

402

1482

00 00

401

830

413

830/1

411/1

803

412

798

414

799

416

800

417

00 03

669

415

670

00 425

00 04

679

424

678

423

691/1

680/2

00 00

35 422

689

433

3296GI /10-11 5584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

6 2

688

02 Raikona

687/1

687/2

00 04

686/1

686/2

697

00 05

698

699

03 700/2,3

700/4

700/5

00 02

700/6

701/1

714/2

713

702

707

708

703

704

749

748

747

746

00 02

744

1413

10 4. Mudpar

1412

00 07

1411

00 04

1410

1409

00 30

1249/3

00 00

1249/4

00 05

1349/5

1348

1347/3

1347/1

00 05

1346/3

1347/2

1359/1

1360

00 05

1343

1341

1342

00 04

1340

00 02

[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

6 1328

00 00

17 Mudpar

1326

1319

1325

1322

490

343/3

345-346

20 355

344

00 03

01 342

00 06

32 341

00 07

358

10 340

337

336

322/2

322/1

82 321

00 04

91 316/2

00 02

11 317

00 00

88 316/1

47 314

00 02

93 117

00 02

20 118

306

00 00

10 119

00 08

22 120

00 06

87 124/1

33 123

00 00

17 122

59 150

00 01

45 151/2

08 152

00 01

10 151/1

57 151/3

04 143/2

00 03

67 164

81 170

23 177

00 03

37 178

62 180/2

00 01

99 176

00 01

11 181

00 01

40 183/1

00 03

80 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010 / भाद्र 13 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1 1

00 04

90 183/2

Mudpar

182

186

191

190

00 00

192

189

00 04

193

00 05

199

51 196/1

195

00 00

31 207/8

5. Pipardula

00 37

98 305/2

211

00 02

83 431/1

00 00

431/2

00 03

212/2

00 16

425

424/2

426

419/20

00 04

419/14

00 04

419/19

419/21

29 420/4

00 00

19 419/8

420/1

00 02

12 419/16

419/7

419/6

419/3

419/1

408

410

411

407/1

00 38

93.394

00 03

386

385

381/6

381/2

6. Sarsinwa

24,776

5585

6 2

00 03

34/1

Sarsinwa

00 06

34/4

00 01

71/1

10 71/2

00 01

96/1

94/1

00 07

76/5

00 00

10 90/3

20 90/2

00 00

90/1

481

81 674

Pandrawan

675

673

668/1

668/2

39 665

652

651

622/1

650

625

626

627

606

607

605/1

596/3 5586

PART II -SEX.3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

(0) 00

7. Pandrawan

592/2

Balaudi

670/2,685/3

596/4

670/4

(X) 06

01 596/1

00 04

669

30 596/5

668

(選

595

666

00 567

685/1

( ( ) 00 00

591/1

684

590/, 594/2

425

11 574

00 01

426

01 00

589

428

00 10

01 590

430/3

06 577

430/1

00 1/2

00 00

430/4

11 8. Charbhatha

430/2

01 77/1

74/ 1ΚΑ

00 16 00

65/1

276

00 05

48 77/2

280

83 77/3

00 18

286/3

00 79

286/1

00 85/1

00 10

279

00 09

13 00

287

04 84

285/3

00 02 87

00 04

285/1

יז

00 89

285/2

00 04 00

101/1

300

00 05 101/13

00 28

298

00 101/12

311

101/15

00 00 12

05 104/5

00 06

310

30 128/2

309

00 00

104/4, 109

312/1

7 00

110/1

341/3

34 00

115

340

17 121/13

00 01

341/1

00 00 125/1

341/2,342

125/12

338

00 00 06

337

00 06

118 / 1,118 /2 , 121/3 121/4 , 121/5 00

336

10 00

198/1

10.

651/1

Jaitpur

198/2

00 03

650

02 00 17

00 196 , 197/1 , 197/2

654/5

199

00 04 9.

Balaudi

679

654/4KA

00 02

00 09 681/1

631/4

00 00 05

06 680

00 03

632/1,633/1,634/1 , 635/100 670/3

00 01

630

2 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( il ) ]

1 1

629

00 03

Jaitpur Satpur

00 02

78 624/2

00 15

74 623

625

00 05

617/2

00 10

617/1,618

00 02

40 620

03 619

00 07

21 611/2

611/1

97 613

91 484

482

00 01

95 160

172,475/2 , 477/2

473

00 12

465/1

00 08

94 474

59 475/3

475/1

475/4

476

439/6

439/4

439/3

00 00

454/1

00 01

445/1

443

444

442

32 428/2

58 428/3

00 03

428/4

428/1

41 429

46 416/4

00 03

416/1

415/1

23 408/9

408/10

00 04

408/12

00 04

408/14

00 07

54 408/17

398/6,8

398/7

5587

00 04

50 397/1

00 07

93 396

393

00 12

395

00 03

42 394

00 02

85 385

00 08

28 386/1

87 387/2

56 387/1

00 01

365/3

84 387/1 ΚΑ

387/1 FA

48 387/1

10 365/1

368/1,382/1

00 00

10 369 , 368/2 , 382/2

349/1

349/3

00 00

10 370

00 00

10 350/2

00 01

64 349/4

74 348/1

00 04

238/1

340

00 04

238/2

238/3

10 336/2

339

00 00

22 284/1 , 342/1

00 05

86 284/4,341/4

285-286

265/1

00 08

261/1

262

00 02

180/1

208/1

00 00

207

18 209

00 09

205

16 204

203

10 195, 196

00 03

194

00 50

83 227/1

[F. No. R - 25011 /27 /2010 - OR - 1 ]

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

5588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

1 2 नई दिल्ली , 20 अगस्त , 2010

2. परसदा का.आ. 2189. 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 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, अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री दिलीप कुमार अग्रवाल , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पारादीप- सम्बलपुर -रायपुर - राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , एन -17 , सेक्टर 2 , अवंति विहार, रायपुर -492 006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

[ PART I -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

372

87 279

42 278

00 277

276

253

82 275

85 00

254

10 00

255

90 00

70 256

258

63 257

52 238

98 260

50 237

51 235

18 00

187

42 189

188

2X) 182

18 178

67 170

89 00

171

167

28 166

80 00

160

राज्य- छत्तीसगढ

जिला- जांजगीर- चाम्पा

तहसील - जैजैपुर

गांव का नाम खसरा सं.

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम

3. चिसदा सं.

हेक्टयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

1. बरेकेलकला

515

518

540/1 00

538

539

537/1

542

543/1

624

625

649/1 00

661

667/1

159

(X)

62 2569

33 00

2570

32 2568

02 2566

10 00

95 2587

2586

2588

17 2603

(X)

16 2500

08 2600

2601

( X )

12 2598

2590

(0)

(۴)

38 2616

( X )

2618

97 2619

19 【一路 30

भारत की सनपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010 / भाद्र 13 , 1932

1 1

3 .

2637

(0)

75 2626

2665

23 2680

2688

2701

2700

2690

65 2790

24 2691

83 1803

हसौद

1814

1813 00

20 1812

15 1811

1806

1809

10 1808

88 2264

94 1596 00

1797

76 1736

36 1737

1735

10 1694 00

1746

57 1693

29 1692 00

1672

33 1673

1690

1676

35 1677

55 1659

1656

29 1651

1652

04 1653 00

00 1629

02/

10 1628 00

80 1627

41 1624 00

5589 2

15 1361 00

1360

1364

73 1358 00

1296

1356

29 1298 00

1297

1299

1295

1266

1267

57 1268

71 1269

10 1265

1262

93 1271

1255

54 1254

6x4

53 1253

1252

413

332

333

334

76 328

43 252

61 326

10 325

16 253

64 254

08 256

07 216/1 00

28 224

33 223

88 221

02 220

67 217

10 218

219

65 201

181/1

20 182

04 5590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

PARI II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) i

5 184

6. देवरघटा

809

776

00 183

7:40

00 185

739

23 189

(X)

35 00

733/1

186

738/2

190

738/1 00

03 00

188

726

187

725

139

723

23 00

16 142

724

141

778

00 143

11 140

684

7. वैहागुडरू

144

683

77 145

673

07 146

(0)

674/10

126

(X)

674/9

03 (X )

123

674/8

33 00

122

(X)

674/3 00

02 76

674/7

(0)

01 75

674/4 00

39 73

665/1

36 72

664

기 00

663

08 70

662

(0)

661

21 79

666

39 68

633

46 (X)

3/2

632

(X) 3/1

(X)

565

(0)

57 3/3

(X)

566

10 (X)

567

52 1

000

584

(X)

50 832

583

(0)

852

569/4

00 829

569/3 00

582

828/5

00 86

581

31 805

135/1

580

807/1 00

95 8072 00

808

94 804

002

31/3

37 भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4. 2010/ भाद्र 13, 1932

31/2

7 बेहागुडरू

31/4

(0)

31/5

135/4

27/1

353

8. तुमीडीह

357/2

351/4 00

351/5 00

359

360

328

326

115

107

106

103

102

100

101

3296GI/10-12

5591

(

1.4

(X)

1619

कुटराबोड़

(X)

1618

1621

16322

102

1616

(X)

1605

(1)

(X)

1603-4

()1

(X)

16033

(۲)

(X)

1551

(0)

1553

1551

1556

1522

1561

1562/1 00

1562/2 00

1272/2

1272/1

1263

1265

1266

1267

1268

1256/1

1290/1

1290/2

1291

1292

1297

15 1298/1299 00

04 1300/2,3,4 00

1303

1302

1304

1301/2

07 1301/1 00

1393/1

1315

1314

1393/2

1392/3

1392/2

00 91/2

91/1 5592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

PART 11--SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 S

1392/1 00

9. कुटराबोड़

1390 00

1378/1 00

1378/3

1382,1383 00

388/2 00

1384

1385,1386,1387 00

1388/1 00

2358/2

2358/1 00

1369/1 00

1366

1362

1654 00

1606 00

10 10. आडेक़रा

2697

2696

2695

2694

2689

2690

2599

2691

2598

2591

2596

10 2595

55 2514

12 2254

78 2253

2274

95 2273

13 2275

12 2272

13 2279

71 2280

76 2281

11 2293

49 2292

70 2291

80 2290

38 2303

45 2026

( 10. आडेकेरा

2027

2030

2028

2029

2015

2032

2033

1204

2305

2014

1803

2013

1992

1993

1904

1992

1991

1989

1814

1824

1826

1828

1973

1972

1971

1970

1843

1058

1057

61 1063

02 1064

28 1066

57 1067

91 1070

78 1069

40 1068

50 1053

10 1051

93 754

58 756

45 935

15 934

933

07 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

11 .

906

10. आडेकेरा

761

05 932

54 925

924

767

768

769

35 771

770

859

785

857

57 856

855

16 786

790

792

791

815

50 814

64 813

817

818

36 821

ΟΙ

819

81 820

89 45

626

11. तुसार

630

643

634

635

660

5593

641

तुसार

403

404

373

406

414

(1)

416

423

422

(0)

426

81 433

84 434

48 437

438

439

440

471

456

455

69 458

457

19 460

(X)

461

462

463

(0 )

(0)

63 66

23 68

40 63

144

143

43 145

148

61 140

141

134

21 136

135

83 5594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

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

6 00

137

11. तुसार

गुचकुलिया

127

(महाल नंबर 3 )

11 00

107

58 00

111

57 113

(1)

(08 115

80 114

14.

631

00 117

652

(भहाल नंबर । )

55 00

116

653

05 12

657

27 15

678

41 00

663

08 14

666

61 651

12. गलगलाडीह

662

93 636

667

43 635

708

87 00

634

709

710

75 11

13. गुचकुलिया ( महाल नंबर 1 )

712

713

10 00

716

31 14

718

57 15

717

81 16

719

99 35

720

06 36

722

723

04 99

गुचकुलिया (महाल नंबर 2)

724

87 98

721

17 107

725

47 70

726

90 68

730

65 61

732

06 67

733

68 66

810

77 65

811

000

20 37

814

61 36

गुचकुलिया (महाल नबर 3 )

(X)

813

95 38

(x)

815

72 77

818

45 80

808

02 81

817

45 76

689

19 5595 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010 / भाद्र 13 , 1932

|भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

324

15. कोटेतरा

690

14. नंदेली

322

692

(महाल नंबर 2)

325

697

326

700

296

399

317

(X)

701

329

नंदेली

330

(महाल नंबर 3)

911

15. काटतरा

914

913

917

849

848

850

847

846

839

840

841

812

809

810

748

674

16. ठूठी

443

675

440

673

442

370

261

665

262

654

263

650

275

569

274

568

272

571

271

579

270

580

317

578

27 00

17 309

581

559

00 308

557

307

558

306

551

305

552

323

537

304 5596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

PART 1 Sec 300 ) ] 2

(

(X) 00

538

17. उठारी

16. तूठी

01 547

540

545

544

541

56 00

543

539

2339

17. ठठारी

45 2337

03 00

05 2341

34 00

03 2333

03 2332

2327

2328

00 2369

100

2370 00

2 00

2371

457

00 00

2372

[सं. आर-25011 /28/2010- ओ.आर -1 ]

2421

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव 00

2424

2415

New Delhi , the 20th August , 2010

2425

2481

1922

613

587

S.O. 2189. 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:

608

588

589

591

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 ;

592

521

519

520

244

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;

245

246

248

236

234

232

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the General Public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Dilip Kumar Agarwal , Competent Authority . Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip - Sambalpur- Raipur- Ranchi Pipeline Project , N - 17 , Sector- 2 , Avanti Vihar , Raipur- 492006, Chhattisgarh .

5597 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

---

4 SCHEDULE

2569

3. Chisda

Tehsil: Jaijaipur District : Janjgir - Champa State:

2570

Chhattisgarh

2568

Area

Khasara No.

Sr. Name of the

2566

Are Sq . Mtr .

Hectare

Village

No.

2587

21 1

2586

2588

17 00

515

1. Barekel Kala

00 518

2603

2599

03 540/1

08 00

2600

04 538

00 539

2601

42 537/1

2598

09 542

2590

543/1

2616

624

2618

625

2619

649/1

2627

661

2626

667/1 00

2685

372

2. Parsada

2686

279

2688

278

2701 00

277

2700

276

2690

253

2790

275

2691

254

1803

4. Hasaud

255

1814

256

1813

258

1812

257

1811

238

1806

260

1809

237

1808 00

235

2264

187

1596

189

כר

1797

188

1736

182

1737

178

1735

170

1694

00 00

171

1746

167

1693

166

1692

160

1672

159

1673 5598

PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

6 4

5 2

223

5. Kaitha

1690

4. Hasaud

221

02 00

1676

220

02 00

1677

217

1659

218

1656

219

1651

201

1652

181/1 00 1653

182

1629

184

1628

183

1627

185

1624

189

1361

5. Kaitha

186

1360

190

1364

188

1358

187

1296

139

45 00

1356

142

21 1298

141

1297

143

1299

140

1295

144

1266

000

145

84 1267

00 1268

146

126

01 1269

123

00 1265

122

1262

03 00

1271

1255

1254

1253

1252

00 413

332

08 00

333

334

3/2

328

3/1

252

3/3

326

325

00 253

832

6. Dewardhata

02 254

852

256

829

(X ) 216/1

828/5

(0) 224

33 5599 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4 4

5 2

95 86

6. Dewardhata

7. Baihagudaroo 580

08 00

805

807/1

31/3

103

00 00

#07/2

31/2 00 00

31/4

42 10

(12

804

31/5

800

(17

70 776

135/4 00 00

740

53 00

739

27/1

733/1 00

95 00

738/2

738/1 00

74 00

726

725

87 00

723

19 00

724

778

353

00 00

8. Tumidih

684

7. Bajhagudaroo

357/2

683

351/4 00

16 00

673

351/5 00

13 674/10 00

359

674/9 00

360

674/8 00

328

674/3 00

326

674/7 00

115

674/4 00

107

665/1

106

664

103

15 00

663

102

662

100

661

101

666

633

632

565

55 00

566

567

06 00

584

583

16 00

569/4

569/3 00

07 00

582

581

135/1

3296 GI /10-13 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

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

6 3 Tumidih

(0)

91/2

9. Kutrabod

10 61

91/1

97 00

1392/1

50 ambod

1619

(X)

1390

23 1618

1378/1

31 1621

1378/3

16 1632/2 00

1382,1383

27 00

1616

388/2

87 1605

1384

37 1603/4 00

1385,1386,1387 00

80 1603/3 00

1388/1

84 155/1

2358/2

77 00

1553

2358/1

10 1554

1369/1

(01

58 1556

1366

01 1522

1362

41 1561

1654

40 1562/1 00

1606

10 15622

2697

10. Odekera

30 1272/2 00

2696

68 1272/1 00

2695

33 1263

2694

22 1265

2689

12 1266

2690

79 1267

(0)

2599

11 1268

2691

13 1256/1 00

2598

54 1290/1 00

2591

19 1290/2 00

2596

10 1291

2595

55 1292

2514

12 1297

(X)

2254

78 1298/1299 00

2253

05 01

1300 /2,3,4 00

2274

95 1303

2273

(07

13 1302

( X)

2275

12 1304

2272

13 1301/2 00

2279

71 1301/1 00

2280

76 1393/1 00

2281

11 1315

2293

49 1314

(0)

2292

70 1393/2 00

2291

80 1392/3 00

2290

38 1392/2 00

2303

45 भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010 / भाद्र 13 , 1932

| भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(0)

859

10. Odekera

2026

10. Odekera

785

002

2027

857

2030

856

2028

855

2029

786

2015

(X)

700

2032

792

2033

791

1204

815

2305

814

2014

813

1803

817

2013

818

1992

821

1993

819

1904 00

820

1992

1991

1989

1814

1824

1826

1828

1973 00

1972

1971

1970

1843

626

11. Tusar

1058

630

1057

643

1063

634

1064

635

1066

660

1067

641

1070

403

1069 00

404

1068

373

1053

406

1051

414

754

416

756

423

935

422

934

426

933

433

906

434

761

437

932

438

925

439

924 00

440

767

471

768

456

769

455

771

45%

770 5602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / B1IADRA 13 , 1932

6 2

457

Tusar

460

461

462

463

144

143

145

148

140

141

134

136

135

137

127

107

111

113

115

114

117

116

651

59 12. Galgaladih

636

635

634

22 13. Guchkuliya (Mahaal Number 1 ) 12

43 Guchkuliya 99 (Mahaal Number2 ) 98

107

[ PART II St.3 ( ії) ]

(1 1

00 Guchkuliya (Mahaal Number 3 )36

ΟΙ

631

652

55 14 Nandeli (Mahaal Number 1 )

653

657

102

678

663

(07

666

662

93 Nandeli ( Mahaal Number 1)

667

708

709

710

712

713

716

718

717

719

720

722

723

724

721

725

47 14 Nandeli (Mahaal Number 1 )

726

730

732

733

810

811

814

813

815

818

808

817

689

690

18 Nandeli ( Mahaal Number 2)

692

697

700

399

701

26 5603 भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010 / भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग 1 ]- खण्ड ( ii) |

15. Kotetara

Nandeli (Mahaal 18

Number 3)

911

15 Kotetara

914

913

917

674

16. Thuthi

849

675

848

673

850

370

847

665

846

654

0000 00

650

839

569

840

568

841

(X)

571

812

579

809

(X)

580

810

578

748

581

000

443

559

00 00

440

557

442

558

261

551

07 00

552

262

537

00 00

263

538

275

547

274

540

272

545

271

544

270

541

317

543

309

539

308

2339

17. Thathari

23 307

2337

60 306

2341

(X)

00 00

2333

305

2332

323

2327

304

2328

(00

324

2369

322

2370

325

2371

326

2372

296

2421

317

2424

15 329

2415

00 00

2425

330

2481

1922

613

587

608

588

000

589

591

592

08 29

521

30 5604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

4 3

6 00

00 519

Thathari

94 17. Thathari

03 00

520

244

56 245

95 246

248

00 236

45 00

03 234

31 00

232

03 47

97 00

(X)

(05

00 54

03 55

100

457

90 59

[ F. No. R - 25011 / 28 /2010 - OR - 11

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 26 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2190.-तेल उद्योग ( विकास ) अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 47 ) की धारा ( 3 ) की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त की गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को तेल उद्योग विकास बोर्ड के सदस्य के रुप में उनके नाम के सामने दर्शायी गई अवधि के लिए, या अगले आदेश जारी होने तक या सेवानिवृत्ति तक , जो भी पहले हो, नियुक्त करती है:

कब

से

1-8-2010

31-7-2012

1. श्री रॉय चौधरी ,

अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कार्पोशन लिमिटेड

26-2-2010

25-2-2012

श्री सुनील कुमार श्रीवास्तव , महा निदेशक,

हाईड्रोकार्बन महानिदेशालय

1-7-2010

30-6-2012

डॉ. आर . के. मल्होत्रा , संयुक्त निदेशक ( अनु. एवं विकास) इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोशन लिमिटेड

1-3-2010

30-9-2010

4. श्री बी.एम. बंसल, अध्यक्ष इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोशन लिमिटेड

[सं. जी. 35012/2/91- वित्त [ 1 ]

महेन्द्र सिंह , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2010

S.O. 2190. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause ( c) of Sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry (Development ) Act , 1974 (47 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the following officers as Members of the Oil Industry Develpoment Board for the period shown against their names or until further orders or retirement , whichever is earlier :

From

1-8-2010

31-7-2012

1. Shri Roy Choudhary C& MD, HPCL

26-2-2010

25-2-2012

2. Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava , DG , DGH

1-7-2010

30-6-2012

3. Dr. R.K. Malhotra , ED ( R & D ) , IOC

1-3-2010

30-9-2010

4. Shri B.M. Bansal ,

Chairman , IOC

[No. G. 35012/ 2 / 91 - Fin II ] MAHENDRA SINGH , Under Secy .

5605 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 6 अगस्त 2010

का. आ. 2191.- 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- धाग ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ . 2271 , तारीख 12 अगस्त , 2009 द्वाग , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , तमिलनाडु में तिख्तन्नी के पाम विजयवाड़ा -नैलुग्-चैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट मे देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैम के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स ग्लिोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चेन्नई - वंगलौर – मंगलौर गैस पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और, उक्त गजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तार्गम्व 14 मई , 2010 को अथवा उसमे पूर्व उपलव्ध कग दी गई थीं ;

और , पाइपलाइन विछाने के मम्वन्ध 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 धाग 6 की उप- धाग ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

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

अतः , अब , भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धाग 6 की उप- धाग ( 1 ) द्वाग प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इम अधिसूचना में मंलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और , भाग्न सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धाग 6 की उप- धाग (4 ) द्वाग प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देनी है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख मे भारत मग्कार में निहित होने के वजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों में मुक्त, मैमर्म ग्लिोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 5606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

मंडल / तेहसिल / तालुक तिख्तन्नी

जिला: तिरुवल्लुर

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं/ सब डिविजन सं 1

287

1 अलीमेलुमन्गापुरम

279/4

279/5

279/6

279/12वी

279/11

279/ 13 ए

279/13वी

279/14

279/15

266/12

266/10

266/9

266/13

267/1

267/2

267/3वी

268/1

268/ 2ए

268/ 2वी

268/3

280/16

280/17

280/15

280/18

280/14

280/19

280/20

281/10

281/7

281/6

281/4

281/5

283/4ए

283/ 3 वी

283/7

284/2 गज्य तमिलनाडु

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर 3

5 00

(01

29 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

5607

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्रा 13 , 1932

284/3

) अलीमेलुमन्गापुरम (निरंतर)

284/4

284/5

284/6

284/7

285/3

285/10

285/8

285/2

285/4

285/5

285/6

285/11

सुर्यानगरम

19/1

22/3

22/4

22/5

22/7

22/10

22/9

22/8

23/10

23/11ए

23/11वी

23/15सी

23/15ए

23/15वी

26/2

27/5

27/4

27/1 वी

27/3

27/2

28/2

28/3ए

28/3वी

28/3सी

28/4

3296 GI /10-14

5 01

11 5608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

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

30/2

2 ) सुर्यानगरम (निरंतर)

30/1

31/1

31/8

31/6

31/2

31/5

40/1

1/ 2वी 2

1/4वी

1/5वी

[फा सं. एल. - 14014/26/2009-जी.पी. ]

के.के .शर्मा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 6th August, 2010

S. O. 2191.- Whereas by a notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , number S.O. 2271 , dated 12th August, 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 Chennai - Bangalore - Mangalore gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from terminal point of V - Nellore - Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in Tamilnadu 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 14th May, 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 , the 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, the 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 .

5609

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/भादा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Schedule

State: Tamil Nadu

District: Thiruvallur

Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Tiruttani

Village

Area to be acquired for Rou

Survey No./Sub-Division No

287

1 ) Alimelumangapuram

279/4

279/5

279/6

279/ 12B

279/11

279/ 13A

279/ 13B

279/14

279/15

266/12

266/10

266/9

266/13

267/1

267/2

267/3B

268/1

268 /2A

268/2B

268/3

280/16

280/17

280/15

280/18

280/14

280/19

280/20

281/10

281/7

281/6

281/4

281/5

283 /4A

283/3B

283/7

284/2 Hec

C-Are

Are

53 00

70 00

84 00

00 5610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

284/3 1 ) Alimelumangapuram (Contd)

284/4

284/5

284/6

284/7

285/3

285/10

285/8

285/2

285/4

285/5

285/6

285/11

2 ) Suryanagaram

19/1

22/3

22/4

22/5

22/7

22/10

22/9

22/8

23/10

23/11A

23/11B

23/ 15C

23/ 15A

23/ 15B

26/2

27/5

27/4

27/ 1B

27/3

27/2

28/2

28/3A

28/3B

28/3C

28/4

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 00

26 00

46 00

17 00

00 00

42 12

83 00

46 00

79 00

06 00

84 04

47 08

92 00

85 03

83 00

73 03

43 00

32 00

72 21

89 01

73 00

20 00

65 00

70 00

42 00

40 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5611 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

5 2) Suryanagaram (Contd)

30/2

30/1

31/1

31/8

31/6

31/2

31/5

40/1

1 /2B2

1 /4B

1 /5B

[ F. No. L- 14014/26 /2009-G.P . ] K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त 2010

का. आ. 2192. - 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 . 2272 तारीख 19 अगस्त, 2009 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास जब नैलुर -चैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई टयूटीकोरिन 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 मई , 2010 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलव्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और, पाइपलाइन विछाने के संबंध में जनता की ओर से कोई आक्षेप प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है ;

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 घोपणा 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 घोपणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के वजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 5612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

राज्य: तमिलनाडु

जिला:तिरुवन्नामलाई

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: वंदावासी

गाँव कानाम

सर्वे सं/ सब डिविजन सं.

2 1

7और 155 1 सूद्राकट्टेरी

175/1 ए

175/1 बी

175/1 सी

175/4ए

175/4वी

175/4सी

175/4डी

175/45

175/ 2सी

175/3वी

5/2

5/4

9/6वी

9/6ए

9/5

10/3

11/2

12/1 ए

171/ 2वी

171/ 2सी

171/4डी

171/4ए

171/4सी

171/4वी

171/4एफ

171/4जी

171/4के

171/3वी

176/3ए1

176/16

176/17

176/4ए

176/4वी

176/9

176/10 आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सिएयर

5 3

22 03

29 00

78 00

16 00

02 01

97 00

68 00

39 00

33 20

40 00

36 00

14 00

91 00

10 00

92 00

44 00

59 00

96 00

19 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा. 13 , 1932

5613 1

176/11

22 1 ) सूद्राकट्टेरी (निरंतर)

176/6

176/7

176/8

212/5बी

2 ) मेलानूर

[ फा सं. एल. - 14014 / 25 / 2009 - जी.पी. ]

के.के .शर्मा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S. O. 2192.-Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2272 dated 19th August , 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 Chennai - Tuticorin gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from terminal point of Vijana Nellore - Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in Tamilnadu 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 May, 2010 ;

And whereas , no objection has been received from the public to the laying of the pipeline ;

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 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

5614

Schedule

District: Thiruvannamalai

Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Vandavasi

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

State: Tamil Nadu

Area to be acquired for RoU

C-Are

Are

Hec

5 02

7 & 155

1 ) Sudrakatteri

175 / 1A

175/ 1B

175/ 1C

10 00

175 /4A

175 /4B

04 00

175/4C

175/4D

175 /4E

175 /2C

175/3B

5/2

5/4

9/6B

9/6A

9/5

10/3

11/2

12/ 1A

171 /2B

171 /2C

171/4D

29 00

78 00

02 00

25 00

97 00

68 00

39 00

17 00

33 00

66 00

40 00

171 /4A

171 /4C

171 /4B

171 /4F

171 /4G

171 /4K

171 /3B

07 00

10 00

176/ 3A1

176/16

176/17

95 00

92 00

176/4A

176/4B

176/9

176/10

59 00

13 00

96 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

5615 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

5 1 ) Sudrakatteri ( Contd)

176/11

176/6

176/7

176/8

85 2 ) Melanur

212/5B

[ F. No. L -14014/25/2009-G.P. ] K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 31 अगस्त 2010

का. आ. 2193.-भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएंस इण्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर काकीनाडा स्थित अपतटीय गैस प्रसंस्करण टर्मिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में स्थित उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा विजयवाडा- नेल्लोर चेन्नई पाइपलाइन विछाई 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 (1962का 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 प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध 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 रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, न. 67-11-21 / 2 , साविसुजा, न्यु सेंचुरी पब्लिक स्कूल के सामने, एल . वी . नगर , काकिनाडा 533003 , पूर्वी गोदावरी जिला , आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा .

3296GI/10-15 5616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

अनुसूची

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

जिला: पूर्वी गोदावरी

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक ताल्लारेवु

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

2 1

1/5

1) लच्चिपालेम

1/6

1/10

13/1

15/1

15/2

5/5

2) उप्पन्नगला

5/6

5/7

5/8

5/9

5/10

5/11

6/2

6/4

7/1

7/2

8/6

19/1

23/3

23/4

23/5

23/6

23/7

23/8

23/9

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

सिएयर

एयर

22 00

10 00

00 32

09 00

52 00

17 00

10 00

05 00

45 00

40 00

17 06

28 00

45 00

77 00

00 00

86 00 02

10 00

36 00

03 30

16 00

10 00

23 00

30 00 48

78 00

23 00

20 00

00 00

10 00

24 10

34 00

90 00

23/10

19 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5617

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

23/11 2) उप्पन्गला (निरंतर )

23/12

23/13

24/5

24/6

5 3

68 00

00 00

20 00

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: पूर्वी गोदावरी

मंडल/ तेहसिल / तालुक: रायावरम

163

1 ) कुरमापुरम

164/1

164/2

165/1

165/2

165/3

205/2

205/3

206

207/1

216/1

216/2

217

218/1

218/4

218/5

220/2

220/3

220/4

220/5

221/1

221/2

221/4

221/5

221/6

290/2

290/3

290/4ए

290/4वि

290/5

292/1

292/2

292/3

292/4

292/5

20 00

97 00

86 00

43 00

42 00

84 00

10 00 28

79 00 19

18 00

58 00

69 00

85 00 29.

57 00

75 00 20

00 06

07 00

09 00

00 5618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

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

62 00

293/4

1) कुरमापुरम (निरंतर)

293/5

57 00

293/6

66 00 00

293/7

11 00 02

293/8

00 04

302/4

302/5

32 00

302/6

00 08

302/7

302/8

305/1

70 00 59

305/5

364/1

364/3

00 15

364/4

10 00

365/1

62 00

365/2

365/3

00 10

365/4

377/2

377/3

00 25

50 00

378/2

80 00

378/3

379/2

380/1

380/2

47 00

385/4

00 10

385/5

00 08

386/1

386/2

जिला: पूर्वी गोदावरी मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: कपिलेशवरपुरम

CO 02

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

157/14

157/15

1) अन्गरा

158/2

158/3

158/4

158/5

158/6

158/7

158/8

159/16

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

159/17

160/1 1 ) अन्गरा ( निरंतर )

160/2

160/3

161/1

162/1

162/2

163/2

174/5

174/6

174/7

174/8

174/12

176/3

177/1

177/2

178/3

180

181/2

181/3

181/4

181/5

181/7

182

234/1

235

236/2

236/3

236/4ए

236/4बी

236/4सी

255

256/1

256/2

256/3

257/9

258/5

258/4

258/6

258/11

5619

5 3

60 00

04 00

63 09

38 36

84 05

09 08

95 00

12 00

84 00

10 00

78 24

17 00

35 05

39 00

40 25

18 28

03 00

85 00 15

27 03

02 00

87 02

10 00

58 21

35 00

21 00

56 22

61 00

85 00

72 00

05 00

02 00

10 00

00 5620

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

44 00

292/2

292/3

1) अन्गरा (निरतंर)

66 00

294/14

47 12

295/8

53 00 00

295/9

34 07

295/11

27 09

295/12

79 00

295/13

09 00

295/14

93 00

305/12

98 00

305/14

25 07

305/15

70 00

305/16

10 00 00

305/18

50 00

305/17

20 00

307/1

308/1

10 00 00

308/3

14 00

308/5

28 00 06

308/4

04 00

308/6

22 00 29

309/5

01 00

309/6

23 00

310/4

37 00

310/5

311/2

95 00

311/3

312

00 00

313/1

313/2

315

83 00 14

318/1

318/3

2) तातापुडि

86/4

86/5

79 00 00

72 00

86/6

88/1

02 00 29

88/2

88/3

15 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

89/2

2) तात्तापुडि (निरंतर)

89/3

91/1

91/2

91/3

92/1

92/2

93/2

93/3

93/4

93/6

94/2

94/3

94/4

97/4

97/5

100/13

101/2

101/3

101/4

103/1 ए

104/1

104/3

104/5

184/1

3 ) कपिलेस्वरपुरम

184/2

184/3

184/5

184/6

184/8

188

189

190/1

190/2

467

नदि दो गाँव के वीच मे 4 ) गैतमी गेदावरि रिवर

128

5) तातापुडि लंका

138/1

138/2

138/3

5621

5 3

00 00

77 00

00 18

61 00

31 00

53 28

00 .

23 00

56 03

65 00

00 29

81 00 00

73 00

51 02

37 00

61 00

11 00

00 00

39 00

71 09

13 00

64 00

81 00

82 02

87 00

70 05

40 00 09

55 09

81 00

89 10

01 00

35 00

82 17

70 06 80

85 00 02

66 00

38 00

13 03 5622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

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

70 00 00

138/4

5) तातापुडि लंका (निरंतर)

00 00

140/3

64 00

140/4

140/5

140/6

140/7

29 00 01

140/8

141/2

04 00

141/3

141/4

01 00

141/5

36 00

148/4

87 00

148/5

148/6

87 00 08

148/7

148/8

41 00

148/9

51 00

148/10

149/1

89 00 11

149/2

34 00

149/3

00 08

149/4

149/5

10 00 05

149/6

149/7

00 00

149/8

00 00

150/1

203/1

17 00

203/4

203/6

203/7

18 00

203/9

203/10

86 00

203/11

जिला:पूर्वी गोदावरी मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:केत्तापेटा

1) मंदपल्लि

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

52 00

60/2

60/1

61/1

91/1

2) केत्तापेटा

00 00

10 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

2 1

91/3

2) केत्तापेटा (निरंतर)

103/1

103/2

104/2

105/1

105/2

106/1

106/2

106/3

106/4

106/5

106/6

107/1

109/6

109/7

109/8

109/9

109/10

134/4

134/9

134/10

134/11

134/12

149/25

150/1

150/2

151

153/1

158

173/12

173/13

173/14

173/15

173/16

173/22

173/23

173/24

173/25

173/26 3296 Gl /10-16

5623 4

5 00

06 00

00 00

10 00 00

24 00

03 00

00 04

01 00 16

10 00

80 00

58 00

60 00

48 00

06 00 08

94 00

79 00 08

81 00

82 00

93 09

53 00

25 22

67 00

60 00 00

17 00

43 01

86 00

30 00

87 00

41 00

30 01

09 00

58 00

11 00

14 01.

70 06

87 00 01

11 00 00 5624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) )

5 3

7 00

174/2

2) केल्तापेटा (निरंतर)

10 00

174/4

174/3

33 00 15

174/5

71 00

174/6

95 17

174/7

174/8

174/10

10 00

175/1

00 09

183/3

26 00 00

183/4

09 00

183/12

183/13

10 00

183/14

66 00

183/18

00 00

183/19

91 00

184/1

184/3

80 00

184/4

18 00

184/5

184/6

185

07 00

15 00

186/1

186/6

186/7

75 00

186/8

78 00

186/9

39 00

186/10

84 00

186/12

188/4

99 00

188/5

73 08

188/6

188/7

188/8

188/9

188/10

433

11 00

435/ 1 ए

435/1वी

435/2

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

435/3 2) केत्तापेटा (निरंतर)

436/1

436/2

436/4

437

430

438

465/ 2वी

466/1

466/2

467/1

469

5625

5 00

03 00

92 00

40 00

54 00

10 00

75 00

92 00

52 00

55 00

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: पूर्वी गोदावरी

मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुकश्गवुलपालेम

212/1

1 ) देवरापाल्लि

212/2

212/4

213/3

213/4

214

215

227

228/2

230/5

231

232

234/1

240

241/2

242/1

264/3

264/4

264/6

264/7

264/9

264/10

265/1

266/1

267/1

267/2

270/1

270/2

36 00

18 00 09

20 00

77 00

97 00

83 00

66 00

63 00

27 00

97 00

72 00

77 00 06

20 00

28 00

81 00

90 00

43 00

54 00

21 00 5626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

295/1

1 ) देवरापाल्लि (निरंतर)

47 06

295/2

325

20 00

50 09

326/1

50 00

326/2

327

13 00

328/5

340/1

27 00

340/2

65 00 09

340/3

341/1

343/1

25 03

343/2

343/3

344/1

10 00

344/2

00 06

345/1

348

364

26 00

52 03

49 00

365/3

370

57 00

51 00

372/1

372/2

00 09

372/3

372/4

94 01

372/5

39 00

372/6

372/7

46 00

373/1

373/3

78 00

373/4

374

376

325

2 ) ईताकेटा

12 08

52 00

60 09

327/1

327/2

317/6

317/7

328

93 05

330/1

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

2 1

330/2 2) ईताकेटा (निरंतर)

331/1

332/1

332/2

332/3

341/1

341/2

341/3

342/1

342/3

342/4

343/9

344/1

344/2

346/1

346/2

346/3

346/6

348

349/3

349/4

349/5

357

361

384/2

384/3

384/4

384/5

384/6

385

389/5

389/6

389/7

389/8

389/9

390/1

390/2

402

29/1

3) गोपालपुराम

29/3

5627 3

5 03

80 00

60 00

46 00

67 00

33 00

21 00

27 00

83 00

32 04

29 10

86 00

67 00

61 00

34 00

25 02

18 00

26 00

52 00

35 00

73 00

62 00 40

28 00 08

74 00

95 43

75 03

72 03

47 00

27 00

86 00

87 00 04

51 00

48 17

52 17

54 00

73 00 06

10 00 5628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

29/4

3) गोपालपुराम (निरंतर)

29/5

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

5 12

07 00

89 08

06 00

29/6

29/7

26 00

85 00

29/11

10 00 00

29/12

63 00

29/13

31/1

31/2

31/3

53 00

64 00

56 00

32/10

47/8

47/9

87 00

64 00

00 08

47/10

66 00

47/11

48/8

48/9

55 00

94 00 03

48/10

50/1

15 00

13 00

50/11

10 00 01

50/12

24 00

50/13

74/1

74/2

75/5

75/6

83/1

83/2

83/3

83/8

83/9

34 00

72 00 09

00 02

75 02

53 00

21 00

00 04

29 02

06 00

83/10

84/1

84/2

84/4

84/5

91/6

91/7

81 00 01

01 00 02

93 00

94 02

94 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

3) गोपालपुराम (निरंतर)

311/1

311/2

311/4

311/5

311/6

311/7

314/2

319

321/2

321/3

321/4

321/5

322/1

322/2

323/4

350

352/1

352/2

352/3

352/ 8ए

353/ 3ए

353/3वी

353/ 3सी

353/4ए

353/4सी

353/5

353/6

353/7

353/8

354/1

355/1

356/1

356/4

356/5

356/6

357/1

357/3

357/4

357/5

5629

77 00

36 00

88 03

53 02

31 00

36 00

93 00

15 00

10 00

72 00

10 00

94 00

10 00

99 00

53 12

63 01

25 00

48 04

06 00

99 00

68 00

25 00

02 14

78 00 06

68 00

89 00

35 04

35 08

31 00

06 30

30 22

18 00

90 00

21 26

28 00

63 5630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

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

362

3 ) उगोपालपुराम (निरंतर)

363/1

363/5

364/1

364/2

364/3

364/4

364/7

364/8

364/9

364/10

नदि दो गाँव के बीच मे

4 ) वसिस्टा गेदावरि रिवर

[ फा सं. एल. - 14014/46/ 2010 - जी.पी. ]

स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st August , 2010

S. O. 2193 .--Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from on - shore gas processing terminal at Kakinada on East Coast of Andhra Pradesh of M / s Reliance Industries Limited ,to consumers in various parts of the country , Vijayawada- Nellore - Chennai Pipeline should be laid by M / s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited;

And whereas , it appears to the 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 here to ;

Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Government of 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 Right of the User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri K. Gangachalam , Competent Authority , Relogistics In 'rastructure 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 : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

Schedule

District : East Godavari Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Tallarevu

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

1/5

1) Lachipalem

1/6

1/10

13/1

15/1

15/2

5/5

2) Uppangala

5/6

5/7

5/8

5/9

5/10

5/11

6/2

6/4

7/1

7/2

8/6

19/1

23/3

23/4

23/5

23/6

23/7

23/8

23/9

23/10 3296 GI /10-17

5631 State: Andhra Pradesh

Area to be acquired for ROU Hec

Are

C-Are 3

19 5632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

23/11 2) Uppangala ( Contd)

23/12

23/13

24/5

24/6

District : East Godavari Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Rayavaram

163

1) Kurmapuram

164/1

164/2

165/1

165/2

165/3

205/2

205/3

206

207/1

216/1

216/2

217

218/1

218/4

218/5

220/2

220/3

220/4

220/5

221/1

221/2

221/4

221/5

221/6

290/2

290/3

290/ 4A

290/4B

290'5

292/1

292/2

292/3

292/4

292/5

293/4

293/5

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

State : Andhra Pradesh

(00

(07

10 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भा 13 , 1932

2 1 ) Kurmapuram ( Contd)

293/6

293/7

293/8-

302/4

302/5

302/6

302/7

302/8

305/1

305/5

364/1

364/3

364/4

365/1

365/2

365/3

365/4

377/2

377/3

378/2

378/3

379/2

380/1

380/2

385/4

385/5

386/1

386/2

5633 3

State: Andhra Pradesh

District : East Godavari

Mandal/ Tehsil / Taluk : Kapileswarapuram

157/14 1) Angara

157/15

158/2

158/3

158/4

158/5

158/6

158/7

158/8

159/16

159/17

160/1

160/2

160/3 01

13 5634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

161/1 1) Angara (Contd)

162/1

162/2

163/2

174/5

174/6

174/7

174/8

174/12

176/3

177/1

177/2

178/3

180

181/2

181/3

181/4

181/5

181/7

182

234/1

235

236/2

236/3

236/ 4A

236/4B

236/4C

255

256/1

256/2

256/3

257/9

258/5

258/4

258/6

258/11

292/2

292/3

294/14

295/8

295/9

295/11

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

34 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

295/12 1) Angara ( Contd)

295/13

295/14

305/12

305/14

305/15

305/16

305/18

305/17

307/1

308/1

308/3

308/5

308/4

308/6

309/5

309/6

310/4

310/5

311/2

311/3

312

313/1

313/2

315

318/1

318/3

2) Tatapudi

86/4

86/5

86/6

88/1

88/2

88/3

89/2

89/3

91/1

91/2

91/3

92/1

92/2

93/2

5635 4

97 5636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

93/3

2) Tatapudi ( Contd)

93/4

93/6

94/2

94/3

94/4

97/4

97/5

100/13

101/2

101/3

101/4

103/ 1A

104/1

104/3

104/5

184/1 3) Kapileswarapuram

184/2

184/3

184/5

184/6

184/8

188

189

190/1

190/2

467

4) Gowtami Godavari River

Riverbetween two villages

128

5) Tatapudilanka

138/1

138/2

138/3

138/4

140/3

140/4

140/5

140/6

140/7

140/8

141/2

141/3

141/4

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

12 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

141/5 5) Tatapudilanka ( Contd)

148/4

148/5

148/6

148/7

148/8

148/9

148/10

149/1

149/2

149/3

149/4

149/5

149/6

149/7

149/8

150/1

203/1

203/4

203/6

203/7

203/9

203/10

203/11

5637 4

State : Andhra Pradesh

District : East Godavari

Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk: Kottapeta

1 ) Mandhapalli

60/2

60/1

61/1

2) Kottapeta

91/1

91/3

103/1

103/2

104/2

105/1

105/2

106/1

106/2

106/3

106/4

106/5 95

00 5638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

106/6 2) Kottapeta ( Contd)

107/1

109/6

109/7

109/8

109/9

109/10

134/4

134/9

134/10

134/11

[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

134/12

149/25

150/1

150/2

151

153/1

158

173/12

173/13

173/14

173/15

173/16

173/22

173/23

173/24

173/25

173/26

174/2

174/4

174/3

174/5

174/6

174/7

174/8

174/10

175/1

183/3

183/4

183/12

183/13

183/14

.71

10 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

183/18 2) Kottapeta ( Contd )

183/19

184/1

184/3

184/4

184/5

184/6

185

186/1

186/6

186/7

186/8

186/9

186/10

186/12

188/4

188/5

188/6

188/7

188/8

188/9

188/10

433

435 / 1A

435/1B

435/2

435/3

436/1

436/2

436/4

437

430

438

465/ 2B

466/1

466/2

467/1

469

District : East Godavari Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Ravulapalem

212/1 1 ) Devarapalli

212/2

212/4

213/3 3296GI/10-18

5639 3

State: Andhra Pradesh

00 5640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

213/4 1) Devarapalli (Contd)

214

215

227

228/2

230/5

231

232

234/1

240

241/2

242/1

264/3

264/4

264/6

264/7

264/9

264/10

265/1

266/1

267/1

267/2

270/1

270/2

295/1

295/2

325

326/1

326/2

327

328/5

340/1

340/2

340/3

341/1

343/1

343/2

343/3

344/1

344/2

345/1

348

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) ] 4

12 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

364

1) Devarapalli ( Contd)

365/3

370

372/1

372/2

372/3

372/4

372/5

372/6

372/7

373/1

373/3

373/4

374/3

376

325

2) Ithakota

327/1

327/2

317/6

317/7

328

330/1

330/2

331/1

332/1

332/2

332/3

341/1

341/2

341/3

342/1

342/3

342/4

343/9

344/1

344/2

346/1

346/2

346/3

346/6

348

349/3

5641

00 5642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

349/4 2) Ithakota ( Contd)

349/5

357

361

384/2

384/3

384/4

384/5

384/6

385

389/5

389/6

389/7

389/8

389/9

390/1

390/2

402

29/1

3) Gopalapuram

29/3

29/4

29/5

29/6

29/7

29/11

29/12

29/13

31/1

31/2

31/3

32/10

47/8

47/9

47/10

47/11

48/8

48/9

48/10

50/1

50/11

50/12

50/13

[ Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र .: सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

2 3) Gopalapuram ( Contd)

74/1

74/2

75/5

75/6

83/1

83/2

83/3

83/8

83/9

83/10

84/1

84/2

84/4

84/5

91/6

91/7

311/1

311/2

311/4

311/5

311/6

311/7

314/2

319

321/2

321/3

321/4

321/5

322/1

322/2

323/4

350

352/1

352/2

352/3

352 / 8A

353/3A

353/ 3B

353/3C

353 /4A

353 /4C

353/5

353/6

353/7

353/8

354/1

355/1

356/1

356/4

5643 4

30 5644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ Part Il-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

356/5

30 3) Gopalapurain ( Contd)

356/6

357/1

357/3

357/4

357/5

362

363/1

363/5

364/1

364/2

364/3

364/4

364/7

364/8

364/9

364/10

4) Vasista Godavari River

River between two Villages

[ F. No. L - 14014 /46/2010-GP]

SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त 2010

का. आ. 2194.-'भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैगर्म रिलाएंम इण्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की आन्ध प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर काकीनाडा स्थित अपतटीय गैस प्रसंस्करण टर्मिनल मे देश के विभिन्न हिग्गों में ग्थित उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैमर्ग ग्लिोजिमटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा विजयवाडा - नेल्लोर - चेन्नइ पाइपलाइन विछाई 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 विछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपावद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उयोग 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 उप- धाग ( 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 जिमको उक्त अधिनियम की धाग 3 की उप - धाग ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलव्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीम दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एम . ए . गफ्फार , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मेसर्स ग्लिोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, नं . 59-1-18/ 3 , मैरिस स्टेला कॉलेज के सामने की गेड में , वस रूट नं . 5 , गमचन्द्रा नगर, विजयवाडा -520008 , कृण्णा जिला , आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज मुकेगा । भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5645

अनुसूची

मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक कावलि

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: श्री पोट्टि श्रीगमुलु नेल्लूरु

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं. / सब डिविजन सं.

526,208218,220,527,538,539,589,

1 ) चलमचेरला

612,613 और 614

584

595

597

598

599

600

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर 3

25 00

36 00

25 00

20 00

50 00

गट नंवर 600 में तलाव

817

822

823

824

825

838

839

844

866

867

868

869

870

271

2) कोत्तपल्लि

274

275

276

283

284

285

286

287

289

312

314/1

314/2

315

417

418

85 00

68 00

94 42

85 00

77 45

68 00

43 00

98 00

21 00

60 00

16 00

00 85

94 00

10 00

51 00

89 00

37 00

39 00

90 00

55 25

52 5646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

419

2) कोत्तपल्लि (निरंतर)

423

433

434

450

[Part 11-Sec. 3( ii) ]

5 3

07 00 55

00 05

27 00 08

28 00

गट नंवर 450 में रोड

323

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:जलदंकी

जिला: श्री पोट्टि श्रीरामुलु नेल्लूरू

238

1 ) जलदंकी

240

241

242

247

248

252

255

256

344

345

01 83

05 राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

09 00

96 00

00 00

83 00 42

09 00

79 00 52

87 00

14 00

43 00

346/1

349

गट नंवर 349 में चिन्नरावला गुन्टा

350

356

357

360

367

370

372

373

374

888

890

891

925

926

928

929

931

932

933

935

936

99 00

39 00

25 00

03 00 25

63 00

46 00

40 00

69 00

71 00

07 00

22 00

00 06

45 00

59 00

91 00 08

19 5647

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

937

1) जलदंकी (निरंतर)

940

941

944

945

946

950

962

968/1

968/2

969

976

977

978

989

1002

1004

1018

1071/1

1071/2

1073

1075

1164/1

1164/2

1165

1167

1169

1171

1173

1175

1197/1

1198/2

5 00

86 00 00

18 00

67 09

68 03

04 0.0 02

96 29

32 00

64 00

28 09

12 27

71 00 22

10 17

18 00

90 00 25

19 00

89 00

67 00 27

1.0

6,9 26

01 00

7.9 00

30 01

4 00

64 03

35 04

09 04

25 03

33 02

गट नंबर 1198/2 में रोड

1199/1

1199/2

1202

1203

1204

1217

1218

1233

1235

3296 Gl/10-19

99 00

62 05

17 00

01 00

18 00

39 00

63 25

61 03

90 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 15 , 1932

1236

1) जलदंकी (निरंतर)

[ Part II Sec . 3 ( i ) ) 3

5 00 07

18 00

1258

1259

1264

66 04

1268

से 1330 तक

1389

1390

1391

00 12

71 46

30 52

89 00

1393

1394

1395

1397

85 57

48 00

72 00

1398

1399

1400

1401

1402

1419

1420

गट नंवर 575/1 और 1980 के बीच में गग्ता

2) ब्राह्मनक्राका

141

145

146

153

154

160

163

164

68 00

10 00 03

54 00 00

37 00

67 00

28 00

38 00 16

92 00 48

69 22

64 00

00 06

166/1

00 40

167/1

00 20

167/2

178

181

194

11 00

63 00

197/2

198

28 00

1980

199

200

201

203

204

50 00 07

03 00

93 00

85 00

18 { भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010 / भाद्रा 13 , 1932

205

ब्राह्मनक्राका (निरंतर)

208

291

523/2

571

572

573/1

574

575/1

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:वोगोलु

5649 3

24 00 42

18 00

66 00

65 00

44 00

25 राज्य आन्ध प्रदेश

जिला: श्री पोट्टि श्रीरामुलु नेल्लूरू

237

1 ) ताल्लुरू.

259/1

259/2

260/1

278/3 2 ) जक्केपल्ली गुडुर

595

436

3) बोगोलु

578

579

581

582

587

588

589/2

590

591/1

59172

591/3

592

593

594

618

619

620

631

632

635/1

635/2

642

643/1

643/2 मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक दगदर्ती

86 00

97 00

53 00

73 02

33 00

37 04 42

87 01

97 00

20 00

81 00

11 00

55 00

22 00

00 09

52 00

16 00

77 00

64 00 45

39 00

11 00

48 00 00

87 00

गज्य: आन्ध पदेश

जिला: श्री पोट्टि श्रीगमुलु नेल्लूरु

1 ) कोमनेनीपालेम

89 00

97 5650

| art 11 Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

1 ) कोमनेनीपालेम (निरंतर)

118

2) वेलुपोडु इनाम

120

122

124

135

136

139

140

141

311

312

313

315

316

317

318

328

329

335

336

339

340

355

3) दगदर्ती

96 10

88 80

80 27

57 00

03 00

33 00

18 29

95 00

30 01

10 00

53 00

08 00

96 00

06 00

37 00

43 00

56 00

43 00 44

53 00

55 00

89 00

51 00

40 00 58

26 00

41 00

72 00

00 06

33 00 00

77 00 19

37 00

59 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/भाद्रा 13 , 1932

2 1

3) दगदर्ती (निरंतर)

103

104

105

गट नंवर 106 में रास्ता

110

346

388

391

393

415

4 ) तुरिमेर्ला

4/1

4/2

102/2

5551

5 3

67 00

15 02

12 00

10 00

98 01

79 00

88 00

67 00

85 00

45 00

32 00

67 08

गट नं 102/2 में पैडेरू सरप्लस चैनल

130/2

164

165

168

169

170

171

177

178

180

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

गट नंवर 188 में नाला

229

45 02

66 00

22 26

59 00

53 06

05 00

97 28

12 00 29

24 00

05 00 12

86 07

38 00

00 05

67 05

43 00

44 00

00 5652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

230

तुरिमेर्ला (निरंतर)

231

232

233

259

262

263

264

266

267

274

309

368

5 ) पेदपुत्तेडु

369

373

374

375

376

556

557

563

564

575

576

577

598

599

601

611

612

613

614

616

617

618

643

644

659

660

662

663

664

668

680

681

682

733

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

5 3

60 00

31 10

04 00

20 00

59 00

10 00 00

61 50

71 72

70 00

74 00

41 00 09

63 00

93 00

52 00

70 00

63 00

03 00 12

32 00 07

81 00

00 09

49 00

94 00 07

39 00

99 00

97 00

32 00

39 00

10 00 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत की राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

734

5 ) पेदपुत्तेडु (निरंतर)

735

739

740

744

745

746

5653 3

5 00 30

03 00

00 00 40

25 00 34

00 00 20

27 00

69 00

42 00

गट नंबर 746 में कोन्नगुन्टा तलाव

102

6 ) यलमंचिपाडु

103

104

105

107

113

114

115

116

117

129

130

131

132

57 00

13 00

32 00

54 00

74 08

55 00

01 00

80 00

96 00

78 00

62 00 01

65 00

24 00

[ फा सं. एल.- 14014/57/2009- जी.पी. ] स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st August , 2010

S. O. 2194.- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from on - shore gas processing terminal at Kakinada on East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country , Vijayawada - Nellore - Chennai Pipeline should be laid by M / s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited ;

And , whereas , it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in 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 M.A. Gaffar, Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , House No. 59-1-18 /3 , Opp Roadto Maries Stella college , Bus route No. 5 , Ramachandra Nagar , Vijayawada 520 008 , Krishna District , Andhra Pradesh State .

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

Schedule

District: Sa Patti Sriramulu Nellore

Mandai/Tensil /Taluk : Kavalı

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

526,208 Το 218,220,527,538,539,589,612,613 & 614 02

1 ) Chalancherla

584

595

597

598

599

600

State: Andhra Pradesh

Area to be acquired for Rou

C-Are Hec

Are

Pond in Gat No.600

817

822

823

324

825

338

839

844

866

867

868

869

870

271

2) Kothapalli

274

275

276

283

284

285

286

287

289

312

314/1

314/2

315

417

418

0.1

52 [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

419

2) Kothapalli ( Contd)

423

433

434

450

5655 4

Road in Gat No. 450

323

District: Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore

Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk : Jaladanki

238

1) Jaladanki

240

241

242

247

248

252

255

256

344

345

346/1

349

State: Andhra Pradesh

Chinnaravala Gunta in Gat No.349

350

356

357

360

367

370

372

373

374

888

890

891

925

926

928

929

931

932

933

935

936

3296 GI /10-20

19 5656

[Part II-Sec . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

937

Jaladanki (Contd)

940

941

944

945

946

950

962

968/1

968/2

969

976

977

978

989

1002

1004

1018

1071/1

1071/2

1073

1075

1164/1

1164/2

1165

1167

1169

1171

1173

1175

1197/1

1198/2

Road in Gat No.1198/2

1199/1

1199/2

1202

1203

1204

1217

1218

1233

1235

00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

2 1) Jaladanki ( Contd)

1236

1258

1259

1264

1268 Το 1330

1389

1390

1391

1393

1394

1395

1397

1398

1399

1400

1401

1402

1419

1420 2) Brahmanakraka

5657 4

In bet suy no . 575/1 & 1980 Cart track

141

145

146

153

154

160

163

164

166/1

167/1

167/2

178

181

194

197/2

198

1980

199

200

201

203

204

85 5658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

205

2) Brahmanakraka ( Contd )

208

291

523/2

571

572

573/1

574

575/1

District : Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore

Mandal /Tehsil / Taluk : Bogole

237

1) Talluru

259/1

259/2

260/1

278/3 2) Zakkepalle Gudur

595

436 3) Bogole

578

579

581

582

587

588

589/2

590

591/1

591/2

591/3

592

593

594

618

619

620

631

632

635/1

635/2

642

643/1

643/2

District: Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore

Mandal/ Tehsil /Taluk: Dagadarthi

1) Komnenipalem

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 4

State: Andhra Pradesh

48 00

18 State: Andhra Pradesh

89 00

55 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010 / भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1 ) Komnempalem ( Contd )

118

2) Velupodu Inam

120

122

124

135

136

139

140

141

311

312

313

315

316

317

318

328

329

335

336

339

340

355

3) Dagadarthi

5659

1 i

37 5660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13, 1932

2 1

Dagadarthi (Conid)

103

104

105

Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

Cart Track in Gat No.106

110

346

388

391

393

415

4) Furimerla

4/1

4/2

102/2

Paideru Surplus Channel in Gat No.102/ 2 00

130/2

164

165

168

169

170

171

177

178

180

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

Nala in Gat No.188

229

36 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

230

4) Turimerla ( Contd)

231

232

233

259

262

263

264

266

267

274

309

368

5) Pedaputhedu

369

373

374

375

376

556

557

563

564

575

576

577

598

599

601

611

612

613

614

616

617

618

643

644

659

660

662

663

664

668

680

681

682

733

734

735

739

740

5661 4

00 5662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

Part 11- Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] 1

edaputhedu (Contd)

745

746

Kottagunta Pond in Gat No. 746

102

6) Elamanchipadu

103

104

105

107

113

114

115

116

117

129

130

131

132

[ F. No. L - 14014/57 / 2009-GF1 SNEH P. MADAN , Under

नई दिल्ली , 31 अगस्त 2010

का. आ. 2195.- भाग्न सरकार की लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीन होता है कि मगर्ग ग्लिाएंग इण्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटे के बाथ पदेश में पूर्वी तट पर काकीनाडा थिन अपतटीय पंस्करण टर्मिनल में देश के विभिन्न हिग्यों में स्थित अपनी ला पाकृतिक गंग के परिवहन के मैग्निजिकिय कारवर लिमिटेड द्वारा विजयवाडा नेल्लोर न कर विछाई जानी चाहिए :

और. भारत सरकार को उक्त पाटपलाइन विछाने के एवं अन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि, इस भरि में, 'भीतर उक्न पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का परनाथ और जो इस अधिसूचना में उपावाद अनुसूची में वर्णिन उप अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए:

अनः. अच , भारत सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइयचाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा पटन्न अविनयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग क सर्जन करने के अपने आय की या करती है ।

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में निवन्द है. उस तारीन्छ में जिगको उक्त अधिनियम की धाग 3 की उपधाग ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की पनियां गाधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के पेलर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए के अधिकार अर्जन के संबंध में श्री के , गंफल पाधिकारी , मैसर्स ग्लिोजिमटिक्स इन्कारट्क्चर लिमिटेड , २. 67-11-21/2 , माविमुना न्यु मेंचुरी पडितक म्कूल माम बी नगर , काकिनाडा - 533003 , पनी गोदावरी जिला, आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य को लिखिन रुप में आक्षप भेज सकंगा.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

5663

अनुसूची

गज्य आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: पश्चिमी गोटावरी

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: पेनुगोन्डा

सर्वे सं . / सब डिविजन सं.

गाँव का नाम

2 1

1 ) वडली

242

244

245

246

250

271

272

275

278

279

280

281

282

315

316

317

318

2 ) चुरूकुवाडा

3296 GI /10-21

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

00 03

96 00

00 05

00 41

00 21

00 39

26 00

00 20

22 00 44

00 00

00 05

00 02

80 5664

[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 ) चुरूकुवाडा (निरंतर )

155

156

157

158

17 00 06

10 00

60 00

75 00

08 00

77 00

37 00

46 00

30 00

46 00

गट नंबर 1 में नाला

3) पेनुगोन्डा

जिला: पश्चिमी गोदावरी मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: पेरावली

1 ) पिट्टाला वेमावरम

सर्वे नंबर 87 और 82 के वीच में

जिला: पश्चिमी गोदावरी मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: इरागावरम

1) ऐलेटिपाडु

60 राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

17 00

00 46

68 00

42 00

75 00

74 00 05

29 00

11 00

51 00

02 00

63 00

37 00

93 राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

46 00

13 00

23 00

11 00

03 00

19 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ माद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

1) ऐलेटिपाडु (निरंतर)

गट नंबर 86 में नाला

267

2) पेकेरू

268

269

270

107

3) ओगिडी

123

124

189

4) ईनापारू

207

208

गट नंबर 208 में नाला

213

214

215

216

217

219

224

225

226

227

228

5 ) काकिलेरू

5665 4

82 28

99 00

85 00

07 00

24 00

06 00

46 00

09 00

42 37

00 31

76 00

10 00 00

93 00

69 17

25 00

42 30

00 44

76 00

83 00

10 00 00

73 00 49

57 00

99 00 20

54 00 5666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

5) काकिलेरू (निरंतर)

100

105

106

116

117

120

121

122

124

6) कट्टवपाडु

113

114

115

116

117

121

123

124

125

126

128

136

138

139

140

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

08 00

68 00

86 00

03 13

03 00

67 00

61 00 00

79 29

04 00

88 31

12 00

89 03

01 00

95 09

11 00

28 54

32 00

69 00

33 00

32 00

36 36

48 00

52 00

00 00

08 00

86 00

16 00

59 00

00 07

41 35

29 00

41 00

97 00

16 04

41 00

66 00 22 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

146

6) कट्टवपाडु (निरंतर)

147

148

गट नंबर 148 में तलाब

149

150

5667 3

65 00 25

18 00 41

13 00 01

86 00

60 00

जिला: पश्चिमी गोदावरी

मंडल / तेहसिल / तालुक: पेनुमंत्रा

1 ) कोय्येटीपाडु

304

2 ) पेनुमंत्रा

305

307

308

309

310

313

314

315

318

गट नंबर 318 में नाला

319

358

359

362

363

364

365

366

गट नंबर 366 में नाला

368

369

370

374

377

378

381

382

383

384

गट नंबर 384 में रोड

385

674

गट नंबर 674 में रोड

676

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

59 00 27

75 00

60 00 39

99 00

73 00

47 00

06 00

18 00

99 00

90 00

08 00

00 00

00 40

00 00

88 5668

Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

677

2) चेनुमंत्रा (निरंतर)

678

679

60 43

26 45

87 00

17 01

गट नंवर 679 में गड

680

689

690

725

727

728

729

730

731

07 04

61 00

70 00

43 00

72 32

87 00 48

74 24

11 00

गट नंबर 731 में गेड

732

733

734

735

737

738

771

773

774

776

787

788

789

3) पोलामुरू

77 00

54 00 42

14 00

13 00

08 00

05 00

02 00

40 00

51 05

20 00

65 00

73 00

78 27

01 00

52 05

36 03

14 27

39 00

85 03

08 00

59 00

64 04

64 00

30 05

00 भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3 ) पोलामुख (निरंतर )

100

101

102

103

104

162

163

164

165

190

191

192

200

201

203

204

205

209

212

213

214

217

335

4) ममुडुरू

336

338

377

378

379

381

382

5669

61 00

00 31

86 00

40 00

10 00

11 00

09 00 45

99 00

90 00

97 00

10 00

47 00

20 00

40 00

36 00

49 00

47 00

42 00

28 00

46 00

गट नंबर 382 में वीरावेल्लिवारी चेरूव

384

389

390

394

82 00

00 24

32 00

43 00

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: पश्चिमी गोदावरी

मंडल / तेहसिल/ तालुक: वीरवासारम

1 ) अन्दलुरू

44 00 5670

[ Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

1) अन्दलुरू (निरंतर)

86 00

04 00

11 00 46

94 00

29 00

गट नंबर 37 में नदी

जिन्ना: पश्चिमी गोदावरी मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक अट्टिली

284

1 ) अरावल्ली

285

62 00

92 00 20

00 04

13 गज्य आन्ध्र प्रदश

75 00

गट नंबर 285 में नाला

286

287

26 00

48 00

गट नंबर 287 में गेड

288

291

2) उनिकिली

00 00

24 00

12 00

77 00

31 00

67 00 32

51 00

गट नंबर 32 में पानी का मोत

32 00

00 36

17 00 30

29 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

2) उनिकिली (निरंतर)

345

364

168

3) एस किन्नरापुरम

169

170

171

172

173

गट नंवर 173 में नाला

174

175

गट नंबर 175 में नाला

190

191

192

5671 3

00 00

35 00

85 00

06 00

03 00

27 00

60 00

12 00

60 00

72 00

31 00

00 02

01 00

00 00

56 00 00

31 00

70 00

60 00

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: पश्चिमी गोदावरी

मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक: पलाकोडेरू

1) मोगाल्लु

गट नंवर 93 में नाला

109

110

111

112

113

83 00 20

15 00

09 00

73 00

43 00 02

51 00

92 00

22 29

00 30

36 00

87 00

गट नंवर 113 में पानी का स्रोत

119

135

136

226

3296 GI/10-22

61 00

34 5672

[Part II-Sec . 3( ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

230

1) मोगाल्लु (निरंतर)

231

233

45 23

84 00 40

00 06

70 06

गट नंवर 233 में रास्ता

248

250

251

252

285

289

290

291

292

293

296

314

315

318

325

325/ए

61 43

19 00 22

64 01

85 00 37

00 00

28 25

99 00

18 00

37 00

78 00

19 00 09

47 00 09

65 00

68 00

19 00

325/वी

325/सी

31 00

325/डी

327

330

331

333

334

335

306

2) गरगापारू

307

308

309

310

311

312

315

394

28 00 01

18 00

32 00

83 00

76 00 25

74 00

26 00

34 00

23 00

29 00

गट नंवर 394 में नदी

395

402

403

46 00

37 00 59

44 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010 / भाद्रा 13 , 1932

404

2 ) गरगापारू (निरंतर)

405

406

576

581

582

583

584

585

586

3 ) गोल्ललाकोडेख

गट नंबर 92 में नाला

100

101

102

103

174

175

177

180

181

182

188

189

190

192

193

5673 4

25 00

10 00

66 00

96 00

94 00

87 21

49 00

04 01

14 22

09 00

67 00

08 02

64 34

13 00

05 00 37

01 08

69 00

74 00

92 00

94 20

36 00

00 06

66 25

00 25

00 23

26 00

00 29

36 5674

[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

197

3 ) गोल्ललाकोडेरू (निरंतर)

198

210

211

212

213

जिला:पश्चिमी गोदावरी मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: भीमावरम

1) अन्नावरम

31 00

17 00 42

35 00 04

07 00 08

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

13 00

00 17

94 00

31 00 38

40 00

93 00

गट नंवर 50 में तलाव

106

107

108

109

110

118

119

120

122

123

जिला:पश्चिमी गोदावरी मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: कल्ला

1 ) पेदाअमिरम

62 00

06 00

51 00

75 00

91 00

50 00

39 00

97 00 46

54 00

16 राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

15 00

गट नंबर 25 में नाला

04 00

62 00 12

61 00

गट नंवर 34 मे रोड

00 00

35 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

1 ) पेदाअमिरम (निरंतर)

100

101

186

187

188

189

गट नंबर 189 में नाला

191

192

194

गट नंबर 194 में नाला

195

255

256

258

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

282

283

285

288

563

573

2) जक्कारम

5675 4

12 17

42 00 29

19 00

32 04

25 00

36 00

51 00 06

28 00 30

86 51

69 00

82 00

52 00 04

00 02

30 00 34

53 00 00

81 39

78 00

48 00

28 00

53 00

54 43

21 00

36 04

81 00

97 00

88 07

13 00

36 00

03 00

37 61

85 51

50 00

84 00

10 13

73 00

32 00 00

34 00

13 00

84 00

36 04

03 00 5676

[ Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

2) जक्कारम (निरंतर)

215

3) सिसली

217

219

220

221

226

231

232

246

247

248

250

252

253

254

258

300

301

302

330

331

368

378

379

380

417

418

420

421

41 00

25 05

24 00

16 00

82 02

19 00

47 00 45

00 03

95 00 00

58 00

40 00

48 00

82 00

04 00

31 00

85 00

41 00

26 36

27 39

66 00

00 24

57 00 16

09 00 02

16 04

30 29

10 00

40 00

19 00

72 00 29

08 00

16 29

47 31

00 09

71 00

10 41

35 00

73 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

423

3 ) सिसली (निरंतर)

425

428

429

434

1000

1001

268

4) कल्ला

271

273

274

278

279

280

283

284

369

370

371

372

373

379

गट नंबर 379 में नान्ना

380

383

384

385

389

390

393

गट नंवर 393 में नदी

5 ) दोड्डनापुडी

122

123

124

125

126

138

140

141

145

146

5677 3

03 00

20 00

08 00

74 00

68 00

63 03

23 55

15 36

61 00

92 01

40 00

01 29

57 00

21 00

03 02

38 00

67 05

98 03

39 04

31 00

62 00

12 00

38 00

15 00

57 00

22 00

20 00

03 00

41 00

31 00

20 00

08 00

19 13

74 04

05 05

60 04

63 32

00 5678

[Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

148

5) दोड्डनापुडी (निरंतर)

156

157

158

160

162

163

164

172

68 00

92 16

69 00

99 16

01 26

33 00 00

81 00

58 00

88 00

77 00

गट नंबर 172 में नदी

177

179

180

186

188

191

192

196

197

202

203

204

206

207

212

213

214

228

230

231

232

233

342

6) कल्लाकुरू

346

347

353

354

356

365

366

377

378

36 07

95 00 22

56 00

33 00

95 22

58 00 18

31 00

61 00

68 01

26 00

42 12

81 00

65 01

00 00

34 47

60 00

72 00

98 00

81 00

93 00 06

92 00

12 00 45 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

379

6 ) कल्लाकुरू (निरंतर )

282

7) ऐलूरुपाडु

307

309

310

312

313

314

315

316

333

334

335

338

339

345

346

347

361

363

368

372

375

376

379

380

382

383

384

409

410

411

412

426

429

430

539

540

541

545

546

547

3296 GI/10-23

5679 4

88 00

20 00

86 00 19

00 46

95 38

23 00

31 00

36 00

97 57

79 00

26 00 31

00 30

87 30

90 00

74 00 50

79 03

73 00

13 00

49 47

83 90

62 27

73 00

05 00

72 27

00 25

24 00 35

25 01

98 00

19 00 59

61 00

06 00 76

66 00 18

53 00

02 00 08

15 22

87 00

25 00 49

00 25

22 00 680

Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

Part II

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

552

?? ऐलूगुग्गडु (निरंतर )

553

554

जिला:पञ्चिमी गाडावर्ग मंडल/ नेहमित्न/ तालुक उन्ही

125

वन्डम

251

252

256

257

261

262

40 00 42

38 प्रदश

गज्य आन्ध

49 00

21 00 30

89 00

21 00

02 00

गट नंव 262 में नाला

263

06 00

10 00

गट नंबर 263 में नाला

270

271

272

273

57 00

गट नंवर 273 में नाला

274

279

280

283

284

301

302

303

305

307

308

309

310

314

148

चिनापुल्लेरू

154

156

62 00

84 00

49 00

52 00

83 00

10 00

56 00

34 00

00 22

93 00

05 00

85 00

गट नवर 156 में नाला

158

घट नंबर 160 में गम्ना

162

163

164

165

97 00

09 | भाग ।।-- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

5681 1

166

17 2 ) चिनापुल्लेरू (निरंतर)

174

175

176

183

[फा सं. एल.- 14014/54/2009 - जी.पी. ]

स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st August, 2010

S. O. 2195.- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in the public interest that for transportation of natural gas from on - shore gas processing terminad at Kakinada on East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country, Vijayawada - Nellore - Chennai Pipeline should be laid by M / s Relogistics Infrastructure 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 ) , 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 Right of the 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 .

5682

[ Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

Schedule

District: West Godavari Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk: Penugonda

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

1) Vadali

242

244

245

246

250

271

272

275

278

279

280

281

282

3:5

316

317

318

2) Cherukuvada

State:Andhra Pradesh

Area to be acquired for ROU

C-Are Hec

Are

80 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ माद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

2) Cherukuvada ( Contd )

155

156

157

158

Nala in Gat No.1 3) Penugonda

5683 4

State : Andhra Pradesh

District : West Godavari

Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Peravali

1) Pittala vemavaram

In between Survey No.87 & 82

State: Andhra Pradesh

District : West Godavari

Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Iragavaram

1 ) Eletipadu

01 5684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

1) Eletipadu ( Contd)

Nala inGat No.86

267

2) Pekeru

248

266

270

3) Ogidí

122

124

189

4) Inaparru

207

208

[Part 11Sec . 3 (ii) ] 4

Nala in Gat No.208

213

214

215

216

217

219

224

225

226

227

22.8

5) Kakiieru

かり

5.4 [ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii ) )

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4. 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

2 1

5) Kakileru ( Conid)

10+

105

100

116

117

120

121

122

124

6) Kattavapadu

114

115

116

117

121

123

124

125

126

128

136

138

139

140

5685

66 5686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

146

6) Kattavapadu ( Contd )

147

148

Pond in Gat No.148

149

150

District: West Godavari

Mandal/ Tehsil / Taluk : Penumantra

1) Koyyetipadu

304

2) Penumantra

305

307

308

309

310

313

314

315

318

Part II- Sec. 3 ( ii) ] 4

State: Andhra Pradesh

18 20

Nala in Gat No.318

319

358

359

362

363

364

365

366

Nala in Gat No.366

368

369

370

374

377

378

381

382

383

384

02.

Road in Gat No.384

385

674

Road in Gat No.674

676

88 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

2 2) Penumantra ( Conid)

677

678

679

Road in Gat No.679

680

689

690

725

727

728

729

730

731

5687 3

Road in Gat No.731

732

733

734

735

737

738

771

773

774

776

787

788

789

3) Polamuru

3296Gl/10-24

30 5688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

3) Polamuru ( Contd )

100

101

102

103

104

162

163

164

165

190

191

192

200

201

203

204

205

209

212

213

214

217

335 4) Mamuduru

336

338

377

378

379

381

382

Viravellivari Cheruvu in Gat No.382

384

389

390

394

District : West Godavari

Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Veeravasaram

1 ) Andaluru

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

State: Andhra Pradesh

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

2 1) Andaluru ( Contd )

5689 3

River in Gat No.37

..00

District : West Godavari

Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Attili

1) Aravalli

284

285

State : Andhra Pradesh

Nala in Gat no.285

286

287

Road in Gat no.287

288

291

2) Unikili

Water Body in Gat No.32

03 [ Part II- Sec . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

1690

2 1

2) Unikili (Contd)

345

364

168

3) S.kinnarapuram

169

170

171

172

173

Nala in Gat No.173

174

175

Nala in Gat No.175

190

191

192

District: West Godavari

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk : Palakoderu

1) Mogallu

State:Andhra Pradesh

Nala in Gat No.93

109

110

111

112

113

Water Body in Gat No.113

119

135

136

226

00 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010 / भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

230

1 ) Mogallu ( Contd)

231

233

5691 3

Cart Track in Gat No.233

248

250

251

252

285

289

290

291

292

293

296

314

315

318

325

325 / A

325/ B

325 / C

325/ D

327

330

331

333

334

335

306

2) Garagaparru

307

308

309

310

311

312

315

394

วา

River in Gat No.394

395

402

403

00 5692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 / BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

404

2) Garagaparru ( Contd)

405

406

576

581

582

583

584

585

586

3) Gollalakoderu

[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

Nala in Gat No.92

100

101

102

103

174

175

177

180

181

182

188

189

190

192

193

36 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

2 1

197

3) Gollalakoderu ( Contd)

198

210

211

212

213

5693 3

District : West Godavarl

Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk : Bhimavaram

1 ) Annavaram

State: Andhra Pradesh

Pond in Gat No.50

106

107

108

109

110

118

119

120

122

123

District: West Godavari Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk : Kalla

1 ) Peda Amiram

State : Andhra Pradesh

Nala in Gat No.25

Road in Gat No.34

12 5694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

1) Peda Amiram ( Contd)

100

101

186

187

188

189

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

Nala in Gat No. 189

191

192

194 00

Nala in Gat No. 194

195

255

256

258

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

282

283

285

288

563

573

2) Jakkaram

01 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

2) Jakkaram ( Contd )

215

3 ) Seesali

217

219

220

221

226

231

232

246

247

248

250

252

253

254

258

300

301

302

330

331

368

378

379

380

417

418

420

421

3296GI/10-25

5695 4

00 5696

[Part IF-Sec . 3 ( ii) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

423

3) Seesalı( Contd)

425

428

429

434

1000

1001

268

4) Kalla

271

273

274

278

279

280

283

284

369

370

371

372

373

379

Nala in Gat No.379

380

383

384

385

389

390

393

River in Gat No.393

5) Doddanapudi

122

123

124

125

126

138

140

141

145

146

32 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

148

5) Doddanapudi ( Contd )

156

157

158

160

162

163

164

172

5697 3

River in Gat No. 172

177

179

180

186

188

191

192

196

197

202

203

204

206

207

212

213

214

228

230

231

232

233

342

6) Kallakuru

346

347

353

354

356

365

366

377

378

45 5698

[ Part II ---Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

2 1

6 ) Kallakuru ( Contd )

379

282

7) Elurupadu

307

309

310

312

313

314

315

316

333

334

335

338

339

345

346

347

361

363

368

372

375

376

379

380

382

383

384

409

410

411

412

426

429

430

539

540

541

545

546

547

37 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्रा 13 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

552

7) Elurupadu ( Contd)

553

554

5699 : -

State : Andhra Pradesh

District : West Godavari

Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk : Undi

125

1) Vandram

251

252

256

257

261

262

Nala in Gat No.262

263

Nala in Gat No.263

270

271

272

273

Nala inGat No.273

274

279

280

283

284

301

302

303

305

307

308

309

310

314

148

2) Chinapulleru

154

156

Nala in Gat No.156

158

Cart Track in Gat No.160

162

163

164

165

166

174

175

176

183

[ F. No. L -14014/54/2009-GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy .

5700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

श्रम एवं रोज़गार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 9 अगस्त , 2010

का. आ. 2196.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडिया सीमेन्ट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-19012/75/ 2004 - आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 9th August , 2010

S.O. 2196. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 29/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of India Cements Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-8-2010.

[No.1-19012 / 75 / 2004 - IR ( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 23rd July , 2010

Present : A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 29/2005

[ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of India Cements Ltd and their Workman ]

BETWEEN

1st Party /Petitioner Sri K. Muralidharan

The Senior General Manager : 2nd Party/ Respondent M/ s. India Cements I.td. , Sankar Nagar, Tiruneveli

APPEARANCE :

For the Ist Party Petitioner : Sri V. Ajay Khose .

V.Porkodi

For the 2nd Party Management : M / s . T. S. Gopalan & Co.

[PART II 300

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Laos vide its Order No. L - 19012 / 75/ 2004 - IR ( M ) cated 2005 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is .

" Whether the dismissal of Shri K. Muralidnaran by the management of India Cements Ltd. , Sankar Nagar , Tirunelveli is legal and justified ? If nor to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispose this Tribunal has numbered it as 29/2005 and issued nonc うい both sides . Both sides entered appearance throu . Ger respective counsel and petitioner filed Claim So - mont The Respondent also filed Counter Statemera

3. The averments in the Claim Statementtaimend as follows:

wy The petitioner while working as Equipment Operator/ Motor Vehicle Driver unner the Respondent on 16-10-1999 LC Vehicle dishon to Tirunelveli town with Officers to purusta items for Ayutha Puja , the said vehicle colle Sofit a Police Jeep Police beat him up for ne fam whereby he deteriorated in aldi be underwent allopathy treatment follo ayurvedic treatment . He suffered Katee C Gridhari . All this were to the awareness Respondent . He applied for leave from

10-11-1999 and extended te 30-11-1 accepted but the records were tamperes the Respondent supported by Medical Certificous younger daughter also had been afflicted wah a hean problem . On 17-12-1999 , the Respondent issued Charge Memo for his absence withont prior permission . He submitted explanation stamg the facts . His wife sent to explain away the sanat was not allowed access to the concerned Sibusis , No salary or subsistence allowance was pada kana compelling him to borrow money to contince treatment , thus , rendering him highly indebted Afier accepting the explanation the charges had been abandoned . Thereafter, for reasons not known the petitioner was being asked to appear for enquus ON per letter dated 6-3-2000 . Since the petition wes undergoing treatment on request the enqu adjourned to 5-4-2000 and 8-7-2000 . Thereals Respondent was proceeding ex parte

against the principles of natural justice . The of enquiry report was not given to him with a waif for objections . While so , his younger daughter a with cardiac disease also started treatme . The petitioner had to leave for Kerala for Aver dis Treatment from the quarters allotted to ham al Tirunelveli . After Second Show Cause Notice dated [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

28-8-2000 to which First Party sent a reply on 5-9-2000 , he was being dismissed on 23-1-2001 . Appeal was rejected on 29-5-2001 with a further direction to vacate the quarters by communication dated 28-5-2001 to avoid forcible eviction , which was actually executed by breaking open the quarters and also taking over possession of household articles worth above Rs . 5.00 lakhs . On raising an ID the reference is occasioned . The order of the Respondent is arbitrary, illegal , improper and erroneous apparent on the face of the record which is vitiated on the ground that the enquiry proceedings were conducted against principles of natural justice . The valid reasons on which leave was availed were not considered . The act of the Respondent amounts to unfair labour practice . Expense of CT scan taken was reimbursed by the Respondent to the petitioner. There was no suspension of the petitioner pending enquiry or payment of salary till dismissal from 17-12-1999 to 23-12-2001 . It was mandatory to pay the monthly salary or subsistence allowance which is contravened . The action of the Resporident is a pre- determined one . The dismissal also is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct . He is not presently employed. Hence the claim .

4. In the Counter Statement the Respondent avers as follows , stated briefly:

The petitioner applied for leave from 1-11-1999 to 10-11-1999 on personal grounds which was sought to be extended from 11-11-1999 to 30-11-1999 for the same reason and for his stay in Kerala which extension was not granted . On 17-12-1999 , he was charge sheeted for absence without leave from 11-11-1999 . No explanation was given . By notice dated 6-3-2000 , he was asked to appear for enquiry on 22-3-2000 . By a letter dated 17-3-2000 , he asked for postponement of the enquiry. On the adjourned date of 15-4-2000 , he did not appear and it was again adjourned to 8-7-2000 . While so , he was transferred from NRLM to TLM on 22-6-2000 . His request for further adjournment on 5-7-2000 was rejected and enquiry was proceeded with in his absence examining four witnesses culminating in a report on 26-7-2000 holding the charges proved . By a Second Show Cause Notice dated 28-8-2000 with copy of enquiry proceedings and report proposing punishment of dismissal was issued . He gave a reply on 5-9-2000 . On 23-1-2001 dismissal order was passed which is fully justified and valid . The enquiry held was conforming to principles of natural justice . If found otherwise on technical reason , the Respondent wants to adduce further evidence . The last drawn wage of the petitioner was Rs . 5,639 45. Police suspecting the petitioner to have been drunk while driving the vehicle during the accident beat him . He attended

5701

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

the duty on 17 and 20th October , 1999 and also between 25-10-1999 and 30-10-1999 . It is denied that he was taking treatment for any injuries due to Police beating . He did not appear for medical examination before the Company Medical Officer . The petitioner was avoiding the enquiry . ID raised in April , 2004 is with delay, latches and inaction . The enquiry was fair and proper , the dismissal is also justified. The petitioner was proceeded against only for his absence without leave from 17-11-1999 . It cannot be accepted that the petitioner was ill and needed leave . Since he had no leave at credit he did not earn salary during absence . It is denied that his belongings were of the value of Rs . 5.00 lakhs . No question of payment of salary or subsistence allowance arises since he was un- authorizedly absent . There was no suspension . The punishment is not excessive or disproportionate . The dismissal is only to be upheld.

5.On a challenge against the propriety and fairness of the enquiry the same was heard as a Preliminary Issue and as per order dated 2-2-2010 it was held that the enquiry held is fair and proper .

6. When the matter stood for further proceeding a proposal was mooted for amicable settlement of the dispute also with the involvement and persuasion of the Tribunal for valid settlement . Parties wanted time for settlement and the case was adjourned . While so , the parties filed a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 18 ( 1 ) of the 11 ) Act reporting the settlement interse the parties after discussions on terms such as :

(i) Workman Muralidharan hereby accepts his cessation or employment with effect from 23-1-2001.

(ii) It is agreed between the parties that the cessation ofemployment of Workman Muralidharan as on 23-1-2001 shall be treated as one of the voluntary retirement in terms of Scheme which was put up by the Company in the year 2005 .

( iii) In deference to the representation of Workman Muralidharan , in view of the prolonged litigation, the Company has also agreed to pay ex gratia payment over and above his voluntary retirement benefit and gratuity.

(iv) The parties have agreed that the amount payable to Workman Muralidharan shall be :

Rs. 25,416.00 (a) Gratuity

Rs . 3,90,000.00 (b) Amount payable in terms ofVRS

Rs . 15,000.00 (c) Amount payable towards the Lawyer's fees 5702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13, 1932

Rs.25,000.00 (d) Amount incurred by workman Muralidharan for attending the hearings

(e) Ex-Gratia

Rs. 2,70,000.00

Rs.7,00,000.00 Total from (b) to(e)

Rs . 30,087.00 Sundry Deductions by the Management

Net Payable

Rs. 6,69,913.00 (v) Workman Muralidharan agreed to receive and the Management agrees to make by cheque two payments , one cheque for gratuity for Rs . 25,416 and another cheque Rs . 6,69,913 towards his other dues .

(vi) It is also agreed that at the request of the Workman Muralidharan , the Company agreed to deduct and issue a cheque for Rs . 15,000 in favour ofMr. V. Ajoy Khose towards his counsel fees and

(vii) Other sundry terms as enumerated in the memo ofsettlement

7. In approval of the settlement both sides have subscribed their signatures duly attested by witnesses . The settlement is recorded and an award is passed in terms ofthe settlement which will form part of the award .

8. The reference is accordingly closed.

(Dictated to the P. A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe23rd July, 2010) .

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 9 अगस्त , 2010

का. आ. 2197. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11011/77/2004- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th August , 2010

S.O. 2197. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 49/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour

(PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )| Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airports Authority of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-8-2010 .

[No. L - 11011 /77 /2004- IR ( M ) | KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated , the 24th day of June , 2010

Industrial Dispute No. 49/2005

BETWEEN:

The Joint General Secretary,

IndianAirports Kamgar Union , C/ o AAI , NAD , Begumpet ,

.....Petitioner Hyderabad

AND

TheDirector,

AirportsAuthority of India,

Begumpet,

Hyderabad- 500016

.....Respondent APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner

: M/ s. Ch . Indrasena Reddy & D. Vilas , Advocates

For the Respondent M/ s . M. Vijay Kumar, I. Sambasiva Rao &

D. Sreekanth , Advocates

AWARD

This claim petition has been registered on the basis of references received from the Government of India . Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L - 11011 / 77 /2004 - IR (M) dated 7-7-2005 under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the 1.D. Act . 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Airports Authority of India and their workmen . The terms of reference is:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Airports Authority of India, Hyderabad in not implementing the recommendations of the Expert Committee with regard to up- gradation of Fire Cadre is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

Onthe receipt of this reference notices were issued to the parties calling upon the parties to file their respective claims .

2. The workmen party has filed claim statement through Indian Airport Kamgar Union's Joint General [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

Secretary who has stated that Petitioner moved the conciliation officer against the Respondent to implement 'the recommendations of Expert Committee-Justice Sri J. D. JainCommittee's report dated 31-3-1997 regarding the upgradation of fire cadre revised pay scales and also to advise the Respondent to pay arrears w.e.f. 1-4-1995 as the said Expert Committee recommendations to the workmen of the fire cadre . The Respondent appeared before the conciliation officer but refused to implement the said recommendations therefore , the conciliation officer was constrained to submit his failure report to the Government of India who has referred this dispute to this tribunal .

3. It has been alleged that Indian Airport Kamgar Union is a registered trade union under the Trade Union Act, 1926 bearing registration No. 3950 with the Registrar of Trade Unions representing permanent/ regular, work charge, dailywage and contract labour employed in different establishments including Airports Authority of India all over the country. The Petitioner's union was registered on 27-2-1990 with Registrar of Trade Union vide their letter No. F. 10(3950)/RTU/ 65 , dated 30-4-2002 and Sri G. A. Rudrappa has been authorized by the resolution to file claim statement. It has further been submitted that Airports Authority of India is an industry and industrial fire service is included in the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , a public utility service . It has further been submitted that in the year 1969 Air Navigation Commission of International Civil Aviation Organisation established the rescue and the fire fighting panel . The objectives of the panel were to evaluate recent research and experimental work and to develop a more logical system for assessing the requirements for airport rescue and fire fighting services taking into account the characteristics of new Aircrafts . It has further been submitted that in accordance with the provisions of Annex 14 of ICAO states are required to provide rescue and fire fighting equipment and services at airport to save lives in the event of aircraft accident or incident . The Airports Authority of India has its own fleet ofAirport Fire Service vehicles and manpower having a fleet of crash fire tenders and fire personnel are trained at its own training centre at New Delhi and Kolkata. Prior to 1993 Airport Fire Service personnel of non- executive categorized in the following cadres :

( 1) Fire Operator

: Rs . 260-400 ( 3rd CPC) Rs. 950-1500 (4th CPC) (2) Driver (Fire)

: Rs. 320-400 ( 3rd CPC) Rs .950-1500 (4th CPC) (3) M.T. Driver (First Aid) : Rs . 260-400 ( 3rd CPC) Rs.950-1500 (4th CPC) (4) Fire Foreman (Driver) : Rs . 1200-2040 (4th CPC)

:Rs. 1200-2040 (4th CPC) (5) Fire Foreman

3296GI/10-26

5703

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

(6) Senior Fire Foreman : Rs . 1400-2300 (4th CPC) & aftercompletion of 2 years of service placement given Rs . 1640-2900 (4th CPC) 4. ( 1 ) Fire operators were placed in pay scale of Rs . 260-400 (3rd CPC) Rs . 950-1500 (4th CPC) the minimum qualification was matriculation /SSLC or its equivalent with physical standard. (2 ) Driver Fire pay scale of Rs . 320-400 by 3rd CPC New Delhi Rs . 1200-1800 by 4th CPC . They were recruited directly or by the departmental candidates , but, possess the educational qualifications primary standard , with current driving license for heavy vehicles should be able to diagnose and rectify starting trouble in petrol ignition system . (3 ) M.T. Driver ( First Aid) pay scale ofRs . 260-350 (3rd CPC) will be Rs . 950-1400 (4th CPC ) direct recruitment , educational qualification -passed primary standard with HMV. ( 4) Fire Foreman (Driver ) pay scale Rs . 1200-2040 (4th CPC) promoted from fire operators . (5) Fire Foreman pay scale Rs. 1200-2040 (4th CPC ) promotional post to fire operators on seniority cum fitness basis .( 6) Senior Fire Foreman pay scale Rs . 1400-2300 (4th CPC) and after 2 years 1640-2900 (4th CPC ) through departmental promotions from the fire foreman.

5. It has further been submitted that due to the technological advancement in the aviation sector, the National Airport Authority has constituted the empowered committee to study in depth cadre review of all disciplines in National Airport Authority in the year 1992 who has recommended for the fire cadre , cadre review. It has further stated that Respondent Management supplied copy of letter No. 60011/32/91 - IRdated 28-9-1992 ofthe recommendations ofthe empowered committee . The committee observed that a large number of fire safety personnel at the operational levels are without adequate educational qualifications , as a result of which their growth upward has been restricted. The committee recommended the changes in the fire cadre. Merger of posts of fire cadre namely fire operator , Driver (Fire), M.T. Driver ( First Aid) and Fire Foreman ( Driver ) to create new post called Fire and Rescue Operator with enhancement of the educational qualification to intermediate/10 + 2 preferably in science stream and having driving license . Above posts were recommended to be abolished and new post designated as Fire and Rescue Operator with pay scale 950-1500 was recommended , thus all the four posts were abolished hence forth . For recruitment of the Fire and Rescue Operator required qualification were prescribed as 10 + 2 passed with science stream having current driving license of heavy vehicles . It was desired that ITI/ sub - officer course/ experience in any fire service be preferred . It has further been submitted that in the year 1993 another committee constituting under the Chairman ship of Sri P. Rajendran the then Director of Equipment was appointed and said committee made various recommendations with regard to fire cadre . But the demand ofunion to grant higher pay scale to newly created fire and 5704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

rescue operator and merger of fire foreman and Senior Fire Foreman post to create Junior Fire Operator has been negated . It has further been submitted that inspite of all possible efforts made by the union with Airports Authority of India management for an amicable settlement of the issue did not find any favourable solution . Management implemented recommendations with regard to rise of educational qualifications and heavy vehicle license made essential for the post of fire and rescue operator . Accordingly all round responsibility of Fire Staff increased in manifold due to technological advancement and developmental and expansion work of Indian airports . The demand ofunion to grant higher scale to the fire cadre was not considered . Since the union continued demand for upgradation of the fire cadre , after the introduction of the post of fire and rescue operator by merging fire operator postwith higher post the union by revised demand that management has created the post of fire and rescue operator and has raised educational qualification as such , higher scale be granted to fire and rescue operator . ED ( P & A ) intimate that this is a new post and the management has right to fix the duties and responsibilities to the post keeping in view the pay scale being given by them . It is submitted that the management by a written communication letter No. A- 60011 / 7/ 96 - IR dated 23-9-96 addressed to the General Secretary informing that the upgradation of any particular cadre in isolation is undesirable as it has wide ranging repercussions in other cadres . Further , the matter can be represented to the expert committee for the consideration . Therefore , the management regretted to do any upgradation in isolation . However , three options were given to the union namely , to approach the expert committee which is set up to look into the scales of pay of Airports Authority of India personally under AAI Act . Secondly, the matter can be referred to an independent external committee for study of similar cadre in both the divisions and lastly, the matter could be referred to the National Tribunal .

6. Ithas further been stated that in the meanwhile the Respondent management addressed letter No. A - 60011 / 12/95 - PP dated 25-7-95 with an enclosure letter No. A- 60011 / 63/95 - PP dated 25-7-1995 to the General Secretary, NAA Kamgar Union as intimation of the appointment of Expert Committee with advice to the unions to refrain from projecting any demand or proposal of strike to the management at this stage .

7. It has further been submitted that subsequently the Petitioner's union received letter reference No. AAI / EC/001 / 95-10 dated 26 /28-6-95 and Reference No. AAI/ EC/ 002 / 95-51 dated 1-8-95 from the office of the Expert Committee advising the Petitioner's union to submit their views and suggestions . Accordingly, the Petitioner union submitted its views and suggestions to the expert committee for re - construction , modification in respect of Fire, MT, Canteen and Group D staff on 22-8-95 . After going

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii ) ] through various aspects and after proper feed back the expert committee has recommended for upgradation ofAAI Fire Cadre as follows :

" Further set up of the fire services : having regard to this fact as well as the career prospects of the officers working in this cadre , the experts committee recommends that fire service cadre should be re- organised as follows :-

(1) There should be a post of General Manager atthe corporate level titled ' General Manager (Fire) ' , the scale of pay attached to this post would be Rs . 9500-400-11500 .

(II) The fire services network at five International Airports will be headed by an Executive of the level of the Deputy General Manager . The post will carry scale of pay Rs . 7500-275- 8100-300-9900 .

(III) At other major Airports like Hyderabad , Bangalore , Ahmedabad , Baroda etc. , the fire service network should be headed by an executive of the level of Senior Manager (Fire) . The scale of pay attached to the post would be Rs . 6500-250-7500-275-9425 .

(IV) The other ranks in the fire service network would be :

Rs . 2950-5070 (a) Rescue & Fire Operator

Rs . 3300-5820 (b) Fire Foreman

Rs . 3450-6100 (c) Jr. Fire Officer

Rs . 4600-7975 (d) Asstt . Fire Officer

Rs . 5000-8400 (e) FireOfficer

with allowances and in the form of risk allowances . The unions were of unanimous view that the recommendations of the Justice Jain Committee be implemented. The management informed that a core management group has been set up to look into the report of the Justice Jain Committee . A sub- committee was also informed to give effect to the Justice Jain Committee report . It has also been informed that 70-80 % recommendations of the Justice Jain Committee are of such nature where there is hardly any difference of opinion . It was informed that efforts are in hand to implement the Justice Jain Committee recommendations . The union submitted a representation dated 2-7-97 to implement undisputed recommendations of the Justice Jain Committee report . It is submitted that with regard to the recommendations for upgradation of the fire cadre was not implemented as was agreed.

8. It has further been stated that Airports Authority of India management's settlement under Sec . 13 ( 3 ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 with non - recognised union i.e. , AAI Kamgar union on two different occasions on 6-6-2000 and 19-3-2001 before Assistant Labour [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Commissioner ( C) , Hyderabad . Further , amicable settlement for upgradation of the fire service cadre could not take place . Union approached the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) Hyderabad but there also conciliation failed and report was sent to the Ministry. It has further been submitted non -executive in the fire cadre has following posts revised pay scales :

Pay Scale (Rs . ) Designation

5500-140-7180-160-10060 (1 ) Junior Assistant ( Fire )

5800-160-7720-180-10960 (2) Assistant ( Fire)

(3) Senior Assistant (Fire) 6300-180-8460-200-12060

7200-230-9960-250-14460 (4) Superintendent ( Fire)

8000-260-11120-290-16340 (5) Senior Superintendent (FS)

The duties performed by Junior Assistant ( Fire ) , Assistant (Fire) and Senior Assistant ( Fire ) are same . It is submitted thatby not implementing the recommendations of Expert Committee Report i.e. , Justice J. D. Jain Committee , the AAI management is paying less wage to the fire cadre employees than what was recommended by the Expert Committee . The Petitioner union has prayed that the management be directed to implement recommendations of the Expert Committee dated 30-3-97 with regard to upgradation of fire cadre and also direct the management to pay arrears with effect from 1-4-95 as per expert committee recommendations .

9. The Respondent management has filed counter statement stating therein that Petitioner's union is not a recognized union it is a registered union under Trade Unions Act. The union of the Petitioner is not enjoying the status of recognized union after the referendum held in Airports Authority of India on 22/ 23-10-1997 as such , it has no locus standi to bargain with the management for cause of any workmen , only recognized union can take up the cause of or grievances of the workmen . The workmen for all their grievances has to approach the recognized union for any negotiations , bargaining what so ever and the internal procedure laid down for the settlement of the dispute should be followed. The Jain Committee report is only a recommendation and the implementation of the same is at the discretion of the Airports Authority of India management . The management looks into the pros and cons of implementation and decides whether to implement or not after due discussion with recognized union and not with any registered union . It is further submitted that the para 11 of claim petition containing extracts of old rules and policies pertaining to Airport Fire service prior to 1993 . The Respondent reserved its right to submit during the hearing of the matter .

10. As regards para 16 of the claim settlement it was alleged that after the referendum held in Airports Authority of India on 22/ 23-10-1997 the Petitioner union is not

5705

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

enjoying the status of recognized union and policy issues are not discussed with unrecognized union .

11. It has further been stated that the matter relating to the wage revision has taken place 10 years back during 1996 for the period from 1-1-1992 to 31-12-1996 . The scales of the employees of Airports Authority of India has also been revised with effect from 1-1-1997 for a period of 10 years , i.e. , upto 31-12-2006 . Therefore , the issue raised by the union has no relevance . The next pay revision is due only on 1-1-2007 .

12. It has further been stated that after formation of AirportsAuthority of India w.e.f. 1-4-1995 , the management constituted committee headed by Justice Sri Jain . The said committee was to examine various issues relating to merger of the two organisations i.e. , erstwhile IAAI and NAA ! and to give its recommendations . The Jain Committee report was filed on 31-12-1997 . The recommendations of the Jain Committee report is only recommendatory and implementation of same is only within the discretion of the Airports Authority of India management . It was up to the management to examine the recommendations and to decide whether to implement them or not after due discussion with the recognized unions . It has further been stated that Airport Authority of India has no comments to offer against the statement made in para 26 , 27 and 28 of the claim statement except that in the stated meeting it was decided that management shall not take any merger policy decision which will favour or disfavour any un'on till the impending referendum is held . The referendum was held on 22/23-10-1997 and Airports Authority Employees Union emerged as majority union and was recognized for another 5 years by Airports Authority of India and all the policy issues are being discussed with the representatives of the recognized unions from time to time and orders are being issued accordingly. As regards the contention raised in para 29 of the claim statement it was stated that issues which were minor and genuine in nature and predetermined , the management has settled them . But it does not mean that even unrecognized union entertained to settle any issues which call for a policy decision . After referendum on 22/ 23 / 10-1997 the matter of wage revision was discussed with the recognized union resulting in a memorandum of understanding coined regarding wage revision for various cadres being coined between the management and union on 21-6-2001 ( copy is enclosed) . The said memorandum of understanding is passed on wage revision of Airports Authority employees for period from 1-1-1997 to 31-12-2006 .

13. As regards para 32 of the petition it has been stated by the management , that duties performed by Junior Assistant ( Fire ) , Assistant ( Fire ) and Senior Assistant ( Fire) are not the same . The management has . not shown any discrimination as alleged by the Petitioner . These posts are promotional posts which were introduced to avoid stagnation and de- motivation . Accordingly , the promotions 5706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

will be granted as per seniority- cum- merit and requisite qualification basis . No one can get the promotions without successfully completing the Advance Refresher Course , which is a condition precedent for promotion in the relevant cadre . It has further been contended that recommendations of Justice Jain Committee has got only recommendatory value and the implementation of the same is purely at the discretion of the Airports Authority of India management. And it is the management which has to decide as to which recommendations has to be implemented . However, the management entered into a memorandum of understanding for wage revision for a period 1-1-1997 to 31-12-2006 . The discrepancies alleged by the Petitioner union are squarely covered by the policy decision enumerated in the memorandum of understanding . The pay anomaly was discussed with the recognized union and was also the memorandum of understanding was entered into on 21-6-2001 . The Petitioner's union is unrecognized union , has no locus standi to raise the grievances of the workmen , petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.

14. The workmen representative has filed documentary evidence Exs. W- 1 to W- 30 and affidavit of Mr. G. A. Rudrappa , alleged to be Joint General Secretary of the Petitioner union .

15. Respondent has not filed any document though it has relied on memorandum of understanding dated 21-6-2001 . The Petitioner union has not filed any other evidence or affidavit of any of its representatives .

16. On the date of argument Learned Counsel for the Respondent did not appear whereas Petitioner's counsel has appeared and has argued that the entire material in support of the claim of the Petitioner union has been filed which will prove that the fire and subordinate services , non - executive category has been abolished and new cadre of fire rescue operators has been created with enhanced qualification by the empowered committee thereby entire employees or personnel of Airports fire service category has become entitled for the upgraded pay scale and the entire staff existing on the date of constitution of the Jain Committee iscovered by recommendations of Justice Jain Committee report for upgradation of the pay to which the management has not agreed and it has not given the upgraded pay scale to the non - executive category of fire service personnel .

17. I have considered the above argument of the learned counsel for the workmen union and have gone through the entire material available on the record . The first contention of respondent in this case was that the union represented by Mr. G. A. Rudrappa is not recognized trade union of the Airports Authority of India management , hence the petitioner alleged to be Joint General Secretary of said union has no locus standi and authority to present this petition or raise grievances of the workmen of Airports Authority of India's fire services employees . To this objection of the Respondent petitioner has filed copy of

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] the order of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad in WPMP No. 25543/2006 in WP No. 20210/2006 in which Hon'ble High Court has passed an interim order dated 27-9-2006 that if any dispute is raised by the petitioner union the same shall be considered without any reference to the findings made in the impugned order . Thus , in light ofthe Hon'ble High Court order dated 27-9-2006 , the petition filed by Airports Kamgar Union is tenable and maintainable and objection of the Respondent regarding non- maintainability of this petition stands rejected .

18. This Tribunal has to consider wether the action of the management of Airports Authority of India , Hyderabad in not implementing the recommendation of the Expert committee with regard to upgradation of fire cadre is legal and justified . If not what relief the workman is entitled to?

19. Point No. 1 : The main demand of the petitioner union is that of upgradation of fire cadre of Hyderabad in the light of recommendation of Expert Committee i.e. , Justice J. D. Jain Committee report dated 31-3-1997, it is undisputed fact that before the recommendation of Justice J. D. Jain Committee there were six categories of Airports Fire Service personnel non - executive cadre with following designation and pay scales :

( 1) Fire Operator

: Rs . 260-400 ( 3rd CPC ) Rs. 950-1500 (4th CPC) (2) Driver ( Fire)

: Rs . 320-400 ( 3rd CPC) Rs . 950-1500 ( 4th CPC) (3) M.T. Driver ( First Aid) : Rs . 260-400 ( 3rd CPC ) Rs . 950-1500 (4th CPC) (4) Fire Foreman ( Driver ) : Rs . 1200-2040 ( 4th CPC ) (5) Fire Foreman

: Rs . 1200-2040 ( 4th CPC ) (6) Senior Fire Foreman : Rs . 1400-2300 ( 4th CPC ) &after completion of 2 years of service placement given Rs . 1640-2900 ( 4th CPC) 20. The petitioner's union Joint General Secretary has affirmed on oath that the Empowered Committee introduced changes within the fire cadre . It recommended merger of post of Fire Operator , Driver ( Fire ) , M.T. Driver ( FirstAid ) , Fire Foreman ( Driver) , Fire Foreman and Senior Fire Foreman to create new post of Fire and Rescue Operator with an enchancement of educational qualification to intermediate/ 10 + 2 preferably science stream having driving license . Thus ,from the own affidavit of the Joint General Secretary of the Airports Authority Kamgar Union , it is evident that while recommending the merger of the five posts of fire services non - executive cadre post for creation of new posts called Fire and Rescue Operator , the Expert Committee has recommended for enhancement of the educational qualifications preferably with Intermediate 10 + 2 preferably in science stream and additional qualification of having driving license of heavy vehicles . Thus , it is [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

5707 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

is no settlement that the Justice Jain Committee Report will be accepted without any condition by the management . The only thing which was settled between the Petitioner union and management of the Respondent was that the demand regarding service condition has been referred to the Jain Committee for expert report . There is not a single iota material placed by the workmen that the management ever agreed that the Jain Committee recommendation will be adopted in toto.

21. Moreover , the Jain Committee itself has recommended a higher scale of pay to the newly constituted cadre of Fire and Rescue Service Operator with higher educational qualification and upgradation of the post. Thus , there is nothing on this record to show that the personnel of Airports Authority Fire Services were entitled for the upgradation or each and every member of fire service cadre who were having a lesser educational and technical qualification were entitled for the upgradation thus from the own documents and oral evidence of the Petitioner this Tribunal is convinced that there was no agreement between the Petitioner Kamgar Union and the Respondent management that Respondent will be bound to accept the entire recommendations of the Justice Mr. Jain Committee . The Petitioner has not filed the extract of Justice Jain Committee'srecommendations showing as to how existing cadre will be upgraded . The Jain Committee's recommendation is for upgradation of newly constituted cadre of Fire Service and Rescue Operator with enhanced qualification . The upgradation has been made for future recruitment. Moreover, looking into the earlier qualification and technical knowledge of fire personnel if the managment has not been opted to or agreed to upgrade the personnel of fire service of Airports Authority of India as per recommendations of Jain Committee no illegality has been committed . The entire report has not been filed by either of the parties , this Tribunal is of a definite opinion that the choice was with the management to accept or not to accept the recommendation of Jain Committee , which was only obligatory, but not mandatory, and the management has every right to pick and choose those recommendations which it could follow and the management has every right not to follow those recommendations which does not suit to their organisation .

22. In the present case , not a single workman has been produced by the union but for its Joint General Secretary who has not been able to prove or place any such material which may show that the entire non - executive cadre was allowed to be upgraded , without any condition byExpert Committee but the own contention and evidence of the Petitioner union shows that the upgradation was recommended by the Expert Committee introducing higher educational qualification and technical qualification . This Tribunal is of the opinion that there was no settlement between the Petitioner and the Respondent management for upgradation of the entire existing personnel of the fire evident that the newly designated posts of Fire and Rescue Operator which was to be upgraded should be manned with such personnel who had passed Intermediate / 10 + 2 examination preferably in science stream with heavy vehicle driving license . Prior to the recommendation the post of Operator the educational qualification was only matriculation , for driver post it was only 5th standard with driving license , for M.T. Drivers ( Fire ) educational qualification was primary standard pass with heavy motor vehicle driving license and the post of Fire Foreman was a promotional post of Fire Operator . It means that prior to recommendations of the upgradation , the educational qualification of a Fire Operator , Fire Driver or M.T. Driver was not that which was being recommended by Expert Committee of Justice J. D. Jain as such , the management has not committed any illegality or irregularity in non- gradation of existing cadre of the fire service personnel , because , prior to recommendation employees were having less qualification . The Petitioner union's contention is that entire cadre was upgraded and merged into one post . The Petitioner union witness Mr. G. A. Rudrappa during course of his cross - examination at page 4 has stated that after merger of International Airport Division and National Airport Division only common rules and pay scales are framed and seniority is under process and he has not filed the said rules . He has accepted that he has not filed any record to show that the workmen of this dispute had approached his union to take their case . He has simply added that they have discussed that Union is authorized to the present cause of the workmen , because , Respondent has recognized their union prior to 1997 for implementation ofthe expert report . But he has not filed any such material before this Tribunal showing that the management of Airports Authority of India has agreed in writing with the Petitioner's union that it will implement the Experts Committee report in toto . The witness has admitted at page 5 of his cross - examination that the Respondent management has implemented some of the recommendations made by the Jain Committee but not the present cause under reference . He has admitted that a memorandum of settlement was entered into as per Ex . W-20 between Petitioner union and management on 19-2-97 . I have gone through Ex . W - 20 it is a formal notice of an indefinite strike by Airports Authority Kamgar Union which is dated 24-1-1997 and at page 116 of this paper there is memorandum of settlement between management and AirportsAuthority of India , National Airport Division and its workmen by Airports Authority Kamgar Union arrived atin course of conciliation proceeding before Joint Central Labour Commissioner under Sec . 12(3 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 on 19-2-1997. In which the alleged demand Nos . 1 , 2, 3 , 6 , 9 , 17 , 18 , 20, 22 , 24 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 39 and 40,42-50 were relating to the service conditions already referred to Jain Committee for finalization and it has further been mentioned that Justice Jain Committee to be likely submit its recommendations by 31-3-1997 . However , there 5708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

services to the cadre of Fire and Rescue Operator post with higher pay scale , the Respondent management has not committed any illegality or irregularity in not granting the upgradation of fire cadre and the action of management in not implementing the recommendation of the Expert Committee is fully legal and justified.

23. The Petitioner of present petition has claimed that AAI , Hyderabad has not upgraded Fire Cadre services , but no material has been placed on the record to show that other Divisions ofAAI management has upgraded the post or not . The recommendation of Mr. Justice Jain Committee is not related to only Hyderabad Division of AAI but the alleged recommendation of the Justice Jain Committee report is applicable to entire Divisions of AAI of India . What action has been taken by other Divisions has not been stated by the Petitioner . As such, the action of Airports Authority of India , Hyderabad cannot be said to be illegal . Had the other Divisions accepted the recommendations , then only non - implementation by Hyderabad Division could be said to be illegal and unjustified.

24. From the above discussions this Tribunal is of the opinion that the action of Management of Airports Authority of India, Hyderabad in not implementing the recommendations of Expert Committee with regard to upgradation of Fire Cadre is legal and justified . The question is answered accordingly.

25. The question as to what relief Petitioner is entitled , that the Petitioner has not been able to prove illegality or unjustifiability in the action of Management of Hyderabad Division of AAI , as such Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. This question is answered accordingly. Hence , this award.

Accordingly, an Award is passed. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by me on this the 24th day of June , 2010 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

the Petitioner

Witnessses examined for Witnesses examined for the Respondent

WW1 : Sri G. A. Rudrappa MW1 : NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. W1:

Copy of letter recognizing the Petitioner union dt . 16-11-92

Ex. W2: Copy of espousal resolution

Ex . W3 : Copy of the provision of Act covered Ex. W4: Copy of ICAO provisions

Ex. W5: Copy of memorandum No. Μ /2-1 ( 6 ) / ΕΑ dt. 4-11-1981

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | Ex . W6: Copy of recruitment order of Driver ( Fire ) dt . 10-11-83 of WW1

Ex . W7: Copy of recruitment order of M.T. Driver (FA) dt . 16-12-78

Ex. W8 : Copy of report of Empowered Committee Ex. W9: Copy of Recruitment order No. NAA /M /2- 1 (6) /EA dt . 29-10-92

Ex . W10: Copy of procedure for selection of fire personnel

Ex . W11 : Copy of report of Rajendran Committee Ex. W12 : Copy of minutes of meetingdt . 8-6-95 Ex. W13 : Copy ofArticle from Aviation Fire Safety News

Ex. W14: Copy of Ir. No. A. 60011 / 7 / 96 - IRdt . 23-9-96 Ex. W15 : Copy of minutes of meetingdt . 25-9-96 Ex . W16: Copy of lr . No. A. 60011 / 12/93 - PPdt . 23-7-93 Ex. W17 : Copy of letter from Expert Committeedt . 26/28-6-95

Ex. W18 : Copy of submissions of AAl employees by NAAKU to Expert Committeedt . 22-8-95 Ex. W19 : Copy of Expert Committee report Ex. W20 : Copy of strike notice on charter of demands dt. 24-1-97

Ex . W21 : Copy of letter of clarification for MOS dt. 3-4-97

Ex . W22: Copy of letterdt . 27-6-97 to Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) , Hyderabad

Copy of conciliation proceedings Ex . W23 :

Ex . W24 : Copy of minutes of meeting with all unions dt. 30-6-97

Ex. W25 : Copy of letter requesting for implementation ofE.C. Report

Ex. W26: Copy of MOS u/ s 12 ( 3 ) before ALC ( C ) . Hyderabad

Ex . W27 : Copy of reference with conciliation proceedings

Ex . W28 : Copy of letter No. A - 60011 / 8/ 2005 - EW dt. 2-8-2005

Ex . W29 : Copy of office order No. A- 60011/40/2001- IRdt . 13-8-2001

Ex. W30: Copy of calculation sheet of wage difference Documents marked for the Respondent NIL [ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 9 अगस्त , 2010

का. आ. 2198.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भिलाई स्टील प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 117/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-26012/9/2004- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th August , 2010

S.O. 2198. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 117 / 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9-8-2010 .

[No. L- 26012/ 9 /2004 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRIA . N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT /NGP / 117 /04

Shri Rajaram S / o . Asaram Sahu , In front of Sunil Photo Studio , Ahiwara Bus Stand , Post Ahiwara , Distt. Durg ( Chhatisgarh)

Petitioner/ PartyNo. 1

Versus

The General Manager , Bhilai Steel Plant, At Post Bhilai , District Durg , Chhatisgarh

Respondent/ Party No. 2

AWARD (Dated: 21st July, 2010 )

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri Rajaram S / o . Asaram Sahu , Distt . Durg ( Chhatisgarh ) ( Party No. 1 ) and the General Manager , Bhilai Steel Plant , At Post Bhilai , District Durg , Chhatisgarh ( Party No. 2 ) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L - 26012 /9 / 2004- IR ( M) dated 29-10-2004 under clause ( d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following Schedule .

2. " Whether the punishment of removal from services awarded to Shri Raja Ram , Attendant vide Order No. OMQ/

5709

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

NM/ DISC/2000/ 144 dated 20-01-2000 by the Disciplinary Authority/Asstt . General Manager, Nandini Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the applicant Shri Raja Ram is entitled ? "

3. It is the case of dismissal due to the absenteeism . The Petitioner Shri Rajaram S/ o . Asaram Sahu was working as Departmental Piece Rated ( D.P.R. ) Mazdoor from 24-07-1979 in Bhilai Steel Plant and later on he was regularized in the post of Khalashi in S - I grade on 17-05-1982 . He without giving any application for leave and getting it sanctioned is not attending the work . He was given ample opportunity to improve his conduct on 4 occasions by giving warning letters .

4. On revealing of the case it shows that he was habitual absentee . He was imposed punishment by way of reducing his wages at 2 stages with cumulative effect at 4 occasions . Despite of availing the opportunities , there was no improvement on the part of the petitioner and also there was no alternative for the management to impose punishment of removal from service by issuing dismissal Orderdt . 22-1-2000 . The same Order is challenged in this reference .

5. In response of notice on receipt of reference of Government , the petitioner appeared before this Tribunal and filed the statement of claim . The same was repliedby the management . After filing the WS , the petitioner has neither filed affidavit nor rejoinder by giving considerable period of two and half years . Except filing of the statement of claim , he has not filed an affidavit either in respect of validity of enquiry or as final order . He was also given an opportunity for filing of affidavit by conducting camps at Bilaspur , the place which is very nearer to the residence of the petitoner , but he and his counsel never appeared before the Court and prosecute the reference except on one occasion .

6. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in proceeding with the case and there are no reasons to continue to wait for adducing evidence . In such circumstances , it is dismissed for default of the petitioner and I pass this negative Award . Hence , this Award.

Date : 21-07-2010 .

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 9 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2199.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 70/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22013 //1/2010 - आई आर ( सी- II ) | डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी 5710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

New Delhi , the 9th August , 2010

S.O. 2199.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-8-2010.

[No. L- 22013/ 1 /2010 - IR (C - II) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer .

Dated, the 18th June , 2010

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 70/2005

BETWEEN

Sri U. Prasad Rao ,

S/ o . Bhushanam ,

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others for quashment of his dismissal order dated 11-6-1991 w.e.f. 19-6-1991 and reinstate him into service with full back wages and consequential service benefits .

Petitioner

R/ o . 7-1-82 , Babu Camp , Kothagudem - 507101 .

AND

1. General Manager ,

M/ s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Kothagudem Area , Kothagudem , District : Khammam.

2. The Colliery Manager ,

VK 7 Incline ,

District : Khammam .

M / s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Kothagudem , Respondents APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/ s. Satwath Rana and Mohd . Salahuddin , Advocates .

For the Respondent : M/s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy and S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates

AWARD

Sri U. Prasad Rao , ex - employee of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , has filed this petition under Section 2A (2 ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa 2. The Petitioner has alleged in his claim petition that he was taken in the service of the Respondent management as badli filler . He served the management for 15 years but to his utter surprise a charge sheet dated 2-2-1991 was issued to him dropping the earlier charge sheet dated 13 /14-11-1990 on the same facts , as such the second charge sheet was bad in the eye of law. The show cause notice regarding dismissal from service was issued with pre -determined notion with intention to throw the Petitioner from the employment . The charge sheet issued to the Petitioner was not supported with the documents relied upon by the Respondent and the act of Respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice . The charge sheet was issued by the 2nd Respondent on his own accord thus , he himself was a complainant he was not examined during the course of domestic enquiry the documents relied upon by the management were not in conformity with the principles of natural justice and thus the finding arrived at on he basis of such documents is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice . The enquiry was conducted just to fulfill the formality without following the principles of natural justice and it was a result ofunfair labour practice to victimize the workman -Petitioner . The Petitioner was not informed about the mode of enquiry nor finding was served on the Petitioner to explain the position . The petitioner though submitted his representation on 14-4-2000 but was not considered by Respondent management . Petitioner has sated that he was waiting the outcome of his representation and was suffering with lack of funds as such he could not approach this Tribunal earlier , hence , the petition be considered even after the delay with sympathetic consideration as this tribunal is vested with ample powers to condone the delay .

3. Respondent has filed counter statement through which the allegations made in the claim petition were challenged . It has further been alleged that Petition under Section 2A (2 ) is not maintainable because the amendment has been made by the State Government and not by Central Government . It has been further stated that Petitioner is an unauthorised absentee . He remained absent for more than 281 days during the year 1990 , he put in only 39 musters during that period , on many occasions the Petitioner remained absent for more than 10 days without any intimation or without any cause which amounts to misconduct within the company's standing order No. 16 ( 16) and 16(4) . A charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner . The Petitioner did not submit his explanation . Thus , enquiry was ordered to which the Petitioner participated , full and fair opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner , the management produced its witnesses in the presence of the Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer . The management [ भाग II- खंड 3(ii) ]

has also produced documents to prove the absence of the Petitioner from the duty without any sanctioned leave or without any information to the Respondent Management . The Petitioner did not cross examine the management witnesses . He appeared before the Enquiry Officer and deposed before him admitting his guilt of absence though he stated that in previous year his father was keeping unwell and he attended to his father. Petitioner could not prove valid and reasonable case for his absence nor he could prove his innocence regarding remaining absent continuously for more than 10 days at one stretch oftime , thus the charges against the Petitioner were found to be proved. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of State ofU.P. and others V.s Ashok Kumar Singh and another in 1996 ( 1 ) SCC page 302 has held that workman remained absent for a long period amounts to great misconduct and the punishment of removal from service is not disproportionate . The respondent has further alleged that the petitioner not only absented himself during the year 1990 but he has put in less musters in the years 1987 , 1988 , 1989 and even after service of the charge sheet in the year 1991. The petitioner was a habitual absentee . He used to remain absent without any intimation or reasonable cause and thus , the company has no other option but to dismiss the petitioner from the services . Punishment is in conformity with the miscondut committed by the petitioner, there is no force in the claim petition . The petition has been filed after a very long delay of 14 years and no explanation has been givenby the petitioner for approaching this court after 14 years and the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches and delay.

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . The petitioner has filed xerox copy of charge sheet dated 18/ 19-11-1990 and xerox copy of the charge sheet dated 2-2-1991 , copy of dispensary slip dated 23-5-90 , xerox copy of dismissal order dated 8/ 11-6-1991 , xerox copy ofhismercy petition dated 17-5-1994 and xerox copy ofhis application dated 14-4-2000 for re- appointment inthe company.

5. The respondent has filed the disciplinary proceeding book which runs in 25 pages which consists of charge sheet dated 2-2-1991 , receipt of charge sheet given by the charge sheeted employee, notice of enquiry dated 21-2-1991 , registered notice reported unserved along with acknowledgement, the acknowledgement of the charge sheet dated 30-3-1991 issued by the charge sheeted employee , notice dated 30-3-1991 directing the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer and the enquiry proceeding along with the statement of the charge sheeted employee , enquiry report and dismissal order.

6. The petitioner has raised dispute regarding the validity ofthe domestic enquiry through his claim petition since petitioner did not contest his claim regarding legality and validity, this tribunal has held the domestic enquiry as legal and valid and fixed the case for arguments under 3296Gl/10-27

5711

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

sec. 11 (A) . The petitioner did not appear for argument of hiscase under Sec . 11 (A) of industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Petitioner started remaining absent from 15-2-2006 , thereafter he did not appear before this tribunal , thus no option was left but to hear the argument of the respondent who has filed written arguments . The petitioner was given opportunity to file reply of written arguments . But petitioner hasnot taken pains to file written arguments as well . Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents has been considered and I have gone through the claim statement , documentary evidence filed by the petitioner and that of the counter statement and documentary evidence of the respondent and written and oral submissions .

7. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was a careless worker, he was a badli filler nor a permanent employee . He was allowed to work in the absence of a permanent employee . Even then the petitioner did not care to attend to his duties . A charge sheet on 2-2-1991 was issued to him alleging therein that petitioner has put in only 39 musters during the period January, 1990 to August/ September , 1990 and on the dates shown and mentioned in the carge sheet he remained absent for 281 days not only that the petitioner on several occasions during that period having remained absent for continuous more than 10 days , that amount to misconduct within the company's standing orders 16( 16) and 16(4) . The petitioner did not submit any explanation . Thus a domestic enquiry was ordered and conducted in a very fairand proper manner. Petitioner has participated in it which will be evident from the record of the departmenial proceedings submitted before this tribunal by the Respondent . During departmental proceedings also petitioner did not cross examine management witness . He appeared himself before the enquiry officer and stated dated that he was suffering with stomache pain and due to family problems he could not attend to his duty regularly, he be excused and he will not commit further mistake if allowed to attend the duty. Thus , the evidence produced by the management coupled with own admission of the Petitioner prove that the Petitioner was absent for more than 281 day during the charge sheeted period and on many occasions for more than 10 days without sanctioned or proper leave or without any intimation to the Respondent management and without showing any reasonable or sufficient cause to remain absent and thus , the absence of the Petitioner was proved which amounted to grave misconduct for which a show cause notice was given to the Petitioner. Petitioner did not submit any explanation , he was dismissed from service . Thus , the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate . It is appropriate and proper in the case ofpresent Petitioner.

8. The Respondent counsel has further argued that the Petitioner was dismissed from the service in the year 5712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

1991 and he presented this petition in the 2005 after a delay ofmore than 14 years for which no sufficient and plausible explanation has been given by the Petitioner .

9. Learned Counsel for Respondent has relied upon the case law reported in 2006 SCC ( L & S) page 1113 in the matter of UPSRTC Vs. Bahurani arguing that it is the duty ofthe workman to show that the dispute raised is within a reasonable time and he was not responsible for the delay. In the present case the Petitioner has not been able to produce any material to show that he was not reasponsible for the delay or the delay occurred in presenting this petition was due to any reasonable cause . This petition has been presented after 14 years and no reasonable cause has been sown by the Petitioner as such in the light of observation and pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSRTC Vs. Bahurani , the petition deserves to be dismissed .

10. He has further argued that Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , in the matter of Kannam Nageswara Vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited , Vizag . , has held that the Petitioner being a habitual absentee , punishment of reinoval from service is proper punishment and reinstatement of such an employee causes serious inconvenience and hardship to the employer. This case is reported in 2009 (2) Andhra Legal Decisions page 276. On the basis of this case law the Respondent Counsel has argued that the Petitioner of this case is a habitual absentee , he not only absented himself for one occasion but on several occasions during the year 1990 he remained absent for more than 10 days , he put in only 39 musters during the entire year and hence in the light of the case law cited above , the punishment of the Petitioner is proper and he does not deserve to be reinstated into service .

11. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has further relied on the case law reported in 2004(4) Labour Law Notes page 1 in the matter of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh in which Single Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in view of the relevant Standing Orders , unauthorised leave would be treated as misconduct . The conduct of Respondent in remaining absent for long period without sanctioned leave show that he was habitually negligent in duties and exhibited lack of interest in the work and such conduct was nothing but reprehensible in extreme and could hardly be justified . On the basis of this case law he has argued that in the matter of present Petitioner the Petitioner has shown negligence in performance of his duties and remaining absent for several months exhibited his lack of interest in the work . As such his conduct is nothing but reprehensible and cannot be justified and the punishment imposed on him is appropriate .

12. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has further relied upon the case law reported in 2008 ( 1 ) SCC pages 2-4 in the matter of L & T KomatsuLtd. , and N. Udayakumar , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] that habitual absenteeism amounts to gross violation of discipline -where the workman found guilty of unauthorized absenteeism for a long period in a properly conducted departmental enquiry held , his consequential dismissal from service ought not to have been treated to be harsh and interfered with by Labour Court/High Court . Meaning thereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal from service as proper and appropriate punishment . He has further relied upon the case law reported in 2006 ( 5 ) SCC page 737 in the matter of North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ashappa , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 66 remaining absent for a long time , in our opinion , cannot be said to be a minor misconduct . itcannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Respondent herein has to be treated lightly. " The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the dismissal order of the workman on the ground of absenteeism .

13. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has further relied upon the case law reported in 2006 ( 3 ) ΑΙΤ 562 of Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , Hyderabad in the matter between V. V. Mahendranath Vs. Syndicate Bank wherein in the Hon'ble High Court has held that " except stating that in circumstances stated by the workman in the explanation he was unable to attend the office , nothing has been proved . If the ailment is such that he was prevented from discharging his duties , he has to prove the same by examining the witnesses or producing the document onwhich he is relying , including medical certificates . The unauthorized absence without any intimation to the concerned authorities could not only cause dislocation of the work , but also great hardships . It was held that it was not the case where the absence was beyond his control . The health problem faced by the Petitioner are not so serious so as to disable him to intimate his absence well in advance or during the course of absence .

14. I have considered the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent and has gone through the claim petition and averments and allegations made in the claim petition by the Petitioner on the basis of the averments made in the claim petition and arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent , this tribunal has to consider the following points :

(I) Whether the Petitioner/ workman of this case remained absent for more than 10 days in violation ofpara 16(4) of the Standing Orders and thereby committed misconduct .

(II) Whether the Petitioner remained absent for 281 daysduring the entire period of January , 1990 to September , 1990 without any good and reasonable cause and without any intimation or prior leave or prior sanction of leave thereby committed misconduct under para 16( 16) of the Standing Orders.

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

(III) Whether the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence as alleged by the Petitioner.

(IV) Whether the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him .

FINDINGS

15. Points I , II & III : All these three points are inter- related and based on a joint evidence as such , they are beingdisposed off together . Petitioner in his claim petition has stated that earlier a charge sheet was issued to him which was withdrawn and a chargesheet was dated 2-2-1991 was issued to him , this act of the Respondent is illegal . However, the Petitioner has not been able to point out any discrepancy or illegality in dropping the earlier charge sheet and issuance of fresh charge sheet dated 2-2-1991 , the next contention of the Petitioner that no copy was supplied to him along with the charge sheet . The record relating to domestic enquiry show that the charges of the absence were levelled against the Petitioner and in the charge sheet itself it was made known to the Petitioner that he remained absent on said dates of the month and total number of days he remained absent in a particular month . He has not been able to prove any prejudice either before the Enquiry Officer or before this tribunal that non supply of attendance register was prejudicial to his case because , the Petitioner himself has stated before the Enquiry Officer that he remained absent on the dates mentioned and proved by management witness Mr. Subhan Ali , Special Grade Clerk and Mr. T. Bazar , clerk, VK 7 incline . He has not cross examined those witnesses not only that the petitioner himself has appeared before the Enquiry Officer and has admitted through his statement that he remained absent on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet and thus , committed misconduct . Thus , there is no force in the contention of the Petitioner that documents were not issued to him or any prejudice has been caused to him , because the doctrine of the prejudice has gone sea changes and a person who claims the violation of the principles of natural justice or prejudice causes to him due to such violation has to prove as to what prejudice actually has been caused to him . The present Petitioner is silent on the question of prejudice caused to him , as such , the ground putforward by the Petitioner challenging the departmental proceeding is untenable and have no force in the eye of law .

16. Petitioner has further claimed that domestic enquiry was conducted but such domestic enquiry was not conducted in observance of the principles of natural justice . However, the Petitioner did not raise any objection against the violation of principles of natural justice or non- supply of the documents relating to domestic enquiry proceedings before this tribunal and this tribunal is of definite opinion that principle of natural justice has been followed in conducting the departmental proceeding. The

5713

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

witnesses were examined in the presence of charge shected employee . The charge sheeted employee was given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses . He did not cross examine them he produced himself for his defence evidence and has stated pleading guilty. Thus , the Enquiry Officer has not committed any violation of any rule of natural justice . From the statement of management witnesses namely, Mr. Subhan Ali and Mr. T. Bazar and own admission of the Petitioner it is evident and there is sufficient material before this tribunal to come to conclusion that Petitioner remained absent for 281 days through out the year 1990 and he remained absent for more than 10 days in the months of February , May, June , July, August . So there is sufficient evidence and material before this tribunal , as well as before the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner absented himself for more than 261 days during the year 1990 and on many occasions Petitioner remained absent for more than 10 days without any sanctioned leave and without any intimation to the Respondent management . The Petitioner has admitted that he has not given any intimation nor has sought any leave during entire period of his absence . Thus , it is amply proved that Petitioner remained absent for 281 days during the year 1990from January to December for which absence he has not been able to prove or place any material before Enquiry Officer and before this tribunal that the absence of Petitioner in the month of January to December was for any good or reasonable cause . He has submitted xerox copy of reference slip of Singareni Collieries dispensary dated 23-5-1990 whereby he was referred to Surgeon and reported unfit w.e.f. 4-5-1990 , but this paper was neither produced before the Enquiry Officer nor it was proved before the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner workman remained sick in May, 1990 and he could not attend to his duty due to his sickness as held by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , in the case law reported in 2006 (3 ) ALT page 562 cited supra .

17. There was ample material before the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion that Petitioner remained absent without leave or without any reasonable cause for 261 days during the year 1990 and on several occasions for more than 10 days . Hence , this tribunal is of the opinion that the finding arrive at by the Enquiry Officer is based on material and evidence placed before him . There is no fault in the finding of the Enquiry Officer .

18. This tribunal is also of the opinion that Petitioner remained absent for 261 days without any leave or either sanctioned or under intimation . He also remained absent for more than 10 days without any leave and thereby he has committed misconduct under Standing Orders 16 ( 16 ) and 16 (4) of the Company's Standing Orders . Points ( I ) , ( II ) and ( III ) are answered accordingly.

19. Point No. IV : This tribunal has to consider whether the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the 5714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

Petitioner , the Petitioner has not been able to place any material before this tribunal that the misconduct committed bythe Petitioner is not a misconduct for which punishment of removal could be imposed whereas the Respondent counsel has cited several pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as well as that of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , which has been discussed in the previous paragraphs that habitual absence of any workman from work place is not only a misconduct but it is a grave misconduct should not be treated lightly because it effect discipline and it is subversive of the work culture in the organization and punishment of dismissal in case of habitual absenteeism is neither harsh nor disproportionate . In the light of above pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , this tribunal is of the opinion that punishment imposed on the Petitioner of this case is neither disproportionate nor excessive . The Petitioner does not deserve any leniency or sympathy from this tribunal . Point No. IV is answered accordingly.

20. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has raised plea ofdelay and latches in the present case . It is undisputed case that Petitioner has raised this petition after a delay of 14 years and the reason for such long delay has not been explained by any plausible reason as such , the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches also as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 SCC ( L& S) page 1113 UPSTRC Vs. Bahurani and case law reported in Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. 21. From the above discussions and conclusion this tribunal is of the opinion that Petitioner does not deserve any relief of reinstatement into services or any lenient view and petition deserves to be dismissed with costs to the Respondent . Hence , this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 18th day of June, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] नई दिल्ली , 9 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2200.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस . सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22013/ 1/2010- आई आर ( सी- II ) | डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th August , 2010

S.O. 2200.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 21/2008 ) ofthe Central Government Industria Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-8-2010 .

[No. L- 22013 / 1 /2010 - IR ( C - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June , 2010

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 21/2008

Between

Sri Biyyala Anjaiah ,

S / o Biyyala Shankar ,

R/ o Bellampalli ,

Distt . Adilabad

Petitioner

And

1. Colliery Manager ,

KK2 Incline , Mandamarri भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

2. General Manager ,

M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Mandamarri ,

Distt : Adilabad

3. Managing Director ,

M/ s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

(Administration) ,

Kothagudem ,

Distt : Khammam

5715

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : Sri S. Bhagwanth Rao , Advocate For the Respondent : M/ s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma and

Vijayalaxmi Panguluri , Advocates

AWARD

Sri Biyyala Anjaiah has filed this petition under Section 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s Cotton Corporation of India and two others challenging the dismissal order of his father Sri B. Shankar employee of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

2. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that Petitioner's father Sri B. Shanker was appointed as an employee in M/ s Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , who worked upto 22-8-2001 who put 17 years of qualified length of service in the company. He left the company after work on 22-8-2001 since then , he could not be traced out , there is no progress of his finding by his relatives and family members . He has two sons and his wife . Petitioner is unemployed eldest son , he lodged a complaint with SHO , Bellampalli that Petitioner's father went away to undisclosed destinations , he has not turn upto the home . On the basis of the complaint lodged by the Petitioner SHO , Bellampalli registered a case in crime No. 44 of 2001 , which has been closed as untraceable on 2-8-2003 . The Petitioner's father did not appear from 2001 to 2008 and more than 7 years has passed . A person if not appears for more than 7 years , there is presumption of his death and thus , it is presumed that the father of the Petitioner is dead . He prayed for setting aside dismissal order.

3. It has been alleged that Respondent management initiated disciplinary proceedings against the said Sri B. Shankar and conducted an ex- parte enquiry and dismissed him from service on 13-12-2003 .

4. On 10th January , 2003 dismissal order was placed on the notice board but no notice was ever served on the father of the Petitioner or any member of the Petitioner's family. Petitioners are legal heirs of the dismissed employec and they have right to file and challenge the dismissal order. The order of dismissal dated 13-12-2003 is arbitrary , illegal and against the principles of natural justice . The Petitioner submitted several request letters for employment onthe basis of police report a complaint was lodged by the Petitioner regarding missing of his father but Petitioner's case was not considered . No notice could have been even given to the Petitioner's father , no service of the notice was done because he was missing . Petitioner received a dismissal order from the company in 2006. He asked the management to provide employment to him because his father is missing for last 7 years , then the Petitioner was advised to go to the court . Petitioner again gave a notice but no action was taken by the management . The management has not given any monetary help as per settlement between workers and the management to give monetary relief to the dependent of the missing/dead employee as MMC to the widow to the employee , as such thispetition has been field for reinstatement of Petitioner's father in the organization or appointment of the Petitioner and also to award Rs . 3000 per month as monthly monetary compensation to the widow of the missing employee .

5. Management has filed counter statement challenging therein that the Petitioner is not a workman as defined under Sec . 2( S) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 . The Petitioner was neither dismissed from the service nor discharged or retrenched from service . This petition filed by him under Sec . 2A( 2) is not maintainable . Hence , the question ofmaintainability of this petition be decided before final hearing .

6. It has further been stated that the father of the Petitioner Biyyala Shankar S / o Mallaiah , was appointed on 13-10-1986 as badli filler later on , he was drafted to work as Timber man . He was dismissed from the services of the company on 13-12-2003 after conducting enquiry following the principles of natural justice . The Petitioner's father remained absent from 21-8-2001 without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause which constituted misconduct under company's orders 25.31 . The employee Sri Biyyala Shankar has executed nomination for receiving terminal benefits in favour of Smt. Rajeshwari who is his wife . The Petitioner never informed about the missing of Sri B. Shankar or not turning up to home or registration of case of missing by SHO , Bellampalli . The Petitioner's contention that his father is not appearing from 2001 to 2008 and presumption of his death is incorrect because there is procedure for declaring the Petitioner's father as dead . He could file a petition before the court of law and obtain a declaration that his father is dead . The Petitioner nor any other dependent of Sri B. Shankar has submitted any representation regarding his missing along with FIR to the Respondent . Hence , the fact is not known to the Respondent . The Petitioner's father 5716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] was served with a charge sheet in the year 2002. But , remained absent from 21-8-2001 and did not put in any single muster thereafter till 10-1-2003 which constituted misconduct under Company's Standing Orders 25.31 . Since the chargesheeted employee remain absent , the chargesheet was sent to his native address which returned undelivered by the postal authority , hence , the chargesheet- cum - enquiry notice were published in Telugu Daily. The Petitioner's father was advised to attend enquiry on 20-3-2003 . He did not attend the same , hence , the enquiry was conducted ex -parte . Enquiry Officer submitted ex - parte report holding the employee guilty of the misconduct . Subsequently, enquiry report was sent but could not be served on him . Thus , it was sent to the charged employee's own address which was returned undelivered . Thereafter the said notice was published in Telugu Daily ' Andhra Jyothi ' to submit any representation but the father of the Petitioner did not approach nor filed any reply. There was no representation from the wife of the missing employee or his dependent the present Petitioner . The father of the Petitioner remained absent during the year 2001 , 2002 and 2003. The contention of the Petitioner that he is competent to challenge the dismissal order is untenable in the eye of law. The contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent has not considered the police report and their representation is not correct . The Petitioner is a dependent ofdismissed employee is a matter to be proved , he does not deserve employment . The Respondent has cited certain requirement for giving employment to the male , female dependants of dead employee and the provisions relating to the monthly monetary compensation and has contended thatfor receiving any monetary compensation the Petitioner has to obtain the death declaration from a competent court oflaw . The CMPF and Pension are settled by the Regional Commissioner , Cole Mines Provident Fund , Godavari Khani , which is an independent agency which is not under the administration control of the respondent , the Petitioner is required to comply the formalities for receiving those benefits . The claim of Petitioner is baseless and deserves to be rejected.

Sri B. Shankar regarding removal of his name on the ground of absenteeism from the duty. Xerox copy of identity card of B. Shankar , Xerox copy of order of dismissal dated 2-12-2003 by The General Manager, Mandamarri area addressed to Sri B. Shankar informing him that he has been dismissed from the services of the company w.e.f. 13-12-2003 . Notice ofpayment of gratuity dated 20-6-2004 to Sri B. Shankar informing him that a sum of Rs . 69745.05 ps . is payable to him as gratuity which will be sent to his bank in his account number . Xerox copy of complain (report) of missing lodged atP.S. , Bellampalli dated 26-8-2001 informing the police that Sri B. Shankar went to perform his duties on 22-8-2001 but he has not returned from his duties , since then. On basis of which report was lodged and investigation was carried out to find the whereabouts of Sri B. Shankar . Attested copy of first information report regarding missing ofSri B. Shankar . Finding Report of the investigation of the police dated 2-6-2003 closing the case because a period of two years has been passed and there is no clue of the missing person though the police has searched him in all the possible places where he could have been find . Xerox copy of look out notice published by the S.I. of Police . Bellampalli regarding Sri B. Shankar . Copy of notice to the complainant Sri B. Anjaiah from Police Station , Bellampalli informing him about submission of report to First Class Judicial Magistrate at Asifabad , under missing man's Head and to appear before that court for further action if any . Dependent certificate from office of Gram Panchayat , Budakhurd showing the name of dependents of Biyyala Shanker and affidavit of Smt. B. Rajeswari , W/ o Sri B. Shanker mentioning therein that her eldest son B. Anjaiah has filed a case for claiming employment , she has two sons and one daughter , her second son B. Laxman has no objection if B. Anjaiah gets employment , her daughter Smt . Kantha is married and she also has no objection if B. Anjaiah is employed . She has got no work and she is dependent on the earnings of Sri B. Shanker . The Petitioner's counsel has filed another notarized affidavit sworn by Smt. B. Rajeswari that her husband escaped from 2001 and has not appeared till now . They have lodged compalint with P. S. Bellampalli , which registered a case of missing man and close the case of person not traced out . They have filed a case ID 21/2008 for giving employment to her son . Sri B. Shankar died leaving B. Rajeswari and B. Anjaiah as dependents . She has nained herself, 13 . Anjaiah , B. Laxman , Kantha , Kavitha W/ o Anjaiah as dependents and heirs of Sri B. Shankar .

7. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidence . Petitioner has filed xerox copy of dependent certificate from the office of GP Budakhurd mentioning therein the names of the dependent of B. Shankar , S / o Mallaiah . Handwritten application in Telugu from B. Anjaiah addressed to The General Manager , M / s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Mandamarri intimating the company that Sri B. Shankar was an employee of M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , who was dismissed from on 31-12-2003 by order reference No. MMR/ PER / D 072 / 5688 dated 13-12-2003 GMSC Colliery, Mandamarri , he was the father of the Petitioner who is missing for the last 7 years , he has requested to review removal order and also for giving job to him . Xerox copy of the letter reference MMR / KK2/ G- 035 /4393 dated 13-12-2003 addressed to

8. Respondent has filed original chargesheet against Sri B. Shankar dated 10-1-2003 undelivered postal envelope addressed to Sri B. Shankar returned by postal department . unserved dated 17-1-2003 . Copy of Telugu daily ' Waartha newspaper dated 4-3-2003 publishing notice to Sri B. Shankar to appear before the Enquiry Officer . The original enquiry proceeding dated 20-3-2003 , enquiry report dated 15-4-2003 , letter NO . MMR/ PER/ D / 072 / 3325 dated 5-8-2003 [ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

undelivered envelope containing letter dated 5-8-2003 , notice of dismissal order published in Telugu daily newspaper ' Andhra Jyothi ' publishing the outcome ofthe enquiry and sending of the notice which was not served on the workman calling upon workman to file his report against the enquiry report and punishment order dated 2-12-2003.

9. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as that of the Respondent and have gone through the claim statement, counter statement and documents filed by the Petitioner as well as that of Respondent .

10. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner of this case Mr. B. Anjaiah is not a workman or employee of the Respondent company as such he has not right and authority to file this claim challenging the order of dismissal of his father . He craved the attention of this tribunal towards provision of Sec . 2 (S ) wherein the workman has been defined " which means any person employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled , skilled , technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward . " He has argued that the Petitioner Mr. B. Anjaiah is neither employed in any industry nor he has done any manual or any work in Respondent company, he is neither- employee in any industry nor he has done any manual or any type of work with the Respondent , as such , he can not file this claim petition and this court has got no jurisdiction to entertain this petition .

11. As against this argument of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that it is an admitted fact that the father of the Petitioner Sri B. Shankar was an employee of the Respondent organization who has not been heard off by his heir and legal representative , petitioner has not seen or heard of his father after 22-8-2001 as such , under provisions of Sec . 108 ofIndian Evidence Act , it is presumed that Sri B. Shanker is a dead person and in view of the judicial pronouncement ofHon'ble High Court ofA.P. , Hyderabad in W.P. No. 12427 of 1995 in the matter of Anjilamma and Others Vs. Labour Court III at Hyderabad , legal heir of a dead workman can validly institute industrial dispute questioning the validity ofdismissal of such workman and claim relief under the Act like lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement , back wages etc. , and for the benefit of the estate of the deceased even though they are not workmen within the strict sense of Sec . 2 (S ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

12. I have considered the argument of the Learned Counsels for the parties . It is undisputed fact that Sri B. Shankar was an employee of the respondent . It is also not disputed that Sri B. Shanker has not attended to his duties after 22-8-2001 . The Respondent claimed that the ex- employee was habitual absentee whereas the Petitioner and other representatives and legal heirs of the Sri B.

5717

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

Shankar says that he is missing from 22-8-2001 and they have not been heard about him since then . Petitioner has filed copy of F.I.R. the result of the investigation carried outby the Bellampalli , Police Station . The report and notice ofthe Bellampalli Police Station regarding submission of a final report , this all prove that the contention of Petitioner that his father has gone missing from 22-8-2001 and has not been heard of about him even after reporting his missing with local police and investigation carried out by the police and the search carried on by Police . It show that person named Sri B. Shankar is not traceable as reported by the police and as sworn in on affidavit by the wife of Sri B. Shanker , Smt . B. Rajeswari .

13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on Sec . 108 of Indian Evidence Act which says that the burden of proving that a person is alive who has not been heard for 7 years is upon a person who affirms it . This provision has been enacted with a view to enable the heirs and legal representatives of a missing person to claim benefit of his death after 7 years of his missing and if somebody says that he is not dead then , it is the person who claim that missing person is alive to prove that he is alive .

14. I have considered the provision of Sec . 108 of Indian Evidence Act and I agree with the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that if a person is missing for more than 7 years then , the burden is on that person to prove that he is alive who claims that he is alive . In the present case Petitioner's father Sri B. Shanker is missing from 22-8-2001 regarding missing of whom First Information Report was lodged at Bellampalli Police Station and he was not traced . From the notarized affidavit of W/ o Sri B. Shanker which has not been contraverted by the Respondents . It is proved that Sri B. Shanker is missing for more than 7 years as such , there is presumption of death of Sri B. Shanker and thus in the light of pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , Hyderabad in the matter of Smt . Anjilamma and others Vs. Labour Court III at Hyderabad and others , reported in 1995 Andhra Law Times Reports page 683 , Petitioner the son of Sri B. Shanker is competent to file this claim petition under Sec . 2A(2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

15. In the matter of Smt . Anjilamma and others Vs. Labour Court III at Hyderabad and others , reported in 1995 Andhra Law Times Reports page 683 , a similar question was raised before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad by the Petitioner , because their claim petition was dismissed by the Labour Court III of the Hyderabad on the ground that Smt . Anjilamma was not the workman within the meaning of Sec . 2 (S ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , has held that since the dismissed workman was an employee of the Respondent management , he was dismissed from service ifhe would have alive he would have certainly challenged 5718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] the dismissal order before the Industrial Tribunal . Since he died before the institution of claim petition before the Industrial Tribunal , his heirs and legal representatives though they are not workmen within the meaning of the Sec. 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , has right to raise industrial dispute and get the benefit which could have been given to the workman if he would have alive .

16. From the reading of case law reported in 1995 Andhra Law Times Reporter page 683 ofAnajilamma, I am ofthe opinion that the Petitioner B. Anjaiah who is the son and legal representative of the ex - workman Sri B. Shanker is competent to raise industrial dispute before this tribunal under Sec . 2A(2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and claim petition filed by him is maintainable before this tribunal and this tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised by Petitioner of this case . The objection by Respondent has got no force and deserves to be rejected.

17. The main question which has to be decided by this tribunal is :

(I) whether the action of management in dismissing Sri B. Shanker from the service on the ground of his absenteeism was legal and valid or not , secondly,

(II) whether the Petitioner of this case could get any relief from this tribunal if they could get , then what relief they could get from this tribunal ?

18. Point No. I : It has been alleged and stated by the Petitioner that Sri B. Shanker was an employee ofM/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , who went to his duties on 22-8-2001 and he did not come back to his home .

police. From the documents of the Respondent also it is . evident that the Respondent management started disciplinary action against the Petitioner's father on 10-1- 2003 by issuing a charge sheet to Sri B. Shanker S / o B. Mallaiah , Timberman , KK2 Incline . That record shows that he remained absent from duty w.e.f. 21-8-2001 till date of charge sheet without any leave or sufficient cause . He has put in ' Nil ' attendance during 2002. It indicates that he was in habit of absenteeism frequently and this action of the workman amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Orders 25.31 and he was required to submit his explanation within 4 days . This notice is said to have been sent to Sri B. Shanker , returned undelivered and unserved in original . Thereafter notice was given to absent employee through the publication in the news paper and enquiry proceeded ex - parte , management witnesses examined ex- parte and ex - parte report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner's father was habitual absentee . He remained absent from 1st September , 2001 to 10-1-2003 on all the dates of the months . Ex- parte decision was taken terminating the services of the Petitioner's father . The notice sent to the Petitioner's father by registered post has returned with the endorsement that , " no such person at the given address " . This prove that entire proceeding has taken place in absence of workman . The management has not taken any steps to search the Petitioner's father nor has made any efforts to know about the whereabouts of his own employee who has already been reported to be missing from 22-8-2001 . The matter was under investigation of the police and the police submitted report on 2-8-2003 that the person could not be traced out after the best efforts of the police , this prove that Petitioner's father was not known to his family member as to where he was living whether he was alive or dead . Thus , the entire domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent management regarding absence of the Petitioner's father is nothing but farce and a show piece .

Thereafter Petitioner lodged a police report with Bellampalli Police Station , FIR No. 44 dated 26-8-2001 was registered atBellampalli Police Station a copy of which is filed before this tribunal along with related documents and case disposal report under Sec . 173 of CRPC filed beofre First Class Judicial Magistrate at Asifabad by Bellampalli Police Station on 2-8-2003 , wherein the police has reported that "As it took up the investigation of this case and made efforts to trace out the missing person by engaging informers by deputing ID party and other men by contacting neighbouring police stations , despite all our efforts during last two years , there are not clues after a period of two years , there is no use to keep this case under investigation further. This case is referred as ' U.I. ' whenever any clue come to the notice it will be reopened and investigated . " Such notice was given to the Petitioner Mr. B. Anjaiah along with identity proclamation of Sri B. Shanker . It proves that he Petitioner has lodged missing report of his father who could not be traced by the police which means the person was not traceable from 22-8-2001 to 2-8-2003 by the

19. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that had the management taken any step or make any effort to know whereabouts of the Petitioner's father it could have certainly known that the Petitioner's father is missing and no action against the person who is not known to be alive or dead could have been taken . I agree with the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Respondent has not taken adequate measures to know about the whereabouts of the Petitioner's father . From the evidence produced by the Petitioner before this tribunal it is amply proved that Petitioner's father was missing , his whereabouts were not known to the persons who are concerned about him and who had right to know about Sri B. Shanker and thus , the entire proceeding of the departmental enquiry is lopsided action , it was taken against a person whose whereabouts are not known or could not have appeared before the Enquiry Officer because ofmissing of Petitioner's father .

5719 [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

21. Point No. II : From the discussion of Point No. 1 this tribunal has come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal is neither legal norjustified , the petition deserves to be allowed and order of dismissal deserves to be set aside and Sri B. Shanker deserves to be reinstated in the service with the direction to the Respondent management to consider the case of his legal representative that the wife ofB. Shanker for monthly monetary benefit, until one ofthe legal representative is employed in services of the Respondent management as long as the service is not provided to any of the dependents of B. Shanker, the management is directed to pay monthly monetary compensation to the alleged widow of Sri B. Shanker from the month of September, 2001 at the rate prevalent in company's organization and to pay the gratuity, GPF and other monetary benefits which were available to Sri B. Shanker if he would have died in his service . The Petitioner's claim is deserves to be allowed in part .

22.. From the above discussion , the dismissal order ofSriB. Shanker being illegal is set aside . The management is directed to reinstate him notionally from the date he is said to be missing and grant of monetary benefits i.c .. monthly monetary compensation , till any legal representative is employed by Respondent company and payGratuity; GPF to the wife of Sri B. Shanker with costs of this litigation to Petitioners and hence , this award..

23. The management is directed to make notional reinstatement ofB. Shanker and payment of all the dues of Sri B. Shanker to the wife of B. Shanker within two months from the publication of this award..

Award passed accordingly, Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected by me on this the 28th day of June,2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, PresidingOfficer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent 20. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the notice was issued to the Petitioner's father Sri B. Shanker but he did not appear. Further Learned Counsel for the Respondent could not replied satisfactorily before this tribunal about the report of the postal department that no such person was present at the address given on the cover of the registered post. Why the department did not take any action or any step to know about the whereabouts of Sri B. Shanker. This prove that Sri B. Shanker was dismissed from service with a view to deprive the dependent of Sri B. Shanker with the benefit of monthly monetary compensation which was applicable w.e.f. 1-4-98 and which has been enhanced with a settlement dated 27-9-2009 . I am in agreement with the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the action of management in dismissing Sri B. Shanker on the ground of absenteeism during the year 2001 to 10th January, 2003 is not in conformity with the Labour Law because the management has not taken adequate steps to search out its absent employee who is reported missing and who could not be searched out by thepolice . Even after an FIR is being lodged at Bellampalli Police Station . Thus , the entire departmental proceeding conductedby the management is nothing but a show piece or an enquiry for name sake . No opportunity was given.to the Petitioner's father because he was not known to be dead or alive . As such , to my opinion the absence of Petitioner's father cannot be said to be intentional or without any reasonable or good cause . Even though the father of Petitioner remained absent from his duty it was due to his missing condition . His whereabouts were not known to the Petitioner or to any person related to the Petitioner not even to his employer , as such , the conclusion ofthe Enquiry Officer that absentee employee B. Shanker was a habitual absentee without any leave or without sufficient reason or cause is baseless and unfounded . I find that the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is baseless , based on no evidence because the witnesses has stated that Sri B. Shanker has not attended to duty from 1-9-2001 to 10-1-2003 . What is the reason of his absence has not been stated by any of the witnesses produced by the management before the Enquiry Officer. Thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer that absence of Sri B. Shanker was for without any reasonable cause is baseless or unfounded . Since , Sri B. Shanker was missing from 22-8- 2001 he was not in a position to attend to his duties . As such, his absence was for valid reasons and for good cause . In that event the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence and is no finding in the eye of law. From the above discussion this tribunal is of the opinion and has come to a definite conclusion that the action of the management in dismissing the services of Sri B. Shanker on the ground of absence of B. Shanker is neither reasonable nor legal nor valid and it deserves to be quashed .

NIL NIL NIL

3296 GJ / 10-28 5720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2201.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , बैंकिंग डिविजन के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 37/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 ( 24 )/ 2006- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th August , 2010

S.O. 2201.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 37/2007) , the Central Govt . Indus . Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute betweenthe management of the Special Secretary , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-8-2010 .

[No. L- 12011 /24 / 2006 - JR ( B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX , DELHI

I.D. No. 37/2007

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) | institutions are not transferable outside the area i operation of RRB , in which they are employed . R.R.BS have been established to aid and help small and margina ! farmers , agricultural labourers , artisans and smaller enter- preneurs residing in rural areas . These banks are established to serve a specified geographical area restricted to notified districts . Section 17 of the Banks Act provides that remuneration of the officers and other employees appointed by the R.R.Bs. shall be such as may be determined by the Central Government , having due regard to the salary structure of the employees of a comparable level and status within the notified areas .

2. In order to ensure smooth working of the RRBs . the Central Government issued circular in November , 1975 . laying down scales of pay and allowances applicable to the officers and employees of these banks . Subsequently , in April , 1980 , the Central Government took decision and equated officers of the RRBs with Block Development Officer in the concerned State , in the matter of pay and emoluments . Again in February, 81 the Central Government projected to determine remuneration of officers and other employees of the R.R.Bs , having due regard to salary structure of the employees of the State Government and local authorities of comparable level and status in the area of the operation of the bank .

Workman

The General Secretary, All India Gramin Bank Employees Officers Assn . C/ o Delhi State Bank Employees Federation , Parvana Bhawan , 48214/24 , Ansari Road , Darya Ganj , New Delhi - 2

Versus

The Special Secretary , Government of India, Ministry of Finance , Banking Division , Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001

Management

AWARD

Regional Rural Banks ( in short R.R.Bs ) have been constituted by the Central Government under the provisions of Regional Rural Bank Act , 1976 ( In short the Banks Act ) in order to meet credit needs of the weaker section of the population living in rural areas . R.R.Bs. are expected to be low cost institutions staffed by persons residing within the area of their operation . The employees of these 3. Officers and employees of R.R.Bs made representations , demanding certain facilities , available to the officers and employees of the State Government , which request was not conceded too . Writ petitions were filed before the Apex Court in 1982 and 1984 claiming pay scale and other amenities equivalent to officers and employees ofthe Nationalised Commercial Banks , new time scales by categorizing various posts and redesignating some posts and laying down rules of fitment in new time scales . While adjudicating the writ petitions , so filed , the Apex Court passed an order on 1-9-87 commanding the Central Government to refer the dispute to a National Industria ! Tribunal to adjudicate those disputes . On 26-11-1987 National Industrial Tribunal was constituted by the Central Government under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice S. Obul Reddy, Chief Justice ( Retd. ) of High Court of Andhra Pradesh . The Tribunal took up the adjudication and passed an award on 30-4-90 , announcing that officers and other employees of R.R.Bs will be entitled to claim parity with the officers and other employees of the sponsor banks for the matter of pay scales , allowances and other benefits . which award was upheld by the Apex Court.

4. The matter did not end there . All India Gramin Bank Employees Officers Association ( hereinafter referred to as the Association ) claimed that equal service conditions / regulation were not provided which badly affects work , efficiencies , motivation and promotion in [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

R.R.Bs. A demand was made that service regulations of sponsoring banks and R.R.Bs should be similar and common , there should be parity to the sponsor banks in respect of payment of pension/ P.F . , allowances and other benefits , Indian Banking Association may be made negotiating forum for R.R.Bs , a fair transfer and promotion policies may be formed , outsourcing may be stopped and immediate recruitments may be made , besides merger of R.R.Bs with sponsoring banks in respect of rural people . A dispute was raised by the Association before the Conciliation Officer , in respect of the aforesaid clairns . Conciliation proceedings failed . On receipt of the failure report , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L - 12011-24/ 2006 - IR( B - I ) New Delhi dated 9th of March, 2007 , with the following terms :

"Whether the action of the management in not giving the same service conditions to R.R.B. employees and different from the sponsor bank , is legal and justified? If not , what relief these concerned workers are entitled ? "

5. Claim statement was filed by Shri D.N. Trivedi , General Secretary of the Association , pleading therein that employees and officers , working in different branches of R.R.Bs. located in remote rural area of the country, have no proper basic amenities . The employees and officers have to live in rural areas with their families , so as to implement Government policy in agriculture sector , by way of giving loans keeping deposits of rural people in saving bank accounts and fixed deposits . Nature of work of employees working in R.R.Bs. in different part of the country , remain the same , as that of the sponsor banks . It has been projected that on account of illiteracy of rural folk , their temperament and language , lack of communication links , no entertainment avenues for family , no avenue for better and higher technical or non - technical education , job of such employees become mere complex. There continued to be disparity in respect of service regulations , payment of allowances and other benefits , including pension , P.F. , lack of transfer and promotion policies and non - existence of apex level negotiating forum , hence a charter of demand was submitted on 21-6-2006 . A call of All India strike was given for 1st of August , 2006. Their demand for parity in service regulations between the R.R.Bs. employees , officers and other sponsoring commercial banks is legal , fair and justified . The Government of India has capacity to meet the demand . A Claim was made that the action of the management in not giving same service conditions to R.R.Bs. employees as provided to the employees of the sponsoring banks may be declared illegal , wrong and unjustified and consequential benefits may be granted to them.

5721

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

6. Notice of the claim statement was sent to the opposite party by registered post for 17-6-2009 to file written statement on 9-7-2009 . Since none appeared on behalf of the management as well as for the claimant , the matter was reserved for an award .

7. Subsequently an application was moved on behalf of the Association and notice of the said application was sent to the management for 29-7-2009 . Another notice was sent to the management for 18th of August , 2002. Since none appeared on behalf of the management , hence management was proceeded ex -parte .

8. Affidavitof Shri D.N. Trivedi was filed on behalf ofthe Association . No other evidence was produced in the matter .

9. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri B.K. Paul , authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the Association . None came forward on behalf of the management to raise submissions in 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 :

10. At the cost of repetition , it is said that writ petition was filed before the Apex Court in 1982 and 1984 , onwhich petition , an order was passed on 1st September , 1987 directing the Central Govt . to refer the dispute , so raised , to a National Industrial Tribunal headed by a retired ChiefJustice of High Court . In compliance of the said order, a National Industrial Tribunal was constituted to which following disputes were referred for adjudication :

"Dispute relating to pay, salary , other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks in terms of the plea of the parties in the writ petitions ( civil ) No. 7149-50 of 1982 and No. 132 of 1984 filed in the Supreme Court of India" .

11. The National Industrial Tribunal framed questions for determination , which are extracted thus:

(i) Is this Tribunal not a properly constituted one?

( ii) What are the reasons which lead to the establishment of the Regional Rural Banks ?

( iii) Have the RRBs achieved the social objectives of developing the rural economy and raising the rural poor from above poverty line as envisaged in the preamble of RRB Act ?

( iv) Whether the Commercial Banks and RRBs carry on same or similar banking business and participate in the development of rural economy as instrumentalities of the State in accordance 5722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

with the directive principles of the Constitution?

(v) Are duties and functions of the officers and other employees of the RRBs same or similar as those of the officers and other employees ofrural branches of the Sponsor Banks ?

(vi) What is the scope and ambit of Section 17 of RRB Act?

(vii ) Does the Proviso 2, Section 17 ( i ) of RRB Act deny the writ petitioners equality before law so as to offend the Articles 14 and 16 in the context ofArticle 39 (d ) of the Constitution ?

( viii) Are the writ petitioners entitled to claim parity in the salary structure with the employees of the Sponsor Bank within the framework of 2nd Proviso to Section 17 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case ?

(ix) Is the Central Government common employer for the employees of both Sponsor banks and RRBs .

(x) Should the financial viability of RRBs be the sole criteria in deciding the wage structure of the RRBs employees ?

(xi) Is there any justification in equating employees of the State Govt . and Local Authorities as of comparable level and status with the employees of RRBs in the notified area ?

(xii) What are the anomalies in the manner of conclusion of equation posts of comparable level and status under Section 17 of the RRB Act?

(xiii) Are the part time Sweepers- cum- Messengers justified in demanding salary on par with the permanent messengers ? and

(xiv) To what relief?

12. All issues referred above , which were framed by the National Tribunal for determination , are not relevant for the present controversy . However , issue Nos . ( iv) & ( v) are relevant for consideration . While adjudicating these issues the Tribunal concluded that the employees of RRBs form a separate class under a separate statute and so are the employees of the commercial banks . The fact that sponsor banks are RRBs are involved in banking business as defined in Sections 5 and 6 of the Banking Regulation Act , does not , in its opinion , render much assistance so long as the employers of the personnel of the two kinds of the banks are different . Since RRBs have been constituted under the different statute , the officers and other

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] employees of RRBs function in accordance with the requirement of that statute and they thus form a separate class by themselves and the second proviso to Section 17 ofthe Banks Act, is , therefore , not hit by Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution .

13. For consideration of equal pay for equal work , the Tribunal was of the opinion that RRBs employees form a separate class and were not discriminated so as to attract the doctrine of " equal pay for equal work " . The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has to be disengaged and delinked from the question for their claim for parity in their pay structure with the sponsor banks employees in corresponding and comparable posts within the framework of second proviso of Section 17 of the Banks Act , on the facts and circumstances of the case . Shred of legal nuances , their claims have to be examined on the principles ofjustice and equity. While recording its finding in the matter of their claim for parity in pay structure with the sponsor banks employees , the Tribunal concluded as follows : - " The anomalies in the pay scales are the result of different governments having their own pay scales and equations being made with certain posts which have since ceased to be in existence in some of the States either by upgradation or change of designation . My approach to the problem of anomalies is to find a solution and give a reasonable and acceptable pay structure for the various posts in the RRBs and not to perpetuate the anomalies . I find no other way to achieve uniformity except determining the pay scales of RRB officers and other employees irrespective of the fact in which State the RRBs are established taking into account the duties and functions in comparable posts in the twin banking institutions . That is the only way to eliminate the various anomalies that exist among the employees working in the network of RRBs all over the country . Work in banking business requires expertise and knowledge of banking laws . After recruitment to banking service , the candidates are specially trained in the banking business . The duties of the officers and other employees in a banking industry are absolutely dissimilar and different from the duties of officers or other employees on the executive side of the Govt . Similarly, duties of employees in a steel industry or aviation , medical and health , engineering and so on , require special qualifications and training. To equate employees in those professions or advocations with the employees in a Secretariat or in Department of Govt . where there could be no semblance of similarity of functions and duties . would be indecorous . It is well to remember that the pay scales in the Govt . establishments are not [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

5723 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

determined having regard to the comparable status and level of employees in a steel industry , petroleum industry , Indian Airlines etc. That could be absolutely illogical and irrational . The crux of the matter is that for comparison , it must stand the test of reasonableness when scrutinized in the light of identity or similarities in the nature of duties and functions .

to deny the RRB employees parity in the scales of pay with the employees in sponsor banks in comparable posts , having regard to similarity in the nature of duties , functions and responsibilities . That , inmy opinion , would be a just and equitable equation of posts . This finding is recorded by me , having regard to my interpretation of Proviso 2 of Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act that the expression " having regard to" is of sufficient dimension adaptable and supple to extend its application to the salary structure of the Nationalized Bank employees . "

14. The Tribunal went on to conclude that it flows from its finding that the officers and other employees of RRBs are entitled to claim parity with the officers and other employees of the sponsor banks in the matters of pay scales , allowances and benefits . It was observed that the award shall be given effect from 1st September, 1987 、 the date on which the Apex Court passed the order directing the Central Govt . to constitute the Tribunal . It has been projected on behalf of the Association that the award . passed by the National Tribunal , was confirmed by the Apex Court and implemented by the Govt . of India. Such a question arose before the Allahabad High Court in Shri DB Sharma's case ( 1996. Lab.I.C. 1280 ) wherein the High Court relied the finding recorded by the Tribunal and concluded that comparable posts of RRBs can be equated to the posts in commercial banks . The High Court rules that in the sense the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the petitioners ( before the High Court) and held that they are entitled to pay scales which are given to the employees of the commercial banks . In view of the facts , it is concluded thatemployees of the RRBs are getting parity in the matter of pay scales , allowances and other benefits with the employees of the sponsor banks .

The RBSs are constituted in order to achieve the national objectives in a welfare State and their functions , duties and responsibilities are the same throughout the country . They have to accomplish the task of development of the rural economy by providing credit facilities to agriculture , trade , commerce , industry and other productive activities in the rural areas particularly to small and marginal farmers , agricultural labourers , artisans , small entrepreneurs and for discharging the functions for which they have been established . They are empowered under Section 18 of the RRB Act to carry on or transact the business of bank and engage in one or more forms of business specified in Section 6 ( 1 ) of the Banking Regulation Act . Nowhere do we get in the evidence placed on record that the duties of BPO or other employees in a district authority discharge the duties and functions similar or near similar to the duties and function of RRB officers and employees . The only comparable posts are in the commercial banks and it is not denied that the employees in a rural branch of commercial bank are of comparable level having a regard to the commonalities in their duties and functions . That the RRBs do not undertake all forms of business in Section 6 of the Banking Regulation Act , is not a ground for saying that the RRBs are not doing banking business or that they do not belong to one and the same family of the Banking Industry. There is any amount of justification in the demand of the writ petitioners that they ought to have been equated to comparable posts in commercial bank and their salary structure should have been so related as to be in conformity with the salary structure in the Nationalized Banks .

Where the two sets of posts though under different enactments are of comparable level and involve themselves in the performance of the same and similar duties in the implementation of an avowed national policy of amelioration of the poverty conditions of the rural poor it would be unjust and unreasonable

15. The Tribunal announced that salary structure referred to in the second proviso to Section17 ( 1 ) of the Banks Act takes in its fold not only the monthly salary but also all allowances and benefits that are attached to the post. That being the case , there is absolutely , no reason for the Central Govt . to allow only certain allowances and other benefits and deny the rest . This definitely is discriminatory . After having equated them to the salary structure of the State Govt . employees , the Govt . cannot say that they equated the officers and employees only to the extent of the scale of pay and related allowances and denied the rest of allowances and benefits . It is significant to note that it is not as if Govt . denied all the facilities demanded by the employees in para No. 2 of letter No. F 2- 32/80 - RRB dated 5th of February, 1980. Subsequently, the Central Govt . candidly conceded certain allowances and benefits at par with the State Govt . servants . There are several cases like medical facilities , travelling allowances , 5724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

casual leave , privilege leave , leave encashment facility, leave fare concession , festival advance , vehicle maintenance allowance , accumulation of earned leave , cash allowance etc. which are allowed , but they are not on par with the benefits enjoyed by the employees of the State Govt. It was observed that the salary structure when applied to the officers/ employees of RRBs should be extended wholly so as to cover all such benefits and allowances as are admissible to the State Govt . employees in comparable posts and status . This will at least bring about uniformity in each of the States concerned .

16. Sofar as the equation of posts and consequent fixation of new scales of pay, allowances and other benefits for officers and other employees of the RRBs on par with the officers and other employees of comparable level in corresponding posts in sponsor banks and their fitment into the new scale of pay as are applicable to the officers ofthe sponsor banks in corresponding posts of comparable level , the Tribunal opined that it was a matter which was to be decided by the Central Govt . in consultation with such authorities as it may consider necessary. This will also include the pay scales , benefits , other allowances and fitment of sub- staff of the RRBs with the sub - staff of the sponsor banks . When these issues were left for the consideration of the Central Govt . the present dispute was raised.

17. As pointed out above , the dispute was referred by the Central Govt . to adjudicate as to whether action of not granting same service conditions to RRBs employees and different from sponsor banks is legal and justified . In claim statement, the Association seeks relief for the officers and employees of RRBs . Since reference relates to employeesof RRBs , it would be expedient to know whether " employees " are inclusive of officers . For an answer definition of word " employee " gain importance .A person will be an employee , if he is employed for wages in any kind ofwork , manually or otherwise , in or in connection with the work of an establishment and gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer and includes any person employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment. A person wholly or mainly employed on wages by an employer in or in connection with any trade business or manufacture carried on in a shop or commercial establishment would fall within the ambit of definition of an employee . Persons , who perform domestic duties at residential houses of the officers of the establishment , cannot be said to have been employed in connection with any trade , business or manufacture carried on by the establishment, but they fall within the ambit of one who works for wages or salary to the satisfaction of his employer.

18. As per Employment Exchange ( Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act , 1959, employee means " any

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] person employed in an establishment to do any work for remuneration" . Minimum Wages Act, 1948 defines employee as " any person employed for hire or reward to do any work skilled or un - skilled , manual or clerical , in an scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed " . Clause ( 9) of Section 2 of the Employees State Insurance Act , 1948 defines employees , which definition is reproduced in extenso:

"Employee means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and ( i) who is directly employed by the principal employer on any work ofor inidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of, the factory or establishment, whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment ; or elsewhere , or ( ii) who is employed by or through an immediate employer or on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principai employer or his agent on work which is ordinarily part the work of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment , or ( iii) whose 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 a contract ofservice;

And includes any person employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part , department or branch thereof orwith the purchase of raw materials for , or the distribution or sale of the products of the factory or establishment , but doesn't include :

(a) any member of the Indian Naval , Military or Air Force , or ( b ) any person so employed whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work ) exceeds one thousand rupees a month :

Provided that an employee whose wages ( excluding remuneration for overtime work ) exceed one thousand rupees a month at any time after and not before the beginning of the contribution period , shall continue to be an employee until the end of that period ."

19. Section 2 (j ) of Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus SchemeAct , 1948 defines employee as " any person who isemployed in any kind of work , manual or otherwise . in or in connection with the coal mines who get his wages directly or indirectly from the employer " . Clause ( 13 ) of Section 2 of the Payment of Bonus Act , 1965 defines employee as " any person ( other than an apprentice) employed on a salary or wage not exceeding 1600 rupees per mensum in any industry to do any skilled, unskilled . manual , supervisory , managerial , administrative , technical [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

or clerical work for hire or reward , whether the terms of employment be express or implied . " Company Act , 1956 also defines employee to mean " an employee as such and not an ex - employee or past employee or a person whose contract of services has been put to en end " . Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972 also defines employee . Clause ( e) of Section 2 of the said Act defines employee as " any person (other than an apprentice ) who is employed on wages in any establishment, factory , mine , oilfield , plantation , port , railway company or shop to do any skilled , semi - skilled or unskilled , manual , supervisory , technical or clerical work , where the terms of such employment are express or implied and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Govt . or a State Govt . and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. "

20. In contradiction to the word " employee " , the term " officer " is of wide connotation . Officer shall be a person holding office and taking part in the management or giving direction with regard to the business of the organization . Officer must be holding office and one way or other controls assets or affairs of the establishment . Officer mean a functionary or holder of some officium or office, which may be one of dignity or importance ; it may equally be humble . The individual who is invested with the authority and is required to perform the duties incidental to an office is an officer. But whatever its nature , it is essential that the person holding the office , should have in some degree delegated to him certain function of Government . If therefore on the facts of a particular case , it is found that a person is not only in the service or pay of the Government but is also performing a public duty , he has delegated to him the function of the Government or is in any event performing duties immediately auxiliary to those of some one who is an officer of the Government and is therefore " an Officer " of the Government . In Govt . Departments or corporation other than companies , the word officer has to be understood as defined in law or statute relating to such bodies . But in case of companies covered by the Companies Act , 1956 word " Officer " has been defined in Section 2( 30 ) of the Act as follows :

"Officer includes any director, managing agent , secretaries and treasurer , manager or any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions , the board of directors or any one or more of the Directors , is or are accustomed to act and shall also includes- ( a) where the managing agent or the secretaries and treasurers is or are a firm , any partner if the firm; (b ) where the managing agent or the secretaries and the treasurers is or are a body corporate , any director or manager of the body corporate " .

5725

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

21. The word " officer" has been defined in inclusive manner. Some of the persons mentioned in the definition are really agents and by creation of a fiction they are included in within the word " officer". for the purposes of the said Act . A person , who by the terms of his appointment , is made and called an officer , who is appointed by the company, paid by the company and whose function is to act on behalf of the company and not appointed on a special occasion for a special limited purpose , is an officer . An officer must be of some significant position in the company , association or the federation of such organization, some pay or remuneration should be attached to his office . Reference can be made to the precedent in Sarbeswar Bardoloi ( AIR . 1955 Assam . 140) . Reference can also be made to Kalkaji Compressor Work ( 1968. Lab. 1.C. 92).

22. The word " Officer " merits an idea of officer, therefore , the person claiming to be an officer must show that there is an office which he holds . In other words , any individual who is envisaged with the authority and is required to perform the duties incidental to an office is an officer . The " officer " and the " office " are co - related and basically an " officer " whether he occupy a specific office or not must be in the relation of an employee or servant of a company, firm or individual who is his employer or master . Being an " Officer " , pre - supposes relationship of employer and employee or master and servant .

23. Taking into consideration the definition of word " employee " and " officer " . It would be ascertained whether officers of RRBs are included in the present controversy. As pointed above , the dispute referred for adjudication relates as to whether the action of the management in not giving same service conditions to RRBs employees which are different from employees of sponsor banks is legal and justified. In the reference order , RRBs employees arc focused and not the officers of RRBs . The present claim has been filed by the Association , which represents the officers of RRBs also . Employees of RRBs are on distinct and different pedestal than the Officers . It can not be said that word " employees " used in terms of reference takes "Officers" within its sweep . Since " employees " did not take " officers " within its ambit , hence the claim of officers of RRBs would not be considered in the present controversy.

24. There is other facet of the coin . On formation of an opinion to the fact that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended , the appropriate Govt . may refer that dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule appended to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to a Tribunal for adjudication . Therefore , for making 5726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

a reference for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal , it is expedient for the appropriate Govt . to form an opinion that an " industrial dispute " exists or is apprehended . Therefore , definition of the term industrial dispute needs consideration . Clause (k ) of Section 2 of the Act defines the term " industiral dispute " means any dispute or difference between employers and employers , or between employers and workmen , or between workmen and workmen , which is connected with the employment or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour , of any person;

25. The defintion of " industrial dispute " referred above , can be divided into four parts , viz ( 1 ) factum of dispute , ( 2) parties to the dispute , viz . ( a) employers and employers , (b ) employer and workmen , or ( c) workmen and workmen, ( 3 ) subject matter of the dispute , which should be connected with --( i ) employment or non employment , or (ii) terms of employment , or ( iii ) condition of labour of any person , and (4 ) it should relate to an " industry " .

26. The decision of industrial dispute is worded in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the meaning given to word " workman " it would seem to include all " employers " , all " employments " and all " workmen " , whatever the nature or scope of the employment may be . Therefore , except in the case where there can be a dispute between the employers and employers and workmen and workmen , one of the parties to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of employees . The first point , therefore , to be noted , perhaps self evident , is that the phrase " employer and workmen " , the plural may include singular on either side or any permutation of singular or plural , the masculine including the feminine . In order , therefore , to determine as to whether a controversy or difference or a dispute an " an industrial dispute " or not , it must first be determined whether the workman concerned or workmen sponsoring his cause satisfy the conditions of clause ( s) of Section 2 of the Act .

27. Clause ( s ) of Section 2 of the Act defines the workman as follows :

(s) " workman " means any person ( including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled , skilled , technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward , whether the terms of employment be express or implied , and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute , includes any such person who has been dimissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with , or as a consequence of, that dispute , or whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has led to thať dispute, but does not include any such person:

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | (i ) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 ( 45 of 1950) , or the Army Act , 1950 (46 of 1950 ) , on the Navy Act , 1957 ( 62 of 1957) ; or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison ; or ( iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity ; or

( iv) who , being employed in a supervisory capacity. draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensum or exercises , either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him , functions mainly of a managerial nature .

28. Definition of workman contains three limbs . First limb of the definition gives statutory meaning of the word and determines a workman by reference to a person ( including an apprentice ) employed in an industry to do any manual , unskilled , skilled, technical , operative , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward . The second limb is designed to include a person-( i ) who have been dismissed . discharged or retrenched in connection with an industrial dispute , or ( ii ) whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has led to an industrial dispute , within the ambit of workman . However , the third part of the definition excludes the categories of persons specified in clause ( i) to ( iv ) from the expression " workman " . The definition does not state that a person , in order to be a workman should have been employed in a substantive capacity or on temporary basis in the first instance or after he is found suitable for the job after a period of probation . In other words , every person employed in an industry irrespective of his status temporary , permanent or probationary - would be a workman . The expression " employed " has at least two known connotations , that is , a relationship brought by express or implied contract of service in which 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 or statutorily provided . It discloses a relationship of command and obedience . Reference can be made to the precedent in Food Corporation of India's case [1985 (2) LLJ 4 ] .

29. Mere existence for a contract of service would not confer a relationship of employer and employee until the employer is in a position to control the work of the employee . A master is one who not only prescribes to the workman the end of his work , but directs or at any moment may direct the means also , or as it has been put , " retains the power of controlling the work " , a servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shalldo his work . An independent contractor is one who undertakes to produce a given result but so that [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

inthe actual execution of the work he is not under the order or control of the person for whom he does it, and may use his own discretion in things not specified before hand .

30. The question as to whether an employee is a workman , as defined in Section 2( s) of the Act , has to be determined with reference to his principle nature of auties and functions . Such question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and material brought over the record . To answer this proposition in favour of an employee , it should be brought over record that he was employed to do ( i) manual work, (ii ) un- skilled work , ( iii ) skilled work, ( iv) technical work , (v) operational work , (vi ) clerical work, and (vii ) supervisory work. No material was placed over the record by the Association that officers of RRBs were not employed in supervisory capacity, drawing wages exceeding 1600 rupees per mensum or they don't exercise , either as part of nature of duties attached to their office( s ) or by powers vested in them , functions mainly of managerial in nature . It isa matter of common knowledge that officers in RRBs are employed in supervisory capacity and they draw wages exceeding rupees 1600 per mensum . They also exercise functions mainly managerial in nature to administer the branch( es) under their control . Therefore , officers of RRBs fall in clause ( iii ) as well as ( iv) of the third category, referred above and are excluded from the ambit of " workman " . Whenofficers of RRBs are not workmen within the meaning ofclause( s ) of section 2 ofthe Act, dispute relating to their employment or non - employment or terms of employment or conditions of labour would not fall within the ambit of an industrial dispute . Consequently, any dispute relating to service conditions of officers of RRBs , which are different from sponsor Banks would fall outside the ambit of the reference sent by the appropriate Govt . for adjudication.

31. The Association may agitate that the National Tribunal considered cases of the officers of RRBs and recorded findings in their favour, hence they were entitled to claim parity with the officers and other employees ofthe sponsor Banks in the matter of scales , allowances and other benefits . Admittedly , the National Tribunal considered the claim of officers of RRBs in its award . Whether the National Tribunal was constituted by the Central Govt . under the Act , was a question posedby the Tribunal for answer. It was concluded by the Tribunal that dispute in question was not a dispute purely between workmen and employer. The members of RRBs service associations consist also of officer cadre purely on the managerial or administrative side whose emoluments exceed 1600 rupees per month . Duties attached to the officer of the rank of a branch manager or field officer are purely managerial and all of them along with other employees sub - staff are members of the Association which filed the 3296GI/10-29

5727

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

writ petition . It was announced that the dispute was not an industrial dispute simpleciter between employer and workman so as to attract provisions ofthe Act . The Tribunal went on to say that " it was an anomalous Tribunal like an anomalous mortgage . It was not a pay commission though ithad its attributes . The Supreme Court directed a reference to be made on the basis of the agreement reached between the parties . But it is not a dispute referred for arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration Act or any other Act . It is all the same a National Tribunal , in the sense that the questions involved and referred to the Tribunal are of national importance. This Tribunal , in my opinion , appears to be something of everything , all rolled into one" .

32. As held by the Tribunal , it was exercising power over the matter in pursuance of directions of the Apex Court and reference order made by the appropriate Govt . It was not a National Tribunal constituted under the Act . Therefore , ambit of powers exercised by the National Tribunal was different and distinct than those which can be exercised by this Tribunal , under the provisions of the Act. Hence , contention , if any, would not benefit the Association to the effect that the National Tribunal granted officers of the RRBs parity with the officers and other employees of the sponsor banks in the matter of pay scales , allowances and other benefits and on the same pattern this Tribunal may consider their case .

33. The matter can be examined with an angle of equality before law. 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 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 arbitrary. The guarantee given by clause (a) of Article 16 of the 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 matters in relations to employment both prior and subsequent to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms ar conditions of such employment .

5728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

34. 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 judgement . 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 to be achieved. Classification may be made according to the nature of persons , nature of business , and may be based with reference to time .

35. 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 .

36. Employees of RRBs claim parity in respect of their service conditions with the employees of the sponsor banks , claiming themselves to be an important arm of the latter . Their contention in that regard are unfounded. RRBs are constituted by the Central Government under the provisions of the Banks Act , in order to meet the credit needs of the weaker section population living in rural areas . RRBs are independent statutory corporations and are expected to be low cost institutions staffed by persons residing within the area of their operation . Employees of the RRBs are not transferable outside the area of operations ofthese banks , in which they are employed . These banks are established to serve a specified geographical area restricted to notified districts . Employees of RRBs form a different and district class than the employees of sponsor banks . They are not at par with the employees of sponsor banks , nor employed in the same organization . There are variance in the manner of their recruitment , place of work , service conditions and other factors from the employees of sponsor banks . Hence they are not at par with them . They cannot claim equality with the employees of sponsor

[ PART II - SEC . 3 (ii ) ] bank , with the ambit of fundamental rights guaranteed by the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution .

37. Now factual matrix shall be taken note of. As emerge out of record , on 15th September , 2000 , Govt . of India, Ministry of Finance ( Banking Division) , Parliament Street , New Delhi , issued a circular in respect of revision of model service regulations applicable to the employees and officers of the RRBs , after consultation with respective sponsor banks and NABARD. The said circular came under attack when the Association raised dispute before the Conciliation Officer demanding parity in service regulations with that of employees of sponsor banks . The demand No. 2 raised before the Conciliation Officer is re- produced hereunder for reference :

" Further in view of similarity of work and working hours , duties and responsibilities pay parity was awarded by NIT and upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court but equal service condition/ regulations were not provided , which badly affects viability. profitability, work- culture , motivation and promotion in RRBs . Therefore , extension of service regulations of sponsor banks in RRBs are most required . " 38. Under Secretary , Govt . of India , Ministry of Finance ( Banking Division ) , Parliament Street , New Delhi wrote to the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) on 7th September , 2006 in that regard and summarized that dispute in following terms:

" Parity in Service Regulations : The Government had framed Model RRBs ( Officers and Employers ) Service Regulations and circulated to all RRBs on 15-9-2000 for notifying in the official Gazette after taking necessary approval of their Board as per provision under Section 30 ( 1 ) of RRB Act , 1976. Since the service conditions of RRBs employees are different from that of the sponsor bank , it is not possible to grant parity with sponsor banks . However , wherever possible , the Service Regulations of sponsor banks are kept in view while framing amending the Service Regulations of RRBs .

This demand raised by the Association and summarised by the Under Secretary became the subject matter of the reference under consideration .

39. Section 30 of the Banks Act empowers the Board of Directors of RRBs , after consultation with the sponsor bank and the national bank and with previous sanction of the Central Govt. , to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of that Act and the rules made there- under, to provide for all matters for which provisions is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the said Act . In exercise of that power.

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

the circular referred above was issued . Events subsequent to the reference order are relevant . However the Association adopted a posture of hide and seek . The Tribunal took pains to note those events , which are detailed in these succeeding section . The major event on the issue is . that on 23rd May, 2007 , Govt . of India constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Y.S.P. Throat , Chairman , NABARD to review manpower related issues in RRBs . Terms of Reference of the said Committee were as follows:

(i) To examine the staff strength of RRBs with reference to the report of the Working Group under the chairmanship of Dr. K.P. Aggarwal and as modified by the Central Govt .

( ii) To lay down the parameters of the staff strength of the amalgamated and stand alone RRBs .

(iii) To determine staff strength in the various categories and also the ratio and proportion between the sub- staff, clerical and other office grade while keeping in view the promotional prospects to meet aspiration of the employees for carrier progression .

( iv) To examine the feasibility of outsourcing of sub- staff.

(v) To suggest norms and procedures for new recruitment , and

(vi) any other aspects relevant to this aspect .

40. Throat Committee submitted its report to the Govt . on 23rd October , 2007 wherein following recommendations were made :

(i) The Committee recommended that RRBs be classified into four categories based on business level or branch network wise whichever is achieved earlier ( para 3.2.3 ) .

( ii) Recommendation was made that branches of RRBs be classified into five categories based on business levels (para 3.3.7) .

(iii) It was recommended that the concept of Controlling Office to be made applicable for all RRBs achieving the branch network level of 50 branches irrespective of whether they are amalgamated or stand alone ( para 3.5.1) .

(iv) Cadre- wise and officer scale wise staffing pattern in the Head Office was recommended to be prescribed according to the category of RRB (para 3.6.4).

5729 ( v) Cadre - wise and officer scale wise staff pattern ofcontrolling offices was recommended to be adopted ( para 3.7.1 ) .

(vi ) Cadre - wise and officer scale - wise staff pattern for branches was recommended to be prescribed and differentiated among the five categories of branches recommended by the Committee (para 3.8.2 ).

(vii) Various categories of staff was recommended to be rational and clerical staff to be re- designated as Assistant and subordinate staff to be re - designated as office attendant ( para 4.5.2) .

(viii ) Recruitment and Promotion Rules , 1998 were recommended to be amended as per proposals designed. It was further recommended that the posts of officers in the scale of ( iv ) and ( v) be created , based on merit and introduction of two channels system of promotion in existing grades , besides recruitment of specialised category of officers ( para 4.8 ) .

(ix) RRBs officers on promotion in the scale of ( iv) /( v) were recommended to be considered for appointment as General Managers and Scale (v) officers and selectively be considered for appointment as Chairman (para 4.8 . ) .

(x) A Technical Committee was recommended to be constituted to suggest amendments in RRB's Officers and Employees Service Regulations , 2000 (para 4.10.7 ) .

(xi) It was also recommended that RRBs may resort to outsourcing of all non - core functions and identified six suitable functions for the same (para4.8.4) .

(xii) Broad guidelines and cadre specific norms for transfer to staff in Group " A " , " B " and " C " were recommended based on which RRBs are to formulate suitable transfer policy ( para 4.10.3).

(xiii) Constitution of a high powered Committee by the Govt . of India was recommended to study IT related issues in RRBs in totality ( para 5.7) .

(xiv) It was further recommended that the sponsor banks may consider earmarking any one training institute in any State or earmark one channel in the identified training institute which can cater the training requirements of all RRBs , within the State or from the adjoining areas of adjacent State ( s ) ( para 6.2.3 ) .

5730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

(xv) The Committee opined that RRBs may reintroduce scheme of mobile job trainer specially to cater to the training requirements on operational/ functional subject in small branches , where deputing staff for training would result in branch staff constraints ( para 6.3).

(xvi) The committee also recommended that the RBBs should have a exclusive training cell in the Personnel Department at Head Office to bestow more attention to training function (para6.4).

41. With a view to revisit the Model RRBs Officers and Employees , Service Regulations , 2000 , the Govt . of India constituted another Committee vide its order No. F 3/8 / 2008 - RRB New Delhi dated 22nd August , 2008 under the chairmanship of Shri Amresh Kumar , Chairman NABARD , with following terms of reference :

(i) To study , review and suggest suitable amendments of the Model RRBs Officers and Employees Service Regulations , 2000 .

( ii) To examine the issues of having separate service regulations for officers and employees ofRRBs .

( iii) Any other matter relating to service regulations of RRBs .

42. The Committee had its meetings from 12th September , 2008 till 6th February , 2009 at Mumbai , Kolkatta , Kerala and Mangalore . It submitted its report to the Govt . of India on 13th February , 2009. It made various recommendations to be included in Model RRB Officers and Employees Service Regulations , 2000 , which recommendations are reproduced thus :

(i) In place of " Area Manager " , post of " Regional Manager " was recommended , which was approved by the Govt . of India as per recommendation of Throat Committee .

(ii) Competent Authority for disciplinary matters was to be Chairman in case of officers and the General Manager in case of other employees , as per recommendation of Throat Committee which was approved by the Govt . of India .

( iii) The definition of employee was modified to remove ambiguity in existing regulations . The officers and employees of the RRBs who were classified as Group A officers cadre scale I , Scale II , Scale III with designation in relation to any of the scales as officer , Branch Manager , Area Manager , Senior Manager and other

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] scales or designation as may be specified were recommended to be classified as Group A Officers-Junior Management -Scale I , Middle Management-Scale II , Scale III , Senior Manager Management- Scale IV and Scale V, and are to be designated as Assistant Manager, Manager , Senior Manager, Chief Manager , Regional Manager and General Manager , as per recommendations of Throat Committee , which was approved by the Govt . of India .

(iv) Group B clerical cadre with designation of Clerk- cum-Cashier , Clerk- cum- Typist . Stenographer and such other categories as may be specified were proposed to be designated as Office Assistants (Multi- purpose ) as per recommendation of Throat Committee, approved by Govt . of India .

(v) Group C subordinate cadre staff designated as Messenger , Messenger - cum- Sweeper , Driver , Driver- cum- Messenger , Part time Messenger- cum- Sweeper , Security Guard and such other categorize as may be specified were recommended to be designated as Office Attendants (Multi - purpose ) which recommendation was approved by Govt . of India .

(vi ) Chairman was competent to engage persons in clerical cadre and/ or subordinate cadre on ad -hoc and/ or temporary basis for a period of not exceeding 60 days in a year to meet exceptional need . This position was modified, authorizing chairman to engage person ( s ) in group ' C ' on casual basis for a period not exceeding 90 days in a year to meet any exceptional need or circumstances .

(vii) To remove ambiguity in existing regulations , it was recommended that an officer directly appointed in Group ' A' shall be on probation for a period of two years which may be extended by the appointing authority for a period not exceeding one year.

(viii) An officer promoted in higher scale was to remain on probation for a period of one year , which period was extendable by the appointing authority for a period not exceeding six months . This clause was omitted , since there was no probation on promotion in higher scale in public sector banks .

(ix) Based on recommendation of Throat Committee , it was opined that an employce [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

directly appointed in Group ' B ' or group ' C ' shall be on probation for a period of one year , which may be extendable by the appointing authority for a period not exceeding six months .

(x) An employee of group ' C ' on being promoted to group ' B ' post shall be on probation for a period ofsix months , which shall be extendable by the appointing authority for a period not exceeding three months . This amendment was recommended on the basis of suggestions made by Throat Committee . In a matter of confirmation no change was suggested in the Regulations .

(xi) Three months notice was to be served for the purpose of termination of service of a confirmed officer or employee . One month notice was to be given in the case of an officer or employee , on probation . Such recommendations were made on the lines of provisions in public sector banks .

(xii) To remove ambiguity in existing regulation , it was proposed that an officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending shall not leave , discontinue or resign from his service , without prior approval of the appointing authority and any notice of resignation given by such employee shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the competent authority.

(xiii) To remove ambiguity in existing regulations , it was proposed that the bank shall maintain separate seniority list for each cadre of officer or employee and category - wise seniority list within a cadre .

(xiv) Promotion of officers or employees in the bank shall be made in accordance with the rules framed by the Central Government , in terms of section 29 of the Banks Act , since separate rules are in force , in respect of appointment and promotion .

(xv) Regulation relating to reversion was proposed to be omitted since probation in higher scale was removed . In times of need , every officer is obliged to carry out all such duties and actions as may be necessary to ensure carrying out of the normal work of every day. Such provision was made in the Regulations in tune with the provisions in public sector banks . To remove ambiguity in existing regulation , an officer or

5731 employee was constrained not to own wholly or in part or conduct or participate in the editing ormanagement of any newspaper or any other periodical publication . Constraints were placed on an officer or an employee in participating in Radio Broadcast , T.V. or any other electronic media.

(xvi) Constraints were placed on officer or employce ofthe bank not to absent oneself from his head quarter overnight without previous sanction from the Regional Manager or General Manager or Officer Incharge or Branch Manager , as the casemay be.

(xvii) No joining time was to be admissible to an officer or employee while being transferred within the same Panchayat , Municipality, Urban area . Provisions were made as per existing instructions of the Govt. of India . Every officer or employee was enjoined with a duty to declare his domicile in writing to the Bank at the time of his appointment , which recommendation was made to remove ambiguity. Every officer and employee was liable to be transferred in any office or branch of the Bank , which provision was based on the report of the Throat Committee .

(xviii) Every officer has been commanded to report every transaction consisting moveable property owned or held by him in his own name or in the name of any dependent member of his family, if value of such property exceeds Rs. 25000/- . Such change is suggested on the lines of provision in public sector banks .

(xix) An officer or employee , arrested for debt or on a criminal charge or detained in pursuance of any process of law may be suspended or treated as being suspended from the date of his arrest or detention . Such provisions are made to remove ambiguity in existing regulations .

(xx) Provisions has been made for all compulsory deductions and instalments towards repayment of unsecured loans and advances from subsistence allowance payable to an officer and employee , on being suspended . Such provisions are proposed in tune with the provisions in public sector banks . In case of leaves , existing instructions of Government of India have been incorporated in the regulations . In the matter of transferability it has been provided that an officer appointed in 5732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

scale IV and scale V shall be liable to be transferred to any Regional Rural Bank sponsored by sponsor bank , with prior approval of the sponsor bank .

(xxi) Provisions have been made to lend service of an officer or employee to other organizations , which provisions are made to remove ambiguity in existing regulations . In case some one contracts a marriage with a person having a spouse living , he is supposed to obtain exemption in that regard . Such provisions have been made to remove ambiguity in existing regulations .

43. Itwas opined that separate regulations for officers and employees may lead to a situation where workman may demand coverage under the Act , besides a claim that respective Board of Directors is an authority to accord all wage revision. It was opined that at present it was not desirable , considering the level of nominating Directors coming from State Govt . , Sponsor Bank and those representing Govt . of India. it was thought expedient to have a single regulation to facilitate cohesiveness amongst officers and employees of RRBs .

44. Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules , 2009 have been proposed . In those rules definitions of the WordsAct , Committee , Regional Rural Bank , (Officer and Employees Service) Regulations , Schedule and Sponsor Bank have been given . Category of posts are also detailed , without any change from existing position. Board of Regional Rural Bank is empowered to create requisite number of vacancies in each category of posts specified in the First Schedule with power to determine number of vacancies to be filled by recruitment or promotion , as detailed in Rule 5. No change have been proposed in the manner of filling the vacancies . Chairman shall be the appointing authority in respect of the officers and the General Manager shall be the appointing authority in respect of employees , mentions Rule 7. In the matter of direct recruitments no change is suggested in the rules . Since Banking Service Recruitment Board has been abolished in 2000 , it has been detailed that written examination shall be entrusted to Institute of Banking Personnel Selections or any other agency approved by sponsor bank. Recruitment to group ' C ' posts shall be made after making a reference to employment exchange , Sainik Board or other agencies catering welfare of Scheduled

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | Caste and Scheduled Tribes , physically handicapped persons , as are recognized by the Central Government . Provisions have been made for constitution of Committee forthe purpose ofrecommending candidates for recruitment or promotion . Provisions for reservations have also been suggested in the rules . Three Schedules are appended to these rules . In Third Schedule procedure for recruitment promotion ofgroup'A' officer , officer- middle management (Scale III ) , Officer - Sr. management (Scale IV) , Officer - Sr . management ( Scale V) , recruitment and promotion of group 'B ' post-Office Assistant ( Multi -purpose) Group ' C' post office attendant (Multi - purpose) are provided.

45. In view of these facts , it is evident that on acceptance ofThroat Committee report and modifications in the regulations in view the basis of the report of Amresh Kumar Committee , service conditions of RRBs employees has undergone a sea change . Provisions have been made for better promotional prospectives , transfer policy based on rationale and proper work environment culture. Branches are categorised based on business level and network level . Staff pattern has been made on the basis of category -wise and officer scale- wise. Clerical cadre has been re-designated as Assistant, while subordinate cadre has been re -designated as office attendant . Recruitment and promotion rules have been liberalized . Therefore , it is evident that service conditions which were in existence at thetime of issuance of circular dated 15th September, 2000 , no more stand on that very pedestal .

46. Parity in the matter of pay, service conditions , allowances and other benefits have been accorded to the employees of RRBs with that of employees of sponsor Banks in pursuance of the award of the National Tribunal and approved by the Apex Court . By modification of service regulations on recommendations made by Throat Committee andAmresh Kumar Committee , the Govt . of India had fulfilled the demands raised by the Association in the matter of parity of service regulations .

47. Inview ofthe changed circumstances and events noted above , no other command is to be given to the Govt . ofIndia, Ministry of Finance (Banking Division ) , Parliament Street, New Delhi . The claimant Association is not entitled for any further relief in the matter . An award is accordingly passed. It is sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication .

Dated: 29-6-2010 Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 9 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2202.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार गुडगाँव ग्रामीण बैंक मुख्यालय , गुडगाँव प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 /1/ 2006- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th August , 2010

S.O. 2202.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court No. I , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Head Office and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-8-2010 .

[No. L- 12011 /1 /2006- IR (B - I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 2/2007

5733 industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Govt . referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L - 12011 / 1 / 2006 - IR ( B - 1 ) , New Delhi dated 8th January, 2007 , with following terms :

" Whether the action of the Management of Gurgaon Gramin Bank in threatening/ transfer of protected workmen , non deduction of organization subscription , non implementation of Govt . of India's orders and non reply of Union's letters is just and legal ? If not , what relief the Union is entitled to ? "

Claimant/Workman

The President, Gurgaon Gramin Bank Workers ' Organization , H. No. 351 , Sector 16, Faridabad

Versus

The Chairman ,

Management

Gurgaon Gramin Bank , Head Office , Sector 4, Gurgaon

AWARD

Former Vice President, Gurgaon Bank Workers ' Organization (hereinafter referred to as the Unica) namely, Shri Krishna Kumar was dismissed from its service by Gurgaon Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) . A demand was made by the Union for his re - instatement , which was not considered favourably by the Bank . Subsequently , Shri Puneet Verma and Shri Virender Chawla, General Secretary and the Joint Secretary of the Union were transferred from Palla Branch of the Bank . Check off facility was not provided by the Bank to the Union , besides delay in implementation of Govt. of India instructions . Union wrote letters to the Bank , which were allegedly not responded . All these issued led the Union to raise an 2. Claim statement was filed by the Union pleading therein that Chairman and General Manager of the Bank threatened office bearers of the Union by way of issuance of charge sheet and termination of their service , in case they would approach the authorities for redressal of their grievances . It has been pleaded that Shri Krishna Kumar formerly Vice President of the Union was suspended and thereafter his services were terminated by the Bank . The Union made a request for his re - instatement in service , which request was not conceded . Subsequently , Shri Puneet Verma and Shri Virender Chawla , General Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Union were transferred . Union made a request for cancellation of their transfer order , which request wass declined . The Bank extended threats to transfer protected workmen to remote areas without any justified reasons . It has been pleaded that the Bank opted not to deduct organization subscription from salaries of the members of the Union , as per check off facility . When such dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer , the Bank projected that there were two unions in the establishment of the Management Bank . No evidence was produced by the Bank in respect of other union in its establishment . The Govt . of India issued instructions , vide order No. F. 7 ( 6 )/2005 - RRB dated 6th October , 2005 and order No. F. 7 (6) /2005 - RRB dated 25th October , 2005 , in respect of pay and allowances which were to be paid to the employees of the Bank . The management Bank delayed compliance of the said orders and a part of the allowances were released , vide circular No. 72 /PD/ 2006/ 18 dated 31st March , 2006 and some of allowances were released vide Circular No. 204/PD/2006/ 52 dated 28th September , 2006. However , remaining allowances , as per 8th bipartite settlements are yet to be released. The Apex Court had handed down a decision in favour of the Regional Rural Banks that they are entitled to have equal pay for equal work and parity in the matter of pay and allowances with the sponsor banks .

3. The Union agitates that it had demanded payment ofhigher HRA , CCA in Carter Puri Branch of the Bank and implementation of the Transport Allowance and Computer Increment as prevalent in Jaipur Nagore Anchalik Gramin Bank , Jaipur . The management refused to abide by the request of the Union . Non- compliance of request of the Union , steps to withdraw recognition of the Union .

5734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) |

5. Shri R S Gupta was examined on behalf of the bank . The union opted not to examine any witnesses to substantiate its claim . Since 5th of November , 2009 , the union abandoned the proceedings .

6. Arguments were advanced by Shri P. R. Yadav, authorised representative , for the bank . None came forward to advance arguments on behalf of the union . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the records . My findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows :

extension of threats to transfer protected workmen, non- issue of list of protected workmen , non - implementation of order of the Govt . of India , harassing employees and refusal to abide by request of the Union amounts to unfair labour practice , which is punishable under Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , ( in short the Act) . Since the Bank is practising unfair labour practice , it is liable to be prosecuted for the offences committed by it. It has been claimed that necessary orders may be passed against the Bank under Section 25 - T and 25 - U , read with Fifth Schedule of theAct .

7.Shri Rajesh Gupta unfolds that he joined conciliation proceedings in the matter . The union moved an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) alleging therein instances of unfair labour practice adopted by the bank , copy of which application is Ex . MW1 / 1 . on 26th December, 2005 , the bank submitted reply to the said application , copy of which reply is Ex . MW 1/2 . On the 15th December , 2005 , a meeting took place between the union and the bank , minutes of the said meeting are Ex. MW 1/3 . He attended that meeting and his signatures appears at point A of Ex . MW 1/3 . Though the office bearers ofthe union had attended that meeting , yet they refused 10 sign the minutes . On 31st January , 2006 conciliation officer submitted its failure report to the approprate Govt . , copy ofwhich report is Ex . MW 1/4 .

8. He announced that on 17th February, 2006 . Shri Pradeep Garg, Shri Naresh Gupta , Shri Puneet Verma , Shri J. P. Sharma and Shri Rajpal were declared as protected workmen by the bank , copy of said letter is Ex . MW 1/5 . On 31st January, 2006 , the bank replied letter sent by the union of 16th January , 2006 , copy of which reply is Ex . MW 1/6 . On 23rd May, 2006 , the bank replied letter dt . 19th May, 2006 written by the union , copy of which reply is Ex.MW 1/7 . On 16th February, 2006 , a meeting took place between the union and the bank copy of minutes of that meeting are Ex . MW 1/9 . Again a meeting took place between the union and the bank on 23rd November, 2007 copy of minutes of that meeting are Ex . MW 1/10 . In similar manner , a meeting took place between the union and the bank on 23rd February , 2008 , copy of which is Ex. MW 1/11 . He attended all those meetings . No unruly incident took place between officers of the bank and office bearers of the unions , in meetings referred above . Office bearers of the union were neither terrorised nor pressurised by the Bank saying that in case they will not obey dictates of the management either they would be transferred or charge sheeted or terminated.

9. When efforts were made to purify his testimony by an ordeal of cross examination Shri Gupta conceded that check off facility was granted to the Union by the Bank , vide letter dated 2nd June , 1997 , copy of which letter is Ex . MW 1 / W2 . Letter of recognition was sent to the Union , which is Ex. MW1 /W1 . He explains that purpose of check off facility is to deduct subscription from members ' salaries and to deposit it into the account of the Union . In case such a request is 4. Claim was resisted by the bank pleading that no industrial dispute exists between the Bank and the Union . It has been projected that an industrial dispute was raised by Shri Krishna Kumar in respect of termination of his services which dispute pends adjudication before Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. II , Karkardooma Courts , Delhi . As such , claim of the union that his termination of service amounts to unfair labour practice , is uncalled for Shri Puneet Verma and Shri J. B. Sharma , Joint Secretary and Treasurer of the union were transferred from Palla Branch of the Bank only after their considerable stay at the said branch . Their transfer was a normal incidence of service , which right was exercised by the bank in exigency of service . That act doesn't amount to violation of Rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules , 1957. Even otherwise , granting of status of a protected workman doesn't entitle him to get posting of his choice . It has been denied that the bank extended any threats to the office bearers of the union to the effect that on raising dispute before any authority for redressal they would be transferred and their services would be dispensed with . It has been pleaded that union submitted letters from employees authorising the bank to deduct union subscription from their salaries . However , as those authority letters contained restrictive clause the deductions were not made . The union raised that issue before the conciliation officer , where the bank agreed to make deductions and as such deductions of union subscription started from March , 2006. The union raised issue before the conciliation officer for grant of status of protected workmen to its office bearers and the conciliation officer passed order dated 10th February , 2006 , which order was complied . It has been projected that bank had granted pay and allowances to its employees as per directions of NABARD/ Sponsor bank , as far as claim of higher HRA , CCA , transport and computer increment are concerned , those issues are to be adjudicated at industry level and conciliation officer had already submitted his report to the appropriate Govt . in that regard . Various letters referred by the union in its claim statement were addressed to by the bank in its written statement, detailing therein that demands raised in those letters were favourably answered . In respect of a few letters , it is mentioned that they relate to subsequent events and do not form part of the reference . It has been pleaded that the bank had not adopted unfair labour practice and as such claim is liable to be dismissed .

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]

received on 19th day of English calander month then generally sbscription is deduced from the salary of that very month and in exceptional cases it is deducted from salary of the subsequent month . He admits that letters Ex . MW 1/W3 and Ex. MW 1 /W4 were received from the Union, wherein request was made to deduct subscription from salary of the members , whose names were detailed in the letters referred above . He explains that since authority letters of the members were not enclosed, he cannot say from which month subscriptions were deducted out of their salary. He presents that most probably subscription from salary of the members were deducted from the month of February and March, 2006 respectively. He explains that Sri S. S. Ahuja has withdrawn his request. He conceded that there is a transfer policy applicable to officers as well as employees of the Bank . However, he denies that an employee can stay at a particular branch for a minimum period of 5 years as per transfer policy. He explains that instructions contained in letter Ex. MW 1 / W5 , issuedby Govt . of India, were implemented by the Bank. Hedenied that dismissal of Shri Krishan Kumar was illegal.

10. When facts projected by Shri Rajesh Gupta are closely perused, it came to light that letter written by the Union to the Bank were replied time to time . Letter dated 16th January, 2006, was replied on 31st January, 2006 , vide Ex . MW 1/6 . Letter dated 19th May, 2006 was replied by the Bank on 23rdMay, 2006 vide Ex. MW 1/7 . It is also emerging that from time to time there used to be meetings between the officers of the Bank and office bearers of the Union , with a view to sort out grievances raised by the latter. The minutes of those meetings are proved by Shri Gupta vide Ex . MW 1/3 , MW 1/8 , MW 1/9 , MW 1/10 and MW 1/11 . He also projects that letter of recognition issued in favour of the Union is Ex. MW1 /W1 . These facts make it clear that as and when the Union raised grievances before the officers of the Bank, every attempts were made to redress those grievances by sitting across the table . Minutes of various meetings which took place between the officers of the Bank and office bearers of the Union highlight that situation . The bank had been responding to letters addressed to it by the Union . Therefore, it is emerging over the record that no case has been established by the Union that its letters were not responded to or grievances raised by the Union were not addressed to by the Bank authorities .

11. A claim was made by the Union that a threat was extended by the Bank authorities to its office bearers concerning their transfer or being charge sheeted or terminated. It was incumbent upon the Union to establish that proposition before this Tribunal , by way of production of evidence direct or circumstantial . No evidence worth name was brought over the record . No document was proved to show that such a threat was extended at any point of time , by the officers of the Bank . It was agitated that Shri Puneet Verma and Shri Virender Chawla were transferred by the Bank in violation of transfer policy. On this issue , the Bank claimed that Shri Puneet Verma and 3296GI /10-30

5735 Shri J. P. Sharma were transferred from Palla branch of the Bank only when they remained posted for a considerable period at the said branch . Whether these facts go to espouse, the claim put forward by the Union ? In order to show that the said transfer was unfair labour practice , the Union had not adduced any evience . No iota of fact was brought to the notice of this Tribunal to suggest that the aforesaid office bearers of the Union were transferred from Palla branch of the Bank in a very short period , after their posting in that branch. It is also not highlighted that what is the normal period of stay of an employee at a particular branch. In such a situation it is evident that there is a vacuum ofevidence over the issue to conclude that their transfer was an act of unfair labour practice on the part of the Bank.

12. Generally it is alleged by Union of workmen that transfer of all active workmen or officer of the Union was motivated eiher by way of harassing the said officer or active worker or breaking the strength of the Union at a particular place by transferring him to some other place. In such cases , it is a question of a fact that whether the transfer is or is not by way of victimisation . The general rule is that the employer has a right to transfer an active worker or officer of the union in the interest of exigency of the business . The right of employer to transfer is not taken away because employée is an active worker or officer of the union. Existence of a power to transfer is one and exercise of the said power is entirely a different question . Colourable exercise of power to transfer an employee from one establishment to another at a different place can always be interferred by an industrial adjudicator. When a union officer is transferred to a place where he would not be able to pursue his Union activities in an effective manner, such transfer may give an impression that it was so done to weaken the union . But those facts are to be established by positive and cogent evidence . Here in the case , no such evidence is available over the record . On the other hand , the management projects that Shri Puneet Verma and Shri J. P. Sharma were transferred from Palla branch of the Bank when they served that branch for a considerable period . The transfer was claimed in exigency of business which proposition was not rebutted at all . These facts persuade me to conclude that the Union has not be able to show that transfer of the aforesaid officers of the Union was by way ofvictimisation and amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the Bank.

13. Though a case of threat was projected on behalf ofthe Union but no traces of evidence is available to assess that claim in favour of the Union . Shri Rajesh Gupta claims to have attended all meetings which took place between the officers of the Bank and office bearers of the Union . He had proved minutes of those meetings before this Tribunal . Those minutes are available for perusal . When perused those minutes could not paint a picture in favour of the Union. Canvas projected by those minutes clean , without any dot of blemish on the management . Consequently, I 5736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/ BHADRA 13 , 1932

am constrained to conclude that the Union has failed to show that the Bank authorities extended threats to the office bearers of the Union or they attempted to transfer protected workmen with a view to victimise them or to weaken the Union as a part of unfair labour practice .

14. Issue relating to non- deduction of union subscription out of salaries of its members by the Bank was raised . Shri Rajesh Gupta presents that letters Ex . MW 1 / W3 and MW 1 / W4 were received from the Union , with a request to deduct union subscription from salary of their members . Ex . MW 1 / W3 was written in September , 2005 and Ex . MW 1 /W4 was written in October , 2005. As admitted by Shri Gupta , union subscription was deducted from the month of February and March , 2006. The Bank ought to have deducted union subscription from the salary of its members in September and October , 2005 respectively. Shri Gupta offered an explanation that since there is restrictive clause in authority letters , issued by the members , no deduction ofunion subscription was made from their salary . The issue was raised before the Conciliation Officer but the conciliation proceedings failed . Thereafter , after discussions with the Union , the Bank started making deductions of subscription from the salaries of the members from the month of February and March , 2006. Consequently, it is evident that there were lapses on the part of the Bank in making deductions of union subscription from the salaries of the members of the Union for a certain period .

15. Whether the aforesaid lapses on the part of the Bank can be said to be a part of policy of the Bank to weaker the Union . As pointed out by Shri Gupta , there had been periodical meetings between the officers of the Bank and office bearers of the Union and grievances raised by the Union were redressed time to time . In the same manner , grivances relating to check off facility was discussed and redressed by way of deduction of union subscription from the salary of February and March , 2006. Therefore , it is emerging that no deduction of subscription for a few months was not an action of making the Union less effective , weak and defunct . Undoubtedly, subscription adds financial powers to union activities but non duduction of subscription for a few months couldn't result into withdrawal of the coffer from the Union . Therefore , that act cannot substantiate the claim of the Union in respect of unfair union .

16. Ex . MW 1 /W5 contains instructions issued by the Govt . of India in respect of pay and other allowances which were to be paid to the employees of the Bank , at par with sponsor banks . It was agitated by the Union that those instructions were not complied with by the Bank . Contra to it, the Bank presents that those instructions were followed in lettter and spirit . The Bank had granted pay and other allowances to its employees in accordance with the circular referred above . Therefore , it has been made clear that pay and allowances were released in favour of the employees of the Bank in pursuance of instructions issued by the Govt . of

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )| India . The delay in release of such benefits would not result in any prejudice to an employee , since he would get arrears in that eventuality . No case of unfair labour practice was proved by the Union in that regard too.

17. The Union claims in claim statement that action may be initiated against officers of the Bank in terms of provisions of Section 25 - T and 25 - U of the Act . Section 25- T of the Act prohibits an employer or a workman or trade union from committing any unfair labour practice. Prohibition under the said section is against commission of unfair labour practice , which may include final acts of such commission . No provisions are there to put an embargo ofan employer from engaging in any unfair labour practice . When it is shown that an employer had committed an unfair labour practice then he is liable to be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to 1000 rupees or with both.

18. Sub - section (2) of the said section makes it clear no Court inferior to Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate first class shall try any offence under the Act . The Legislature makes it clear that complaint for punishment for commission of unfair labour practice shall be filed by or under the authority of the appropriate Govt . Therefore , it is evident that in case the Union would have proved commission of unfair labour practice then the Union should have approached the appropriate Govt . for steps to prosecute the offenders . As detailed above , no such commission of unfair labour practice has been established . Therefore , the Union has not been able to show that actions of the management , in respect of aspects referred above , were illegal . I am constrained to conclude that actions of the Bank , in respect of counts detailed and discussed in preceding sections , do not amount to unfair labour practice . Nothing has been highlighted to proceed further to adjudicate unjustifiable of the action of the Bank . Therefore , the aforesaid actions of the Bank are found to be justified too .

19. In view of the foregoing discussions , it is crystal clear that the Union has not been able to establish any of the counts raised in its claim statement . Claim statements put forward by the Union , is liable to be discarded . Resultantly, the claim statement is dismissed , being devoid ofmerits . No relief is to be accorded to the Union in the matter. An award is accordingly passed . It be sent to the appropriate Govt . of publication .

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer .

Dated: 29-6-2010 .

नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त , 2010

का. आ. 2203.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. सी . एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 26/2008 ) को प्रकाशित [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/302/2007- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S.O. 2203.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2008 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of M/ s . Mahanadi Coalfield Limited , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 10-8-2010 .

[No. L-22012/302/2007 - IR ( CM - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer, C.GI.T. -cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar

Industrial Dispute Case No. 26/2008 Date of Passing Order -28th May , 2010 BETWEEN :

The Management of the Chief General Manager , Jagannath Area of MCL , Angul 1st Party-Management

AND

Their Workmen represented through the General Secretary , Talcher Koila Khani Mazdoor Sangh at Jumde Bhavan , P.O. South Balanda , Distt . Angul - 759 116

2nd Party-Union APPEARANCES :

Shri Rajat Kumar Senapati , Authorized Representative

For the 1st Party- Management Shri Mohan Nayak, E.C.

Forthe 2nd Party- Union (1) (2) (3)

14. 28-5-2010 (Lok Adalat )

Case taken up today before Lok Adalat. Both the parties are present through authorized representatives and have filed their memo ofpresence along with ajoint petition stating therein that at present there is no cause of action

5737

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

(3)

and the case is settled accordingly.

Hence the reference is decided / answered in terms of the petition of the parties which shall form part of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the Ministry of Labour , Govt . of India, for taking necessary action at their end .

J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त , 2010

का. आ. 2204.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एम . सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2009 ) को प्रकाशित कस्ती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -22012/308/2007- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) | डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S.O. 2204. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2009 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of M / s . Mahanadi Coalfield Limited , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 10-8-2010 .

[No. L -22012/308 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. - cum -Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Industrial Dispute Case No. 8/2009 Date of Passing Order- 29th July, 2010 BETWEEN :

The Management of the General Manager, Talcher Area of MCL , Angul 1st Party Management 5738

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

AND

Their Workmen represented through the General Secretary, Talcher Koila Khani Mazdoor Sangh , Angul .

2nd Party-Union APPEARANCES :

None

For the 1st Party - Management None

Forthe 2nd Party- Union

ORDER

Case taken up today. Both the parties are absent .

Earlier on 28-5-2010 the authorized representative of the 2nd Party-Union had filed a petition for permission to allow it to withdraw the memo filed a bit earlier on the same day. Today none is present for the 2nd Party- Union to press this petition . As such this petition filed on the later part of the day on 28-5-2010 is dismissed as not pressed in absence of the 2nd Party-Union and the petition to withdraw the case filed earlier on the same day is allowed in the circumstances of the case . The 2nd Party-Union has still not filed the Statement of Claim inspite of lapse of a period ofmore than one and a quarter year . Therefore , the reference is decided as withdrawn and the award be deemed to have been passed accordingly.

Dictatedand Corrected by me .

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2205.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. सी. एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/ 127/2007- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S.O. 2205.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s . Mahanadi Coalfield Limited, Deulbera Colliery, M/s . MCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-8-2010 .

[No. L- 22012/ 127/2007 - IR (CM - II) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) |

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. - cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Industrial Dispute Case No. 22/2007 Dateof Passing Order-28th May, 2010 BETWEEN:

1. The Chief

General Manager, Talcher Area , M/ s . MCL , PO - Dera Colliery, Distt . Angul , Orissa .

2. The Project Officer, Deulbera Colliery, M/s . MCL , PO Dera Colliery, Distt . Angul , Orissa . 1st Party Management

AND

Their Workman Shri Narsu Behera , C/ o . Shri T. Tigga, Catholic Church , PO Hatatota , Distt .Angul , Orissa. 2nd Party Workman APPEARANCES :

Shri P. K. Mohapatra Personnel Manager For the 1st Party Management No. I None

Forthe Ist Party Management No. 2 None.

Forthe 2nd Party Union (1) (2)

(3)

23 , 28-5-2010 (LokAdalat )

Case taken up today before Lok Adalat. The 1st Party-

Management No. 1 is present through authorized representative. The 1st Party- Management No. 2 is absent. The 2nd party-Workman is also absent .

Perused the file . A letter was received by post in this office on 23-11-2009 from the 2nd Party-workman that he hereby withraws to contest the case and request to close it . After that the 2nd Party- workman remained absent on भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1) (2)

(3)

various dates . As such it is presumed that he is not interested to follow up the case any more . Hence , the case is closed and the reference is returned to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employment, as not pressed for necessary action at their end .

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2206.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/18 / 2008- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S.O. 2206. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2008 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of M/ s . Mahanadi Coalfields Limited , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2010 .

[No. L- 22012 / 18 /2008 - IR (CM - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT:

Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. - cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar

Industrial Dispute Case No. 46/2008 Date of Passing Order-28th May, 2010 BETWEEN :

The Management of the General

Manager , Talcher Area of

MCL , Angul

1stParty-Management

AND

5739

2nd Party Their Workmen represented through the General Secretary , Talcher Koila Khani Mazdoor Sangh , Angul .

Union APPEARANCES :

None

For the Ist Party Management Shri Mohan Nayak , E.C. Forthe 2nd Party Union

(4) (1) (2)

15. 28-5-2010 (LokAdalat )

Case taken up today before Lok Adalat . No body is present on behalf of 1st Party Management . The 2nd Party - Union is present through authorized representative . A perusal of the order- sheet makes it clear that since receipt of this reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour the 2nd Party- Union has never been present though notices were issued at least four times

The 2nd Party- Union has also not filed any statement of claim till this date , and the authorized representative appearing on her behalf could not explain any reason for not filing the statement of claim nor has prays for time for filing the statement of claim rather has stated to close the case . Therefore , the dispute as referred by the Govt . of India cannot be adjudicated upon for want of facts of the dispute ,It will be a futile attempt to keep pending the reference any more . As such the reference is liable to be returned to the Govt . of India and is returned as such for taking necessary action at their end .

J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer 5740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त , 2010

का. आ. 2207.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/1981 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42011 /44/ 1979 - डी. II ( बी ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S.O. 2207. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/1981 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Kolkata as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2010 .

[No. L -42011 /44/ 1979 - D.II (B) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 4 of 1981

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India

And

Their workmen .

PRESENT :

Mr Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the Management

Mr. Surojit . Samanta , Ld . Advocate with Ms. Madhumita. Roy , Ld . Advocate Mr. Madhusudan Dutta , Ld . Advocate Onbehalf of the Workmen

State : West Bengal

Industry : Food and Supply Dated: 28th July , 2010

AWARD

In reference to Order No. L -42011 ( 44)/79-D.II ( B ) dated 27-12-1980 the Central Government referred an industrial

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication under the following Schedule:

" Whether the action of the Joint Manager ( Port Operation) , Food Corporation of India , Calcutta in dismissing Shri Niranjan Das Gupta and fortynine other workmen from service as per office order dated 28-3-1974 is legal , proper and justified ? If not , to what relief are the workmen entitled ? "

2. After a prolonged hearing my learned predecessor inoffice passed an Award on 9-1-2003 with the finding that the removal of the workmen concerned from service was not illegal and invalid .

3. Being dissatisfied with the Award , the workmen's Association preferred a writ petition being WP No. 5350 ( W ) of2003 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta . By a judgment dated 24-11-2009 Hon'ble Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas was pleased to set aside the impugned Award and also was pleased to direct this Tribunal to adjudicate only the point of dispute referred in the Schedule above , on the basis of the evidence already recorded , but after giving parties fresh opportunity of hearing and to make a fresh Award.

4. In compliance of the said direction of the Hon'ble High Court the present reference was heard afresh on the basis of evidence in record adduced by both the sides .

5. Inbrief the case of the workmen in the statement of claim is as follows : that the management invited names of suitable and qualified candidates from the Regional Employment Exchange , Kolkata to fill up regular and permanent vacancies to the post of Assistants Grade - III (Ministerial ) and Typists . The Corporation appointed on 1-5-1973 70 workmen out of which 35 were Assistants Grade- III (Ministerial) and rest 35 as Typists on the basis ofthe selection of the candidates by a Selection Committee composed by the Corporation . The said Selection Committee took interview of 1079 candidates sponsored by the Regional Employment Exchange , Calcutta and claimed to have followed all the procedures and formalities required for such appointments and finally 70 workmen as stated above were selected . The Joint Manager ( Port Operation) being appointing authority of the concerned workmen under the FCI Staff Regulations , 1971 , gave appointment to all those workmen . That with a mala fide motive purpose and without assigning any reason , the said 70 workmen were asked under the direction of the then Zonal Manager ( East ) , Calcutta to report to the Senior Deputy Manager ( Personnel ) in the office of the Zonal Manager ( East ) , Calcutta to appear before a Committee for re- test and it is alleged by the workmen that it was done with a design to find some of those 70 workmen as inefficient and to make room for others whom the then Zonal Manager ( East ) wanted to provide . The Reselection Committee composed of the then Joint Manager ( Legal ) of 5741 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

parts . In Part - I the Corporation had challenged the maintainability of the reference concerned. The paragraphs in the said part are not to be mentioned here since this Tribunal had earlier disposed of the said issue as being the preliminary one by holding maintainability of the referencc . The said order of this Tribunal was challenged by the Corporation before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and the order was set aside by the Hon'ble Single Bench of the High Court on holding the reference as not maintainable and the said order was again set aside in an appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court and the maintainability of the present reference was confirmed.

the Zonal Office , Joint Manager (Port Operation ) , Calcutta, the then Assistant Financial Adviser to the office of the JointManager (Port Operation ) etc. declared 50 workmen out of aforesaid 70 appointed workmen as inefficient and unfit for the Corporation and fresh 50 workmen were recruited in their place . Consequently the said 50 workmen out of 70 found inefficient, were dismissed from service without assigning any reason with effect from 1-4-1974 and fresh 50 workmen in their place were appointed in the resultant vacancies on 27-4-1974 . That the said dismissed 50 workmen made series of representation to the Corporation against their illegal dismissal and claimed reinstatement but without any result . These workmen alleged that their dismissal were in consequence to their joining the Association as its members , which was agitating against the Corporation over some legitimate grievance in most peaceful and constitutional manner. The Association by a letter dated 22 /25-5-1979 made specific allegation to the Regional Manager Commissioner ( Central ) , Calcutta against malafide conduct of the Corporation concerning dismissal of the 50 workmen as referred above . The Association by another letter dated 25-5-1980 / 11-6-1980 also made specific allegation to the Secretary, Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi against irregular and motivated retrenchment of 50 Assistants Grade - III (Ministerial ) and Typists .

6. The workmen claimed that the action of the Corporation was malafide and not bonafide act of the management and Food Corporation of India Staff Regulation , 1971 was violated and also claimed that the termination of concerned 50 workmen by the Corporation was neither retrenchment nor a discharge simpliciter and not for any proved misconduct for the alleged inefficiency amounting to dismissal and claimed that their dismissal was stigmatic . That with all persuasions and representations of the individual workmen in respect of 50 dismissed workmen under reference through letter of representation , The Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Calcutta started a conciliation proceeding and joint meetings were held in when the parties attended but , the said meeting yield no result due to adamant , unreasonable and anti labour attitude and policy of the Corporation and ultimately the dispute was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication . The workmen have claimed their reinstatement with full back wages and all other benefits to which they would have been entitled to had they been in service , after holding theirdismissal / retrenchment as illegal , invalid , motivated , malafide and/ or as an instance of unfair labour practice .

7. The Food Corporation of India , hereinafter to be referred as the Corporation in its written statement denied almost all the allegations made by the workmen in their statement of claim besides the facts of the selection process of the workmen alongwith other candidates , their appointment and subsequent discharge . The management ofthe Corporation has sliced their written statement in two

8. So , the reference of the written statement of the Corporation is confined to Part - II of the same . In the said part of the written statement , there was para - wise denial of the statement of claim of the workmen and the fact behind selection process was stated in the Corporation's way and there it is stated that in the year 1973 one Shri P. K. Sengupta was functioning as Joint Manager ( Port Operations ) and being head of the office , he was competent authority for making appointment of Category - III posts like Assistant Grade- III (Ministerial ) and Assistant Grade - III (Typist ) . In the process of selection and appointment Shri Sengupta was being assisted by Shri A. K. Das , Sr. Deputy Manager. Filling up vacancies in the above two categories of posts , said Shri A. K. Das requested the Regional Employment Exchange office in two requisition letters dated 3-4-1973 to sponsor the names of the candidates having requisite qualification and in response thereto the Regional Employment Officer sponsored 234 names for AG Grade- III (M ) and 434 for AG Grade - III ( T) in five lists dated 12-4-1973 , 19-4-1973 , 21-4-1973 ( two lists ) and 23-4-1973 respectively. Subsequently , a supplementary list of 33 candidates , out of which 17 were for AG III ( M ) and 16 for AG - III (T) , was forwarded by the Regional Employment Officer on 20-4-1973 /30-4-1973 in response to a D.O. requisition sent by Shri A. K. Das on 23-4-1973 . A selection committee was constituted with Shri P. K. Sengupta , Joint Manager ( Port Operations ) as Chairman and Shri A. K. Das , Sr. Deputy Manager and Shri N. K. Nag , Deputy Manager ( Accounts ) . For the selection of ministerial candidates , it was done on the basis of interview while in case of Typists , they were first put to typing test of five minutes duration to test their speed and accuracy and thereafter candidates qualified in the typing test were called for oral interview and final selection was made accordingly. The Chairman and members of the selection committee recorded their respective marks on the interview list . Typing test was entrusted to Shri R. C. Dutta , Sr. Accounts Manager who was assisted by Shri B. Dhar and Shri P. K. Banerjee . Typing test was done on 25th to 30th April , 1973 in two separate cabins in batches on each day . Minutes of the selection committee was drawn on 30th April , 1973 for AG - III (M ) consisting of 66 names and on 22nd May , 1973 for AG - III ( T) consisting of 38 names . Out of 66 names in AG - III ( M ) first 42 were appointed against immediate [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 5742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

vacancies while balance 24 were kept in waiting list . Out of 42, 39 candidates were appointed as 3 others did not respond to the appointment letters . Out of said 38 candidates 1 was a departmental candidate and 2 were in sports / player quota . Out of 38 selected candidates in AG - III ( T ) 36 were appointed and 2 others were not given appointment .

JointManager ( Port Operations ) and A.F.A. was constituted and 39 candidates were tested , out of which 25 were found unfitand disqualified and resultantly total 53 disqualified persons were dismissed from service with effect from Ist April , 1974. The Corporation also punished the officers involved in the selection and Shri B. Dhar , Assistant Grade- I of the office of the Joint Manager ( Port Operations ) was punished with removal from service and Shri P. K. Sengupta . Sr. Deputy Manager in the office of the Joint Manager (Port Operations ) was awarded with a penalty of censure and Shri S. N. Biswas , Assistant Manager was punished with stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect . Punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on Shri A. K. Das , Sr. Deputy Manager (General ) . A second show cause notice was served against Shri A. K. Das against which he obtained ad - interim injunction and subsequently Shri Das expired on 8-7-1979 . The collusive way of appointment became apparent consequent upon the investigation conducted by the Corporation which denied that there was any design to find some of the 70 workmen as inefficient for making room for others whom the then Zonal Manager wanted to provide . The Corporation also denied that resting and reselection were planned affairs with a calculation to do mischief. The Corporation alleged that the dismissal was for misconduct in securing employment dishonestly and in a collusive way being fully conscious about inefficiency and incompetency. After denying the narration made by the workmen in their statement of claim in different paragraphs putting allegations against Corporation only on the issue of dismissal /discharge , the Corporation ultimately has prayed for an Award declaring the dismissal discharge as justified and legal .

10. The workmen filed a rejoinder claiming the written statement of the Corporation containing misconceived and malafide statement which was otherwise baseless , false and malice. In the first few paragraphs of the rejoinder the workmen's association confronted the allegations of the Corporation about maintainability of the reference by asserting their own view on the maintainability . In respect of the complaint about irregularities , the association submitted that the name of a person as Shri Subal Dutta of 69, Gorakhyabasi Road , Dum Dum , Kolkata - 700028 was revealed as the complainant and on a request for enquiry. no such person was traced out and thus , according to the association the complaint was pseudonymous , malafide and purposeful . The association also claimed that Shri K. S. Bhasin never investigated the matter at any stage , nor he contacted the selection committee members and recorded their statement and his report was of perfunctory nature and it was created only to please the senior officers . Itisfurther alleged that the concerned workmen worked in the Corporation for a period of 11 months and during that period the officials under whom they had worked did not find any of them as unsuitable and unfit at any stage and 9. Since complaint of irregularities in the selection process referred to above were received by the Head Office of the Corporation , the Zonal Manager , Calcutta was directed by the Corporation's authority to review the entire selection process and appointments made in April /May , 1973 by the Joint Manager ( Port Operations ) concerned . The matter was investigated by Shri K. S. Bhasin , Deputy Manager (Flying Squad ) ofthe Corporation's Head Office and the investigation revealed irregular and fishy selection process followed for appointment . It was stated further by the Corporation that list of 134 and 94 candidates for AG- III (M) were forwarded by the Employment Exchange on 19-4-1973 and 21-4-1973 respectively and a list of 31 candidates 16 for AG - III ( M ) and 15 for AG - III ( T ) was sent by the Employment Exchange on 28th April , 1973 at 3.30 P.M. by hand and the said list omitted 2 names [ 1 for AG- III (M ) and 1 for AG - III ( T) ] which were later sent by the Exchange on 30-4-1973 . The interviews were held in between 24th and 30th April , 1973 and 22nd and 29th April , 1973 were Sundays . There were hardly any time between issue of notice on 21st and 28th April , 1973 and the dates on which interviews were held before the selection committee . Specifically , forwarding of 31 candidates by the Employment Exchange was done on 28-4-1973 and that was delivered in the office of the Joint Manager (Port Operations ) at 3.30 P.M. and the following day (29-4-1973 ) was a Sunday. Similarly, in respect of AG - III ( T ) 15 candidates were sponsored by the Exchange on 28-4-1973 and 1 omitted name was sent by the Exchange on 30-4-1973 . Typing test was done on 29th April , 1973 morning which was a Sunday and the interview was taken in the following afternoon on the same day. Out of 15 candidates , 11 appeared for the typing test and 9 were selected and subsequently out of 9 , 8were selected for appointment . In this process the person whose name was sponsored on 30th April , 1973 was also selected though he had no scope for sitting in the typing test and interview on 29-4-1973 . The case was then referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation which in turn advised the Corporation to test the selected persons for typing. Accordingly, Secretary , Public Service Commission , West Bengal was approached for test of the typists and the Commission suggested for such test by the Goenka College ofCommerce , Calcutta and such test was done in which 7 out of 35 were found qualified and they were retained in the service . Similarly, retest of selected candidates in AG- III (M) was also requested to the Public Service Commission , West Bengal which could not do it and consequently a Board comprising Joint Manager (Legal ) who was a member ofthe West Bengal Higher Judicial Service on deputation , [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

suddenly on retest they were found disqualified and unfit for the said post and so they were served with dismissal notice and claimed that a trail of mystery underlies there.

The association also alleged that no officer of the selection committee and selection process in the case of the workmen was ever prosecuted criminally and instead the Corporation preferred a convenient measure by initiating departmental proceedings through " Yesman " so that the officers concerned cannot escape any punishment as desired by the Corporation's strong hold in clear disregard ofthe rules , regulations and statutory provisions of the Corporation . By denying the allegations of conspiracy and underhand practice in the process of initial selection of the workmen concerned , the workmen's association rather preferred to blame the management to have entered into a conspiracy on their part through socalled enquiry ending with retest of the present workmen with a purpose designed in their own way. The association categorically denied anything irregular in the process of appointment of the concerned 51 workmen and also claimed that no charge was brought against any of the concerned workmen questioning their integrity or adoption of any corupt practice or of collusive manner in securing their appointment.

11. The association claimed that the concerned workmen actually were not dismissed from employment and claimed that rather they were retrenched illegally without just and proper cause and the dismissal , if any, was also without any basis and without any material justifying the same , since the workmen were appointed lawfully on their merit . The association also alleged that no typing test was done at Goenka College of Commerce as claimed by the Corporation . It is also claimed that dismissal of the workmen should have been preceded with a chargesheet , opportunity of defence , an independent enquiry and a reason finding of guilt by the Enquiry Officer on the charges drawn as per principle of natural justice and following of rules of service .

12. Before discussing the point of reference, the wordings of the reference should be clearly kept in mind since the direction of the Hon'ble Single Bench , Calcutta High Court was that the Tribunal should not exceed the scope of reference and the findings should be limited to the issue involved . The reference was in respect of finding whether the dismissal of the present workmen by the management Corporation as per office order dated 28-3- 1974 was legal , proper and justified . In the reference the term " dismissed" has been mentioned as the act of the management Corporation , while the letter of termination of service from the side of the management to the workmen mentioned the act as " discharged " . By consulting different dictionaries it is found that dismissal is act of discharge, while discharge has got no separate meaning than dismissal . So this matter can be pursued on the action of 3296 GI /10-31

5743

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्र 13 , 1932

the management either by discharge or dismissal of the present workmen .

13. It is nobody's denial that the present workmen was appointed either AG - III ( Ministerial ) or AG- III ( Typist ) in consequence to a selection alleged to have been made by a selection committee of the Corporation and they continued to be in probation for one year and almost at the ending stage of probation , retesting of these workmen was orderedby the management Corporation . In the said retest most of the employees in AG - III ( Ministerial) and AG - III (Typist) were found to be disqualified leaving a few of them qualifying the same . Consequently the management Corporation decided to discharge those disqualified employees and issued discharge letter accordingly.

14. Mr. Madhusudan Dutta, Learned Advocate for the workmen's association submitted that the workmen concerned were in probation and they were discharged for no fault of them and such discharge of a probationer employee without showing any reason and not extending any opportunity to them for hearing , was nothing but stigmatic approach on the part of the management Corporation . Mr. Dutta has referred several decisions in this regard to claim that the act of the management Corporation in discharging the workmen concerned as illegal . The decision relied upon by Mr. Dutta will be discussed in the later paragraphs as and when occasion will arise.

15. Mr. Surojit Samanta, Learned Advocate for the management, on the other hand , has claimed that the order ofdischarge was never stigmatic since it is a result ofpre- condition for employment as per contents of the appointment letter and he specifically referred the condition laid down in Item Nos . 1 , 2 and 10. Mr. Samanta rather termed the discharge as " discharge simpliciter " and he claimed that in such act on the part of the management Corporation there is no need of showing any reason thereto or to issue any chargesheet or extending any opportunity to the workmen concerned to be heard. He also submitted by referring the exhibited documents from the side of the management Corporation and also in view of the pleading of the Corporation that the selection of the concerned workmen along with other employees was as a result of a scandalous action of the selection committee , who did mischief and other acts touching their integrity in the selection process.

16. While Mr. Dutta , learned Advocate for the workmen claimed that the act of discharge of the concerned workmenby the Corporation was in consequence to some misconduct on the part of the workmen as stated in written statement ofthe Corporation in paragraphs 13 and 10, Mr. Samanta submitted that the discharge of the concerned workmen was not done by accusing them being involved in any act of misconduct . Rather, it was a claim of the Corporation, as per submission of Mr. Samanta, that the 5744

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( it ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

actofdischarge of the workmen concerned was as a result of finding the selection process having a trail of blemishes with the act of mischief and corruption and devoid of integrity on the part of the participants of the selection committee. Mr. Samanta further submitted that since the Corporation before discharging the present workmen , went through some act of enquiry in the process of selection by the selection committee and after being dissatisfied ofsuch acton the part of the selection committee , the Corporation ordered for retest ofthe selected employees in that selection process including the present workmen to regularize the matter. Mr. Samanta submitted that if the present workmen also could qualify in the said retest , no question would have arisen for their discharge since some of the qualified employees continued their employment without any interruption , and without facing any discharge order.

Mr. Dutta also relied upon another decision reported in 1997 Lab . I.C. 115 (SC) and submitted that in the said case also there was an allegation from the side of the employer that the list of names forwarded by the Employment Exchange was a fake one and the names were fabricated as those did not correspond to the entries in the Employment Exchange and that the foundation for discharge was upon production of face list of persons from Employment Exchange for recruitment . Mr. Dutta claimed that in that case the Hon'ble Court held that even in that case a stigma is formed in their future recruitment since they were alleged to have produced fictitious records to secure employment. In the said decision the Hon'ble Court held that the principle of natural justice - require the victim employees should have been given with reasonable opportunity of representation in an enquiry to be conducted and an appropriate order with reason in support thereof needed to be passed . Relying upon a decision reported in 1993 ( II ) LLJ 996 and referred to the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the act of termination of service , the person so terminated should have a reasonable opportunity to present his case and the Hon'ble Court also observed that fundamental rule of law expects that no decision is to be taken affecting the right of person without first informing him the case adverse to him andwithout giving an opportunity to him in putting forward his/her case . In the said decision the Hon'ble Court further held that fair play in action requires that the procedure adoptedmust be just, fair and reasonable and natural justice is maintained . Mr. Dutta also further relied upon another decisionreported in AIR 2005 SC 2090 wherein the 1Hon'ble Court observed as follows :

17. Mr. Dutta submitted that since the management Corporation has claimed at the end of paragraph 19 of their written statement that the case of the concerned workmen was dismissal consequent upon commission of gross misconduct in getting appointment in a collusive manner without having requisite competence , the order of discharge or dismissal ofthe workmer is no doubt , stigmatic action on the part of the Corporation and since the said act being stigmatic , the employees concerned has an inherent right of getting an opportunity to be heard and to defend unemselves before their dismissal or discharge from employment . He further added that their right becomes stronger as the dismissal was done at a stage when the workmen were under probation . In this respect Mr. Dutta relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 1080 and he reterred to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said decision where it was held as follows :

"7. A probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice .

8. The affidavit filed by the parties before the High Court as also in this Court indicate the background in which the order, terminating the services of the appellant , came to be passed . Such an order which, on the face of it , is stigmatic , could not have been passed without holding a regular enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant . "

Relying upon the said decision Mr. Dutta claimed thatthe protection which the present workmen are entitled was not given and that the Corporation acted arbitrarily by terminating their employment in a punitive manner and thus claimed this act on the part of the Corporation left a stigmatic impression upon the workmen concerned and so the workmen need a protection from this Tribunal by claiming their discharge as illegal .

" 10. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi -judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties , or any administrative action involving civil consequences is' in issue . These principles are well settled . The first and foremost principles is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule . It says that no one should be condemned unheard . Notice is the first limb of this principle . It must be precise and unambiguous . Itshould appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation . In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus , it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him . This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shedes with time . When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215 , the first statutory recognition ofhisprinciple found its way into the Megna Caria 5745 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to ' vocate interrogate and adjudicate ' . In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [ 1963 ( 143 ) ER 414 ] , the principles was thus stated :

"Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam , before he was called upon to make his defence . " Adad" says God , " Where are thou has thou not eaten of the tree whereof 1 commanded tree though should not eat "

Since then the principle has been chiseled , honed and refined , enriching its content . Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond.

11. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial , quasi -judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights . These rules ar intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice . "

Mr. Dutta submitted in reference to the observations referred to above that the workmen he is representing were not given any opportunity of defending their case , nor they were informed as to what fault of them, they were discharged from employment since they were employed as a result of their selection by the selection committee by following rules in that respect . It is further submitted that the dismissal of the workmen was unjustified , devoid of natural justice and they should be treated as not dismissed or discharged in view of the discharge letter and they should be treated in employment all along from the date of their appointment with full back wages .

18. In an act of employment of process , the candidates selected for appointment stand in a position of beneficiary of the selection process and the involvement ofthe candidates in the selection process is limited to exhibit their standard quality as needed for the post applied for . The participation in the said process of a candidate has got no active access to the selection process which lies in the hands of the selection committee only on whom the employer entrusted the duty of selecting only a suitable candidate to the post to which he is to be appointed . If the selection process itself is suspected with foul play, the selection itself as a result , becomes questionable at the cost of the fate of the appointed employees .

required for the respective jobs were followed concluding with the selection of candidates for appointment . Both the sides also submitted that subsequently a retest of the said selected candidates including the present workmen were taken up by the management Corporation and in that reselection process , a major portion of the selected candidates of the earlier selection committee were found disqualified and were subsequently served with discharge notice . The management Corporation submitted that the decision of reexamination or retest was taken since the management had information at their head office at Delhi that the said first selection process was not a fair one for certair event which has been explained in the written statement of the management . It is already in the record that the management Corporation made two requisitions on the same date of 3-4-1973 of eligible candidates for selection to a number of posts in AG - III ( M) and M - III (T) from the Regional Employment Exchange which subsequently replied with forwarding different lists of such sponsored candidates in several lists varying on several dates including 12-4-1973 , 19-4-1973 , 21-4-1973 (2 lists ) and 23-4- 1973 and also sent a supplementary list on 20-4-1973 and 30-4-1973 . It is surprising to note , when the selection committee has not received the entire list of candidates being sponsored by the Employment Exchange , why the date of interview and type tests were fixed in between 24-4-1973 and 30-4-1973 . The normal conduct of the selection committee is to wait for receipt of the sponsored list of candidates from the Employment Exchange upon requisition and thereafter the committee should get the screening of such candidates ' eligibility as required for the post concerned though it is presumed that the major work to that effect had been done by the Employment Exchange by sponsoring any name on requisition by an employer. Follow up action of the selection committee thereafter is to use its office to send letters of interview to the candidates whose names are before it for the selection process and each of the candidates is needed to be given with sufficient time for service of the letter concerned which in normal course various from a fortnight to three weeks at the minimum . It has been alleged that the selection committee had a very short time in its hand in most of the lists of candidates to send such letter of interview as it is found that the date of interview was fixed on two to three days after receipt of the list from the Employment Exchange and that gap of two to three days was even found intervening by a Sunday. It is humanly impossible to notify or inform a candidate about the date and time of interview in such a short space of time unless the candidate himself or herself got a prior information about sponsoring of his /her nan ... for such interview and the date and time of interview was fixed or the candidates being present in the office of the management to receive the lette . hand. In that situation itisvery much clear that the candidate had prior informations that his/her name was being sponsored for a particular post in a particular office and the date and time of interview 19. In the present case both the parties admitted that a selection process was taken out by the management Corporation for filling up the post of AG - III ( M) and AG- III (T) and the names of the candidates were only sponsored by the Regional Employment Exchange on the requisition of the employer's office and the interview and type test as 5746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

has already been fixed . If normal procedure of service of letter of interview to the address of the candidates in the sponsored lists which were received on 28-4-1973 and 30-4-1973 , it is not at all possible that the candidates concerned received the letter of interview and got the information about the date and time of interview and appeared in the said interview on the dates fixed and got selected.

20. Indiscussing the manner of selection in the above paragraph , no aspersion is given to the candidates concerned since the selection process of the candidates was in the hands of the selection committee consisting of senior officers of the Corporation and they were the best person to assesss the quality of the candidates since the selection process was limited only on oral interview in the case ofAG - III (T) , though the selection of AG - III (T) was no doubt dependent upon proof of skill on the part ofthe candidates since they were to appear in typing test first and after being qualified in the said test a follow up process of oral interview was done .

21. As it appeared in the way of presentation of their respective cases followed by making oral argument upon the same, none of the parties , specially the workmen side, denied that there was an enquiry procedure internally by the Corporation to assess the selection process as there was some complaints of irregularities and foul play about the selection process . The Corporation got the matter internally enquired and punished the three officers of the selection committee with different nature of punishment and also punished some staff members of the office who assisted in the process of selection by the selection committee . It is also found that as there was anomalies and irregularities as well as fishy acts on the part ofthe selection committee in the selection of the present workmen and other selected candidates, the Corporation decided to test them again to ascertain the qualities of those selected candidates as required to the post they were appointed and re - selection and re - tests were ordered and all those selected candidates including the present workmen were given an opportunity to prove themselves that the selection committee did not choose a wrong candidate. At that point of time none of them raised any objection to the said process of re -test or re - examination claiming the same as humiliation on their part and they choose to appear in the re - test and the result was known to everyone in the present reference .

22. It is a fact that as per submission on the part of the management Corporation , one term of appointment was given at Item No. 10 in the appointment letter of the selected candidates that they were to qualify in any test prescribed by the competent authority during the period of probation and their confirmation will be subject to passing such test . The management Corporation has claimed that the present workmen are among the disqualified employees on

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii ) | probation and since they failed to qualify in the re- test or interview, their discharge automatically followed.

23. At this point the observation of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court setting aside the Award passed by this Tribunal earlier should be referred . Since the Hon'ble High Court in disposing of the WP No. 5350 ( W) of 2003 has observed that :

" Inview of the provision of Section 10 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the law declared bythe Supreme Court a Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any point of dispute other than the ones , and the matters incidental thereto specified in the order of reference. Here the dispute referred was whether the dismissal of the workmen by the management of the Corporation wasjustified. Hence the Tribunal was to proceed on the basis that the Corporation had dismissed the workmen from services . As a matter of fact , the Corporation also stated a case in written statement in justification of the dismissal of the workman . "

24. Now, a confusion has been created in the order ofreference by using the word" dismiss " which was never done by the Corporation in the act of termination of service of the workmen in the letter for such act . In this context observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court can be referred following thedecision reported in 1967 ( I ) LLJ 423 ( SC ) at page 431 (Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. their workmen) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that the Government may not always specify points upon which a reference is made ; it may make a reference generally. In most cases the order of reference is so cryptic that it is impossible to cull out therefrom various points upon which the parties were at variance leading to trouble . In such cases, of course , the Tribunal can ascertain the points of disputes from the pleadings of the parties to find out the exact nature of disputes and decide them .

25. Reference of such termination of service of the workmenwas given in paragrahs 11 and 13 of their written statement of claim but unfortunately the said termination was stated to be as dismissal though the document annexed to the said written statement of claim of the workmen contains the letters of termination of service of the workmen which were annexed to the pleading of the workmen as different annexures and subsequently those were admitted in evidence as documents of the workmen as exhibits . Thus the said annexures formed part of the pleading of the workmen and there the word ' discharge ' is found to have been used by the management Corporation in terminating the services of the respective workmen .

26. Management Corporation also committed the same mistake in their pleading too by using the words "dismissed from service" . But the fact remains that the grievance of the workmen emerged from the date of service [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

of letter of discharge upon them and in the said letter of termination , the word ' discharge ' was prominently mentioned . If the letter of termination containing the word ' discharge ' is taken as a " cause of action " from the side of the workmen then " discharge " from service should be the actual pronunciation in the act of termination of service of the workmen . Now if the Tribunal remains rigid in deciding the issue under reference , the fate of the reference would be a denial from the side of the Tribunal to pass any positive Award to ascertain whether the dismissal was justified and legal , since there was no ' dismissal ' at all of the present workmen , as it has been discussed earlier . The present reference started in the year 1981 and already about 30 years time was taken for disposal of it and if the Tribunal with its rigidity stands to discuss only referred issue of ' dismissal ' , the Tribunal will have no other way but to say since there was no dismissal of the workmen at all , the Tribunal has no scope to ascertain whether it is legal or justified . For the administration of justice over the actual dispute in between the parties , the Tribunal has no other way but to discuss about the legality and justifiability of the discharge of the workmen in reference to the letter of discharge issued to the present workmen .

27. The Tribunal always abide by the direction given in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in W.P. No. 5350 ( W) of 2003 for passing the Award within the scope of reference but in doing so the Tribunal is to act in such a way that it will not prejudice the respective parties by selecting a word to mean the termination of service mixed with confusion in the schedule of reference , which is not the same word as used to mean termination of service in the letter of termination .

28. Since there is an anomaly in treating the termination of service of the workmen as dismissal by the Central Government in reference to the letter of discharge , something more is to be discussed about the position of dismissal of service and discharge from employment . In this context , a prominentjudgment by a Bench consisting five Hon'ble Judges in the Apex Court as reported in AIR 1964 SC 449 ( Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India ) the Hon'ble Judges have been pleased to discuss these points . The Hon'ble Court observed :

" If a temporary servant or a probationer is found to be satisfactory in his work , efficient and otherwise eligible , it is unlikely that his service would be terminated , and so , before discharging a temporary servant the authority may have to examine the question about the suitability of the said servant to be continued and acting bona fide in that behalf, the authority may also give a chance to servant to explain, ifany complaints are made against him or his competence or suitability is disputed on some grounds arising from the discharge of his work , but such an enquiry would be held only for the purpose

5747

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्र 13 , 1932

of deciding whether the temporary servant should be continued or not . There is no element of punitive proceeding in such an enquiry ; The idea in holding such an enquiry is not to punish the temporary servant but just to decide whether he deserves to be continued in service or not . If as a result of such enquiry the authority comes to the conclusion that the temporary servant is not suitable to be continued . it may pass a simple order of discharge by virtue of powers conferred on it by the contract or the relevant rules ; In such a case it would not be open to the temporary servant to invoke the protection of Article 311 for the simple reason that the enquiry which ultimately led to his discharge was held only for the purpose of deciding whether the power under the contract or the relevant rules should be exercised and the temporary servant discharged . On the other hand , in some cases the authority may choose to exercise its power to dismiss a temporary servant and that would necessitate a formal departmental enquiry in that behalf. If such a formal enquiry is held and an order terminating the service of a temporary servant is passed as a result of finding recorded in the said enquiry, prima facie the termination would amount to dismissal of the temporary servant . "

29. Mr. Dutta , Learned Advocate for the workinen submitted by referring a decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 1080 to claim that a probationer is also entitled to certain protection like a temporary employee and cannot be terminated arbitrarily. In the said decision the Hon'ble Court held:

" 7. A probationer , like a temporary servant , is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily , nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice.

8. The affidavit filed by the parties before the High Court as also in this Court indicate the background in which the order , terminating the services of the appellant , came to passed . Such an order which , on the face of it , is stigmatic , could not have been passed without holding a regular enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. " In this context the status of a probationer is to be discussed in a short campus . An employee immediately after his appointment , normally in Government service , is kept under probation for a particular period which may extend from one year to two years and during that period the newly employed employee concerned is kept under vigil and watch by the employer and it is a period testing his qualities all through and also he is kept through a process of getting trained to make himself fit for the particular job to which he is employed . At the end of 5748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

[PART II SC 300円

word 'stigmatic' has been defined as an act giving infams or reproach and one who is branded . In Webster dictionary ' stigma' has been defined as something tha detracts from the character or reputation of a person , gron etc. So , termination of service of an employee will be stigmatic when the said employee is branded with remark thathe is undesirable in the establishment of the employer and that he proved himself to be unfit for the post or he is adorned with some other infamy remarks which may cause ablack out to the said terminated employee to be employer elsewhere after such termination . So an order of terminaпор of services is no doubt stigmatic when the employer . given with a brand for his discontinuation in the servers under the employer by discharging him . The preseni ord..r of discharge cannot be stated to be a termination wi such remarks since the services of the present workmi were discontinued as they failed to qualify in the retra organized by the corporation befitting to the level of ther employment.

probation period, he is tested by the employer to find whether the employee concerned has attained the stage of fitness for consideration by the employer as to whether his service may be continued or not. In reference to the said decision Mr. Dutta claimed that discharge /dismissal of the present workmen by the said discharge letter was stigmatic since the management , in their written statement alleged about a misconduct on the part of the workmen , as discussed earlier. In paragraph 9 the manageinent Corporation stated that " the case of the concerned workmen is not that of retrenchment but dismissal consequent upon commission of gross - misconduct of getting appointment in a collusive manner without having requisite competence . In this context Mr. Dutta also referred to Division Bench order of the Hon'ble High Court at calcutta in FMAT No.729 of 1984 which was passed in relation to the present reference by setting aside an order of theHon'ble Single Bench of the said Hon'ble High Court over a dispute about the maintainability of the present reference . Mr. Dutta referred to the last but one paragraph ofthe said judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench wherein ithas been observed :

" In the instant case an allegation has been made that a fraud had been practiced in the matter of appointment by the appellant . It is , therefore, not a case where the services had been terminated on the ground that the services of the petitioners were not found to be satisfactory during the probationary period. In fact in V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab & Ors . , reported in AIR 2000 SC 1080 and Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National Center forBasic Sciences , Calcutta , reported in 1999 [ 33SCC 60: AIR 1999 SC 983 : 1999 ( I ) JT (SC) 396 : ( 1999 AIR SCW 605 : 1999 Lab IC 1114 ] , It has clearly been held thatwhen the crder is stigmatic , a probationer has also a right to be heard, and once an order ofdismissal is passed on such ground , the same can be questioned"

Itis fact that the Hon'ble Division Bench opined by referring to some decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the order terminating service of a probationer being stigmatic, the probationer had the right to be heard and when it is not so done , the order of dismissal can be questioned. But , in the said decision the Hon'ble Division Bench opined that the allegation in the instant case was made by stating that a fraud has been practiced in the matter of appointment by the appellant and there was no case where the services has been terminated on the ground that the services of the workmen were not found to be satisfactory during probationary period.

30. In this context it is to be seen that when an order becomes stigmatic . In Chambers' Dictionary'stigma' has been defined as a brand , a remark of infamy; a disgrace or reproach attached to anyone . In the same dictionary the

31. In the present case , it is fact that the workmen i.. this reference were also kept under probation for a period of one year initially and their testing and subsequent discharge on being disqualified in the test were done before completion of the probation period. But, it should be keni in mind in the present case that the test was not a routin work in the case of a probationer as it is done by most t the employers . This matter has got a checkered career smo the initial selection process was brought undes scan le the higher authority of the corporation on having some complaint of irregularity and having sorne fishy character. TheCorporation , as already discussed , was going through a process of internal enquiry as to the manner of recruitme process done by the selection cominittee concerned and foul play was revealed . When the selection process recruitment of employee is found to be mala fide, fishy an with some irregularity, normally it is called off by the employer by declaring it as a nullity and the necessats consequence thereof is the termination of the appointed employees among the selected candidates from the said selection process treating the same as nullity. In the present case, before taking up any harsh step in this regard , Corporation acted judiciously by asking those selecter employees in the said mala fide process of seclection , t appear for a retest to be conducted by a special retosi committee of the management Corporation . Rather the employees concerned were given with an opportunity prove their qualites and to justify that the earlier selection: committee did not select a wrong candidate . De Corporation to prove impartiality in the retest.even consulted the West Bengal Public Service Commission which advised test through Goenka College of Commerce In the earlier paragraphs of this Award it was observed that from the process of receiving list of sponored candidates from the Employment Exchange and fixing the dates for interview and typing test, it was revealed that for [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

some candidates , it was not at all possible , in normal way, to appear before the Interview Board after getting interview letter duly issued by the Corporation and in that case some of them were fortunate enough to find themselves in the list of selected candidates even after their possible non- appearance before the selection committee and duly appointed thereafter . So the action of the Corporation was praiseworthy as it did not take any punitive step straightway after finding selection process malafide and fishy and extend the opportunity to the said selected candidates to prove themselves through a retest . The order ofdischarge was issed only to the disqualified workmen in the re - test as it is never of punitive nature .

32. Mr. Dutta , in course of his argument has submitted that natural justice was denied to the present workmen since they were not given with any opportunity to explain their version against the intention of the Corporation to discharge them and to defend themselves against it , since they were not served with any letter calling explanation in this regard . In this context a question automatically comes whether natural justice was denied to the present workmen . A reference may be given to a decision reported in ( 2006 ) 8 SCC 776 ( P.D Agwaralla v . State Bank of India ) in this regard , wherein the Hon'ble Judgesheld:

" The principle of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula . It must be seen in a circumstantial flexibility. It has in recent time also undergone a sea change "

Already a wide discussion has been made in the preceding paragraphs in support of extension of opportunity to the present workmen by the Corporation to prove their eligibility and quality for the post in which they were employed and they were called to appear in the retest . Inview of the same , I cannot accept argument of Mr. Dutta in this regard that natural justice was denied to the workmen concerned before the Corporation issued the discharged letter to each of them .

5749

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010 / भाद्र 13 , 1932

to discharge the disqualified workmen to be discharged from service with effect from the forenoon of 1-4-1974 . This letter shows that the authority took decision to discharge the disqualified candidates in the retest . If the Corporation is claimed to have done all these things arbitrarily and without providing any natural justice to the workmen concerned , why the Corporation chosen to retain those employees both in AG - III ( M) and AG - III ( T) who proved their fitness and got qualified in the retest organized by a committee formed by the Corporation itself. I do not smell any vindictiveness on the part of the management Corporation in such an act of termination of service of the present workmen by issuing discharge letter to them with effect from a particular date and also by allowing them to draw one month's pay.

34. In view of all the discussions made above , I am ofthe opinion that discontinuation of the present workmen from service by the management Corporation is not stained with any unfair labour practice on the part of the Corporation and it proved that the Corporation proceeded with a clean hand in the process to ascertain on the question of retention of the present workmen in the service and correctly discharged them when they failed to avail of the opportunity extended to them to prove themselves in the retest conducted by a committee of the Corporation to regularize their them . Thus , who failed in such retest and re - interview, were served with a discharge letter and employees who qualified in the retest , were allowed to continue in the employment . This goes to show that the Corporation was not vindictive , rather it dealt with the matter judiciously and so I have no hesitation to hold that the dismissal ( if the term is to be used in reference to the Schedule of reference ) was legal and justified and the discharge of the workmen concerned in consequence to the discharge letter issued and served upon them is not preceded with any malafide and arbitrary intention on the part of the management Corporation .

35. The issues under reference are decided accordingly and in consequence to the said finding the workmen are found to be not entitled to any relict whatsoever .

Dated , Kolkata ,

the 28th July, 2010

33. Mr. Dutta , Learned Advocate for the workmen further stated that the letter of discharge of the workmen did not disclose any reason as to why the workmen were discontinued from the said service with the discharge letter even when they worked during the period of probation cleanly and they were almost reaching the end of the probation period when the discharge letters were served to them . Mr. Samanta , Learned Advocate for the management Corporation referred an exhibited document as Ext . M - 7 which was a letter from Shri S. Dutta , Zonal Manager ( East ) , Food Corporation of India , 10 Middleton Roy , Calcutta addressed to one Shri J. S. Arora , Joint Manager ( P.O. ) , Food Corporation of India at Calcutta and the said letter enclosed with a list of disqualified employees in the retest and also it contains names of those employees who qualified in the same . In the said letter it was advised JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR ,

Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त , 2010

का. आ. 2208.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ. सी. आई . के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1366/2008 ) को 5750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 4, 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/358/2007- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S.O. 2208 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1366/ 2008) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2010.

[No. L- 22012/358/2007- IR (CM- II)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT NO. II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri A. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer Case No. I.D. 1366/2008

Instituted on 13-3-2008

Rajni W/ o Shri Babu ,

... Applicant R/ o Geeta Bhaan Road , Basti Issian, Gurdaspur, Punjab

Versus

The District Manager,

Respondent Food Corporation of India, Gurdaspur, Punjab

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Sh . O. P. Batra , Advocate For the Management Sh . Ravikant Sharma , Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 9th July, 2010

Government of India vide Notification No. L - 22012/ 358/2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-3-2008 , by exercising its power under Section 10 , Sub - section ( 1) (d) and Sub -section (2A)

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] ofthe Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (hereinafter referred as theAct) , has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Smt. Rajni W/ o Shri Babu w.e.f. 28-8-2006 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, towhat relief the workwoman entitled ? "

The claimant has raised an industrial dispute by stating that she was appointed as a Part time Safai Sewika with effect from 10-3-2002 on daily wages and she continued till 22-8-2006 . On 23-8-2006 her services were terminated verbally without complying with the provisions ofSection 25F of the Act . She had claimed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

The Management contested the claim and it was stated that the claimant used to work for an hour on morning for which she was paid daily. She was not the workman . Neither she was appointed nor terminated by the management . There was no relationship of employee- employer. She worked from April 2002 to August 2003 on part time basis and thereafter, some other man was deputed for the job . She did not completed 240 days and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable .

However, during the course of hearing and before the parties entering in evidence , a joint application by the workman and the management was moved to say that the workmanhasjoined the duty from 1-6-2010 at District Office, FoodCorporation of India, Gurdaspur as part time Sweeper and the parties may be allowed to withdrawfrom the reference . It is thus clear that no industrial dispute exists now. The reference is answered accordingly. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action and record be consigned after the due compliance.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 अगस्त , 2010

का. आ. 2209.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इसको लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/246/2002- आई आर ( सीएम -11 ) | डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S.O. 2209.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2008 ) [ भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

5751

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्र 13 , 1932

ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Ramnagore Colliery ofM/s . IISCO Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2010 .

[No. L-22012/246/2002- IR (CM- II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT , BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, C.GI.T. -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Industrial Dispute Case No. 18/2008 Date ofPassing Order -28th May, 2010 BETWEEN :

The Management of the Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area ofMCL, P.O. Dera Colliery, Distt. Angul , Orissa

1stParty-Management

AND

The Workmen represented through the General Secretary, Orissa Collieries Mazdoor Sangh , P.O. Balanda, Distt.Angul- 759 116

2nd Party-Union APPEARANCES :

Forthe 1st Party Shri Rajat Kumar Senapati , Authorized Representative

Management

Forthe 2nd Party

Union Shri Pramod Chandra Sahoo , Secretary

( 1)

(3)

(2)

13. 28-5-2010 (LokAdalat)

Case taken up today before LokAdalat. Both the parties are present through authorized representatives and file hazira and authorization letter on behalf ofthe 2nd Party- Union .

Both the parties have stated before this Tribunal/ Court and 3296 GI/10-32

(2)

(1)

(β)

have also filed ajoint petition that the dispute has been settled mutually and there re- mains no cause of action for the dispute . As such the re- ference is decided as settled mutually out of the court and the case is closed. A copy of thisorder may be sent to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour for taking necessary action at their end .

J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2210. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/130/2008 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S.O. 2210. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 20/2009 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofTalcher Colliery of MCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2010.

[No. L- 22012/ 130/2008 - IR ( CM- II ) | D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer , C.GI.T. -cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Industrial Dispute Case No. 20/2009 Date of Passing Order-28th May, 2010 5752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

BETWEEN :

The Management of the Project Officer, Talcher Colliery ofMCL , Angul

1stParty -Management

AND

The Workmen represented through the General Secretary, Talcher Koila Khani Mazdoor Sangh

2nd Party -Union APPEARANCES :

None

Forthe 1st Party Management None

Forthe 2nd Party Union (1) (2)

(3)

28-5-2010 9. (LokAdalat)

Case taken up today before Lok Adalat . None of the parties is present . The Statement of Claim has not been filed by the 2nd Party -Union till this date . Notices were issued to the parties on 5-5-2010 for appear- ing before Lok Adalat sche- duled to be held today. But none has appeared . The re- ference is more than one year old and the parties took no interest to appear and file their claim statement and if filed reply to rebut it . As such the case could not be left over for nothing any more . The reference is , therefore liable to be returned and is returned to the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour for necessary action at their end .

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त, 2010 का. आ. 2211 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर सुपरिन्टेन्डेन्ट ऑफ पोस्ट ऑफिसेस के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भावनगर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/ 12/94- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S.O. 2211.- In pursuanceuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal , Bhavnagar as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Senior Supdt . of Post Office and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2010.

[No. L-40012/ 12/94 - IR ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. S. PANCHAL, INDUSTRIAI TRIBUNAL , CENTRAL, BHAVNAGAR Reference I.T.C. (New) No. 7 of 2009 Reference I.T.C. ( Old) No. 19 of 1995 FirstParty

: The Senior Supdt . of Post Offices , General Post Office , Bhavnagar

V/ s.

Second Party

: Its Workman Mr. Sikander K Khambati C/o Shramik Sangh Pradeep Thakkar, High Court Road. Bhavnagar

Advocate for the First Party Mr. Kamalbhai Bart , Representative for the Second Party Mr. Pradeep Thakkar AWARD

1. This industrial dispute is between the Sr. Supdt . of PostOffices, General Post Office , Bhavnagar and its workman Mr. Sikander K. Khambati . This Reference was referred to this Central Tribunal for the adjudication , by the Government of India , Ministry of Labour / Shram Mantralaya , New Delhi , vide its Office Order No. L -40011 25 /92 - IR ( DU ) , dated 12-12-1993 . The Schedule of the dispute is as under:

"Whether the action of the Senior Supdt . of Post Offices , Bhavnagar and through his Officers in terminating ' Postman ' Shri Sikander K. Khambati at Botad H.O. is justified and legal ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. The Second Party concerned workman has filed his statement of claim vide Ex . 3 and has represented to this Tribunal that Second Party concerned workman was working as a Postman since 1984 and was engaged accordingly by the First Party. The Second Party concerned workman was paid Rs . 600/- per month. Second Party concerned workman has performed his duty continuously 5753 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

the service period 1984 to 1989 in every year the concerned workman has completed 240 days . The records of his presence are in the custody of the First Party. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case , the Second Party workman has prayed that, the First Party may be directed to reinstate the Second Party workman on his original post with full back wages and continuity of service and with all consequential benefits and further as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court the benefits of temporary status and regularization also may be granted to the Second Party workman in the interest of justice .

3. In reply of the Statement of the Claim , the First Party has submitted his reply vide Ex - 9 and submitted that , the present Reference is purely made false and against the provisions of Law and hence the present reference is liable to be rejected . Second Party concerned workman was never appointed on the post of Postman . The present workman was engaged only where and when the regular appointed workman goes on leave . He was paid minimum wages as his pay. The concerned workman has never completed more then 240 days in any calendar year and therefore the concerned workman is not entitled to reinstate on his post . The concerned workman was not retrenched from his services from 30-3-1989. The present reference is made after a long time . The concerned workman had never been given written order for the appointment or retrenchment . The present concerned workman was appointed on purely and temporarily base and only up to till the other regular Postman may not be appointed . Second Party concerned workman has not completed 240 days during any year continuously and therefore the concerned workman is not entitled to reinstate on the post . The name of the concerned workman was not recommended by the Employment Exchange . The Second Party concerned workman has not completed due process of law for the appointment and hence he is not eligible to reinstate . It is not true that, the junior workman than the concerned workman has been appointed on the post . Therefore the present reference is liable to be rejected.

4. The Second Party concerned workman has produced documentary evidences vide pursis Ex . 5 , and the said documents have been exhibited 34 & 35. The concerned workman has presented his examination in chief vide Ex . 18 and was cross - examined by the First Party. Further , the Second Party concerned workman has produced his documentary evidences vide Ex . 25. The Second Party workman has produced its closing pursis vide Ex. 24 .

5. The First Party has submitted its examination in chiefof one Mr. Subhashchandra Purushottamdas Hariyani vide Ex . 30 and was cross - examined by the Second Party concerned workman. The First Party has produced its closing pursis vide Ex . 36 .

and satisfactorily till the date of his termination i.e. 30-3-1989 . All of a sudden the services of concerned workman were terminated without following any due process of law w.e.f. 30-3-1989 . Further , Second Party concerned workman has represented that , First Party has adopted the practice of rotating the employees on the basis ofdaily wager or temporary since years and such practice is adopted only with a view to deprive them of the benefits ofregularization and Temporary Status etc. Further , Second Party concerned workman has represented that , junior workers then the concerned workman are serving in the First Party till the day. The Junior workmen also were retrenched from his services but they had filed the reference case, and were ordered to reinstate in the services . After terminating the service of Second Party workman , the workman had made several representations to the First Party and in response of his representations the First Party has informed the Second Party concerned workman that the workman is terminated with a view to accommodate better eligible person . It is pertinent to note here that under the guise of better eligible person the management concerned has recruited similarly situated employee and in no manner the newly recruited person is more suitablė or more eligible . Thereafter there is no ground or justification for engaging the fresh employee . Therefore the action of the First Party is not only illegal and inoperative in law but purely in violation of Sec . 25 - H of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as the opponent had not prepared or published any seniority list and therefore there is no doubt that so many junior employees are retained by the First Party and the service of Second Party workman are terminated by way of adopting pick and choose policy. Not only that, but as per the provisions of Sec . 25- H of I.D. Act , no retrenchment compensation or notice pay or notice is paid to the Second Party concerned workman and no other procedure prescribed under the I.D. Act is followed by the First Party and therefore the action of the First Party management in terminating the service of the workman is totally illegal and inoperative in law and required to be quashed and set aside . The services of Second Party workman are terminated by oral order only . Therefore the said oral order of termination is required to be quashed and set aside in the interest ofjustice . Not only that , but in the present reference case , no such procedure is followed by the First Party and straightway the services of workman are terminated without following any departmental enquiry. Therefore , it seems clear that the First Party has adopted pick and choose policy and without any justification and without any reason and without following any provisions of law has terminated the service of Second Party workman . Not only that , but also the First Party has taken interviews of45 candidates for the said post . The post on working the concerned workman was in nature of the permanent . The fresh candidates have been appointed on the said post by the First Party. Even though there are many vacant posts . The Second Party concerned workman is qualified . During 5754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

6. The Second Party concerned workman has produced their written argument vide Ex . 37 while , the First Party has produced their written argument vide Ex . 39. Both . the written arguments made by the parties have been taken into the consideration .

7. After taking into consideration the written arguments of the both the parties this Tribunal has to decide that , whether the action of the Senior Supdt . of Post Offices, Bhavnagar and through his Officers in terminating ' Postman' Shri Sikander K. Khambati at Botad H.O. is justified and legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?

8. Looking into the present Reference case , learned advocate Mr. Thakkar , for the Second Party concerned workman has argued in his written argument that , the Second Party concerned workman was appointed on the postof Postman by the First Party since 1984 and was paid Rs. 600 per month as a remuneration . There was an Employee-Employer relation between both the parties . The concerned workman has produced his examination in chief vide Ex . 18 , and in the said examination in chief the concerned workman has stated that during the different years he had worked in the First Party as under:

No. Year

Working days 1984

1 .

142 2.

1985

343 1986

360 4. 1987

336 1988

Fabricated document produced by the First Party 1989

Fabricated document produced by the First Party 9. Thus , the Second Party concerned workman has completed more than 240 days during the every calendar year . From 30-3-1989 the Second Party concerned workman was retrenched from his services by an oral order. Not only that , but also the First Party has not asked a single question regarding the presence of the Second Party concerned workman , nor any cross - question has been asked by the FirstParty in the present reference case . Not only that , but also the First Party has not challenged the presence days shown by the Second Party concerned workman . Therefore it can be guess that the Second Party concerned workman has worked in the First Party during the days shown by the Second Party concerned workman . Looking to the records ofthe present reference case there is no any notice is produced by the First Party given to the Second Party concerned workman to retrench . Examining the records produced by the

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] both the parties there is no any document on the record that can show that the Second Party concerned workman has been given the notice pay . Vide Ex . 5 the Second Party concernedworkman has produced his note showing the days ofhis presence in the First Party. There is no question has beenasked by the First Party to the Second Party concerned workman about the days shown by him vide Ex . 5 in this case . The Second Party concerned workman has produced the certified copies of the days showing his presence in the FirstParty vide Ex . 25/1 .

10. In his argument the Second Party concerned workman has argued that , the witness of the First Party Mr. Subhashchandra Hariyani vide Ex . 30 , has confessed inhis oral evidence that , the First Party has appointed new candidates in his institution . The Second Party concerned workman has argued in addition that, the witness of the First Party had asked by the Second Party concerned workman that , against which Postman the Second Party concerned workman was appointed during the leave of the Second Party concerned workman . But surprisingly, the said witness has not answered in his cross - examination .

11. While the First Party has presented their written argument vide Ex . 39. Looking to the said argument of the First Party has stated that , in the written arguments of the Second Party concerned workman the proper interpretation of the Evidence Act, has not been done by the Second Party concerned workman . The cases cited by the Second Party concerned workman are not connected with the Second Party concerned workman and are not supported decisions . The oral evidence of the Second Party concerned workman cannot be considered in the present reference case . The records presented by the First Party are more reliable then the Second Party concerned workman , because the said produced records are Government records . The principles lay down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India . if a candidate would be selected for the office of the State Govt. or Central Govt . the due process of the law should be followed . In the present reference case the due process of the law for the recruitment is not followed by the Second Party concerned workman and hence the present reference isliable to be rejected .

12. Looking the arguments of both the parties and records produced by both the parties , and oral evidences , it is very clear in this case that , the Second Party concerned workman was appointed as a ' Postman ' in the First Party since 1984 and was paid Rs . 600 per month as a remuneration . Looking to the oral evidence vide Ex . 18 . of the Second Party concerned workman , he has shown the days during he had worked with the First Party i.e. during 1984 to 1989 he had worked with the First Party . The said confession of the Second Party concerned workman is not challenged by the First Party in any means . Thus , it is very clear case of the Second Party concerned workman that , he had worked in the First Party during 5755 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

1984 to 1989. Not only that , the Second Party concerned workman has produced an annexure vide Ex. 6 , and has shown that he had worked under the First Party since 8-9- 84 to 2-9-89 . The Second Party concerned workman has written in the present documentary evidence his month vise presence . The said written evidence is not challenged and not denied by the First Party, and not only that the First Party has not asked any single question to the Second Party concerned workman in his oral evidence . In the present reference case the learned advocate for the Second Party concerned workman has cited the decision given by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of the Principal S. V. Doshi Girls High School and Anr . V/ s . Lilaben Somabhai Gadasa , 2008 , ( I ) , GL.H. 286. In the said cited case Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has laid down the principle as under:

only November, 2003 one voucher , January , 2004 one voucher and 2005 , seven vouchers . But oral evidence of the workman was made it clear that she was remained in service from 1997 to 2005 then why management has not produced all the relevant vouchers for the entire period, for that no explanation isgiven by the management before the Labour Court . The question of allegation not made by the workman against the petitioner that they have suppressed the material . Not necessary to make such allegation . The adverse inference is enough to draw against the employer in such circumstances . There is no need to make allegation by the workman because onus is already shifted by the employer to disprove the claim ofworkman which has not been discharged by the petitioner by producing proper evidence before the Labour Court. "

13. Looking to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the aforesaid case , in the present reference case the Second Party concerned workman has presented the documents showing his presence in the First Party institution , but neither by the First Party it has been denied nor challenged by the First Party. Thus , it is very clear that , a moment legal evidence led by workman against employer then it is burden shifted from workman to employer to disprove claim of workman . In the present reference case the employer has neither disprove nor challenged the claim of the workman .

14. The witness of the First Party Mr. Subhash Chandra P. Hariyani vide Ex . 30 has been cross - examined by the Second Party concerned workman . In his cross- examination Mr. Hariyani has confessed that , at present there are 8 to 10 vacancy of the postman cadre are still vacant in the First Party institution . Further in his cross- examination the said witness has confessed that , before terminating the concerned workman has not been given notice , notice pay because the Second Party concerned workman was not appointed legally. In the present reference case by the First Party nothing has been brought out on the record that we can guess that , the Second Party concerned workman was not engaged in the First Party . While , the documentary evidences produced by the Second Party concerned workman is the documents given by the First Party , but even though has not been denied by the First Party in the present reference case . Other side the Second Party concerned workman has proved his case without and doubt.

" The Labour Court has discussed the issue at page 12 relying upon the oral evidence of the workman that when she makes statement on oath thatshe remained in service and completed 240 days continuous service . It is not the case of the petitioners before the Labour Court that respondent workman has supplied appointment order , wage slip , identity card or muster card . The order of termination is also not in writing but it was oral termination . Meaning thereby that workman , who was engaged orally and terminated orally, in between not a single document has been supplied by the petitioner to the workman , so she can produce such evidence before the Labour Court to prove her case of completion of 240 days continuous service . In absence of aforesaid document , it is very difficult for the workman to prove 240 continuous services except the deposition of the workman before the Labour Court . If the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that appointment order was issued , pay slip was given and if it is not produced by the workman , then the contention raised by a learned advocate Mr. Pandya canbe considered . But , admittedly no document was supplied by the petitioner to the workman and in absence of such document , how the workman can prove 240 days continuous service , except on oath self- statement made by the workman . A moment a legal evidence led by the workman against the petitioner then it is a burden shifted from workman to employer to disprove the claim of the workman . Initially burden is upon the workman to prove continue service of 240 days but that has been discharged by making self- statement on oath and then , burden is shifted or onus is shifted upon the employer to disprove the legal evidence of the workman by producing relevant documents or by producing the oral evidence . In such circumstances , 10 vouchers were produced vide Ex . 37 by the petitioner before the Labour Court . That was covered

15. In the present reference case the First Party has takendefense that , while retrenching the workman it is not necessary to give the notice , notice pay to the concerned workman . But in the case on hand , the First Party has submitted their oral evidence of Mr. Subhashchandra P. Hariyani , vide Ex . 30 , and in his cross - examination the said witness has confessed that , " before terminating the concerned workman has not been given notice , notice pay 5756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

because the Second Party concerned workman was not appointed legally. " Thus , the oral evidence produced by the First Party goes against the First Party, that during the retrenchment to the concerned workman was not given notice, notice pay and even retrenchment compensation . In reply of the said argument of the First Party, the Second Party concerned workman has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , R. M. Yellatti V/s . The Asstt. Executive Engineer, published in 2005, III , CLR, 1028. The principle laid down in the said judgment that the daily wager is entitled to get protection of Sec . 25 - F. In the present case also it is found that, the concerned workman is a 'Postman' .And further the said principle is also laid down in the case of Ramesh Kumar V/s . State of Haryana , published in 2010 ( 1 ) L.L.N. 831. Looking into the said judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , it is noted by the Supreme Court of India in its Judgment para 13 as under:

"13. We are conscious of the fact that an appointment on public post cannot be made in contravention of recruitment rules and constitutional scheme of employment . However, in view of the materials placed before the Labour Court and in this Court, we are satisfied that the said principle would not apply in the case on hand . As rightly pointed out , the appellant has not prayed for regularization but only for reinstatement with continuity of service for which he is legally entitled to. It is to be noted in the case of termination of casual employee what is required to be seen in whether a workman has completed 240day in the preceding 12 months or not . If sufficient materials are shown that workman has completed 240 days then his service cannot be terminated without giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms of S. 25F. The High Court failed to appreciate that in the present case appellant has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months and no notice or compensation in lieu of it was given to him , in such circumstances his termination was illegal . " 16. In the case on the hand , it is proved by the documentary evidence by the Second Party concerned workman that, appellant has completed more then 240 days in the preceding 12 months and no notice or compensation in lieu of it was given to him . It is settled law that any workman is entitled to reinstate on the post only ifhe should have worked more than 240 days in preceding twelve months from the date of his retrenchment . Thus , now the question arise in the case on hand , that , when the termination of the services of Sh . Sikander K. Khambati is illegal , improper and unjustified then , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter ? Looking in to the matter, the

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) | Second Party concerned workman has cited the reported case to support his case i.e. P.V.K. Distillery Ltd. V/ s . Mahendra Ram , reported in 2009 , I , CLR, 883. In the said reported case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held thatifthe breach of the Sec . 25 - F is proved by the appellant , then he is entitled to get 50% of the back wages . In the case on the hand, the breach of the Sec . 25 - F is proved by the Second Party concerned workman , and hence , the concerned workman is entitled to get 50% of the back wages. Not only that , the concerned workman is entitledto reinstate on his original post where he was working on the date ofretrenchment with 50 % of the back wages . Looking to the oral evidence of the Second Party concerned workman examined vide Ex . 18 the concerned workman has confess in his cross - examination that , he is healthy, he doesn't do any work till the day, and has not tried to get work . This confession of the Second Party concerned workman shows that though he is healthy, even though he is not doing any job and has not tried to get such a job during the termination period . This shows his laziness . and would have got any job , or would have got so many means in his past life , but he has not done such a job . These circumstances goes against the Second Party concerened workman in getting 100 % back wages . Therefore , this Tribunal decide to give only 50% of the back wages to the Second Party concerned workman . Thus . the reference on the hand is liable to grant partially. Further . in the present reference case it should be noted that , the present case is raised only for reinstate on his original post , and not for the regularization in the service . Therefore the action of the First Party institute in terminating to the Second Party concerned workman is liable to declare unjustified and illegal .

17. In considering all aforesaid circumstances , this Tribunal believes that present Reference is liable to granted. Therefore , this Tribunal passes the following order :

ORDER

1. The Reference made by Sh . Sikander K. Khambati isgranted partially accordingly.

2. The action of the First Party Sr. Supdt . of Post Offices , Bhavnager in terminating the services of Sh . Sikander K. Khambati is declared unjustified and illegal . Further, it is ordered to the First Party to reinstate the concerned workman Sh . Sikander K. Khambati with 50 °, ofthe back wages with the continuity of his service on his original post within the 30 days of the publication of this award .

3. The First Party will pay Rs . 500 as a cost to the Second Party concerned workman .

Bhavnagar,

Dated: 30-6-2010

S. S. PANCHAL , Industrial Tribunal , Central 5757

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. PANCHAL , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CENTRAL, BHAVNAGAR Reference I.T.C. ( New) No. 7 of 2009 Reference I.T.C. (Old) No. 19 of 1995

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT /NGP / 110/2004 Date : 21-7-2010

Petitioner

CORRIGENDUM

This Industrial Tribunal , Central , Bhavnagar has passed an award in Reference I.T.C. ( New ) No. 7 of 2009 vide Ex . 40 , on dated : 30-06-2010 and has signed on the same date . On the page No. 2, in the said award this Tribunal has cited " Office Order No. L -40011 / 25 / 92 - IR ( DU) dated : 12-12-1993 " , and that is not correct and this mistake is a slip of pen . Hence , this Tribunal pass the following corrigendum and order to read as under:

"Office Order No. L- 40012 / 12 / 94 - IR (DU ) dated : 23-02-95 ."

Bhavnagar. Dated : 03-08-2010 .

S.S. PANCHAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त , 2010

का. आ. 2212.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी / एनजीपी / 110/ 2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/ 229/ 94- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S.O. 2212. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/ 110/ 2004) of the Central Govt . Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur 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 10-08-2010 .

[No. L -40012/ 229/ 94 - IR ( DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

: Shri Amritlal S/ o Sheshrao Deshmukh , R/ o Gram- Sitabadhi Post- Barkhera, Tahsil -Multai & District- Betul ( M.P. )

(Party No. 2)

Versus

Respondent : The Chief General Manager , Telecom ( RE) Project , 66 Bajaj Nagar , S.V. Patel Marg , Nagpur .

(Party No. 1)

AWARD

The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Amritlal S / o Sheshrao Deshmukh (Party No. 2 ) and the Chief General Manager Telecom (RE) Project 66 (Party No. 1 ) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L -40012 229/94 IR ( D - U ) . dt . 28-12-1995 Bajaj Nagar Nagpur , Under clause ( d) of sub- Section ( 1 ) and sub - Section ( 2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute , Act , 1947 [ 14 of 1947 ] with the following Schedule :

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager , Telecom ( RE ) Project , 66 Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur in stopping Shri Amritlal Deshmukh S / o Sheshrao Deshmukh , Casual labour from his duty w.e.f. May 1988 is justified and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. It seems that initially the reference was sent to the CGIT. Jabalpur in 1996 and consequent upon the establishment of this Tribunal at Nagpur it has been transferred it to Nagpur where it has been registered and numbered as CGIT.NGP / 110 /2004 . I have recorded the evidence and hearing the arguments it was seized for award .

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as casual labour w.e.f. 1-4-1987 and he worked continuously till 1-7-1988 on which he was terminated . The termination of his services , without notice , orally, without following the provisions of Sections 25G and H is illegal . It was obligatory on the respondent to fallow the above provisions because he worked continuously without any break for more than 240 days . He had acquired the status of permanent employee . Hence he is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and other benefit of the permanency. Accordingly, he prayed for the same .

5758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

4. The management resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing the W.S. Having admitted that he worked upto 2-7-1987 from 1-4-1987 it has claimed that he left the services voluntarily. Further it has denied his services were terminated in the month ofJuly 1998. According to the management the petitioner was engaged as casual labour on daily wages and thereafter he left the services voluntarily without giving intimation to the management . He thereafter never turned or made any grievances on any occasion except present statement of claim before the Tribunal . It has denied that the petitioner had worked continuously 240 days . It has submitted the employee worked for 256 days in calendar year 1987 and 157 days in 1988. Thus he had not worked for 240 days continuously for period of two years in each calendar year. It has also denied that he is entitled for retrenchment compensation. There is no question of breach of section 25G and H of I.D. Act . It is specifically stated that he was never appointed as per recruitment rules or calling from the employment exchange . He was engaged for limited period he is not entitled for the relief claimed by him . It is voluntary resignation of the services . Finely it has prayed to reject the claim of the petitioner.

5. Now, the important issue is as to whether the action of the respondent in terminating the petitioner w.e.f. 2-7-1988 is justified and legal?

6. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence of both the parties , it is clear that the following facts have been admitted :

( i) It is admitted fact that Shri Amrit Lal Deshmukh was appointed as Casual Employee in the respondent's department .

(ii) He was engaged from 1-4-1987 to 1-7-1988 of the respondent's department .

(iii) He was disengaged from 2-7-1988 from the respondent's department .

(iv) No notice was given or compensation was paid before disengaging him from the respondent's department.

(v) No retrenchment compensation was paid as required under Section 25 (f) of the I.D. Act .

7. Now let us examine the evidence adduced by the parties . The petitioner has given his evidence on affidavit . He has been cross - examined by the respondent at length . Hehas specifically stated in his evidence that he has worked for 240 days in a calendar year . He was not served the notice or paid wages in lieu of notice before terminating his services . He was not paid the retrenchment compensation . The respondent has not complied with Sections 25 -G & H of I.D. Act . The contention of the respondent that he left the services on his own accord is

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | false and fabricated . It was the respondent who illegally stopped him from work w.e.f. August 1988. He continuously approached the respondent for permitting him to resume his duties . The Officers gave him false assurance that he would be given employment . The employees employed along with him are still in employment . The work done by him is still available with the respondent and for execution of that work the respondent has engaged other persons . He was engaged for execution of permanent and perennial nature of work which is still available with the respondent.

8. In rebuttal , the management has adduced evidence of Shri W.N. Lanjewar who was working in the office of the Divisional Engineer ( RE ) , New Delhi . The said witness has stated that the affidavit by way of evidence has been filed on the basis of record and not on the basis of his personal knowledge . He has not filed any document on the basis of which the affidavit has been filed . He was posted at Chandrapur during the period from 1-4-1987 to 1-7-1988 . The petitioner was not working under him . The petitioner was working in Nagpur and Padurna area . There were 80 workers along with the petitioner . Their muster roll is available in the office . I had not seen muster roll at the time of preparing affidavit . It was already destroyed. There were entries in the muster roll showing the actual days of working and the wages paid . He cannot say on what basis the Department has prepared the reply before the ALC . The petitioner was neither terminated nor retrenched but he left thejob voluntarily. His last working day was on 1-7-1988 . Office did not issue any letter asking the petitioner to attend the work though he has left .

9. No documents were produced by the respondent in support of the defence . All the documents were in possession of the respondent's department. The respondent has failed to produce the documents in their possession As per the written statement filed by the respondent , in paragraph 3 the respondent has admitted that the applicant employee has worked for 256 days in the calendar year 1987 and 157 days in the calender year 1988. In the year 1988 , the petitioner was employed upto 1-7-1988 . There- after his services were terminated . Thus it is clear that he has worked for 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination .

10. The petitioner has filed his affidavit specifically stating that he has worked for 240 days in a calendar year Hisservices were terminated . No notice was given priorto terminating his services . The entire documents in connection with the attendance put by the petitioner , the wages paid by the respondent to the petitioner , all are with the respondent . Hence it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to produce those documents to establish that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days and he has fett hisown accord . In the instant case , no document has been filed by the respondent. The respondent has not filed any [ भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]

official record to show that the muster roll pertaining to petitioner has been destroyed.

11. The petitioner has filed photocopy ofdocuments to show that he was working as labour. The management has withheld the muster roll which is in his possession .

12. The management has examined one witness who was not working at the place where the petitioner was working. The witness has no personal knowledge about the case . There is nothing on record to show as to how he can say that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days and he has left the employment at his own when there is nothing onrecordto show that the witness has personal knowledge . This witness is not competent to show that the petitioner has worked for less than 240 days during particular period . How his evidence can be relied upon . Whereas the petitioner has specifically stated that he has worked for 240 days in one calendar year and his services were terminated without assigning any reason . Since it is admitted that the petitioner has worked for 256 days in a calendar year 1987 and 157 days as on July 1988 , the evidence of the petitioner is fit to be accepted. In fact as per written statement it is an admitted position . I , therefore , hold that the petitioner was in continuous services as has beenprovided in Section 25 - B (2) (a) ofthe I.D. Act and his disengagement is retrenchment. Admittedly, he was not removed in the manner as has been provided under Section 25 ( F ) of the I.D.Act . The contention of the management that the petitioner was neither terminated nor retrenched buthe left the job voluntarily has not been supported by evidence . There is no evidence in support of this contention . Had the petitioner voluntarily left the job , he would not have approached the labour machinery provided under the I.D. Act for redressel of his grievance . The respondent should have issued show cause notice to the petitioner advising him to report for duty failing which his services would be declared as abandoned . The respondent before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has abandoned his services voluntarily should have given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner by issuing show cause notice and initiating the enquiry. But in this case that has not been done by the respondent .

13. The learned counsel for the respondent heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon . Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4 ) SCC page 1. The respondent has further relied uponthe judgment reported in 2005 (3 ) Mh.L.J. Page 758 (RBI Vs. S. Mani ) . These cases are not applicable in the present case These cases are with respect to the regularization whereas the present case in hands is a case of reinstatement as the provisions of Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act has not been followed .

14. The Hon . Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another 3296 GI /10-33

5759

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sangathana (2009-8 -SCC- 556) in paragraph 32 & 33 held as follows:

"32. The power given to the Industrial and Labour courts under Section 30 is very wide and the affirmative action mention there in is inclusive and not exhaustive . Employing badlis , casual or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is an unfair labour practice on the part of employer under Item 6 of Schedule - IV. Once such unfair labour practice on the part of the employer is established in the complaint , the Industrial and Labour courts are empowered to issue preventive as well as positive direction to anerring employer .

33. The provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi (3 ) . As a matter of fact, the issue like the present one pertaining to unfair labour practice was not at all preferred to , considered or decided in Umadevi . Unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as badlis , casual or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges ofpermanent employees as provided in Item 6 of the Schedule IV and the power of the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 of the Act did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the Constitution Beach .

A. The Hon . Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. Jabar Singh and others (2007 - II - LLJ - 95 ) held as follows:

"32. The appellant Corporation, while issuing the retrenchment notices dated May 31 , 1995 as well as other notices issued between March 31 , 1995 to May 31 , 1995 did not comply with either of the two requirements of Section 25 - N , namely, giving three months notice to the workman in writing or paying them three months wages in lieu thereof and taking of prior permission from the appropriate Government , the retrenchment ofthe respondent workman by the Corporation was done contrary to the provisions of clause (1) of Section 25 - N and is illegal . "

33. Clause (7 ) of Section 25 - N statutorily provides that:

"25-N (7) where no application for permission under sub - section ( 1 ) is made , or where the 5760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13, 1932

permission for any retrenchment has been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the notice of retrenchment was given to the workman and the workman shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to him. The submission made in this behalf by learned counsel for the respondent merit acceptance . Thus , the retrenchment notices mentioned above being illegal from the date of the said notices and the workman being entitled to all the benefits , in the present case , all the workman concerned are entitled to be reinstated with full back-wages and continuity of service. "

A. The Hon. Supreme Court in the latestjudgment delivered in the case of Director , Fisheries Terminal Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda reported in 2010 - I - LLJ -3 ( SC) held:

" 15. In the light of the principles laid down in the above case by this Court and the evidence produced by the appellants is not consistent, The appellants claim that respondent did not work for 240 days . The respondent was a workman hired on a daily wage basis . So it is obvious , as this court pointed out in the above case that he would have, difficulty in having access to all the official documents , muster rolls etc. in connection with his service . He has come forward and deposed , so in our opinion the burden ofproof shift to the employer , appellants to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service . It is contention of the appellant that the services of the respondent were terminated in 1988. The witness produced by the appellant stated that the respondent stopped coming to work from February 1988. The documentary evidence produced by the appellant is contradictory to this fact as it shows that the respondent was working during February 1989 also . It has also been observed by the High Court that the muster roll for 1986-87 was not completely produced . The appellants have inexplicably failed to produce the complete records and muster rolls from 1985 to 1991 , in spite of the direction issued by the Labour Court to produce the same. In fact, there has been practically not challenged to the deposition of the respondent during cross- examination . In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention the observation of three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation , Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas (2004-8- SCC- 195 , 2004- III - LLJ - 760 , where it is observed

[PART II-SEC .3 ( ii ) ] atP. 763 of LLJ " 14. A Court of Law even in a case where provisions of the Indian Evidence Act apply may presume or may not presume that if a party despite possession of the best evidence has not produced the same , it would have gone against this contention . The matter, however , would be difficult where despite direction by a Court the evidence is withheld. " 17. In the light of the principles enumerated in the judgements and on the basis of the evidence in my view, the action of the Chief General Manager, Telecom (RE Project) , 66 Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur, in terminating the service ofShri Amrit Lal Deshmukh w.e.f. 2-7-1988 is illegal and unjustified.

A. However the claim of the petitioner in respect of back wages cannot be allowed mainly on the principle of that no work no wages . Secondly the petitioner was admittedly working as labour and earning the wages up to Rs. 200 daily by doing the manual work . Hence the claim for back wagesisrejected. However the order ofdismissal ofthe management deservers to be quashed , it cannot be supported. Accordingly it is quashed . I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

(i) The order of the management terminating his services is hereby quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondent party No. 2 is directed to reinstate Shri Amrit Lal Deshmukh in services w.e.f. 2-7-1988 .

( iii) The Petitioner, the workman shall be deemed to be in continuous services for all other purposes such as consideration for regularization , pensionary benefits etc.

(iv) The claim of the petitioner for back wages stands as dismissed .

(v) This is Award .

A.N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2213.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.एस.एन. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -40011 /1/2004- आई आर ( डीयू) । जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 10th August, 2010

S.O. 2213. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BSNL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-08-2010 .

[No. L -40011/ 1 /2004 - IR ( DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR Present :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer , C.GI.T-cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar.

Industrial Dispute Case No. 48/2004 Date of Passing Order 2nd August , 2010 Between:

The Management of the Telecom District Manager , BSNL , Keonjhar , PO & Distt . Keonjhar

( 1stParty Management)

AND

(2nd Party -Union ) Their workmen represented through the District Secretary , BSNL Mazdoor Sangh , C/ o BSNL Office , P.O. & Distt. Keonjhar

Appearances:

None : For the 1st Party - Management

None : For the 2nd Party - Union

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has made this reference arising out of an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of BSNL , Keonjhar and their workmen in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) abd sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 vide their letter No. L -40011 / 1 /2004 - IR ( DU) , dated 05-08-2004 .

5761

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

The matter under dispute is given in the schedule of reference which reads as follows :

1. " Whether the demand of the BSNL Mazdoor Sangh , Keonjhar for payment of sweeping charges @ Rs . 120 per month to the staff, Remuli , Jajanga, Bolani and B. Karanjia exchanges , who are working under TDM , Keonjhar in line with other staff is justifed ? If not , what relief the workmen are entitled to ? "

2. " Whether the demand of the BSNL Mazdoor Sangh Keonjhar for supply of T & T materials to all RM and PM Staff of Keonjhar working under TDM , Keonjhar District is justified ? If not , to whatrelief the workmen are entitled to ? " The 2nd Party - Union has preferred Statement of claim which narrates various demands of the BSNI Mazdoor Sangh , Keonjhar . The two demands which relate to this reference are sweeping charges at the rate of Rs . 120 per month to the staff of Remuli , Jajanga , Bolani , B. Karanjia Exchanges and T & T materials like Hunter shoes . leather chapel , woolen jersy, water bottle , tool bag , hand set , raincoat , umbrella , towel , soap to all employees . The other demands detailed in the statement of claim are not relevant to this reference . As such they are not to be enumerated here . The 2nd Party- Union has not given any basis or ground on which these demands have been made and are to be justified.

The 1st Party - Management in his written statemem has stated that the case is not maintainable in law as Shri K.C. Sethi representing the 2nd Party - Union is no more posted at Keonjhar. The washing allowance ( now stands substituted by Sweeping Charges ) is being paid so also the T & T materials are also being paid to the workers . The 2nd Party - Union in order to divert the attention and to make the process lingering is trying to raise new points which cannot be decided as not previously raised .

Onthe pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed .

ISSUES

1. Whether the regular mechanics and phone mechanics of Remuli , Jajang , Bolani and B.Karanjia exchanges are entitled to get washing allowance ( now substituted as sweeping charges ) at par with other staff ?

2. Whether the management is required to suppis Tents and Tools and other materials to all regulat Mazdoors and phone mechanic staff of keonjhar working under TDM, conjhar District? 3. If not , to what other relief the workmen are entitled to?

5762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

Neither the 2nd party - union nor the 1st party- management has examined any witness in support of their spective contention. The 2nd party - union has filed certain Documents numbering 20 as annexures to the statement of Laim in the shape of Xerox copies . The Ist party -manage- vent has not filed any document .

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO . I

The demand raised under this issue relates to payment of sweeping charges at the rate of Rs.120 per month to the staff or Remuli , Jajanga , Bolani , B.Karanjia exchages , but the 2nd party- Union has not led any evidence to justify its demand and even could not show on which ground these demand has been raised . It has also not been explained as to what is meant by the sweeping charges ? The xerox copies of the papers , which have not been proved by the 2nd Party - Union , if taken to be correct only show that , with regard to the various demands of the 2nd Party- Union . Conciliation proceeding or meeting were held between the parties but no settlement could be reached . As such mere assertion of a claim does not justify its venuinity and resultantly its grant . Accordingly this issue is decided against the 2nd Party - Union and it is held that the staff of Remuli , Jajanga , Bolani , B. Karanjia Exchange under T.D.M. , Keonjhar are not entitled for payment of sweeping charges as demanded .

ISSUE NO . II

The 2nd Party - Union has filed to give any evidence in support of its claim regarding supply of T & T materials to all staff of the Keonjhar District working under T.D.M. , Keonjhar . As such this Tribunal is not in a position to decide whether the alleged materials are essentially required for giving effect to the work assigned to the said workers . Therefore its demand for such materials cannot be held justified . This issue is answered accordingly and decided against the 2nd Party -Union .

ISSUE NO . III

Since the two demands raised by the 2nd Party - Union by way of dispute under reference have not been proved to be genuine and justified , the 2nd Party - Union cannot be held entitled to receive benefits there - under . The workmen under these circumstances are not entitled for any relief claimed under this reference .

The Award is answered accordingly .

J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer

[PART I -SEC . 3 ( ji ) | नई दिल्ली , 11 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2214 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 . का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेर बैंक , कानपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -12012/85/ 2006- आई आर ( बी रमेश सिंह , डेस्क शधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th August , 2010

S.O. 2214. - In pursuance of Section 17 of t Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Contiel Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No 18.2007 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of The Asstt . General Manager , State Bank of India , Kanpur and their workmen . which was received by the Central Government on 11-8-2010.

[No. L - 12012 / 85 / 2006 -IR ( 13-1) RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , H.JS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIA ! TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 18 of 2007 BETWEEN

The Deputy General Secretary. State Bank of India Staff Association . SBI Bhawan , The Mall , Kanpur

AND

The Assistant General Manager , State Bank of India , Region III Zonal Office , The Mall, Kanpur

AWARD

1. Central Government MOL New Delhi wad notification No. L- 12012 / 85 / 2006 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 14-02-2007 . has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .

2. Whether the action of the Management of Stat Bank of India , Fatehpur , in denying wages to workman Sti Vijai Bahadur Singh , Ex - guard for the period 09-07-1982 το [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

29-11-2002 and other admissible benefits is just and legal ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?

3. The aforesaid reference was sent for decision according to law. After receipt of the reference several notices were sent to the claimant . Later on the tribunal was informed that the claimant had already expired in the month ofNovember 2006 whereas the reference has been sent on 14-02-2007 . No claim statement has been filed as the claimant has already expired. A.R. for the opposite party contended thatthe reference has become infructuous . Claim statement could not be filed in such capacity.

4. Perused the record , hence in such situation reference could not be disposed of on merits . Therefore , reference is disposed of accordingly.

Dated : 30-07-2010 .

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 अगस्त , 2010

का. आ. 2215.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बड़ौद! राजस्थान ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण व लेबर कोर्ट , अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी आई टी आर -05/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/23/2009- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th August , 2010

S.O. 2215.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CITR 05/2009 ) of the Labour Court , Ajmer as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Adhyaksh , Regional Manager , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 11-8-2010 .

[No. L - 12011 /23 /2009 - IR (B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , अजमेर पीठासीन अधिकारी पवन एन चन्द्र , आर.एच. जे.एस.

प्रकरण संख्या-सी.आई.टी.आर. - 05 / 09 केन्द्र सरकार का रेफरेंस नं. एल -12011 / 23 /2009- आई आर बी-1 दिनांक 24-9-2009

5763

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

अध्यक्ष , ग्रामीण बैंक एम्पलाईज यूनियन , द्वारा बडौदा राजस्थान ग्रामीण बैंक, कारोईकलां , जिला भीलवाड़ा , राजस्थान

बनाम

1. अध्यक्ष , बड़ौदा राजस्थान ग्रामीण बैंक , प्रधान कार्यालय, वैशालीनगर , अजमेर

2. रीजनल मैनेजर , बड़ौदा राजस्थान ग्रामीण बैंक, क्षेत्राय कार्यालय , लोकदीप कॉम्पलेक्स , आर . के. कालोनी, भीलवाड़ा, राजस्थान अणगिण

उपस्थिति

: कोई उपस्थित नहीं

प्रार्थी की ओर से

अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से कोई उपस्थित नहीं :

अवार्ड

दिनांक : 28-7-2010

1. कंन्द्रीय सरकार की ओर से इस न्यायालय के अभिनिवार्य निम्न रेफरेंस प्रेषित किया गया है :

"Whether the action of management of Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank , Pradhan Karyalya , Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer and its other branches are justified in not giving overtime allowances/ compensatory leav on acccount of working on 15th August Independence Day.

2. उक्त रेफरेंस इस न्यायालय को प्राप्त होने पर इसे दर्ज किया गया एवं व्यथित पक्ष को नोटिस जारी किया गया । नोटिस उन पर तामील हो जाने के बावजूद वह अथवा उनके प्रतिनिधि इस न्यायालय के समक्ष उपस्थित नहीं आये हैं । जिसका उल्लेख इस पत्रावली की आदेशिका दिनांक 22-6-2010 एवं 20-7 - 2010 日 अंकित कर रखा है । रजिस्टर्ड ए.डी. हस्ताक्षरशुदा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध है । ऐसी परिस्थिति में यही प्रतीत होता है कि प्रार्थी पक्ष अर्थात् अध्यक्ष ग्रामीण बैंक कर्मचारी यूनियन , कारोईकलां, जिला भीलवाड़ा के पदाधिकारी इस रेफरेंस को आगे नहीं चलाना चाहते हैं । जिस कारण से हमारे समक्ष " नो डिस्प्यूट अवार्ड " पारित किये जाने के अलावा और कोई विकल्प नहीं रहता है ।

3. उपरोक्त तथ्यात्मक परिप्रेक्ष्य में निम्न नो डिस्पयूट अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है : -

आदेश अवार्ड

फलतः प्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा उपस्थित नहीं आने के कारण नो- डिस्प्यूट अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है ।

पवन एन . चन्द्र , न्यायाधीश 5764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 11 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2216.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम 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 1374/08 ,1375/ 08 , 1380/08 , 1385/08 , 1389/08 , 1394/08 , 1399/08, 1401/08 , 1402/08 , 1406/08 , 1409/08 , 1412/08 , 1414/08 , 1417/08 , 1425/ 08, 1427/08 , 1429/08 , 1430/08 , 1432/08 , 1433/08 , 1434/08 , 1435/08 , 1438/08 , 1441/08 , 1445/08 , 1448/08 , 1449/08 , 1451/ 08 , 1452/08 , 1453/08 , 1454/08 , 1455/08 , 1457/08 , 1458/08 , 1461/08 , 1462/08 , 1465/08 , 1466/08 , 1468/08 , 1469/08 , 1470/ 08 , 1473/08 , 1474/08 , 1475/08 , 1476/08 , 1477/08 , 1478/08 , 1480/08 , 1481/08 , 1483/08 , 1484/08 , 1486/08 , 1487/08 , 1488/ 08, 1489/08 , 1490/08 , 1491/08 , 1492/08 , 1496/08 , 1498/08 , 1502/08 , 1505/08 , 1506/08 , 1508/08 , 1509/08 , 1510/08 , 1511/ 08 , 1512/08 , 1513/08 , 1515/08 , 1516/08 , 1517/08 , 1518/08 , 1519/08 , 1522/08 , 1526/08 , 1527/08 , 1528/08 , 1529/08 , 1530/ 08, 1531/08 , 1532/08 , 1533/08 , 1536/08 , 1537/08 , 1538/08 , 1539/08 , 1540/08 , 1543/08 , 1544/08 , 1547/08 , 1548/08 , 1549/ 08, 1550/08 , 1551/08 , 1552/08 , 1553/08 , 1554/08 , 1555/08 , 1556/08 , 1558/08 , 1559/08 , 1560/08 , 1565/08 , 1566/08 , 1567 / 08, 1570/08 , 1574/08 , 1577/08 , 1578/08 , 1579/08 , 28/09 , 29/ 09,31/09 , 32/09 , 33/09 , 36/09 , 39/09 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं L- 22012/ 18/2007 - IR (C- II ) , L- 22012 / 232/ 2006 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012/170/2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 16/2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L-22012/20/2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 35 / 2007 - IR (C - II ) , L- 22012/339/2006 - IR ( C- II ) , L - 22012 / 338 /2006 - IR ( C - II ) , L-22012/ 142/ 2007 - IR ( C- II) , L - 22012/ 279/ 2006 - IR ( C - II ) , 1.-22012/333/ 2006- IR (C - II ) , L- 22012 / 36 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ), L-22012/38/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 145/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , 1-22012/121 / 2007 - IR ( C - II) , L - 22012 / 120/2007 - IR (C - II ), 1.-22012/336/2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 215 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , 1. -22012/ 222/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 196/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012/197/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 198/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L-22012/63/2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 /68 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , 1-22012/ 239/2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 /236 /2007 - IR (C - II ), L -22012/317 /2007 - IR ( C - II ), L - 22012/ 289/2006 - IR ( C - II ) . L -22012/ 224/2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 223 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ), L -22012 / 178 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , 1-22012/ 179/2007- IR (C - II) , L - 22012/214/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/202/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012/ 234/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 233/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012/ 212/ 2007 - IR (C - II ) , L - 22012 / 230 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/176/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 177/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) . L-22012/67/2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 82/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012/ 123 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ), L - 22012/ 173/2007 - IR ( C - II ) 、 L- 22012/ 225 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 217/2007 - IR ( C - II ), L -22012/218 /2007- IR (C - II) , L- 22012 / 66/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 181 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 193 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ), L - 22012/ 194/2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 /41/2007 - IR ( C - II ), L-22012/40/2007 - IR ( C- II) , L - 22012 / 75 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012/ 76/ 2007 - IR ( C - II) , L - 22012 / 77/2007 - IR ( C - II ) ,

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] L-22012/ 78 / 2007 - IR ( C- II ) , L - 22012/ 79 /2007 - IR (C - II ). L -22011 / 8 /2007 - IR ( C - II) , L - 22012/ 351 /2007- IR ( C - 11 ) . L -22012/326/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 60 /2007 - IR ( C - II ), L-22011 / 10/2008 - IR (C - II ) , L - 22012/ 312/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) . L-22011 /6 /2008 - IR (C - II ) , L- 22011 / 7 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L-22012/328 /2007 - IR ( C - II) , L- 22012/ 329 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L-22012/331 /2007 - IR ( C- II) , L - 22012/ 333 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) . L-22012/348 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012/ 341 /2007 - IR ( C - 11 ) . L-22011 / 31 /2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 /29/2008 - IR ( C - 11 ), L-22012/384/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 19 /2008 - IR ( C - 11 ) . L-22011 / 18 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 17 / 2008 - IR ( C - 11 ) . L -22011 / 16/2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 350 / 2007 - IR (C - II ) . L-22012/ 386/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012/330/2007 - IR ( C - II ) . L-22012/334 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 22/ 2008 - IR ( C - 11 ) . L-22011 / 15/2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 13 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) . L-22011 / 11 /2008- IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 4 / 2008 - IR (C - II ) , L-22011 / 3 /2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 5 / 2008 - IR ( C - 11 ) . L- 22011 / 44/2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 53 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) . L-22011 / 51 / 2008 - IR ( C - II) , L - 22011 / 35/2008 - IR ( C - II ) . L-22011 /34/ 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 57/ 2008 - IR ( C - 111 . L- 22011 / 55 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 56/2008 - IR ( C - 11 ) . L-22011 / 54/2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 52 /2008 - IR ( C - 11 ) . L -22011 /36/ 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 42 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) . L -22011 /43/ 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 73 / 2008 - IR ( C - 11 ) . L-22011 / 72 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 69/2008 - IR ( C - II ) . L-22011/68 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 75 /2008 - IR ( CC - 11 ) . L-22011 / 80/2008 - IR ( C - II) , L - 22011 / 81 /2008 - IR ( C - II ) . L -22011 / 82/ 2008 - IR (C - II ) , L - 22011 / 11 / 2009 - IR ( C - 11 ) . L-22011 / 15 /2009 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 /23 /2009 - IR (C - II ) . L -22011 / 22 / 2009- IR ( C - II ) , 1-22011 / 19 / 2009 - IR ( C - 11 ) . L-22011 /25/2009 - IR ( C - II ), L - 22011 / 12 /2009 - IR ( C - II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th August, 2010

S.O. 2216. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. Nos . 137-1 08, 1375/08 , 1380/08 , 1385/08 , 1389/08 , 1394/08 , 1399-08 , 1401/08 , 1402/08 , 1406/08 , 1409/08 , 1412/08 , 1414/08 , 1417 08, 1425/08 , 1427/08 , 1429/08 , 1430/08 , 1432/08, 1433/08 , 1434/08 , 1435/08 , 1438/08 , 1441/08 , 1445/08 , 1448/08 , 1449 08, 1451/08 , 1452/08 , 1453/08 , 1454/08 . 1455/08 , 1457.08, 1458/08 , 1461/08 , 1462/08 , 1465/08 , 1466/08 , 1468/08 , 1-469 08 , 1470/08 , 1473/08 , 1474/08 , 1475/08 , 1476/08 , 1477.08 . 1478/08 , 1480/08 , 1481/08 , 1483/08 , 1484/08 , 1486/08 , 1487 08 , 1488/08 , 1489/08 , 1490/08 , 1491/08 , 1492/08 , 1496/08 , 1498/08 , 1502/08 , 1505/08 , 1506/08 , 1508/08 , 1509/08 , 1510 08 , 1511/08 , 1512/08 , 1513/08 , 1515/08 , 1516/08.1517:08 . 1518/08 , 1519/08 , 1522/08 , 1526/08 , 1527/08 , 1528/08 , 1529 08 , 1530/08 , 1531/08 , 1532/08 , 1533/08 , 1536/08 , 1537 08 . 1538/08 , 1539/08 , 1540/08 , 1543/08 , 1544/08 , 1547/08 , 15-48 08 , 1549/08 , 1550/08 , 1551/08 , 1552/08 , 1553/08 , 155-4-08, 1555/08 , 1556/08 , 1558/08 , 1559/08 , 1560/08 , 1565/08 , 1566 08, 1567/08 , 1570/08 , 1574/08 , 1577/08 , 1578/08 , 1579 /08.28 09, 29/09 , 31/09 , 32/09 , 33/09 , 36/09 , 39/09) of the Central [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Lbour Court No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2009 .

[No.L - 22012 / 18 /2007 - IR ( C- II) , L - 22012 / 232/ 2006- IR (C - II) , L -22012 / 170 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 16 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 20/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 35 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L- 22012/ 339/ 2006 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 338 / 2006 - IR (C - II) , L - 22012 / 142/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 279 / 2006 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012 / 333 / 2006 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 36 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012/38 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 145 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 121 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L- 22012 / 120 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/336 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 215 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 222 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 196 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L- 22012 / 197 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 198 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/63/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 68 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 239 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 236/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012 /178 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 179 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 225 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 217 / 2007 - IR (C - II ) , L -22012/218 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 66 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 181 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 193/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 194/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 41 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 /40/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 75 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 76/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 77 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 78 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 79 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L- 22011/ 8 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 351 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 326 / 2007 - IR ( C - II) , L - 22012 / 60 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 10 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 312 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011/ 6/ 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 7 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 328 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 329 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 331 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 333 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 348 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012 / 341 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 31 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 29/ 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 384/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 19 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ), L - 22011 / 18 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 17 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22011 / 16/ 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012/ 350/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012 /386 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 330 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 334/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 22 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011/ 15/ 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 13 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012/317/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 289 / 2006 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 224/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 223 / 2007 - IR (C - II ) , L -22012/ 214 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 202 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012 / 234/ 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L- 22012 / 233 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 212 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 230 /2007 - IR (C - II ) , L - 22012 /176 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 177 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22012/67 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22012 / 82 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L- 22012 / 123 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L- 22012 / 173 / 2007 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 11 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 4 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L- 22011 / 3 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 5 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011/ 44/ 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 53 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 51 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 35 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 34 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 57 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011/ 55/2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 56 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) ,

5765

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

L -22011 / 54/ 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 52 /2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22011 /36/ 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 42 /2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L-22011 / 43 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 73 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 72 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L- 22011 / 69 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 /68 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 75 /2008 - IR (C - II ) , L - 22011 / 80/ 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 81 / 2008 - IR (C - II ) , L -22011 / 82 / 2008 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 11 / 2009 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22011 / 15 / 2009 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 /23 / 2009 - IR (C - II ) , L - 22011 / 22 / 2009 - IR ( C - II ) , L - 22011 / 19 / 2009 - IR ( C - II ) , L -22011 /25 /2009 - IR ( C - II ) , L- 22011 / 12/2009 - IR (C -II) ] D.S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - UM - LABOUR COURT- I , CHANDIGARH

Case No. IDs as per detailed below:

118 Workmen as per details given below :

Applicants 1. The General Manager , Food Corporation of India , Regional Office , Punjab Region , Sector - 31 、 Chandigarh .

2. The Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India , Ferozpur , Punjab .

3. The Area Manager , Food Corporation of India , District Office , Malwal Road , Ferozpur City, Ferozpur.

4. Brig . Jaswant Singh Sandhu , Bright Security Services , 38 , Rani Ka Bag , Amritsar , Punjab .

5. The Director , Industrial Security and Allied Services , Suraksha Bhawan , Paranjit Ganj , Kapurthala, Punjab .

6. Managing Director, Prehari Security and Detective Services Pvt . Ltd. , Jallowkhanna Chowk , Kapurthala , Punjab - 144601 . Respondents APPEARANCES :

Forthe workman : None

For the management Shri N. K. Zakhmi and Santokh Singh .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

5766

AWARD

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

Passed on 15-7-2010

The Central Govt. has referred the following references as per details mentioned below to this Tribunal for cation :

Name of The Futu ID No.

(3)

(2)

(1)

Surinder Pal Vs. FCI 1

ID 1374/08

Mittan Lal Vs. FCI 2

ID 1375/08

ID 1380/08

Harmesh Singh Vs. FCI 4

ID 1385/08

Kulwant Singh Vs. FC 5.

ID 1389/08

Pala Singh Vs. FCI ID 1394/08

Mohinder Singh Vs. FCI ID 1399/08

Ashok Kumar Vs. FCI ID 1401/08

Beant Singh Vs. FCI 9.

ID 1402/08

Tek Chand Vs. FCI ID 1406/08

10.

Dev Raj Vs. FCI

Ramesh Kumar Vs. FCI 11 .

ID 1409/08

ID 1412/08

12.

Kala Singh Vs. FCI ID 1414/08

13.

Brij Mohan Vs. FCI ID 1417/08

14.

Bagicha Singh Vs. FCI ID 1425/08

15.

Raj Kumar Vs. FCI 16.

ID 1427/08

Surjeet Singh Vs. FCI ID 1429/08

Raman Kumar Vs. FCI 17.

18.

ID 1430/08

Malkeet Singh Vs. FCI ID 1432/08

19.

Angrej Singh Vs. FCI ID 1433/08

20.

Mohinder Singh Vs. FCI 21 .

ID 1434/08

Sat Pal Singh Vs. FCI 22.

ID 1435/08

Piara Singh Vs. FCI 23

ID 1438/08

Bakhshish Singh Vs. FCI 24.

ID 1441/08

Bhajan Singh Vs. FCI 25 .

ID 1445/08

Swaran Singh Vs. FCI 26.

ID 1448/08

Moninder Singh Vs. FCI 27.

ID 1449/08

Ramesh Kumar Vs. FCI 28

ID 1451/08

Puran singh Vs. FCI ID 1452/08

Harbhajan Singh Vs. FCI 30 .

ID 1453/08

Kewal Kumar Vs. FCI Reference No. and Date

(4)

L-22012/ 18 / 2007 - IR ( CM ) dated 28-4-2008 L-22012/232/2006- IR ( CM - II ) dated 28-4-2008 L-22012/ 170/2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 28-4-2003 1. -22012 /16 / 2007 - IR (CM - II ) dated 28-4-2008 .

L-22012/20 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 28-4-2008 .

L-22012/35 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II) dated 28-4-2008 .

L- 22012 /339/2006 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 28-4-2008 .

L-22012/338 /2006 - IR (CM - II ) dated 28-4-2008 .

L-22012/ 142/ 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008 .

L-22012/ 279/2006 - IR (CM - II ) dated 28-4-2008 .

L- 22012/ 333 / 2006 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 28-4-2008 .

L-22012/36/ 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 28-4-2008.

L-22012/ 38 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 28-4-2008 .

L-22012 /145 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008.

L- 22012 / 121 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008 L-22012 / 120 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008 .

L- 22012/336 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 28-4-2008 .

L- 22012 / 215 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 .

L- 22012 / 222 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 .

L-22012/ 196/ 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008 .

L- 22012 / 197 / 2007 - IR (CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008 .

L- 22012 / 198 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008 .

L -22012/63 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008 .

L-22012/68 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II) dated 30-4-2008 .

L-22012/ 239/2007 - IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 2-5-2008.

L-22012/236 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 .

L -22012 / 317/2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008.

L- 22012 / 289 / 2006 - IR (CM - II ) dated 28-4-2008 .

L-22012 /224/ 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008.

L-22012 /223 /2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 .

[ भाग II- खंड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

(1)

(2)

31.

ID 1454/08

5767 (4)

DharminderBajaj Vs. FCI

ID 1455/08

32.

L- 22012/ 178 / 2007- IR ( CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008 .

L-22012/ 179/2007- IR (CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008 .

Pawan Kumar Dhamija Vs. FCI

33 .

ID 1457/08

Ranjit Kumar Vs. FCI 34.

ID 1458/08

L-22012/214/2007 - IR (CM - II) dated 2-5-2008 L-22012/202/2007- IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008

Bagicha Singh Vs. FCI

35.

ID 1461/08

L- 22012/234/2007 - IR (CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008

Darshan Singh Vs. FCI

36.

ID 1462/08

Rajesh Kumar Vs. FCI ID 1465/08

37.

L-22012/233 /2007 - IR (CM - II) dated 2-5-2008

Mukhtiar Singh Vs. FCI

38.

ID 1466/08

L-22012/212/2007- IR ( CM - II) dated 2-5-2008 L-22012/230 /2007- IR (CM - II) dated 2-5-2008

Darshan Singh Vs. FCI

ID 1468/08

39.

Manjeet Kumar Vs. FCI

40.

ID 1469/08

Tchal Singh Vs. FCI 41.

ID 1470/08

Ranjit Singh Vs. FCI 42.

ID 1473/08

L-22012/176/ 2007- IR (CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008 L-22012/177/ 2007 - IR ( CM - II) dated 30-4-2008 1. -22012/67/2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated30-4-2008 L-22012/ 82/2007 - IR ( CM - II) dated 28-4-2008

Harmeet Singh Vs. FCI

ID1474/08

43.

Jagtar Singh Vs. FCI 44.

ID 1475/08

Chanan Singh Vs. FCI ID 1476/08

45.

Satnam Singh Vs. FCI 46.

ID 1477/08

Gurmail Singh Vs. FCI 47.

ID 1478/08

Gajjan Singh Vs. FCI ID 1480/08

48.

Mangat Singh Vs. FCI ID 1481/08

L-22012/123 /2007 - IR (CM - II) dated 30-4-2008 L-22012/ 173 /2007- IR ( CM - II) dated 30-4-2008 L-22012/225 /2007- IR (CM- II ) dated 2-5-2008 L-22012/217 /2007- IR (CM- II ) dated 2-5-2008 L-22012/218 /2007- IR (CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L -22012/66/2007 - IR (CM - II) dated 30-4-2008

Kishore Chand Vs. FCI

49.

ID 1483/08

50.

Ajay Kumar Vs. FCI 51.

ID 1484/08

L-22012 / 181 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II) dated 30-4-2008 L- 22012 / 193 /2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 30-4-2008 1-22012 / 194/ 2007- IR (CM - II) dated 30-4-2008

Gurcharan Singh Vs. FCI

ID 1486/08

52.

L-22012/41/2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-4-2008

Harmesh Singh Vs. FCI

53.

ID 1487/08

L-22012/40/2007- IR (CM - II ) dated 29-4-2008

Balwant Singh Vs. FCI

ID 1488/08

Surinder Kumar Vs. FCI

54.

ID 1489/08

Dunni Chand Vs. FCI 55.

56.

Usaf Vs. FCI ID 1490/08

ID 1491/08

57.

L-22012/ 75 / 2007 - IR (CM - II) dated 29-4-2008 1-22012/76/2007 - IR (CM - II ) dated 29-4-2008 L-22012/77/2007 - IR (CM - II) dated 29-4-2008 L-22012/ 78 / 2007 - IR (CM - II ) dated 29-4-2008

Joginder Singh Vs. FCI

ID 1492/08

58.

Mangat Ram Vs. FCI ID 1496/08

59.

L-22012/79/2007- IR (CM- II ) dated 29-4-2008 L - 22011 / 8 /2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008

Manas Ramjan Nayak Vs. FCI

ID 1498/08

60.

L-22012/351 /2007 - IR (CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008

Mukhtiar Singh Vs. FCI

Varinder Kumar Vs. FCI

61.

ID 1502/08

62.

ID 1505/08

Buta Singh Vs. FCI ID 1506/08

63.

1-22012/326/ 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L-22012/60/2007- IR (CM - II) dated 2-5-2008 L - 22011 /10/2008 - IR (CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008

Sanjeev Kumar Vs. FCI

ID 1508/08

64.

Ajay Kumar Vs. FCI ID 1509/08

65.

Dalip Sigh Vs. FCI 3296 10-34 .

L-22012/312/2007 - IR (CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L -22011 / 6/2008 - IR ( CM- II) dated 5-5-2008 5768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(3)

ID 1510/08

66.

Sachin Kumar Vs. FCI 67.

ID 1511/08

RavinderKumar Vs. FCI 68.

ID 1512/08

Rajesh Kumar Vs. FCI 69.

ID 1513/08

Joginder Singh Vs. FCI 70.

ID 1515/08

Paramjeet Singh Vs. FCI 71 .

ID 1516/08

Kulwant Singh Vs. FCI 72.

ID 1517/08

Sher Singh Vs. FCI ID 1518/08

73.

Ashok Singh Vs. FCI ID 1519/08

74.

Sarvesh Kumar Vs. FCI 75 .

ID 1522/08

Sohan Singh Vs. FCI 76.

ID 1526/08

Balbir Singh Vs. FCI 77.

ID 1527/08

Joginder Singh Vs. FCI 78.

ID 1528/08

Kulwinder Kumar Vs. FCI 79.

ID 1529/08

Karnail Singh Vs. FCI 80.

ID 1530/08

Gurjit Singh Vs. FCI ID 1531/08

81 .

Gursahib Singh Vs. FCI 82.

ID 1532/08

Vakil Chand Vs. FCI 83.

ID 1533/08

Surinder Kumar Vs. FCI 84.

ID 1536/08

Har Singh Vs. FCI 85.

ID 1537/08

Mukhtiar Singh Vs. FCI 86.

ID 1538/08

RamanKumar Vs. FCI 87.

ID 1539/08

Sandeep Kumar Vs. FCI ID 1540/08

88.

Balwinder Singh Vs. FCI 89.

ID 1543/08

Mangal Singh Vs. FCI 90.

ID 1544/08

Sandeep Kumar Vs. FCI 91 .

ID 1547/08

Pawan Kumar Vs. FCI 92.

ID 1548/08

Mohinder Singh Vs. FCI 93.

ID 1549/08

Hardeep Kumar Vs. FCI 94.

ID 1550/08

Charan Singh Vs. FCI 95.

ID 1551/08

Paramjit Singh Vs. FCI 96.

ID 1552/08

John Mohinder Vs. FCI 97.

ID 1553/08

Jagdish Singh Vs. FCI 98.

ID 1554/08

Ajay Kumar Vs. FCI 99.

ID 1555/08

Jagshir Singh Vs. FCI 100.

ID 1556/08

Balwinder Singh Vs. FCI

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

L- 22011 / 7 / 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008 L- 22012/ 328 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L -22012/329 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L -22012/ 331 /2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L -22012 /333 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L - 22012 / 348 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L - 22012 / 341 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L-22011 / 31 /2008 - IR ( CM - II) dated 5-5-2008 L - 22011/ 29 / 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008 1. -22012 /384 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L -22011 / 19 / 2008 - IR ( CM - II) dated 5-5-2008 L- 22011 /18 /2008 - IR ( CM - II) dated 5-5-2008 L -22011 / 17 /2008 - IR ( CM - II) dated 5-5-2008 L-22011 / 16/2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008 L -22012/ 350 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L -22012/ 386/ 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L-22012/330/ 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 1-22012/334 /2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 2-5-2008 L -22011 / 22 /2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008 L -22011 / 15 / 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008 L-22011 /13 / 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008 L -22011 / 11 / 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008 L -22012/ 4/ 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008 L - 22011/ 3 / 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008 1-22011 / 5 / 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-5-2008 L-22011 /44/2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 L-22011 / 53 / 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 L- 22011 /51 / 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 L - 22011 / 35/ 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 L - 22011/ 34 /2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 L-22011 / 57/ 2008 - IR ( CM - II) dated 29-7-2008 L- 22011 / 55 /2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 L-22011 / 56 /2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 L -22011 / 54 / 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 L -22011 /52/ 2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

5769

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4, 2010/भाद्र 13 , 1932

(3 )

( 1)

(2)

101 .

ID 1558/08

Sukhdev Raj Vs. FCI

Pawan Kumar Vs. FCI 102.

ID 1559/08

103.

ID 1560/08

Kartar Singh Mattu Vs. FCI 104.

ID 1565/08

Gurmej Singh Vs. FCI 105.

ID 1566/08

Om Bahadur Vs. FCI 106.

ID 1567/08

Gagan Deep Vs. FCI 107.

ID 1570/08

Yash Pal Vs. FCI 108.

ID 1574/08

ParveenKumar Vs. FCI ID 1577/08

109.

Iqbal Singh Vs. FCI 110.

ID 1578/08

Harish Kumar Vs. FCI ID 1579/08

111.

Om Singh Vs. FCI ID 28/09

SatPal Vs. FCI 112.

ID29/09

Pawan Kumar Vs. FCI 113.

114.

ID 31/09

Rashpal Singh Vs. FCI ID 32/09

115.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs. FCI 116.

ID 33/09

Jaswinder Singh Vs. FCI 117.

ID 36/09

Manmohan Singh Vs. FCI ID 39/09

118 .

Bakhshish Singh Vs. FCI (4)

L-22011/36/2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 L-22011 /42/2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 L-22011 /43 /2008- IR (CM - II ) dated 29-7-2008 L-22011 / 73 / 2008- IR (CM- II ) dated 6-11-2008 L-22011/72/2008- IR (CM- II) dated 6-11-2008 L-22011/69/2008- IR (CM - II ) dated 5-11-2008 L-22011 /68/2008- IR (CM- II ) dated 5-11-2008 L-22011 / 75 /2008- IR ( CM- II) dated 29-12-2008 L-22011 / 80/2008- IR (CM- II ) dated 17-02-2009 L-22011 /81 /2008- IR (CM- II ) dated 17-02-2009 L-22011 /82/2008 - IR (CM- II) dated 17-02-2009 L-22011/ 11 /2009- IR (CM- II) dated 14-05-2009 L-22011/ 15/2009- IR (CM- II) dated 14-05-2009 L-22011 /23/2009- IR (CM- II) dated 14-05-2009 L-22011 /22/2009- IR (CM- II ) dated 14-05-2009 L-22011 /19 /2009- IR ( CM - II ) dated 14-05-2009 L-22011 /25 /2009 - IR (CM - 11 ) dated 14-05-2009 L-22011 / 12/2009- IR (CM- II ) dated 14-05-2009 1. ( i) Whether the contract between the management of FCI , Ferozpur and the Contractor namely Industrial Security and Allied Services is Sham and Bogus ?

(ii) Whether the contract between the management of FCI , Ferozpur and the Contractor namely Bright Security Services is Sham and Bogus ? Whether the contract between the management of FCI , Ferozpur and the Contractor namely Prehari Security and Detective Services is Sham and Bogus ?

2. Whether the demand of workmen for reinstatement with full back wages and to treat them as regular employees of the FCI is legal and justified ?

3. To what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ?

2. In all the above references the workmen were directed number of times to file the claim statements along with affidavits and documents on which they are relying upon . Despite number of opportunities the workmen failed to file claim statement . Even they are not present for pursuing their cases . The most of the references were referred by the Central Govt . in the year 2008 and for the last more than two years ; even claim statements have not been filed by the workmen. It appears that workmen in all the above references do not want to pursue their cases . Despite knowledge , they are not appearing . This Court has no option otherwise than to return the references for want of prosecution as no purpose shall be served by keeping the above references pending without any proceedings . In view of the above , the references detailed above are returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed . Files be consigned .

Chandigarh

15-7-2010

3296GI /10-35

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer 5770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4, 2010/BHADRA 13 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 11 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2217.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनाइटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6 ऑफ 2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/151/2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] पुष्पेन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th August, 2010

S.O. 2217. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 6 of 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of United Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11-8-2010 .

[No. L- 12011/ 151 /2004- IR (B - II) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , KANPUR

ndustrial Dispute No. 6 of 2005

BETWEEN

The Secretary, United Bank of India Employees Association , C/ o UBI 28/93 , Birhana Road , Kanpur

AND

The Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Central Region , 4- B Habibulla Estate , HazaratGanj , Lucknow

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi vide notification No. L - 12011 / 151 /2004- IR(B - II ) dated 17-12-04, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .

2. Whether the action of the management of United Bank of India in terminating the services of Sri Anil Kumar,

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) | MiniDeposit Agent with effect from 09-09-94 is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled to ?

3. Brief facts are that it is alleged that claimant Sri Anil Kumar was appointed as Mini Deposit Agent by the manager United Bank of India, Shahganj Branch , Agra . In this connection a letter of appointment dated 4-8-89 was issued to the claimant . He continued to work as Mini Deposit Agent to the satisfaction of the bank authorities up-till 9-9-94 when Shahganj Branch of the opposite party issued a letter dated 9-9-94 , instructing the claimant:

1. Not to collect any amount under Mini Salpa Sanchaya Scheme.

2. To deposit empty coupons .

4.But no letter of termination by the bank in terms of Para 13 of the appointment letter, therefore , the workman continues to be duly appointed as Mini Deposit Agent . He wrote several letters to the bank which were received but no response was given . Thereafter he approached through the union to the ALC Kanpur. No notice of termination or retrenchment compensation was given to the workman ; therefore , the opposite party committed the breach of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act . Therefore , he prayed that the action of the opposite party bank be declared illegal and unjustified and prayed that the bank be directed to take work from him and to pay him the back wages at the rate of Rs . 750 per month from 9-9-94 and onwards .

5. Opposite party has filed written statement contradicting the versions of the claimant. It is alleged by the opposite party that there was no need to pass termination order as the applicant was not the employee of the opposite party as envisaged by Section 2(s ) of the Act . It is also alleged that there was no occasion to adopt procedure as given in Section 25F of the Act as the workman was not a workman under the provisions of Act . The claimant has engaged before the opposite party on 22-6-89 in Salpa Sanchai Scheme . The claimant has been engaged by the opposite party as a commission agent for collecting deposits under the scheme . The applicant after clearly understanding his above status as offered by the opposite party had accepted his above status by making following undertaking that I declare that my relationship with you as being that of an agent to the principal as distinct from the relationship of employee to the employer or servant to master . In view of above there remains no doubt that the applicant factually was not engaged as an employee of the opposite party rather engaged as a commission agent .

6. The applicant is not covered by any service conditions applicable to the employee of the bank and therefore he is not entitled for any wages . The claim of the applicant is stale , reference order is bad in law and that the union has legally no right to espouse the cause of the [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

claimant . Accordingly it is prayed that the claim of the applicant be rejected .

7. Heard the arguments of both the parties perused the records . It is contended by the opposite party that initial burden lies on the claimant to prove the claim of the claimant , but he has not adduced any evidence either oral ordocumentary to prove the fact of employment . It is stated by the authorized representative for the claimant that he had written several letters to the claimant but none appear to adduce evidence .

8. Hence when there is no evidence , pleadings cannot form basis of proof. Burden lies on the claimant to prove his case . He has totally failed to prove his case that he was in the employment of the opposite party or there was any relationship of master and servant between the opposite party and the applicant .

9. Therefore , when it has been concluded that there was no relationship of master and servant between the opposite party and the claimant , question of compliance of the provisions of I.D. Act in the instant case does not arise. Accordingly the claim of the claimant fails and he is held entitled to no relief pursuant to the present reference order.

Dated 30-7-10

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 अगस्त, 2010

का. आ. 2218.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी / एलसी/ आर/ 59 / 94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-8-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/226/92- आई आर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th August, 2010

S.O. 2218. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ LC / R/ 59 / 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 Department of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 13-8-2010 .

[No. L-40012/226 / 92 - IR ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

5771

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 4 , 2010/ भाद्र 13 , 1932

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/ R/ 59 / 94

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan Shri Dilip Kumar, S/ o Shri Bhagirath Ji , 4/2Bheru Nala , Imlipura ,

Workman /Union Ujjain ( M.P. )

Versus

The Asstt . Engineer, Microwave, Bhartiya Doorsanchar Vibhag , Motilal Nehrunagar, Freeganj , Ujjain ( M.P. )

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of August , 2010 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L - 40012/ 226/ 92 - IR ( DU ) dated 6-5-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

" Whether the action of the Asstt . Engineer (Mircowave) , Telecom Deptt . , Ujjain in terminating Shri Dilip Kumar, S/ o Shri Bhagirath Ji from service w.e.f. 1-12-91 is justified ? If not , what relief he is entitled to ? י

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was appointed as Labour on 14-6-87 in Ujjain Micro International Project by the management . On completion of the project . he was appointed as Group D employce in the Exchange of Devas Gate , Ujjain w.e.f. 6-6-88 and continuously worked till 30-11-1991 without any break. Initially he was paid wages ofRs . 15 per day . Later it was increased to Rs . 20 per day. He was terminated from service w.e.f. 1-12-91 without any notice . He had not been paid retrenchment compensation and the provisions of 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( in short 1.D. Act , 1947 ) was violated . The workman claims that he is entitled to be reinstated with back wages .

3. The management/ non - applicant appeared and contested the reference by tiling Written Statement . The case of the management inter alia is that the workman was engaged on 1-7-88 on daily wages on casual basis on exigency of work . It is stated that he did the work of route inspection and other works casually and accordingly his wages were paid of the days he worked . His service was automatically terminated after ending the exigency of work and his service was no longer required w.e.f. 1-12-91. It is 5772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 4 , 2010 /BHADRA 13 , 1932

stated that he was engaged intermittently for a short period and therefore there was no need to give any notice to the workman and he was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation under the provisions of 25 - F of the I.D. Act , 1947.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties , the following issues are framed for adjudication :

1. Whether the action of Assistant Engineer (Microwave) Telecom Department Ujjain in terminating the workman w.e.f. 1-12-91 is justified ?

2. If not, what relief the workman is entitled ?

5. Issue No. 1-According to the workman , he was engaged on 14-6-87 and worked till 30-11-91 continuously without any break whereas the case of the management is that he was engaged on 1-7-88 and worked intermittently till 30-11-91 . The workman has adduced oral evidence in the case . Shri Dilip Kumar Malviya is witness of the workman . He is also employee of the canteen of the Telephone Centre , Devas Gate , Ujjain . He is brother- in - law ofthe workman . He has supported the case of the workman and has stated in his evidence that the workman was appointed on 14-6-87 and was terminated on 1-12-91 . He is only suggested that the workman engaged only intermittently. The suggestion is no evidence unless it is proved by positive evidence. His evidence shows that he worked continuously without any break. Another witness is the workman Dilip Kumar himself. He has fully supported his case . He has stated that no notice was given to him before retrenchment nor any retrenchment compensation was paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 - F ofthe I.D. Act . He claims for reinstatement with back wages. Hisevidence shows that he worked more than 240 daysduring the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference .

6. On the other hand , the management has examined onewitness . The management witness Shri S. S. Tiwari is presentlyworking as Sub - Divisional Engineer ( Microwave, WTR) Ujjain . He has stated that the workman was engaged as Casual Labour. He was never engaged more than 240 days in any given year. In cross - examination he has stated that he was not posted there at the relevant time . He has no personal knowledge and has filed his affidavit on the basis of official record . The said record is not filed in

[PART II---SEC . 3 ( ii) | court . He has stated that he had seen muster roll of Dilip Kumar in the file from which it is to be determined that how many days he worked . The muster - roll was intentionally withheld by the management . Moreover when there is documentary evidence on a relevant fact , the oral evidence is not reliable . Since the muster- roll is withheld by the management , the oral evidence that the workman never worked for more than 240 days in any given year is notto be relied upon . The witness has further admitted that the workmanworked under A.E. (Microwave ) from 1988 to 1991 ondaily wages . He has further admitted that the workman also worked of route patrolling from 1989 to 1991 and the record of route patrolling is also in the office. He has stated that the register of route patrolling will show that the workman had worked from 1989 to 1991. The said Register is also withheld by the management . The workman has filed the photocopies of the said Register which are paper Nos . 16/9 to 16/66 . This document shows that the workman had worked more than 240 days during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference . This clearly shows that the management has intentionally withheld Muster roll and Route Patrolling Register . Thus , itisestablished that the workman was a retrench employee within the meaning of Section 2( oo) of the I.D. Act andhe is deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year under the provisions of Section 25 - B of the I.D. Act . 1947.

7. Admittedly the management had not given any notice nor any retrenchment compensation was paid under the provisions of Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act , 1947. His termination by the management appears to be unjustified . The management is , therefore, directed to reinstate the workman from the date of termination . Accordingly this issue is decided and the reference is answered .

8. There is no evidence on the record to show that after termination the workman was not in gainful employment and was not doing any job . As such the workman is not entitled to any back wages .

9. In the result , the award is passed with costs of Rs . 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) .

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer

Printed by the Manager, Govt . of India Press , Ring Road , Maya Puri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 , 2010