This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/ 0007/2003-05

REGD . NO , D. L. (N ) 04 /0007/ 2003-05 भारत का राजपत्र सत्यमेव जयते

The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 40 ]

नई दिल्ली , सितम्बर 26 अक्तूबर 2 , 2010 , शनिवार/ आश्विन 4 आश्विन 10 , 1932

NEW DELHI , SEPTEMBER 26 - OCTOBER 2 , 2010 , SATURDAY / ASVINA 4- ASVINA 10 , 1932 No. 40 ]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II- खण्ड 3- उप -खण्ड (ii )

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

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

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

नई दिल्ली , 22 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2428.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , झारखण्ड राज्य सरकार , गृह विभाग की दिनांक 16 अगस्त , 2010 की अधिसूचना सं. 6 /सी.बी.आई. - 704/2010/3357 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से पश्चिम सिंहभूम जिला ( चाईबासा ) ( झारखण्ड ) में बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , चाईबासा शाखा के साथ मैसर्स इंडियन ड़ीजल्स और ट्रैक्टर चाईबासा द्वारा 3.84 करोड़ रुपए ( लगभग ) के बैंक धोखाधड़ी के मामले से संबंधित सदर चाईबासा पुलिस थाने में भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 की अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 420 , 467 , 468 , 469 और 471 और 120- बी के अधीन दर्ज मामला सं. 29/2006 दिनांक 20-05-2006 का अन्वेषण करने तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा प्रयासों , दुष्प्रेरणों तथा षड्यंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अपराध/ अपराधों अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्धत अपराध/ अपराधों के संबंध में दिल्ली विशेष 3696 G1 / 2010

पुलिस स्थापन के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण झारखण्ड राज्य पर करती है ।

[ सं. 228 /60/2010- ए.वी.डी. 11 ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , उप सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training ) New Delhi , the 22nd September , 2010 S.O. 2428.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Dethi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1945) , the Central Government with the consent of the State vernment of Jharkhand , Home Department , Ranchi Notification No. 6/ C . B.1 . -704/2010/3357 dated August , 2010 , hereby extends the powers and 427sdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Ectabasamune to the whole of the State of Jharkhand for investigation of Case No. 29/2006dated 20-5-2006 sections 420 , 467, 468 , 469 , 471 and 120 - B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860 ) registered at Police Station Chaibasa Sadar relating to the matter of Bank fraud of Rs . 3.84 crore ( approx . ) by M/ s . Indian Disels and

(6671) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 201ASVINA 10 , 1932

6672

Tractors , Chaibasa with Bank of Baroda . Chaibasa Branch in the District of West Singhbhum ( Chaibasa ) ( Jl khand ) and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence/ offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228 /60/ 2010 - AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Dy . Secy . नई दिल्ली , 23 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ . 2429.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियन सं.2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए आर.सी. 12 ( एम) /98 / एस . आई . सी-4 /नई दिल्ली/ सीबीआई अजीत सरकार, पूर्व विधायक ) मामले के विचारण में तथा अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों या उक्त बाद में उड़न अन्य मामलों का पुनरीक्षण या विधि द्वारा स्थापित संचालन करने मे लिए श्री अरविंद कुमार , अधिवक्ता को जिला एवं सत्र न्यायालय, पटना विहार में विषेश लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[ सं. 225/26/2010- वी डी-11 ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 23rd September , 2010 S.O. 2429. In excre se ofthe powers conferred by sub- section ( 8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminai Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Arvind Kumar , Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting case No. 12 (S) /98/SIC.IV/CBI/ND ( Ajit Sarkar Murder case ) in the respective trial Court at Patna relating to all the matters of this case in District Court of Patna .

[No. 225 / 26 /2010 - AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Dy . Secy .

कार्यालय आयुक्त , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क

सं. 11/2010 भोपाल , 9 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2430.- श्री डी. डी. मौर्य , अधीक्षक , समूह ' ख ' केन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क, आयुक्तालय भोपाल निवर्तन की आयु प्राप्त करने पर दिनांक 31 अगस्त , 2010 को अपरान्ह में शासकीय सेवा से निवृत्त हुए ।

[फा. सं. 1 ( 25 ) 01 /2000 /स्था. 1 ] एस. सी. गुप्ता, संयुक्त आयुक्त ( का. /स. ) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER , CUSTOMS , CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX No. 11/2010

Bhopal , the 9th September , 2010

S.O. 2439. Shri D.L. virya , Superintendent , Group B Customs & Central Excise , Bhopal having

PARE I SE Stti ) ained the age of superannuation , retired res Government service in the afternoon 31st August 2010 [ C. No. li ( 25/01/2000 S. C. GUPTA , Jt. Commissioner ( Pa सं. 12/2010 भोपाल , 9 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2431. श्री राम कुमार नाहर , हवलदार , समूह ' ब ' , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क , आयुक्तालय भोपाल , निवर्तन की आयु प्राप्त करने पर दिनांक 30 अप्रैल, 2010 को अपगन्द्र में शासकीय रोत्रा से निवृत्त हुए ।

[फा. सं. 11 ( 25 ) 01 /2000/ एम. सी. गुप्ता , संयुक्त आयुक्त (का.... No. 12/2010 Bhopal , the 9th September , 2010

S.O. 2431. Shri Ram Kumar Nahar . Hawaldar , Group D ' , Customs & Central Excise . Bhopal having attained the age of superannuation , retired from verninent service in the afternoon of 30th April , 2010 .

[ C. No. II ( 25 ) 01 2000 El

S.C GUPTA. Jt . Commissioner ( P & V) कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त सं. 11 /2010-11 जयपुर , 22 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2432. आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वा ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उप - धारा ( vi ) के दवारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एतद्द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-10 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " स्प्रिंग फील्ड एजुकेशन सोसायटी , जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सीए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उपखण्ड ( 23 सी की उपधारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[क्रमांक :मुआआ/अआआ/ ( मु. ) / जय/ 100 ( 23 सी ) ( vi ) / 10-11 / 2221; मुकेश भान्ती , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

No. 11 /2010-11 Jaipur , the 22nd September , 2010

S.O. 2432. 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 ofte income- tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income - tax , { [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Jaipur hereby approves " Spring Field Education Society, Jaipur " for the purpose of said section for the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards .

Provided that the society conforms to and comphes with the provisions of sub- clause ( vi ) of clause (23C of Section 10 of the Income - tax Act , 1961 read with rule 20A of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 .

[No. CCIT /JPR / Addl . CIT ( Hqrs . ) / 10 ( 23C) ( vi )/ 2010-121 ] MUKESH BHANTI , ChiefCommissioner of Incorax

सं. 12/ 2010-11 जयपुर , 22 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2433. आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियमी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उप - धारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एतद्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-10 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " ओम कोठारी फाउन्डेशन , 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 / 2222 ]

मुकेश भान्ती, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

No. 12/ 2010-11 Jaipur , the 22nd September , 2010

S.O. 2433. 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 the rule 2CA of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Om Kothari Foundation , Jaipur " for the purpose of said section for the A.Y. 2009-10 and 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 ofthe Income - tax Rules , 1962 .

[No. CCIT/@PR/Addl.CIT ( Hqrs . ) / 10 ( 23C ) ( vi ) / 2010-11 / 2222 ] MUKESH BHANTI , Chief Commissioner of Income- Tax

सं. 13 /2010-11

जयपुर , 22 सितम्बर, 2010

का.आ. 2434.- 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 उप - धारा ( via ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एतद्वारा

6673

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

निर्धारण वर्ष 2006-07 से 2008-09 के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " श्री अमर जैन मेडिकल रिलीफ सोसायटी , जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सीए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उपखण्ड (23 सी ) की उप - धारा ( via ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे । [क्रमांकः मुआआआआआ/ ( मु. ) / जय/ 10 ( 23 सी ) ( vi - a ) 10-11 / 2223 ]

मुकेश भान्ती , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त No. 13/2010-11 Jaipur , the 22nd September , 2010

S.O. 2434. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- clause ( via ) of clause ( 23C ) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with the rule 2CAof the Income- tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income - tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Shree Amar Jatu Medical Relief Society , Jaipur " for the purpose of said section for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2008-09.

Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub - clause ( via ) 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 ( 23C) ( via ) /2016-11/ 2223]

MUKESH BHANTI , Chief Commissioner of Income- Tax कार्यालय मुख्य आमदार गामुक्त सं. 3 /2010-11 जोधपुर , 23 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2435. आयकर अधिनियम 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 ( 23 ग ) के खण्ड ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली-1962 के नियम 2 गए द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जोधपुर एतद्द्वारा लेट श्रीमती विद्यावन्ती लाभूराम फाउन्डेशन फॉर माईन्स , रिसर्च एण्ड सोशियल वेलफेयर , श्रीगंगानगर को उक्त धारा के प्रयोजनार्थ निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-10 से आगे तक निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित करते हैं : -

1. कर निर्धारिती उसकी आय का प्रयोग अथवा उसकी आय का प्रयोग करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतः तथा अनन्यतः उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई ।

2. कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों में मंगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उप - धारा (5) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि 6674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVINA 10 , 1932

(जेवर - जेवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न ) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा ।

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

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

6. यह अधिसूचना तब तक जारी रहेगी जब तक इसे वापस न लिया जाय ।

[ संदर्भ सं. मु.आ.आ./आ.अ. ( तक. ) /जोध/2010-11 /2000 ] दिलीप शिवपुरी , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जोधपुर CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX

No. 3/ 2010-11

Jodhpur , the 23rd September , 2010

S.O. 2435. In exercise of the powers conferred clause ( vi ) of Section 10 (23C ) of the Income - tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Income Tax Rules , 1962 , I , the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax , Jodhpur hereby approve " Late Smt . Vidhyawanti Labhuram Foundation for Science , Research and Society Welfare , Sriganga Nagar " for the purpose of the said section for the assessment year 2009-10 onwards , subject to the following conditions : -

1. The assessee will apply its income, or accumulate for application wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is establisheal :

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

3. This order will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gain of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] of accounts are maintaned in respect of such business;

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

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

6. This notification will remain in force untill it is withdrawn . [Ref . No. CCIT/ ITO/ ( Toch . ) / Ju./2010-11/2000 ] DILEELP SHIVPURI , Chief Commissoner of Income Tax

वित्त मंत्रालय

(व्यय विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 21 सितम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 2436. केन्द्रीय सरकार , सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , नीचे सारणी के स्तंभ ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारी को , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी की पंक्ति के समतुल्य अधिकारी है , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है जो उक्त सारणी के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि सभी मरकारी स्थानों के संबंध में अपनी अधिकारिता की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उनके अधीन संपदा अधिकारी को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग और उस पर अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों को पालन करेगा

सारणी

अधिकारी का पद नाम

सरकारी स्थानों में प्रवर्ग और अधिकारिता की स्थानीय सीमाएं

(2)

(1)

वरिष्ठ उप महालेखाकार रायपुर स्थित भारतीय लेखा और लेखापरीक्षा के सभी परिसर । (प्रशासन ) या उप महालेखाकार

(प्रशासन), महालेखाकार

(संपरीक्षा ) कार्यालय छत्तीसगढ़ ,

रायपुर ।

टिप्पण : एक समय के केवल

एक अधिकारी , संपदा अधिकारी

के कृत्यों का निर्वहन करेगा ।

[फा.सं. ए-11013 /01/ 2010 - ईजी ]

अनिल शर्मा , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6675 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi , the 21st September , 2010

और जबकि मैसर्स श्याम डवलपर्स , जिसका पंजीकृत पता ए-1 , शिवशक्ति शॉपिंग सेंटर, सम्राट नगर के सामने , इशानपुर , अहमदाबाद -382443 है, ने भूखंड संख्या 75/2/1 , [ ओ पी नं. 89/1 , 91 से 94+ 95/1+ 97 एफ पी नं. 89/1 + ( 91 से 94+ 95/1+97/1 ) , टी पी नं. 107 ( रामोल ) म्क्रम सं. 636/1 , 636/2 , (638 + 639 + 640 +641+ 642/ए/ पी ) +644 ] रामोल , डास्क्रोई , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात पर औद्योगिक पार्क विकसित किया है । S.O. 2436. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants ) Act , 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Table below , being the officer equivalentto the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Central Government to be the Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officer by or under the said Act , within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of all the public premises specified in corresponding entry in column ( 2 ) of the said Table .

TABLE

Designation of the Officer

अब इसलिए आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 18 ग के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झक की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा मैसर्स श्याम डवलपर्स को उपक्रम के रूप में तथा भूखंड संख्या 75/1 +75/ 2 / 1 , [ ओ पी नं. 89/1 , 91 से 94 + 95/ 1+ 97 एफ पी नं. 89/1 + ( 91 से 94+ 95/1 + 97/ 1 ) , टी पी नं. 107 ( रामोल ) , क्रम सं. 636/1 ,636/2 ( 638 + 639 + 640+ 641 + 642 /ए/पी +644 ) रामोल , डास्क्रोई , अहमदाबाद, गुजरात पर परियोजना को उक्त खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में उक्त उपक्रम द्वारा विकसित एवं अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित के रूप में अधिसूचित करती है । Categories of the public premises and local limits ofjurisdiction

( 1)

(2)

2. पूर्वोक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के शुरूआत की तारीख 31 मार्च , 2009 है ।

All premises of Indian Audit and Accounts Department at Raipur.

3. अधिसूचना अमान्य होगी और मैसर्स श्याम डवलपर्स, अहमदाबाद इस अमान्यता के किसी परिणाम के लिए पूरी तरह जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

Senior Deputy Accountant General ( Administration) or Deputy Accountant General ( Administration ) of offfice of the Accountant General( Audit ) , Chattisgarh , Raipur.

( iii ) इसके द्वारा प्रस्तुत आवेदन और परवर्ती दस्तावेजों जिनके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अधिसूचना जारी की जाती है , में गलत सूचना/झूठी सूचना हो अथवा कोई महत्वपूर्ण सूचना प्रदान न की गई हो ।

Note : At a given point of time only one officer shall discharge the functions of Estate Officer .

( iv ) यह ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क के स्थान के लिए हो जिसके लिए अधिसूचना पहले ही अन्य उपक्रम के नाम जारी की जा चुकी हो ।

[F.No. A - 11013/ 01 /2010 - EG ] ANIL SHARMA , Under Secy.

(राजस्व विभाग )

4. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना परियोजना की योजना में किसी संशोधन से अथवा भविष्य में पता चलने अथवा आवेदक द्वारा किसी महत्वपूर्ण तथ्य को उजागर न किए जाने से औद्योगिक पार्क का अनुमोदन अमान्य हो जाएगा ।

( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली , 22 सितम्बर , 2010

[ अधिसूचना सं.- 73 /2010/फा.सं.- 178/97/2008- आ.क.नि. - 1 ] रमन चोपड़ा , निदेशक , आ.क.नि. - 1 आयकर

(Department of Revenue ) (Central Board of Direct Taxes ) New Delhi , the 22nd September , 2010 INCOME- TAX

का.आ. 2437.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( इसके बाद आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80झक की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार ने भारत सरकार के वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 51 ( अ ) , दिनांक 8 जनवरी, 2008 के जरिए औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित एवं अधिसूचित की है ।

S.O. 2437. Where as the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section ( 4) of Section 80 - IA of the Income- tax Act , 1961 6676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /AJVINA, 10 , 1932

(43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofFinance (Department of Revenue , Central Board of Direct Taxes ) number S.O. 51 ( E ) , dated the 8th January , 2008 .

And whereas M / s . Shyam Developers , having its registered address at A - 1 , Shivshakti Shopping Centre , Opp . Samratnagar , Isanpur, Ahmedabad - 382443 , has developed an Industrial Park at Plot Nos . 75/1 + 75/ 2 / 1 , [O.P.No. 89/1 , 91 to 94 + 95 / 1 + 97 F.P.No. 89 / 1 + ( 91 to 94 +95/1 + 97/ 1 ) , Τ.Ρ.No. 107 ( RAMOL ) , S.No. 636/1 , 636/2 (638 + 639 + 6400 + 641 + 642 /A/ P ) +644 ] , RAMOL , Daskroi , Ahmedabad, Gujarat .

Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 80-1A ofthe said Act read with Rule 18 C of the Income Tax Rules , 1962 , the Central Government hereby notifies M/ s . Shyam Developers as an undertaking and the project at Plot Nos . 75 / 1 + 75 / 2 // 1 . [ Ο.Ρ. No. 89/1 , 91 to 94 + 95/ 1 +97F.P.No . 89 / 1 + ( 91to 94 + 95 / 1 + 97 / 1 ) , Τ.Ρ. No. 107 ( RAMOL) , S.No. 636/1 , 636/2 ( 638 + 639 +640 + 641 + 642/ A/ P ) +644 ] , RAMOL , Daskroi , Ahmedabad , Gujarat being developed and being maintianed and operated by the said undertaking as an industrial part for the purposes of the said clause .

2. The date of commencement of the aforesaid industrial park is 31st March , 2009 .

3. The notification will be invalid and M/s . Shyam Developers , Ahmedabad , shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity , if

(i) The application and subsequent documents furnished by it , on the basis of which the notification is issued by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it .

(ii) it is for the location of the industrial park for which notification has already been issued in the name of another undertaking .

4. Any amendment of the project plan without the approaaval of the Central Government or detection in future of failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact , will invalidate the approval of the industrial park .

[Notification No. 73 / 2010 /F.No. - 178/97/2008- ITA.1 ] RAMAN CHOPRA , DIRECTOR - ITA 1 ( वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 24 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2438.- भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग

[PART 11- Sec.3 ( 1 ) ] करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्द्वारा , श्री मिहिर कुमार मोइत्रा ( जन्म तिथि 28-02-1942 ) 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 ।

( 2 號 9/18 2008 - वीओ-11 सुमिता डावरा , निदेशक (Department of Fiaune Services ) New Delhi, the 24m Symber , 2010 S.O.2438. In cracise of turpowers einferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section of the Reserve Bank of india Act , 1934 ( 2 of 1934 ) , the Central Governmeni bereby appoints Shri Mihir Kumar loira ( D.О.В. 24-02-1942 ) , be the Member of the Northern Area Local Board of the Reserve Bank of India for a perd of yes from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders whichever is earlier.

No, 18:2008 - BC SUMITA DA ARA . Directer नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर, 2010

का. आ . 2439 , राष्ट्राय बैंक (प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड 9 के उप खण्ड ( 1 ) ( 2 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतर ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( ड. ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कन्द्रीय सरकार , एतदद्वारा , श्री सुरेश कामथ ( जन्म तिथि 15-01-1954 ) , विशेष सहायक , विजया बैंक , को दिनांक 02-11-2010 को अथवा इसके पश्चात् पदकः कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या विजय। बैंक के कर्मकार कर्मचारी बने रहने तक अथवा अगला दश होने तक , जो भी सबसे पहले हो . विजया बैंक के कर्मकार कर्मचागे निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्ति करती है ।

New Deins, the 2 hitseptoriber , 20 S.O.2439 , huexerest of the powers onferred to c'ause ( e ) of Sut - socion of section 9 of the The tankthy Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act , 1970/1980 read with Sub - clause ( 1 ) & ( 2 ) of Clause 9 of The Nationalised Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous Provistons ) Scheme, 1970/1980 , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Suresh Kamath . ( D.O.B. 15-01-1954 ) , Special Assistant , Vijaya Bank, as Workmen Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Vijaya Bank for a period of three years from the date of his taking charge of the post on or after 02-11-2010 or till he ceases [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6677

भारत का राजपत्र अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

to be a workmen employee of the Vijaya Bank or untill further orders , whichever is the earliest .

[ F. No. 9 /40 /2000 - BO- 1 ] SUMITA DAWRA , Director सूचना एवं प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 22 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2440 ,- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 10-11-2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केंद्र सरकार श्री परमंगती राजेन्द्र रेड्डी , 6-3-609/ 122 , अलामेलू रेजिडेंसी , फ्लैट सं. 501 , आनंद नगर कॉलोनी, खैरताबाद , हैदराबाद 500 004 को दो वर्ष की अवधि या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो. केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुत्रत करती है ।

[फा.सं. 809/3/2009- एफ ( सी) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म) MINISTRY OF INFORMATIONAND BROAD CASTING New Delhi , the 22nd September , 2010 S.O. 2440 ,-In continution of Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematography Act , 1952 ( 37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematography (Certification) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Maramganti Rajender Reddy , 6-3-609 / 122 , Alamelu Residency , Flat No. 501 , Anand Nagar Colony , Khairtabad , Hyderabad - 500 004 as a member of the Hyderabad Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 809 /3 /2009 - F ( C) ] ΑΜΙΤΑΒΗKAR , Director ( Films) नई रबर , 2016

का. आ . 2441, इस मंच की दिक11-2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में और (प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र उपनियम , 1952 (1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केंद सरकार श्री अनिल श्रीवास्तव " अनु " , के/ 57/ 22 , नवपुरा , वाराणसी को दो वर्ष की अवधि या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के दिल्ली सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. - 809/8/2009- एफ ( सी ) ] अमिताभ कमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म ) New Delhi , the 22nd September , 2010 S.O. 2441. In continution of Ministry's Notification of even number, dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) ef Section 5 of the Cinematography Act , 1952 ( 37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematography (18 ( Certification) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Anil Shrivastava " Anu " , K/57 / 22 , Navapura , Varanasi as a member of the Delhi Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[ F. No. 809/ 8 /2009 - F ( C ) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director ( Films) स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 7 सितम्बर, 2010

का.अ. 2442. भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार , भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करके , संबद्ध विश्वविद्यालयों के नाम में परिवर्तन के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामतः

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कालम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट के अन्तर्गत " डा. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा , आन्ध्र प्रदेश " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उसमे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिपत रूप 2

बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एंड

एमबीबीएस बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी

( शदन आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , शिक्षण अस्पताल एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र , हैदराबाद , आन्ध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डा. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आन्ध्र प्रदेश द्वारा मार्च, 2010 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई चिकित्सा अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त मानी जाएगी ) ।

[ सं. यू. - 12012 / 127 / 2004 - एमई ( पी. II ) ]

अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

6678

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare ) New Delhi , the 7th September , 2010 S.O. 2442. 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 , namely: -

In the said First Schedule against " Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh " under the heading " Recognized Medical Qualification" [ in coloumn (2 ) ] and under the heading "Abbreviation for Registration " [ in column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely:-

(3)

(2)

M.B.B.S.

Bachelor ofMedicine and Bachelor of Surgery

(This shall be a recignized medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh on or after March 2010 in respect of students trained at Shadan Institute of Medical Sciences , Teaching Hospital & Research Centre , Hyderabad , Andhra Pradesh)

[No. U - 12012/ 127/2004 - ME( P - II) ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 7 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2443. भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार , भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करके , संबद्ध विश्वविद्यालयों के नाम में परिवर्तन के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामतः

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कालम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] के अन्तर्गत " बार्कातुल्ला विश्वविद्यालय , भोपाल , मध्य प्रदेश " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः

[PART 11-- Stc . 3 ( ii ) ]

पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिपत रूप मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता

एम.बी.बी.एस बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एंड बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी

( पीपल्स कालेज ऑफ मेडिकल सांइसिज एंड रिसर्च सेंटर, भानपुर, भोपाल , मध्य प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में बार्कातुल्ला विश्वविद्यालय , भोपाल , मध्य प्रदेश द्वारा मार्च , 2010 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई चिकित्सा अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त मानी जाएगी ) ।

[सं. यू. 12012/ 66/ 2004 - एमई ( पी.11 ) ] अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th September, 2010 S.O. 2443. 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 , namely: -

In the said First Schedule against " Barkatullah University , Bhopal , Madhya Pradesh " under the heading "Recognized Medical Qualification " [ in coloumn ( 2 ) ] and under the heading " Abbreviation for Registration " [ in column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely:-

(3)

(2)

M.B.B.S.

Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Barkatullah University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh on or after March, 2010 in respect of students trained at People's & College of Medical Sciences Research Centre , Bhanpur , Bhopal . Madhya Pardesh) .

[No. U - 12012 / 66 / 2004 - ME ( P - II ) ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 7 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2444. 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 परिषद् से परामर्श करके , संबद्ध विश्वविद्यालयों के नाम में परिवर्तन के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामतः

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता शीर्षक ( इसके बाद कालम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ) के अन्तर्गत " डा. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आन्ध्र प्रदेश " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप ( इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ) शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टिके बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः- मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप 2

बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एंड

एमबीबीएस बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी

(कोनासीमा आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान एवं अनुसंधान फाउन्डेशन , अमलापुरम , आन्ध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डा. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आन्ध्र प्रदेश द्वारा मार्च , 2010 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई चिकित्सा अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त मानी जाएगी ) ।

[सं. यू. 12012/ 88/2004- एमई ( पी.11 ) ]

अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th September , 2010 S.O. 2444. 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 , namely :

In the said First Schedule against " Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada , Andhra Pradesh " under the heading Recognized Medical Qualification in coloumn ( 2 ) } and under the heading Abbreviation for Registration " [ in column ( 3 ) ] , the tollowing shall be inserted , namely:

3696 Gl /10--2

6679

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

Recognised Medical Qualification

Abbreviation for Registration

(2)

(3)

M.B.B.S.

Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada , Andhra Pradesh on or after March 2010 in respect of students trained at Konaseema Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Foundation , Amalapuram, Andhra Pradesh)

[No. U - 12012/ 88 / 2004 - ME ( P - II ) ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

कोयला मंत्रालय

आदेश

नई दिल्ली , 21 सितम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 2445.-कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1035 तारीख 15 अप्रैल , 2010 , जो भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) , तारीख 24 अप्रैल, 2010 में प्रकाशित होने पर , उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर , आत्यांतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह समाधान हो गया है कि साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त सरकारी कपनी कहा गया है ) , ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जो केन्द्रीय सरकार अमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिये है :

जयः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) , का भास की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त 236.728 हेक्टर भूमि और उस पर के सभी अधिकार , तारीख 24 अप्रैल , 2010 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

6680

के अधीन रहते हुए , उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात्:-

land described in the Schedule appended to the said novification (hereinafter referred to as the said lands ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act;

( 1 ) उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर , ब्याज , नुकसान और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत् किए गए सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ;

And whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said Government Company ) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the power conferrel by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 , the Central Government hereby directs that the all rights of 236.728 hectares land in or over the said lands so vested shall with effect from 24th April , 2010 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Governm ent , vest in the said Government Company , subject to the following terms and conditions , namely:

(2) उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिये एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता करने के लिये नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंधों में उपगत सभी व्यय , उक्त कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किये जायेंगे और इसी प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार के लिये या उसके संबंध में जैसे अपील अधि सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत उपगत , सभी व्यथ भी , इसी प्रकार उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किये जायेंगे ;

1. The said Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation , interest , damages and the like , as determined under the provisions of the said Act ;

( 3 ) उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदा- धारियों की , ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में , क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो ;

(4 ) उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी को , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना , उक्त भूमि और भूमि में या उसके ऊपर इस प्रकार निहित अधिकार को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी और

2. A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the said Government Company under condition ( 1 ) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the said Government Company and similarly , all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals , etc. , for or in connection with the rights in or over the said lands , so vested , shall also be borne by the said Government Company ;

(5 ) उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिये दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित की जाए , पालन करेगी ।

[ फाइल सं. 43015 /8 / 2008- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ] एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

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

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi , the 21st September , 2010

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

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

[ F.No. 43015 / 8 /2008 - PRIW - 1 ] M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy .

S.O. 2445. Whereas , on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1035 dated the 15th April , 2010 published in the Gazette of India , Part II, Section - 3 , Sub - section ( ii) datod the 24th April , 2010 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the lands and all rights in or over such 6681 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर,, 2010

का.आ. 2446. 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 , जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है जिसमें पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पे ट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का आर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 11 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई भी व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनु सूची में वर्णि भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा पकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध कराहरी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करक या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री गगनदीप सिंह , ( पंजाब ) , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइ री उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना , गांवः फुलो खारी , रिफाइनरी गेट , तहसीलः तलबंडी साबो , जिलाः भटिंडा , पंजाब को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : तलवंडी साबो

जिला : भटिंडा

राज्य : पंजाब गाँव का नाम

हदबस त

खसरा/किला

क्षेत्रफल

मुस्ततिल

संख्या

हेक्टेयर

एयर

वर्गमीटर ( 1 )

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(7)

1356

00 1. कोट बख्तू

13 66

[फा. सं. आर -31015/ 38 /2009 - ओआर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव MIN IST RY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 10th September , 2010

S.O. 2446. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products 1 ron 1 Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evzacı zation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " , should be laid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas , it appears to the Centr al Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land ander 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 e pouwers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User i n 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 un der su b - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general publ ic, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Gaga andeep 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 .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

6682

SCHEDULE

[PART 11--St.3 ( i ) ] State: Punjab

District : Bhatinda

Tehsil : Talwandi Saboo

Name ofVillage

Khasra/ KillaNo.

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

1356

1. Kot Bakhtu

Area Are

Hectare

Square Metre

(7)

(6)

(5)

(00

[ F. No. R - 31015 / 38 / 2009 - OR - 11 ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2447.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में रमन मंडी में पंजाब राज्य में भटिंडा तक , पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमाण 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 काअर्जन ) 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 घोषणा करती है ;

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

अनुसूची

राज्य : पंजाब

जिला : भटिंडा

तहसील : तलवंडी साबो

गाँव का नाम

खसरा/किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

124

1. फूलो खारी

11/2/1

138

130

2. त्यौना पुजारीन

11/2/2

क्षेत्रफल

वर्गमीटर हेक्टेयर

एयर

(7)

(6)

(5)

90 00

[फा. सं. आर-31015/42/ 2009- ओआर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th September , 2010

S.O. 2447. 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 Bhatinda in the State of Punjab for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bhatinda " , should be laid by the hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6683 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

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 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

Tehsil : Talwandi Saboo

District : Bhatinda

State : Punjab Name ofVillage

Area

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra/ Killa No.

Hectare

Are

Square Metre (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) 124

1. Phullo Khari

(X)

31 130

138

11/2/1

2. Teona Pujarin

11/2/2

[ F. No. R- 31015 /42 / 2009 - OR - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 17 सितम्बर , 2010

श्री दिलीप कुमार अग्रवाल , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पारादीप- सम्बलपुर - रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , एन -17 , सेक्टर 2 , अवंति विहार , रायपुर -492006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

का.आ. 2448, केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा ) से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप- सम्बलपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

तहसील : बिलाईगढ़ जिला : रायपुर राज्य : छत्तीसगढ़

क्रम सं. गांव का नाम खमरा सं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर

( 1) ( 2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6) और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि जिसके नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

2734/2

(2 54

1. झुमका

2734/3

(00

02 18

2732/1

(0)

12 84

2731

(0)

(5 51 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 ;

2730

( X)

06 88

2722

2723

(1)

2724

(11)

(1) 71

(1)

2721

01 52 कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जन 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 [ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 6684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010 /ASVINA 10, 1932

(5 ) ( 6 )

(6)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1) (2)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

05 83

400

2. मोहतरा

2735

1. झुमका

442

00 00

05 59

2702

08 17

00 00

397

2703

206

1452/2

2. मोहतरा

02 05

207

1451/2

209

1451/1

06 41

210

00 00

00 10

1448

00 56

130

1437

00 10

215

06 81

1398

04 91

216

1397

00 48

217

1395

214

1392

18 01

316

05 57

1389

01 76

362

00 87

1382

(0)

01 97

361

01 58

1383

04 79

360

00 00

02 57

1384

07 08

359

00 00

01 87

1385

22 30

343

1387

340

01 85

1386

07 35

341

1272

287

1269

04 72

286

1299

01 15

283

01 93

1297

02 29

284

1298

00 45

282

1296/1

05 54

(0)

281

(0)

1296/2

621

1294

623

(0)

01 88

1293

08 95

626

(0)

1295

627

1127

(1)

06 22

631

10 01

1117

630

(X)

12 54

415

(12

1516

00 10

413

17 35

1551/1

408

1518

4107

04 62

1546

(07 61

406

1527

00 10

405

(X )

1519

402

03 19

1520

403 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6685 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

(6)

(1) (2)

(5)

(3)

(4)

2. मोहतरा

1554

07 78

1515

13 58

1514

11 05

1513

04 07

1512

01 49

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 Agrawal , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Paradip - Sambalpur - Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline Project , N - 17 , Sector - 2 , Avanti Vihar , Raipur- 492006 , Chhattisgarh .

SCHEDULE

1511

00 10

1517

16 70

Tehsil : Bilaigarh District : Raipur State ; Chhattisgarh 500

00 40

3. छिरचुवा

Sr. No. Name of the Khasara No. Area 501

08 83

Village

Hectare Are Sq. mtr .

499

00 10

(3)

(1) (2)

(4)

(5) ( 6) 502

13 41

1. Jhumka

2734/2

54 00

508

06 73

2734/3

02 18 00

509

05 83

2732/1

12 84 00

548

06 82

2731

05 51 511

01 30

2730

06 88 544

01 80

2722

03 76 543

03 03

2723

01 41 540

05 81

2724

00 539

05 83

2721

01 52 536

02 43

2735

08 21 537

08 45

2702

05 534

06 84

2703

ΟΙ 35 527

09 00

1452/2

2. Mohtara

20 [ फा. सं. आर-25011/27/2010- ओआर -1 ]

1451/2

00 26 बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

1451/1

07 27 New Delhi , the 17th September , 2010

1448

00 10

1437

00 54

1398

06 81

1397

02 63

1395

16 40 S.O. 2448. 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 ( Chhattisgaria) & Ranchi ( Jharkhand ) , a "Paradip - Sambalpur - Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

1392

(B 23

1389

05 57

1382

00 87 And whereas , it appears to the Central Goveniment 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 ;

1383

(0)

01 58

1384

02 57

1385

01 87

.1387

00 85 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;

1386

01 85

1272

03 70 Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty - one days from the date on [ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 6686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

(5 ) ( 6 )

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5) ( 6 )

(1)

(4)

01 15

283

2. Mohtara

1269

2. Mohtara

284

1299

(0) 45

282

01 93

1297

05 54

281

1298

621

1296/1

11 42

623

1296/2

08 95

626

1294

01 99

627

00 00

01 88

1293

06 22

631

1295

01 48

630

1127

02 38

(0)

1516

1117

17 35

1551/1

415

1518

(0) 16 00

00 10

413

(0)

1546

408

08 19

1527

407

(0)

1519

09 08

07 61

406

(B 19

1520

00 10

405

117

1554

402

(X)

1515

403

(0)

11 (5

1514

06 83

400

04 07

(0)

1513

442

1512

(X)

01 00

397

(1)

1511

04 32

206

16 70

1517

02 05

(0) 207

4( )

500

(X)

3. Chhirchuwa

209

13 37

( X )

501

(X)

(0) 10

499

210

41 00

00 56

(1)

502

130

( X)

508

(0)

00 10

215

509

(0)

83 (0)

04 91

216

548

(α)

00 48

217

(X)

511

30 00

01 36

214

544

( X)

18 01

316

(X)

543

(00

01 76

362

05 81

540

01 97

361

(5 83

539

(X) 00

04 79

360

536

(X)

(12 43

07 08

(X)

359

(1)

537

22 30

343

534

(0)

06 84

340

(0) (1)

527

07 35

341

08 94

287

(0)

[ No. R - 2501 1/27/2010 OR - 1 ]

004

286

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 17 सितम्बर , 2010

(1)

हालिपालि का.आ. 2449, केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा ) से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप- सम्बलपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री सुकान्त कमार प्रधान , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप - सम्बलपुर- रायपुर - राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क, भुवनेश्वर-751009 ( उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा

6687 (2)

(5)

(3) (4)

725

(0) 15

877

19 684

(00

685

(X)

(12 683

(0) 24

(2 661

00 (00

10 660

(1 )

31 659

00 01

49 658

( X)

657

63 654

00 (X)

35 653

(01

26 656

00 36

82 649

(X)

30 650

(X)

52 648

(0) 01

84 437

(X)

36 436

90 439

(X) (0)

57 44)

87 441

72 434

कण्टाइपालि

अनुसूची

राज्य- उडीसा

तहसील : मानेश्वर जिला : सम्बलपुर :

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

क्षेत्रफल एयर वर्गमीटर

(1)

(2)

(5)

(3) (4)

हालिपालि

863

(X) 03

833

(X)

834

(X) 16

(1)

836

835

(1) 05

829

(0) (2

828

00 01

232

(0)

230

17 231

(1)

46 221

(0) 01

69 224

(X)

01 222

(0) 00

97 223

(00

55 212

(0) 2)

54 201

( X)

18 2000

(17

(0)

42 197

(0)

() ]

27 245

(0) 13

31 211

56 383

(0)

गुलुण्डिपालि

827

(X)

826

(0)

825

(1) (3

716

00 16

(0)

719

715

00 01

720

00 35

3696 G1 /10-3

370

(1) 11

15 369

(0) 06

72 100

(0)

(12

36 98

(X)

XS 35

37 37

(X ) (17

34 6688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

(1)

(5)

(4)

(2 )

(3)

(1)

00 (2

गुलुण्डा 38

गुलुण्डिपालि

00 03

00 09

00 05

(0)

00 01

(0)

609

मानेश्वर

नक्सापालि

(0)

548

442

441

(0)

608

(0) 01

439

438

(X )

436

00 03

432

00 01

433

(00

434

00 00

431

00 10

430

(0)

427

426

(X) 09

423

(00) 04

422

665

112

गुलुण्डा

00 04

113

115

00 04

114

00 04

118

119

130

(0) 13

104

00 09

102

103

00 28

00 10

00 00

00 13

[ PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

(4) (5)

(3)

(2)

(0)

(00

(0)

(1)

(X)

(1)

107

18 109

(0)

1415

1414

(1)

(0)

1413

(1)

140)

1410

(0)

1411

1135

(0)

1134

(0)

1133

(X)

1132

(X)

(X) 12

1129

(0) (B

57 1131

(0)

1136

(X )

1137

(1) 01

11 ( X)

1138

( 1 )

(0 )

19 109

( X)

1098

91 1139

(1)

10 1275

(1)

(01)

1274

( 1)

1273

( 1)

100

1272

112

1270

(X)

002

81 3146

( X)

X2 1142

( 1 )

1267

(0)

1266

(X )

1145

()]

(1)

1292

1293

1265

(1)

(X)

1263

וא

(1)

1264 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/ आश्विन 10 , 1932

(1) (1)

(2)

(5)

(3) (4)

1257

00 07

नक्शापालि नक्शापालि

1259

00 01

1258

1255

1256

00 00

1225

00 01

1226

00 00

00 07

1229

00 01

1253

1162

1161

1033

3202

00 00

1034

1037

1036

1035

00 00

1039

1038

(1) 03

00 01

970

3122

973

00 09

(0)

979

(0)

978

(0)

971

972

00 01

9002

893

4()

3206

(0) 112

903

3207

(X) 12

904

901

(1) 112

905

906

(0)

907

(0) (12

908

910

909

(X) 06

729

(0) (0)

730

(X)

(00

728

(12

(X ) (12

3158

6689

(5) (2)

(3) ( 4)

724

67 726

725

00 04

35 633

634

00 07

476

88 456

41 455

00 01

54 454

388

00 04

387

391

95 422

00 01

(0) 01

25 392

(00

3273

431

(1)

00 12

64 429

428

00 04

424

00 05

32 423

440

3311

21 1946

00 04

1945

(0)

37 1949

1956

(0)

(00)

1955

85 1989

(X ) (0 )

( X)

1987

(0) 05

1979

1965

(0)

25 1978

(X)

1977

1976

(X ) 00

(04 3270

(0)

57 2005

(X )

2022

(0)

10 2006

(0)

( )

(13

2021

2020

(0)

( 13

43 2019

(X) (12

(X)

2018

(0) 05

80 2017 6690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ASVINA 10 , 1932

(5)

(1) ( 1)

(2)

(3) (4)

खइरापालि

00 00

नक्शापालि

2013

00 02

2014

00 01

2015

00 00

2042

2068

00 08

00 00

2069

2092

2304

2306

2307

194

खइरापालि

195

199

384

00 10

385

387

00 04

388

389

00 01

00 05

424

00 10

431

425

00 08

429

430

00 02

(0) 08

452

00 02

453

445

00 02

451

448

524

414

00 00

526

523

521

(0)

522

00 15

533

544

सिन्दुरपंक

542

(0) 04

543

00 05

546

(0)

501

550

551

(0)

552

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

(5)

(4)

(3)

555

00 01

99 556

557

09 558

(01

00 11

17 1040

00 (X)

1031

19 1032

71 1033

1028

(00

06 1034

(0)

99 1027

00 01

1020

29 1024

(00

1022

1011

(1)

71 1013

997

986

(1)

(1) 00

985

(0)

987

27 988

(1)

(04

989

(1)

994

(0)

931

( 0)

(1)

1150

(X)

44 993

941

(01)

942

(1)

949

( X)

948

(0)

46 950

932

(1)

933

( 1)

(1)

945

( 1 )

934

92 3132

(X)

(04

85 3133

(X)

3135

(X) 112

34 3137

(05

3136

(X)

(f) 3139

(6)

3140

(X)

25 3144 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6691

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन. 10 , 1932

( 1)

(2)

(5)

(3) (4)

(1)

3161

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 307

00 04

कुदोपालि

सिन्दुरपंक

3162

3163

00 01

00 00

2619

2620

00 00

2624

00 03

2618

2621

00 06

2612

2611

00 08

00 00

2608

दण्डाइपालि

620

00 05

530

00 00

531

00 05

532

533

534

535

536

518

442

00 01

537

00 08

538

539

00 01

00 05

540

440

00 00

428

00 17

659

00 01

424

00 01

423

00 06

420

(0) 07

422

(0) 05

399

00 12

00 01

398

396

395

359

00 09

329

(0) 00

358

(0) 05

357

356

(0) 11

355

(X) (12

354

( )

(00

34 306

00 (12

26 305

304

00 (B

58 771

00 09

45 311

00 00

303

10 299

00 (12

315

314

748

26 289

(0) 00

88 287

(00 08

(05

(0)

286

87 284

(0) (B

13 331

(1)

09 332

(0) 00

30 253

004

(00

252

57 223

(X)

57 212

(X)

62 213

(00

(X )

211

(0)

( X)

167

(0)

45 219

(X)

15 191

(X)

61 188

(X) 01

(X)

763

11 192

00 (B

73 750

(X)

( 1)

21 395

394

(0)

772

10 397

( X ) ( X)

81 396

(X)

35 451

00 42

450

(12

353

(α)

(X)

30 456

( X)

62 459

( X) (0)

4( ) 461

( 12

460

(X)

(01

(1 )

588

( 1)

10 6692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

(5)

(1) (2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

ठेमरा

468

कुदोपालि

00 25

07 469

05 470

00 01

471

00 10

472

16 7246

ठेमेरा

7247

00 01

7249

87 7259

00 10

7260

00 01

7262

7263

7264

25 7265

00 03

000

7255

00 06

55 7266

00 02

7267

98 7268

00 19

7711

00 01

7219

00 00

67 7222

00 06

61 7223

00 01

50 7224

7225

00 09

7151

00 00

7705

00 03

7147

00 01

7153

80 7146

00 02

7155

00 02

7114

94 6979

6978

6977

6976

6980

00 01

6975

7000

00 15

7001

7002

7005

7006

7015

7007

[PARI II - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

36 7008

(0)

(X)

92 7009

(1)

6924

6921

(1) (0)

55 6920

6919

(00

27 7026

(1) (12

6824

36 6825

(X)

(0)

6829

(0)

6869

112

65 6830

(X)

(0)

6831

(6) 6832

14 6833

(X)

16 6780

6769

( 1 )

73 6768

(0)

117 6766

(X)

10 6765

90 6715

(0)

(X)

10 6720

(1)

6716

(0)

(08

(X)

6717

(X)

6713

48 6712

(X)

(0)

83 6711

92 7747

(1)

(0)

89 7748

(X)

(0)

7749

(0) 01

28 6693

93 7746

( X)

(0) (09

72 6689

(X)

(0)

10 6688

0000 (1)

6681

(0)

89 6680

(0)

(X)

6679

(1)

(0)

82 7762

34 7755

(0)

(1)

7754

(X)

7753

6672

(0)

41 6665

(۲) (B

וד 6664 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(5)

ठेमेरा

7750

00 00

खुलिया

00 00

99 6666

69 6662

00 16

6663

00 00

00 01

6661

00 04

07 6644

7611

00 05

08 6658

6654

00 10

39 6653

6656

00 06

गुडेसिंहा

00 12

00 00

00 01

00 02

00 00

544

545

757

763

764

761

00 06

769

767

00 21

774

776

00 00

779

00 (2

1502

खुलिया

1495

00 01

1503

00 11

1511

1512

00 01

1514

00 02

1522

1515

1523

6693

(5) (2)

(3) (4)

00 04

69 1526

(X)

1527

(1) 01

20 1509

(1) 01

(B 1791

(0) 15

37 1789

(0) 02

24 1780

(0)

1779

1778

00 04

86 1804

00 01

47 1803

1805

1808

(1)

10 1807

(0) 10

16 1817

37 1821

(00

00 (2

1818

50 1627

00 (12

10 1819

1679

1678

1669

1667

00 00

1666

(07

1662

11 1656

1655

46 1104

(X) (04

1053

54 1059

(14

1055

00 102

93 1025

(0) (04

46 1024

17 1026

(1)

29 1023

53 1021

00 01

1019

(0) 01

21 1018

1886

54 1004

00 ( X)

16 1005

1003

97 1002

(0) 18

25 1006

00 04

20 1001 6694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(5)

(1)

(3) (4)

2249

तबला

(α) 08

तबला 2250

(X)

2251

(12

2254

2256

(0)

2255

(0) (2

(0) 05

2257

2258

00 (2

2259

2262

(0)

2271

2272

(0) (12

2270

(0)

(00 05

2269

2268

00 00

2643

(0) 00

2704

परमाणपुर

(10

2641

2644

(0)

2639

( X)

(0)

2640

2637

( X)

(17

(0)

2636

(04

2635

(1) (12

(X)

(01

2273

2274

( 1)

2275

112

2276

(1) (12

(1)

2277

(1)

2280

2281

(1)

2289

2284

2285

2286

(0)

(X)

2287

(X)

2283

2290

(X) 11

(1)

2295

2299

( 1) (1)

2298

2297

( X) 11

2296

(X)

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

(3) ( 4) (5) 2311

(0)

65 2310

(1)

2337

(0)

78 2543

(0)

(0 )

89 2338

00 00

2541

(1)

(0)

253-4

(X)

12 2535

1133

( X)

13 1132

(0)

52 1131

(X)

1130

(X)

4()

( X)

(17

1129

61 1127

00 03

87 1126

(X) 18

1125

(X)

83 876

( X) 13

91 877

(0) 13

104

878

32 869

49 867

(1)

(0)

10 863

(1)

865

10 866

(00

(1)

858

871

(0)

706

( X)

43 722

(0)

723

(0)

80 724

( 1)

727

(0)

728

18 749

(1)

70 748

( 1)

()()

30 746

( X)

(0 )

(0)

747

04 744

(0)

(02

2265

(0)

( 1)

599

211 598

(0)

17 595

(0)

592

18 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6695

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

(2)

(5)

(1)

(3) (4)

(1)

00 02

587

परमाणपुर

(2)

(5)

(3) (4)

00 10

01 300

परमाणपुर

585

576

567

00 07

575

572

00 05

571

570

00 07

569

566

565

00 13

564

00 04

955

956

957

00 04

958

00 01

959

1028

00 26

1027

00 03

1023

1022

1021

00 03

960

325

00 03

2244

232

00 00

233

234

00 01

2245

00 02

2246

2247

00 00

2248

00 00

2249

236

00 10

289

00 01

297

296

295

69 294

99 292

00 08

291

98 282

00 02

284

00 06

64 283

00 01

276

00 04

96 285

165

00 08

164

61 163

00 25

34 145

00 27 61 155

00 01

92 154

00 23

42 153

00 00

50 1779

00 07

67 1780

1781

1806

32 1803

00 09

97 1796

00 02

1808

00 05

24 1812

00 23

32 1811

1813

1822

00 00

1829

57 1830

09 532

खण्डुआल

00 01

237

000

306

238

239

00 04

2250

00 10

305

241

240

00 00

304

3696GI/10-4

509

(0) 06

91 510

00 08

45 511

504

00 04

513

18 525

00 00 83

25 521

57 524

(00

01 522 6696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ASVINA 10, 1932

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

520

00 02

खण्डुआल

541

user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan, Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip- Sambalpur- Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline Project , 1295, Forest park, Bhubneswar - 751009, (Orissa) .

519

SCHEDULE

543

00 09

500

00 01

Tehsil : Maneswar District : Sambalpur State- Orissa 499

PlotNo.

498

Name of the Village

Area Are Sq.mtr .

Hectare 497

00 00

(1)

(2)

(4)

(β)

(5) 496

00 01

863

00 03

Halipali

454

833

00 17

35 456

00 01

834

00 16 28 1542

00 06

836

00 01

83 461

00 07

835

(0) 05

88 466

00 09

829

00 02

19 462

828

00 01

43 465

00 04

827

00 12

24 464

00 05

826

(2 471

00 07

825

51 472

00 27

716

00 16

93 264

00 17

719

37 मठपालि

197

00 06

715

00 01

43 186

(0) 01

720

66 185

725

877

00 01

19 [सं. आर-25011/37/2010-ओ आर-1 ]

684

36 बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

685

00 (B

(2 New Delhi , the 17th September , 2010

683

(0) 24

661

660

(0)

(X)

659

00 01

(X)

658

(0)

45 S.O. 2449. 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 ( Chhattishgarh ) & Ranchi ( Jharkhand ) , a " Paradip - Sambalpur- Raipur- Ranchi Pipeline" should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

657

(X) (B

654

653

00 01

26 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;

656

(X) 36

649

(0) (X)

650

(0)

(X)

648

(0) 01

437

(X)

36 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;

436

(17

439

(0)

440

(X)

441

(X) 10

72 Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copics 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 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

(1)

(4)

(2)

(β)

(5)

(1)

434

232

Kantaipali

230

231

00 01

221

6697 (2)

(β) (4) (5) 427

00 01

53 426

52 423

422

00 04

09 112

Gulunda

224

ΟΙ

222

223

212

201

200

00 07

197

245

00 13

211

383

Gulundipali

370

00 11

00 06

369

100

00 02

00 09

00 00

609

00 04

Maneswar

548

00 00

00 04

113

115

00 00

00 04

114

20 118

00 04

119

00 06

27 130

104

12 102

103

42 91

00 28

00 00

00 10

65 61

00 02

00 10

27 59

(0) 10

27 53

00 16

33 44

80 43

00 14

02 35

00 05

09 32

00 07

79 31

00 06

00 07

109

12 1415

Naxapali

442

00 15

441

00 13

00 03

608

439

00 14 20

438

436

432

00 03

433

00 01

434

431

430

00 10

00 13

1414

1413

00 00

23 1409

00 04

1410

00 (2

72 1411

00 03

1135

91 1134

00 09

79 1133

1132

00 (4

00 1129

00 12

57 1131

(B 6698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

1136

Naxapali Naxapali

1137

1100

00 01

00 02

1138

1099

1098

00 02

1139

1275

00 00

1274

1273

1272

00 02

1270

3146

1142

1267

00 01

1266

00 01

1145

00 01

1292

00 01

1293

00 06

1265

00 03

1263

1264

1257

1259

1258

00 01

1255

1256

00 01

1225

1226

00 07

1229

1253

00 02

1162

00 05

1161

00 01

1033

00 01

3202

1034

00 01

1037

1036

1035

00 01

1039

00 03

1038

00 01

970

3122

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(β)

(5)

(4)

(2)

00 09

01 973

10 979

(0)

( 12

45 978

4()

971

(X)

972

00 01

67 902

(0)

(000)

893

(0) (12

3206

62 903

00 02

3207

00 (12

10 904

34 901

(0) 02

905

57 906

00 01

(0)

907

70 908

(1)

910

909

00 06

729

60 730

(0)

21 728

(X)

112 3158

67 724

00 (04

726

725

633

00 01

(07

66 634

476

(0)

88 456

00 (01

41 455

000 01

29 454

(0)

24 388

00 (04

387

(0) (12

391

422

(X) 01

25 392

00 00

76 3273

(00

431

64 429

00 (2

59 428

00 04

424

32 423

30 440

00 6699

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(1)

(2)

(β) (4)

(1)

00 08

3311

Naxapali

Khairapali

1946

00 04

1945

1949

1956

1955

00 01

1989

00 05

1987

00 05

-88

1979

00 02

1965

00 04

1978

1977

00 00

1976

00 04

3270

00 02

2005

2022

2006

00 03

2021

2020

00 02

2019

2018

2017

2013

00 02

2014

00 01

2015

2042

00 08

2068

2069

00 01

2092

2304

00 05

2306

2307

194

Khairapali

195

199

384

00 10

385

00 01

387

00 04

388

00 01

389

00 05

424

431

00 10

425

00 08

(5)

(β)

(2)

(4)

00 429

54 430

452

453

00 02

63 445

451

88 448

00 05

524

00 00

50 414

00 00

21 526

00 00

523

52 521

522

533

33 544

542

57 543

48 546

30 501

89 550

551

00 00

552

78 555

99 556

00 10

557

00 01

76 558

00 11

17 1040

1031

19 1032

71 1033

00 00

90 1028

06 1034

1027

00 01

98 1020

00 14

29 1024

00 01

1022

00 08

1011

00 03

1013

39 997

% 986

985

(0)

987

18 988 6700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ASVINA 10 , 1932

(1)

(1) (2)

(β)

(5)

(4)

989

Khairapali

00 16

994

931

1150

993

00 04

941

00 00

942

949

00 00

948

00 16

950

00 00

932

933

945

00 00

934

00 01

3132

Sindurpank

3133

00 02

3135

3137

3136

3139

00 08

3140

3144

00 01

00 08

3161

Kudopali

3162

3163

00 00

2619

2620

2624

00 05

2618

00 06

2621

00 05

2612

00 08

2611

2608

00 05

620

Dandaipali

530

531

00 05

532

00 07

00 08

533

534

00 05

535

00 08

536

00 23

518

442

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

(β) (4) (5)

00 08

537

538

60 539

00 01

540

83 440

00 00

53 428

00 17

90 659

00 01

46 424

ΟΙ

31 423

00 06

99 420

00 07

14 422

00 05

86 399

00 12

00.

398

75 396

00 00

94 395

359

00 09

97 329

00 00

68 358

57 357

356

00 11

79 355

05 354

10 307

00 04

91 306

305

304

771

311

00 02

00 00

10 303

299

00 (2

315

314

64 748

289

00. 00

287

286

00 04

87 284

00 03

13 331

332

30 253

00 04

88 252

223

00 02

57 212

00 01

62 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6701

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

(1)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(β) (4)

213

Themara Kudopali

211

00 00

167

00 00

219

00 32 15

191

00 28

00 01

188

763

192

00 03

750

395

00 01

394

00.

772

397

396

451

00 42

450

00 02

353

456

00 14

459

461

460

00 01

588

468

00 03

469

00 25

00 01

470

471

00 10

472

7246

Themara

7247

7249

00 01

7259

00 10

7260

7262

7263

7264

00 02

7265

00 03

7255

7266

00 06

7267

00 02

7268

00 04

7711

(0) 19

7219

(0) 01

7222

7223

00 06

7224

00 01

7225

7151

00 09

7705

(β) (4) (5) (2)

7147

00 01

7153

54 7146

00 02

7155

7114

00 00

94 6979

27 6978

6977

6976

92 6980

00 10

6975

7000

7001

7002

7005

00 00

14 7006

7015

49 7007

00 04

99 7008

00 08

7009

6924

00 06

6921

6920

55 6919

7026

00 (B

27 6824

00 02

92 6825

(0)

6829

77 6869

00 00

65 6830

(12

00 01

76 6831

6832

6833

00 29

16 6780

6769

00 112 04

6768

73 6766

6765

10 6715

(X)

90 6720

(0) 00

10 6716

(X ) 00

89 6717

00 06

(X)

(0)

6713

6712

(X)

48 6711

000

92 7747

7748

000

89 7749

00 00

6) 6702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVINA 10 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(β) (4) (5)

(1) Themara

6693

Khulia

7746

00 08

6689

00 09

00 00

6688

6681

00 00

6680

00 00

6679

7762

00 00

7755

7754

7753

6672

00 05

6665

6664

00 03

7750

00 00

6666

6662

00 16

6663

6661

00 01

6644

7611

00 11

6658

6654

00 03

6653

00 10

6656

00 06

Gudesingha

00 12

00 00

00 03

00 00

00 01

00 02

85 3

00 13

87 544

545

00 11

757

00 05

763

00 02

764

761

00 11

00 06

769

767

00 21

95 774

776

00 12

00 03

30 779

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

(2)

(4) (5) 1502

00 02 94 1495

00 01

52 1503

00 01

00 11

1511

00 07

1512

1514

67 1522

00 02

38 1515

1523

00 00

76 1526

00 04

33 1527

00 09

20 1509

1791

03 1789

00 15

24 1780

00 02

1779

00 06

28 1778

00 (04

000

1804

47 1803

1805

1808

1807

90 1817

16 1821

37 1818

50 1627

00 02

1819

10 1679

00 00

40 1678

1669

00 23

62 1667

1666

30 1662

(0)

1656

11 1655

1104

00 02

46 1053

00 04

1059

54 1055

1025

1024

1026

17 1023

53 1021

00 (04

74 1019

(01

1018

21 1886

Π 1004

00 04

54 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

6703

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

(1)

(4)

(β)

(5)

(1) Khulia

1005

00 00

Tabla 1003

00 00

1002

1006

00 00

1001

Tabla

2249

00 08

2250

2251

00 02

2254

2256

00 02

2255

2257

00 05

2258

00 02

2259

2262

00 05

2271

00 01

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 2311

00 03

69 2310

00 04

65 2337

00 00

78 2543

00 00

89 2338

00 00

94 2541

00 04

48 2534

00 00

12 2535

01 1133

13 1132

00 05

52 1131

(0) 09

76 1130

00 06

40 1129

00 07

61 1127

00 03

87 1126

30 1125

00 04

83 876

Parmanpur

2272

2270

00 04

2269

00 05

2268

00 00

2643

00 00

2704

00 00

2641

00 03

2644

00 14

2639

00 00

2640

00 01

2637

00 07

2636

00 04

2635

00 02

2273

2274

00 01

2275

00 02

2276

00 02

2277

00 05

2280

00 14

2281

00 13

2289

00 11

2284

2285

2286

2287

2283

00 14

2290

00 11

2295

00 02

2299

00 01

2298

2297

00 11

2296

00 25

3696Gl /10-5

877

(1)

878

00 04

32 869

00 13

49 867

00 00

10 863

00 11

64 865

00 00

10 866

00 09

30 858

00 08

77 871

00 01

21 706

00 04

43 722

00 07

62 723

00 07

80 724

00 10

29 727

00 00

30 728

00 16

18 749

748

00 00

30 746

10 747

00 29

04 744

00 02

75 2265

17 600

35 599

00 30

20 598

00 04

07 595

00 12

64 592

18 587

00 02

29 585

00 03

36 576

00 02

10 567

00 24

85 575

00 07

04 572

571

570

18 6704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

569

Parmanpur Parmanpur

00 00

566

00 04

565

00 13

564

00 04

955

956

957

00 01

958

00 01

959

1028

00 26

1027

1023

00 07

1022

1021

00 03

960

325

00 03

Khandual 2244

232

00 00

233

00 01

234

2245

2246

00 00

2247

00 00

2248

00 00

2249

236

237

(0)

306

00 04

238

239

(00

2250

305

( 1)

241

240

(X ) 01

(0)

304

(0)

300

289

( X)

297

( X) 01

296

(X) 00

(12

295

( X)

294

00 06

292

( 1) 04

291

(0) 08

282

(0) 00

(X)

284

283

276

(X) 01

Mathpali 285

(0) (04

165

( 0)

164

163

(0) 25

145

(0)

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

(3)

(5) (2)

155

42 154

00 23

153

00 00

1779

1780

00 12

15 1781

1806

00 09

1803

00 02

1796

1808

24 1812

1811

62 1813

1822

00 39

1829

1830

532

00 03

509

00 12

00 06

510

511

21 504

004

( 1)

513

18 525

(0) 00

25 521

00 04

(1)

524

(1)

57 522

520

(0 112

16 541

(00)

(X)

24 519

(0) 16

(۲)

543

(X)

73 500

(0)

(1) (0)

499

93 498

00 (X)

79 497

00 (0)

(X)

496

44 ACA

(1) (1)

27 44

456

(1)

1542

461

(0) (1)

466

(1)

30 462

(0)

465

(0)

26 464

(X)

117

471

00 27

472

(1)

264

197

(0)

186

(1)

(X)

185

[No. R - 25011 / 37/ 2010 - OR - I ] B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 17 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2450.-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 बिछाए 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 घोषण करती है;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से , जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनसाधारण 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 , अति विहार , रायपुर -492 006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील- चाम्पा जिला- जांजगीर- चाम्पा राज्य - छत्तीसगढ़ क्रम गांव का नाम खसरा सं.

क्षेत्रफल संख्या

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 2

1. संजयग्राम

1334

1333

1115

1114

(0) 09

1113

1117

1116

1107

1120

00 09

00 07

1106

1121

00 07

6705

6 1 2

1086

00 11

1. संजयग्राम

1057

1056

1054

17 1043

1033

00 03

1019

1040

00 00

1018

00 06

1032

00 08

1007

00 07

1006

932

24 1008

933

00 06

935

972

00 08

973

971

00 07

963

00 33

579

00 06

523

524

00.

517

532

00 ( 2

534

00 20

515

514

511

00 15

00 10

506

526

00 10

94 2. रिसदा

515

00 17

06 513

512

509

510

00 13

504

39 489

00 12

36 482

00 10

480

45 481

00 00

59 6706

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ASVINA 10, 1932

1 2

176/1

00 28 81

00 00

5. कड़ारी

3. कुम्हारी कला

00 82/1

00 23

175/3

82/2

00 03

176/2

00 03

74 70

00 19

177/5

64 00

484/1

10 00

67/2

192/6

76 67/1

00 06

192/13

34 65

00 06

192/7

17 00

64/3

192/8

00 05

00 21

64/2

192/4

00 16 08

192/3

000

58 86/1

00 25

199

(0)

74 00 10

86/2

200

00 00

20 00

88/2,88/3

198

00 00

10 00 13

88/1

202/1

(X)

23 53,54, 55

202/2

(12 00

09 35

4. लछनपुर

00 00 00

203

18 36

97 00

209/23

(12

93 00 10

209/22

00 107

71 00 14

209/21

42 (0)

209/1

(X) (X)

10 00 12

209/2

06 (0)

168/1

5. कड़ारी

209/5

(B 00 04

168/2

209/8

00 01

32 00 04

168/3

209/7

00 13

21 00

167/3

(X) 14

208

72 167/2

(X )

91/1

49 00 06

170/1

91/2

(X)

56 524/12

00 03

524/13

(X )

54 524/5

00 03

(X)

82 524/6

524/4

(X)

10 00 03

524/3

00 05

(1) 12

$24/2

(X)

263

(07

6. पोड़ीकला

524/1

00 08

262

(X) 08

27 00

525/3

(X)

264

15 523/2

00 08

249

00 15

522/3

259

(0) (12

44 521

00 02

254

(X)

(12 519/3

00 04

(X) (15

258

52 520

00 00

255

(X)

43 00 07

519/2

( 1) 06

252

70/1

(X) 16 6707 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

176

00 14

6. पोड़ीकला

178

182

00 03

183

00 07

184

185

Any perrson 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 Agrawal , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Paradip - Sambalpur Raipur- Ranchi Pipeline Project , N - 17 , Sector 2 , Avanti Vihar , Raipur - 492 006 , Chhattisgarh.

158/1

SCHEDULE

158/2

Tehsil : Champa District: Janjgir Champa 157

00 03

Stine : Chhattisgarh 00

155

Khasra No.

SI . Name of the

Area 151

00 07

1017

00 04

No. Village

Are Sq. mtr .

Hectare

408

5 00

119

00 06

1. Sanjay Gram 1334

117

1333

52 00

118

1115

74 112

00 06

1114

11 00

113

1113

00 09

25 115

1117

110

00 00

1116

27 00

114

1107

00 03

60 103

00 11

1120

00 09

1106

1121

34/1

1086

55 14/1

1057

00 00

54 19/1

00 11

1056

00 21

1054

00 06 [सं. आर -25011/39/2010- ओ आर-1 ]

1043

17 बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

1033

73 New Delhi , the 17th September , 2010

1019

00 03

1040

00 01

1018

00 00

1032

1007

00 S.O. 2450.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest tha for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradi ( Orissa ) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh ) & Ranchi ( Jharkhand) , Paradip - Sambalpur - Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline " should be and by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

1006

932

00 01

1008

00 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 ;

933

00 03

935

00 06

972

00 08

973

971

07 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 ;

6708

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

(04 49

168/1

963

00 33

5. Kadari

1. Sanjay Gram

168/2

00 00 06

579

00 04

168/3

523

00 14 20

00 05 524

167/3

00 07

517

00 06

167/2

532

170/1

(0) 00 00

534

524/12

00 (B

515

00 08

524/13

514

(0)

524/5

511

524/6

(0) 00

10 00 10

506

524/4

87 00 10

526

2. Risda

(0 (5

524/3

515

(0) 08

524/2

513

(0)

524/1

512

(X) (0)

525/3

00 17

509

00 08

523/2

510

522/3

504

521

00 (12 00

489

000

519/3

482

(1)

( 0)

520

480

519/2

(0)

00 00

481

00 16

170/1

3. Kumhari Kala 81

176/1

(1)

82/1

( X) (X)

175/3

00 03

82/2

(X)

176/2

10 00

177/5

484/1

(0) 00 11

67/2

76 67/1

192/6

(0) 06

00 06

192/13

64/3

(1) 06

192/7

00 21

64/2

00 05

192/8

00 11

192/4

00 25

86/1

00 12

192/3

00 10

82/6

199

82/2 , 88/3

200

00 00

20 00

88/1

(0)

198

00 01

53,54,55

(0)

202/1

4. Lachhanpur 35

(0)

202/2

(00 00 00

00 18

203

00 01

00 ( 12

209/23

(0)

209/22

209/21

00 01

(11)

209/1

(1)

39 6709 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

6.Podi Kala

103

209/2

5. Kadari

209/5

00 00

209/8

00 16

34/1

209/7

00 13

14/1

208

00 11

19/1

00 00

91/1

00 19

91/2

[No. R - 25011 /39 /2010 - OR - 1 ] 00

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

00 01

नई दिल्ली , 17 सितम्बर , 2010 00 01

00 02

00 07

263

6. Podi Kala

00 08

262

का, आ. 2451. 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;

00 13

264

249

00 02

259

00 01

254

258

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

00 04

255

252

176

00 06

178

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 घोषण करती है ;

00 07

182

183

00 07

184

00 10

185

158/1

00 09

158/2

(0) 03

157

(X)

155

(0)

151

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पारादीप- सम्बलपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क, भुवनेश्वर -751009 ( उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

(0)

1017

अनुसूची

408

119

राज्य- उड़ीसा

जिला- सम्बलपुर

तहसील- जुजोमुरा

(0)

117

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

00 12

118

वर्ग

हेक्टेयर एयर 00

112

मीटर ( X )

113

5 00 00

115

(00 (0)

38 110

बडमाल

00 04

00 10

114

00 6710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ASVINA 10 , 1932

1 बडमाल

00 05

अन्धारि 66

00 01

00 05

00 27

00 03

452

00 00

463

00 00

00 09

451

00 06

460

00 04

घोडाडिह

00 00

00 01

00 06

00 00

(0) 25

अन्धारि

677

674

00 29

लांगबाहाल 664

00 04

673

00 00

665

00 14

666

00 18

667

00 04

569

(0)

570

1022

00 06

568

00 03

564

00 02

563

00 02

562

00 00

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

5 561

47 556

00 00

80 557

00 09

558

00 03

72 554

555

00 01

68 550

547

00 13

89 543

00 07

88 544

(12

00 (1)

98 70

00 (12

75 72

00 07

61 68

00 16

60 64

00 (0)

19 65

00 00

54 67

00 (6

46 87

00 (0)

(0)

(α)

(0) (12

48 55

(X) (04

37 56

00 01

71 991

00 (0)

38 45

64 42

(0) 19

(07 4()

(0)

51 38

( 0

(X)

(09

65 287

06 05

26 286

(X) (12

(0)

218

(12

04 208

(1) 06

62 207

(X) 06

81 210

(X) 11

09 211

( X)

193

00 (X)

18 192

(X)

27 212

( X ) 01

57 19)

(X)

191

(1)

67 6711

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5 2

101

नारंगिपालि

00 14 82

188

लांगबाहाल

00 01

186

00 05

187

157

158

00 02

156

155

00 00

159

00 10

154

151

00 05

153

जुजोमुरा

955

लिपिण्डा

00 09

1368

946

943

00 03

942

941

940

00 08

00 01

939

00 07

938

00 25

934

887

00 24

211

नारंगिपालि

215

00 08

214

(X)

213

212

00 03

00 10

185

196

195

193

192

182

181

00 03

165

130

131

00 03

238

125

120

00 00

135

136

00 19

118

3696G1 /10-6

00 02

103

104

106

107

04 109

110

00 10

00 01

25 9

11 1505

1500

1501

1490

011 .

1492

00 02

1491

71 1485

53 1484

00 01

19 1483

83 2809

00 (B

1482

1476

64 1481

(0)

00 (0)

68 1477

00 14

1480

(0)

1478

94 1479

(00

09 1466

(0)

45 918

(X)

28 921

(0)

(0) 06

04 2611

(X) 01

922

(0)

2609

00 (B

2610

00 06

2617

(X)

10 926

(0)

(X)

08 924

(0) (02

28 925

48 2615

54 910

(1) (B

87 927

(X)

929 6712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ASVINA 10 , 1932

1 2624

00 05

जुजोमुरा

2622

935

940

00 02

904

00 29

899

898

58.

897

00 (12

895

00 08

894

00 00

889

893

00 05

00 04

892

891

882

00 01

877

759

2863

00 04

751

00 02

750

00 04

749

748

00 00

694

00 13

00 06

695

696

00 11

697

00 00

692

00 11

703

706

00 14

705

00 00

687

686

668

685

707

00 06

680

00 04

678

00 07

672

656

00 14

673

654

652

00 10

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

5 653

651

(6) 543

(0)

(α)

10 648

(0) (1)

86 550

(0) (B

(17

644

2573

(0) 10

551

(0)

10 555

58 560

(X) 01

05 557

00 (0)

98 558

(X) 22

27 506

32 2557

00 (1)

10 1596

00 04

84 1597

(α)

1598

(0)

( X)

1606

4()

(17

1611

(17

1612

(07

55 2828

(00 02

68 2829

(00 (12

1616

59 1618

(0)

10 505

(0) 27

7) 504

(0) 09

(0)

280

501

(0)

52- 499

(1)

53 2526

00 01

446

62 454

00 06

43 447

(X) 00

10 448

00 05

62 449

49 450

(X)

95 439

00 13

312

(0)

12 432

(0) 31

(X)

322

ΟΙ

96 323

(0)

33 321

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

1 324

00 00

जुजोमुरा

गड़गड़बाहाल 325

00 14

326

00 21

2974

431

425

95.

424

00 04

423

कंसर

632

00 20

614

620

00 10

621

00 00

618

927

631

00 07

622

630

00 03

6713

5 355

00 10

85 357

00 15

358

90 359

00 23

360

361

(0)

58 367

23 337

339

276

280

279

00 12

281

70 285

00 12

284

00 04

74 286

00 34

287

भिमखोज

628

627

00 04

928

570

Db 20

00 04

00 00

00 02

00 04

00 27

00 38

00 02

00 92

352

गड़गड़बाहाल

354

484

483

00 17

481

477

475

94 476

48 474

00 473

00 03

675

82 472

471

00 24

49 470

63 469

60 449

00 30

00 00

447

448

439

00 01

11 445

00 13

441

00 00

48 442

444

85 433

432

429

428

00 07

10 6714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ASVINA 10 , 1932

1 1

420

भिमखोज

नुआमहुलपालि

423

हातीबारी

330

328

327

00 02

326

325

324

323

00 03

307

306

00 17

303

00 05

300

305

304

00 02

00 03

299

00 00

288

298

00 06

289

294

293

00 08

291

687

277

00 35

00 13

419

नुआमहुलपालि

420

00 23

421

00 11

422

417

137

138

1023

00 00

1166

161

162

00 20

154

00 02

16'

00 15

00 08

00 02

00 03

1063

00 16

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

1062

49 2385

07 2382

2384

2376

00 2374

10 2375

00 04

85 2371

2369

00 04

2365

34 2367

15 2340

00 2339

00 00

2341

00 05

2342

2336

2335

00 01

68 2333

00 01

2334

00 01

2332

83 2331

00 06

2330

07 2327

00 09

2193

94 2192

2191

00 01

2194

00 00

2195

2185

00 01

2186

00 02

20 2038

00 00

10 2037

00 00

10 2036

06 09

82 2039

2050

00 01

2040

2041

(0)

45 2042

( X) (2

68 2043

(X )

2045

(0)

10 2044

(0)

(X) 09

2046 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6715

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन10 , 1932

हातीबारी हातीबारी

2009

2008

2003

00 02

00 05

2007

2005

00 01

2006

00 38

1992

1994

00 03

1991

1985

00 01

1979

1976

00 01

1049

1052

00 05

1051

00 00

1053

00 23

893

892

891

00 00

890

888

00 04

889

02 92

00 05

882

887

00 04

886

883

00 04

2476

884

00 09

867

00 03

865

00 24

862

861

2686

2685

00 07

2682

854

2684

00 03

853

716

00 05

00 04

717

718

00 04

5 719

00 02

04 720

00 06

54 721

00 05

01 722

21 723

00 03

70 724

725

11 726

00 02

728

04 727

757

00 04

00 755

756

758

00 05

10 750

10 759

761

36 760

764

765

00 01

64 766

00 01

30 767

00 04

41 742

10 693

00 13

82 672

00 10

66 670

00 00

10 671

00 00

33 673

00 01

19 674

00 02

91 675

00 03

09 676

00 20

54 679

2640

296

30 791

10 291

05 293

292

00 00

264

45 268

00 01

265

62 266

02 6716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ASVINA 10, 1932

1 हातीबारी

263

00 07

मुण्डेर

262

17 239

246

00 03

241

33 247

15 245

10 2503

1)0

244

2507

00 00

10 243

242

00 00

10 231

00 06

55 230

00 04

62.

205

00 05

2501

97 206

00 01

15 207

208

00 02

89 210

71 222

220

212

99 214

213

1115

मुण्डेर

1072

00 27

1117

39 1071

00 08

53 1121

00 05

1130

1529

50 1064

1133

1132

02 1062

00 03

71 1060

1059

00 00

41 1058

00 08

31 1061

00 03

1057

00 07

70 1056

00 08

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

1055

1053

00 00

1150

1151

00 03

70 999

00 00

1000

10 1423

00 00

35 998

00 08

997

00 00

1152

10 988

00 15

21 989

991

00 10

993

94 979

91 975

00 04

54 974

00 00

976

977

22 965

00 00

21 964

00 10

961

27 667

00 05

88 666

00 04

88 671

677

52 672

00 (2

82 674

00 01

32 1504

00 (B

38 1503

00 00

10 1505

44 682

00 05

79 684

00 (B

68 685

(0)

50 686

(X)

81 683

83 714

58 710

711

00 04

73 712

00 ( 12

717

90 737

(X)

(17 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

738

मुण्डेर

6717 2

भबानिपालि

739

00 02

754

00 23

1412

00 06

1477

00 00

1476

00 02

753

00 09

774

766

00 14

775

00 00

1475

762

00 03

765

00 00

806

00 02

811

00 10

810

00 00

10 372

00 01

19 348

75 349

00 00

10 347

00 05

60 346

00 00

42 338

335

00 07

22 336

00 05

337

60 332

00 00

81 331

48 330

00 02

03 329

00 49

02 328

00 05

21 327

00 06

झांकरपालि

1485

00 17

00 07

00 00

1388

00 00

00 02

00 04

00 01

00 09

10 भबानिपालि

399

00 03

397

00 05

396

00 04

393

00 13

395

00 04

394

00 08

392

444

385

00 22

384

00 02

375

00 13

374

00 05

373

00 02

371

00 08

370

1480

00 02

58 1475

00 (2

34 1474

00 1472

00 20

43 1464

53 1465

00 12

92 1453

00 08

58 1456

00 07

79 1454

00 00

73 1455

00 03 64 1449

00 06

52 1448

00 03 10 1457

00 16

70 1444

00 04

19 1443

00 07

21 1432

00 09

70 1431

00 08

21 1430

00 22

69 1429

00 00

10 686

00 26

69 } 685

00 01

51 684

00 02

67 682

00 18

13 680

00 14

67 678

00 10

12 677

00 01

09 667

00 20

79 6718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

गम्बारपंक

668

झांकरपालि

670

00 08

00 01

666

00 04

664

00 03

665

00 31

658

00 07

657

00 12

656

00 12

651

00 06

648

00 16

647

646

645

00 08

639

00 00

638

00 02

640

636

00 03

635

00 00

632

00 14

633

00 07

622

621

620

619

00 09

618

613

614

615

623

00 15

839

गम्बारपंक

840

00 14

820

838

837

835

836

825

826

757

00 01

709

1185

719

[ PART II- SHC . 3 ( ii) ]

69 720

( X)

721

36 726

722

33 725

06 05

44()

437

00 06

21 436

00 (X)

72 435

00 (00

(1)

( X)

20 90

(0)

17 89

(07

(0)

56 88

(X)

10 75

(0)

(X)

4() 98

00 (12

21 35

(0)

(1)

63 63

(0) 00

85 61

00 00

65 65

00 00

32 57

00 00

62 60

00 01

00 20

20 55

00 (0

60 54

00 00

54 1184

53 52

00 03

66 43

00 11

09 37

00 05

58 2

06 00

00 07

61 [सं. आर -25011/38/2010- ओ आर -1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव 6719

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

1 New Delhi , the 17th September, 2010

00 04

Badamal

Ghodadiha S.O. 2451. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh ) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) , a " Paradip- Sambalpur- Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

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

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

61 93

66 40

00 13

00 19

04 68

00 00

39 66

00 03

79 64

43 63

10 78

00 00

76 677

Andhari

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the General Public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Paradip - Sambalpur-Raipur Ranchi Pipeline Project, 1295 , Forest Park, Bhubaneswar- 751 009, (Orissa) .

SCHEDULE

District : Sambalpur State: Orissa

Tehsil: Jajomura

Area

Name of the Plot No.

Hectore Are Sq . mtr .

Village

(X)

Badamal

00 06

00 27

452

463

00 21

00 11

451

00 05

460

00 01

00 11

3696 GI /10-7

674

67 664

00 00

10 673

61 665

00 18

47 666

65 667

46 569

71 570

00 00

47 1022

71 568

(0) (2

564

97 563

((X)

562

00 06

47 561

80 556

00 09

557

00 13

558

56 554

(X ) 01

555

(X)

550

58 547

(0)

543

(12

544

98 (+)

(12

(17

(X)

64 6720

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ASVINA 10 , 1932

Andhari

Lipinda

Narangipali

991

185

Langbahal

188

1505

Jujomura

1501

Lipinda

1490

1368

1492

1491

(B 37

1485

1484

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 65 00 00 54 940 00 08 55 67 00 05 46 939 00 01 98 87 00 00 36 938 00 07 45 88 00 12 43 934 00 25 10 59 00 08 95 887 00 B 34 55 00 02 48 211 00 24 00 57 00 04 37 215 00 00 16 56 00 01- 71 214 00 08 60 00 00 38 213 00 04 44 45 00 11 64 212 00 95 42 00 19 07 00 10 36 40 00 10 23 196 00 00 10 39 00 04 51 195 00 08 10 38 00 06 45 193 00 00 10 41 00 09 65 192 00 22 31 287 06 05 26 182 00 11 97 286 00 02 94 181 00 00 37 165 00 03 (2 218 00 02 04 130 00 00 96 208 00 06 62 131 00 09 34 207 00 06 81 238 00 03 20 210 00 11 09 125 00 23 70 211 00 08 120 00 00 35 193 00 00 18 135 00 00 14 192 00 00 27 136 00 00 92 212 00 01 57 118 00 19 13 190 00 06 42 101 00 00 10 191 00 03 67 103 00 (12 00 00 14 82 104 00 03 07 186 ((X) 01 75 105 00 04 61 187 00 05 38 106 00 05 18 157 00 05 02 107 00 39 158 00 2 63 109 00 15 04 156 00 02 62 110 00 12 36 155 00 03 55 10 00 10 41 159 00 00 10 9 00 01 25 154 (1) 10 62 00 14 11 151 (0) 07 54 1500 00 08 99 153 00 05 80 00 27 64 955 00 10 18 011 10 57 00 09 09 00 (2 09 946 00 07 49 00 943 00 04 04 00 16 71 942 00 03 95 00 941 53 00 14 30 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

1 1

1483

00 01

Jujomura

2809

04 83

1482

1476

00 04

1481-

00 00

1477

1480

00 00

1478

1479

1466

918

00 00

921

2611

00 06

00 01

922

2602)

00 03

2610

2617

926

924

00 01

925

2615

910

927

929

00 08

2624

00 05

2622

935

00 02

940

904

00 29

899

00 01

00 06

898

897

00 02

895

894

889

893

00 05

892

00 04

891

882

00 01

877

759

00 03

2863

751

00 02

750

6721 2

10 749

748

00 00 20

00 13

90 694

695

00 06

01 66

03 697

692

00 00

703

10 706

00 14

706

687

686

( 1)

668

00 00

685

707

53 680

00 04

39 678

(X)

(17

61 672

(0)

656

(0) 14

673

(1)

10 654

(X)

62 652

00 10

62 653

(3) 08

651

(0)

543

(α)

648

00 (X)

86 550

(0)

644

(X) 10

2573

(X )

551

(X)

(X )

555

05 560

(0) 01

557

(X) (0)

98 558

00 22

27 506

(0 ) 38

32 2557

(X) (0)

(04

1596

(0)

84 1597

(X) 16

1598

(1)

4) 1606

1611

( 7

117

1612

(X) 117

(X)

2828

68 2829

(0)

(2 6722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ASVINA 10 , 1932

1 1

00 04

Kansor 1616

Jujomura

00 00

1618

505

504

280

00 13

52-

501

499

00 01

2526

446

00 06

454

00 00

447

00 05

448

449

00 04

450

00 00

439

00 00

312

Gargarbahal

432

ΟΙ

322

323

00 12

321

00 00

324

325

326

00 12

2974

00 05

431

425

00 04

95.

424

423

00 22

632

Kansor

614

620

00 10

621

00 00

618

927

00 07

631

Bhimkhoj

622

630

628

00 04

627

928

570

00 11

Db 20

00 02

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

5 47

88 49

00 04

00 01

00 22

14 15

83 53

00 (2

90 11

00 03

(X)

63 8

00 (12

65 9

25 1

(1)

00 (2

352

354

(0)

(α)

85 355

357

00 (17

90 358

00 23

(17 359

(0)

360

361

(X)

367

337

(00

(0)

10 339

276

(0) 53

4() 280

(0) 24

(0) 12

279

14 281

(X)

7) 285

284

286

287

49 484

00 16

54 483

(0) 17

481

91 477

(0) 28

475

04 94

476

(0)

48 474

473

675

03 82

472

(13 17 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

471

Nuamahulpali Bhimkhoj

470

469

449

00 00

447

00 02

448

439

445

441

442

444

433

00 02

432

429

6723

5 2

137

00 13

56 138

00 54

1023

00 00

1166

00 01

161

162

90 154

00 02

16'

31 1063

1062

00 19

2385

Hatibari

428

00 07

420

423

00 08

330

00 09

328

00 02

327

00 08

326

00 02

325

00 02

324

00 03

323

307

00 17

306

00 01

303

00 05

300

00 00

305

00 02

304

00 03

299

288

00 02

298

00 06

289

294

00 03

293

00 08

291

00 02

687

00 35

277

419

Nuamahulpali

420

421

00 11

422

417

00 03

07 2382

00 06

68 2384

18 2376

00 18

2374

10 2375

85 2371

00 04

00 07

2369

00 04

11 2365

2367

15 2340

2339

10 2341

00 05

55 2342

10 2336

00 01

68 2335

00 16 83 2333

2334

2332

00 01

2331

22 2330

00 09

07 2327

00 06

2193

94 2192

00 03

2191

00 01

17 2194

00 00

2195

2185

55 2186

00 01

00 02

2038 6724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVINA 10 , 1932

1 2037

Hatibari

00 00

2036

2039

2050

00 00

2040

2041

2042

00 02

00 06

2043

2045

2044

2046

00 09 44

2009

2008

00 00

2003

00 02

2007

00 05

2005

00 03

2006

1992

00 38

1994

00 08

1991

00 00

1985

00 09

1979

00 01

1976

00 01

00 05

1049

1052

00 (B

1051

00 05

1053

893

(0) 23

892

00 03

00 07

891

890

(0) 00

888

00 04

889

00 02

882

(0) 05

887

886

00 (04

883

2476

(0) 01

884

(00 09

867

865

(0) 06

862

00 24

861

00 07

2686

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

5 2685

00 07

44 2682

854

00 01

07 2684

00 03

853

716

70 717

718

51 719

00 02

04 720

00 06

54 721

00 06

00 01

722

01 723

00 03

21 724

00 (12

70 725

00 06

11 726

00 (2

49 728

727

(04

757

00 00

90 755

00 (4

00 756

(0) 03

24 758

00 05

10 750

00 00

10 759

00 (03

67 761

00 00

36 760

00 03

31 764

(1) 18

765

(01

(X)

64 766

00 01

30 767

00 04 41

742

(00

10 693

00 13

82 672

(X) 10

670

00 00

671

33 673

00 01

19 674

91 675

( 1) 03

(0) 676

21)

(0)

54 679

(0)

(00

2640

39 296

00 08

30 791

00 (0)

291

36 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6725

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

1 1

Hatibari

293

Mundher

00 04

292

00 00

264

268

265

00 01

266

263

262

00 01

239

00 04

246

241

00 02

247

00 00

245

2503

244

00 00

2507

243

242

00 00

231

230

205

00 06

2501

00 01

206

207

208

02 89

00 06

210

222

220

00 03

212

214

213

1115

Mundher

00 27

1072

00 05

1117

1071

00 08

1121

00 08

1130

00 02

1529

1064

00 01

1133

1132

1062

00 03

00 13

1060

1059

00 08

31 1058

00 08

83 1061

00 07

1057

1056

00 08

9% 1055

10 1053

00 18

00 1150

00 03

1151

00 05

70 999

00 00

10 1000

1423

35 998

00 03

14 83 997

10 1152

988

88 989

00 03

23 991

993

91 979

975

92 974

976

22 977

965

00 00

00 10

73 964

27 961

667

00 04

666

88 671

00 00

677

52 672

00 02

32 674

38 1504

00 00

10 1503

1505

682

00 03

68 684

685

81 686

00 01

00 10

83 683

714

Π 710

00 01

711

712 6726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ASVINA 10, 1932

1 1

00 33

Mundher

707

Bhabanipali

00 07

737

738

00 00

739

754

00 23

1412

1477

1476

00 02

753

00 00

774

766

00 00

775

1475

762

765

806

00 02

811

Jhankarpali

810

00 04

1485

00 07

00 00

1388

00 02

00 04

95'

00 01

399

Bhabanipali

397

00 05

396

00 13

393

00 04

395

00 08

394

392

444

00 00

385

00 22

384

375

00 13

374

00 05

373

00 02

00 08

371

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

370

19 372

( X) 11

348

(X) 00

349

10 347

00 06

60 346

(0)

338

22 335

336

00 05

81 337

00 01

60 332

00 (00

331

330

00 (12

329

(0)

21 328

327

(α) 112

1480

34 1475

(0) (2

(0) 1474

(X)

1472

(1)

1464

(00 12

1465

1453

(X)

(0) 117

7) 1456

(1)

(X)

1454

73 1455

(0)

(4 1449

(X)

(0)

10 1448

1457

(00

114

(0)

1444

(17

1443

(X)

21 1432

(X)

(7)

א)

(1)

21 1431

(f) 1430

(1)

1429

(X)

686

(f) 685

(X)

684

(1)

682

(0)

67 680

678

(0)

677

( 3)

(1) 20

667

7) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

668

Jhankarpali

Gambarpank 670

00 01

666

664

665

658

657

00 12

656

651

00 06 49-

648

00 16

647

646

645

00 08

639

.54

638

00 02

640

636

00 03

635

632

633

622

00 (3

621

620

00 03

619

00 09

618

613

614

00 02

00 20

615

623

00 19

839

Gambarpank

00 14

840

820

838

837

00 01

835

836

00 10

825

826

757

709

00 14

00 06

1185

719

3696 G1 /10-8

6727

5 2

720

721

00 17

36 726

00 04

33 722

725

440

437

21 87

436

(0)

10 435

(0)

00 00

00 07

56 88

15 97

10 75

00 00

78 %

4()

00 00

21 99

00 05

25 35

00 00

63 64

43 63

85 62

65 61

00 00

10 65

10 57

00 01

62 60

00 20

60 55

00 03

1184

00 02

53 53

00 11

06 00

00 07

[No. R- 25011/38/2010 - OR - 1 ] B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

6728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ASVINA 10 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 17 सितम्बर , 2010

(1) ( 2) का.आ. 2452 , केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा ) से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप- सम्बलपुर - रायपुर - राँची पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिये;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन यो 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 ;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जन 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 दिलीप कुमार अग्रवाल , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप- सम्बलपुर - रायपुर राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , एन-17 , सेक्टर 2 , अवंति विहार , रायपुर -492006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य- छत्तीसगढ

जिला : कोरबा

तहसील : करतला

खसरा सं.

क्षेत्रफल

क्र.सं. गांव का नाम

4 सोहागपुर

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

( 6 )

(3)

(4) ( 5 )

(1) (2)

279/1

1 ढिटोरी

269/1

267/1

266

268

265

264/2

6/2

2 कर्रापाली

4/25

4/9

4/23

4/16,4/ 17

4/10 , 4/4, 4/15 , 4/13 00

1/3

1/2

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

(5) (6)

(4)

1/1

107

26 191/1

191/2

004

46 201/4

201/2

75 201/1

11 202

204

78 217

209

49 210

208/1

00 817

24 811

( X)

10 810

34 809

789

799

59 800

97 804

23 801

43 802

780

779

04 778

777

697/1

59 694

35 693

692

35 670/2

45 670/3

669

67 668

34 666/1

665/1

03 665/5

(0)

71 665/3

69 664/1

663/4

662/4

662/2

(12

73 662/3

68 662/1

455

00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6729 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/ आश्विन 10, 1932

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

(6)

(5) 465/4

सोहागपुर

373

कुरुडीह

456/5

372

19 38 00

464/2

09 99

391

46 456/2

00 01

392

01 96 465/3

797

07 85

6 मकुन्दपुर

464/1

799

04 00

463/1

798/2

60 470/2

00 08

804/1

(3 469

804/2

90 468

803/2

01 14 00

388/1

805,806

390/1

813

02 59 00

391

05 30

814

(0)

17 393/1

(0)

46 394

812/ 1,815 / 1

816/1

76 396

816/2

06 397/2

(0) 00

821

397/1

64 399

306/1

08 88 4(X)

195/2 , 306/2 , 822/1 00

22 401

195/3

01 00

402/1,699

195/4, 822/2

90 403

195/6 , 822/3

(3 404/1

(0)

195/5

53 405/1

304/2

34 (1)

406/ 1 क, 2 घ, 3 घ

304/1 , 192/2

26 476

11 86

5 कुरुडीह

195/1

(X)

15 00

477

196

84 (0)

(12

475/3

197

43 475/4

( X)

(01

180/2,181 / 2,185 /2 , 190,0 ) 475/1

(0)

194/1,198,199 , 200 , 201 , 475/2

204, 206/2 , 300/2

205

(1) 474/1

57 00

206/1

00 (04 430/1

207

(1)

72 430/2

(1)

177

(0)

10 431/2

(1)

176

( X)

85 431/1

(X)

04 (3

174

(0)

80 428

05 98

173

22 360

(1)

171 / 1 क

(X)

11 362/2

(B 82

363/1

171/ 1 ख

(1)

06 ( X)

37 365

((X)

(X)

170, 171/2

380/1

(05

169/ 1,169/ 2 , 222/2 ( X ) 380/2

(0)

96/3

( X)

36 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 6730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

(6)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

(1)

(4)

(3)

( 6)

(5)

(2)

(1)

00 69

121/12

7 रोंगदा

96/5

मकुन्दपुर

121/11

96/1

121/13

00 06 98

121/3

98/ 1,102/ 1

121/14

93/1 , 94, 95/2

121/42

00 52

121/29

04 94

121/20

89/1

00 00

113/5

89/2

04 10

121/30

85/2

121/46

84/1

121/47

84/2

06 30

121/39, 41 , 44

81/2

121/34,35,37,38,45,50,00 00

81/1

48,49,51,52

47 00

30 79/ 1ख , 79/2 , 80/1

122

109/1

39/2 , 40/3,76,77

481/1

00 (B 39/6

00 00 92

481/2

00 07

37/1

02 48

222

37/2

272/1

37/4,38/1

272/2

37/3

273/2

36/1

273/3

38/2

275

38/4

316/ 1 ख

8 भेलवागुडी

315

(2 34

505

9 घाठादुवारी 11

491

25 93

489

(0)

488

(B 00

(0)

486

06 49

(0)

485

(X )

500

17 88

484

4/1

(1)

482/2

00 01

5, 6 , 21/2

468

13 00

467

432

00 01

3/13

(008

(0)

433

3/7

456

00 05

(00 3/12

455/3

(0)

455/2

3/11

(X )

412/1

3/10

800

413/2

(0) 00

3/6

07 6731 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

(5) (6)

(4) (4)

(6)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(1) (2)

(1)

13 73

411/9

1194

00 05 घाठादुवारी

10. जर्षे

14 42

388

1195

389/1

1198

00 06 59

389/3

1197/1

390

1200

87 00

369

1199/6

378/1

912/3

35 00

377

894

14 02

69 374

895

896/3

08 82 00

370

897

00 03

55/1

10 68

885/3

373

884/4

372

885/2

371

868

79 00

324/2

872

(3 48

314

871

315

(12

770

317

773

134/1

772

(12 00

318

775

56 00

134/2

777

(0)

97 00

139

776

(X)

10 00

(2 138/1

430

709

(1)

(12

138/3

710/1

138/4

712

138/2

711

(0)

14 32 00

140

(0)

694

94 00

141

717

(0)

71 00

131

(0 )

682

130

693

(0)

28 00

142

(0)

684

129

685/1

33 00

113

676

(0 00

126

678

(0) 00

124

(0)

658

125/1

(X)

660

79 125/2

(4 48

(0)

661

662

(B 00

10. जर्व

1165

04 61

663

00 1166

670

10 00

04 67

1167

664

04 00

1168

665

1175

666

1193

668

(00

1192

10 6732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

[ PARI II- SLC. 3 ( ii ) ]

(6) (3)

(3)

( 5) (4)

(6) (1)

(1) ( 2)

(5)

(2)

(4) 277

11. नवापारा

(0) 276

02 02

12. बरपाली

944

(0)

5 00

275

981

274

979

04 51

(1)

976

( 0)

(2 273

(0)

972/3

272

09 82

(1)

( 17

972/2

16 271

00 14

972/1

(0)

( 17

78 270

04 93

970

17 253

964/1

(0)

85 252

969

10 00

251

967

76 254

965

(1)

10 256

00 31

966

(0)

245

(12

479

13. सलिहाभांठा

224

480/3

(3 30

00 223/1

12 88

480/2

(X)

481

25 225

468

(()

20 216

01 00

469

00 00

207

470/2

(0)

08 209

466

112

(0)

208

465

(0)

112 63

197

461

09 00

196

460/2

(0) 79

193

460/1

(0)

12 76 00

194

27 17

433/20

(12 05 156

433/21

(0)

42 00

158

433/8

00 00

433/22

157

434/2

159/1

433/19,433/9

130

434/1

78 129

418

09 05 126

00 37

432/4,5,2

128

431

55 00

127/1

420

(02 56

00 37

78.

419

38 00

36/2

404/3,404/ 1

36/1

05 97

403

(12

74 41

402

09 98 40

05 10

386

387

(3 42

388/3

06 46/1

04 01

00 02 58

390/1

25 40

392,395,397

00 08

(X)

393

10 48

14. बधवाभांठा 430/1,430/2

19/3

427,428/ 1 00

19/2

418

10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6733 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(6)

(5) 14. बधवाभांठा

419

278

15. टुन्डा

49 408

148

13 409

00 09

02 68

378/2,402,407/ 1,400 ,

06 98 395/1

00 12 51 398/1

00 05 61

8/3

00 75 380

02 88

00 10 51 378/1

02 93

8/2

16 313

25 87 377/1

6/1

00 00 10 319

14 47

12 64 00

375/3

14 68

1/4

00 10 326

[सं.आर. - 25011/40/2010- ओ.आर. - 1 ] 323

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव 325/1

00 30

325/2

New Delhi , the 17th September , 2010 333

375/3

14 86

375/5

373

372

S.O. 2452. 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; 371/1

369/2

369/1

07 84

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; 370/ 1ख

370/ 1क

370/2

00 00

365,366

224/9

15. टुन्डा

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 ;

224/8

226

09 48

227

228

00 08 84

231

233/1

493

243/2

09 96

Any person interest 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 Agrawal , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip - Sambalpur - Raipur- Ranchi Pipeline Project N - 17 , Sector - 2 , Avanti Vihar , Raipur - 492006 , Chhattisgarh .

244

SCHEDULE

242/2

242/1

Tehsil : Kartala

District : Korba State - Chhattisgarh 182/2

Area

Khasara No.

182/1

Sr.No. Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

180

00 13 13

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6) 178

00 49

1 . Dhitori

279/1

77 179

12 10

269/1

(04

18 151

267/1

10 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 6734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(6)

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

266

665/3

1. Dhitori

4. Sohagpur

(04 00

664/1

268

33 265

663/4

264/2

(04 80

662/4

6/2

662/2

2. Karrapali

(0) 01

4/25

(12 73

663/3

4/9

662/1

4/23

455

4/16,4/ 17 00

465/4

4/10,4/4,4/15,4/ 13 ( X ) 10

456/5

(0)

1/3

(α)

464/2

1/2

()}

456/2

(0) (0)

1/1

12 22

(X )

465/3

(X)

191/1

(1)

464/1

06 (12

191/2

(X )

463/1

(X)

201/4

(0)

470/2

201/2

( 1)

469

(X)

201/1

(01

(X )

468

(1)

202

(α)

388/1

204

(X)

390/1

(X )

217

(0)

391

209

(0) 47

393/1

( 1)

(0)

210

(1) 00

394

208/1

(1)

35 817

(0)

(X)

396

3. Budhiyapali

(1)

66 811

(1)

397/2

(1 )

(X)

810

(X)

02 99

397/1

(X)

8090

( 1)

399

(X )

789

4( X )

(X)

799

(04

( 1)

401

( 12

800

(0)

402/1,699

( X)

804

(۲)

403

(1)

801

(1)

404/1

(X)

802

(0)

405/1

(X)

780

406/ IKA , 2GH , 3GH ( X)

(f)

(1 )

779

476

(1)

5. Kurudih

(14

(X)

778

(X)

477

(1)

777

112

475/3

(0)

697/1

4. Sohagpur

( 17

475/4

(X)

694

( X )

475/1

(0 )

693

475/2

( 1)

692

)א

( X)

(1)

474/1

670/2

63 (X)

(0) 670/3

430/1

(0)

36 669

430/2

(0)

(X)

44) 668

431/2

(X)

(0)

666/1

(04

( 0)

431/1

(04 (3

665/1

(00

428

(X )

665/5 6735 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5) (6)

(4)

(3)

(6)

(5)

(1) (2)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

08 84

169/ 1,169/2, 222/2 00

6. Makundpur

360

5. Kurudih

96/3

362/2

96/5

363/1

00 10

96/1

00 00 07 39

365

06 98

00 05

380/1

98/1,102/1

380/2

08 92

93/1,94,95/2

373

02 70

372

00 05

391

04 09

89/1

01 %

392

07 10

89/2

85/2

797

6. Makundpur

84/1

799

00 10

84/2

14 60

798/2

00 00

81/2

804/1

05 30

81/1

804/2

7/ ΙΚΗ , 79/2 , 80/1

803/2

39/2 , 40/3,76,77

805,806

39/6

813

37/1

814

37/2

(0) 812/ 1,815/ 1

37/4,38/1

52 00

816/1

(01

37/3

00 04 00 06

36/1

816/2

38/2

821

38/4

306/1

195/2, 306/2 , 822/1 00

(α)

195/3

(0)

(00

195/4 , 822/2

195/6, 822/3

(X)

195/5

106

(0)

304/2

(X)

304/1 , 192/2

195/1

00 19%

4/1

00 197

5,6,21/2

(1)

(04

180/2,181/2,185/2, 190/00

194/ 1,198,199, 200, 201 ,

3/13

204 , 206/2 , 300/2

00 205

3/7

(X)

3/12

206/1

08 27

(0)

3/11

207

3/10

177

(X)

107

3/6

176

121/12

174

7 Rongda

121/11

173

(1)

1121/13

171 / 1KA

(X)

(α)

121/3

06 37

171/ ΙΚΗ

(00

121/14

170, 171/2

3696 Gl /10-9 6736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

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

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

(3)

(1) (2)

(4) (5) (6) 121/42

00 04

7. Rongda

55/1

9. Ghataduwari

93 121/29

373

30 00

121/20

372

05 11 113/5

371

04 87 121/30

00 04

324/2

(17 03

00 121/46

(0)

314

44 121/47

00 01

315

(00

06 30

121/39,41,44 (0)

317

(1)

16 50

10 84

121/34,35,37,38,45,50 , (0 )

134/1

(X)

(8 64 48,49,51,52

318

(0)

07 122

30 47

134/2

(0)

33 109/1

(X)

139

10 481/1

(0 (B 44

138/1

26 481/2

(00

138/3

( X )

00 222

(00)

(12

138/4

(0)

אז

27 272/1

04 24

138/2

(1)

08 272/2

(0 )

140

( 1)

59 273/2

141

(X)

01 273/3

(00

131

(X )

(1) 275

(X)

130

( X)

61 316/ΙΚΗ

(1)

142

8. Bhelvagudi

(14

64 315

129

()

113

505

(1) 9. Ghataduwari

126

( X) 491

124

489

( 1) 113 00

125/1

(X)

( ) ] 488

(X)

(3 73

125/2

(1)

04 486

485

1165

10. Jarve

100

(0)

14 500

1166

( X)

22 484

1167

( 1)

(04

67 482/2

(0)

1168

(1)

36 468

(1)

1175

13 13

( 0)

(12

30 467

(1)

1193

( )

67 00

432

1192

(1)

14 433

(美)

(

(0)

1194

15 456

(X)

1195

(X)

26 455/3

(0)

1198

14 46 455/2

(0)

1197/1

( X)

11 412/1

(X)

1200

(X)

87 413/2

(1)

1199/6

(0)

43 411/9

912/3

(1)

35 388

(X)

894

א) 389/1

895

( X)

(+) 389/3

(1)

896/3

(1)

או 390

(X)

897

(1 )

49 369

(1)

885/3

(0)

68 378/1

(1)

(f)

884/4

(1)

(0)

32 377

(1)

(08

885/2

(0)

46 374

1.4

868

( X)

70 370

( X)

872

(0)

48 6737 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/ आश्विन 10 , 1932

( 5) (6)

(4)

( 1 ) (2)

(3)

(6)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(1) (2)

( 1)

( X)

225

11. Nawapara

871

10. Jarve

(0)

(X)

216

770

(0)

217

773

( X)

209

(0 )

772

(1)

(0)

208

775

197

(1)

777

00 02

196

776

(0)

193

430

27 17

194

(1) 709

156

( X ) 00

710/1

117

158

712

157

( X )

711

(1)

(X)

159/1

694

(0)

130

717

(1)

( 1)

129

682

(0)

126

58 00

09 28

693

(X)

128

684

127/1

11 685/1

676

(0)

36/2

(14

678

36/1

(1)

658

00 03

660

(X)

661

662

00 03

(0)

46/1

663

10 23

670

(0)

664

665

(0)

19/3

06 53

666

19/2

(X) 668

(0)

277

11. Nawapara

994

12. Barpali

02 02

276

981

275

(00

979

274

02 91

976

273

02 31

972/3

09 82

272

972/2

271

972/1

78 00

270

970

253

964/1

252

969

251

967

12 08

254

00 10

965

256

966

245

(X)

02 92

479

13. Salihabhatha

06 94

224

( 0)

(03

480/3

12 88

223/1 6738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10, 1932

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

(4)

(6)

(3)

(4) (5) (6) (1) ( 2)

(5)

(2)

(1)

480/2

323

04 24 13. Salihabhatha

14. Badhva Batha

(0 481

325/1

00 00

325/2

( X) 00

468

08 18

(0 00

333

57 469

05 41

375/3

14 00

470/2

375/5

00 466

02 73

373

(0) 13 95 465

00 02

(00

372

40 00

461

09 66

117

371/1

10 460/2

369/2

03 93 00

460/1

(X)

369/1

117

84 433/20

00 02 05

370/ 1KH

04 %

433/21

370/ 1KA

433/8

07 38

( X)

370/2

00 00

433/22

(0)

365,366

10 434/2

05 31

224/9

(00)

15. Tunda

08 98

433/19,433/9 00

224/8

(0)

( X )

12 00

434/1

(X)

226

09 48 418

09 05

227

(00

(12 49 00

432/4,5,2

228

( X )

א)

431

00 03

231

(00

98 420

233/1

(1)

(2 419

00 03 38

493

(0)

85 00 05 17

404/3,404/ 1

243/2

(1)

403

(0)

244

16 00

402

09 98

242/2

(1)

95 00

10 17

386

242/1

(0)

(0) 47 387

(0)

182/2

388/3

182/1

( X )

2) 00

390/1

180

392,395,397 00

( X )

178

( X)

393

(1)

179

14. Badhva Batha 430/ 1,430/2

151

(1)

427,428/ 1

278

OL 49 00

418

(1)

148

13 00

419

(1)

(12

408

00 11

(1)

86 409

00 09

( X)

378/2,402,407/ 1,400 , 00 13

(1)

8/3

75 395/1

(1)

51 00

05 61

398/1

8/2

16 00

380

(0)

25 87 00

378/1

6/1

(0)

313

12 64 00

377/1

(1)

1/4

00 10 00 14 47

319

14 68

375/3

[ No. R. 25011 /40/2010 - OR - 1 ] B.K.DATTA , Under Secy .

326

03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/ आश्विन 10 , 1932

6739

नई दिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 2453.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाडा- नेल्लोर - चेन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चेन्नई वंगलौर मंगलौर 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 विछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपावद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

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

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री के. मल्लीनाथ , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , ग्लिोजिसटिक्म इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , 74, दूसरी मंजिल , प्रेस्टीज फेरोज, कन्निंगहाम रोड , बंगलौर 560052 , कर्नाटक राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: कर्नाटक

जिला:कोलार

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: मुळवागलु

सर्वे सं . / सब डिविजन सं.

गाँव का नाम

2 1

नागवार

52/2

52/3

55/1

11/3

11/2

10/2

आर ओ यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

एयर सि एयर हेक्टेयर

5 3

08 00

47 00

23 00

00 00

61 00

54 00

46 00

64 00

04 00

12 00 19

08 00 29

25 00

39 00

96 00

58 00 6740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1 ) नागवार ( निरन्तर

सर्वे नं 11 और 5 के वीच में रोड

383

2 मुस्टूरू

382

369

370

371

सर्वे नं 87 और गावँ सीमा के वीच में नाला

451

449

52/4

53/6

53/5

53/2

53/3

3 ) एम . चमकनहल्ली

60/3

60/2

61/1

61/2

75/9

75/8

75/7

75/5

75/2

75/3

75/4

74/1

71/1

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

5 00

30 00

40 00

58 00

57 00

76 00

50 00

04 00

88 00

17 00

94 00

26 00

06 00

92 00

51 01

80 00

19 00

56 00

32 00 00

70 00 06

82 00

45 00

69 00 09

65 00 04

61 00

26 00 04

12 00

75 00

33 02

30 00

63 00

79 00

33 00 02

70 00

57 00

10 00

13 02

48 00 09

98 00

16 00

68 00

82 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

3) एम. चमकनहल्ली (निरन्तर)

104/4

4) एम. बैपल्ली

104/3

103

102

104/2

104/1

101/3

101/1

101/2 4) एम. वैपल्ली (निरंतर)

64/6

64/5

64/4

64/3

64/2

72/3

72/2

73/1 वी

73/2

73/1 सी

183

5 ) काडेनहल्ली

191

187

188

190

189

6741 3

5 00

10 00

25 00 03

08 00

10 00

81 00

83 00

16 00

45 00

10 00

44 00

29 00

98 00

39 00

00 00

14 00

29 00 00

40 00

68 00

00 09

30 00

65 00

66 00

43 00

85 00

27 00 42

95 00

56 00

41 09

58 00 15

91 00

84 00

सर्वे नं 189 और गावँ मीमा के वीच में नाला

193/3

211

6 ) पेरमक्कनहल्ली

10 00

36 00

00 09

सर्वे नं 77 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में नाला

50 00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

6742

2 1

6) पेश्मक्क नहल्ली ( निरन्तर )

3/1

2/1

3/2

67/1

56/2

56/3

55/2

55/1

16/5

7) लक्कदोद्दी

17/1

17/2

7) लक्कदोद्दी (निरंतर)

15/1

14/1

14/2

8 ) कूरूबरहल्ली

1/2

1/1

47/1

45/1

36/1

110

9 ) बैरकूर

126

127

[ Part II - Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

62 00 34

73 00

66 00

82 00

39 00

81 00

55 00

42 00

29 00

48 00

45 00

43 00

50 00

37 00

68 00

62 00

61 00

31 00 02

30 00

91 00

59 00

13 00

68 00

18 00

01 00

96 00

67 00

74/3

10 ) इरगमूत्तनहल्ली

62 00

74/1

73/2

74/4

40 00 09

03 00

50/2

95 00

64 00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

93 10 ) इरगमूत्तनहल्ली (निरंतर)

105

101

102/1

182

6743

5 00 68

13 01

38 00 26

98 00 00

94 00

23 00

सर्वे नं 182 और 183 के वीच में रस्ताा

183

34 00

सर्वे नं 183 और 113 के बीच में रोड

113/1

114

115

165

164/2

147

148

149

150

151

142

141/2

141/1

140

155/8

139

136

89 11 ) अम्बलकल

202

203

201

194

204

192

191

190 00 21

15 00

27 00

46 00

09 00 20

89 00 07

10 00 20

61 00

52 00

22 00

36 00

37 00 02

77 00

46 00

76 00

41 00

81 00 98

68 00

77 00

47 00

11 00

सर्वे नं 190 और 219 के बीच में नाला

219

222

223/2

223/1

224

225/2

226

225/1 3696 Gl /10-10

00 06

13 00 09

04 00

28 00

84 00

53 00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVIN 10 , 1932

6744

2 1

[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 3

49 00

सर्वे नं 225 और 249 के बीच में रस्ता

11) अम्बलकल (निरंतर )

248/1

249/3

249/2

249/1

249/6

272

263/2

263/1

262

254

255

256

12 ) कोंडतीम्मनहल्ळी

5/1

5/2

13) वम्मसंद्र

64/1

64/2

117/2

117/3

117/4

119

14 ) तावरकेरी

222

223

225

56/3

10 00

31 40

10 00

39 02

59 00

98 00

31 00

55 01

61 00 14

40 00 00

46 00

48 00

05 00

10 00

52 01

80 00 06

66 00

42 00

44 00

25 00 19 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 1

52/2

14) तावरकेरी (निरंतर)

52/1

7/5

7/4

7/6

7/1

7/2

7/3

20/1

20/2

20/6

20/10

212/1

212/2

212/3

212/4

212/5

213

211

214/1

210

6745

5 00

98 00

19 00

46 00

18 00

51 00

50 00

10 00

44 00

19 00 06

41 00

71 00

51 00

88 00

10 00

82 00 09

55 00 08

26 00

00 09

79 00

25 00

99 00

74 00

42 00

सर्वे नं 210 और 209 के बीच में नाला

209

217

174

65 00

33 00

सर्वे नं 174 और 177 के बीच में रोड

177

15) मंडीकल्लू

12/5

12/4

12/1

12/3

12/2

10/4

53 00

0.0

94 00

65 00

25 00

87 00

20 6746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

15) मंडीकल्लू (निरंतर)

20/5

20/4

20/6

20/3

20/1

20/2

21/2

21/1

23/9

23/4

23/3

23/5

23/2

23/1.

332/3 16 ) कोल्लादेवी

[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

5 00

24 00

80 00 00

10 00

90 00

51 00

68 00 08

72 00

73 00

74 00

61 00

25 00

36 00

88 00

87 00

56 00

332/2

332/1

331

330/1

330/2

217

218

219

229

47 00

00 02

86 00

97 00

24 00

66 00

11 00

76 00

232/6

230

231

93 00

232/5

232/4

232/3 00

98 00

12 00

232/2

235

सर्वे नं 235 और 114 के बीच में नाला

114

113

112/4

112/5

111/3

111/2

109/4

92 00

06 00

14 00

84 00

00 00

52 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

109/3 16) कोल्लादेवी (निरंतर)

108

107/1

107/2

103

347

104

105/1

105/2

148

147

157

156

158/6

158/5

158/4

158/3

158/2

158/1

17) नीचनकुंठे

16/1

22/1

26/1

26/2

28/18

26/5

28/21

28/19

28/20

28/17

28/16

28/15

28/8

28/6

28/4

28/7

28/5

6747

5 3

31 00

18 00

34 00

62 00

48 00

53 00

62 00

13 00

96 00

83 00

28 00

51 00 42

71 00

35 00

84 00

61 00

43 00

74 00 03

19 00

10 00

00 02

49 00

20 00

00 00

68 00 6748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

Part II-- Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

4 1

28/3

17 ) नीचनकुंठे (निरंतर )

28/2

199

18 ) गूज्जनहल्ली

200

02 46

197

[फा सं. एल.- 14014/ 63/2010 - जी.पी. ] स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th September , 2010

S. O. 2453.-- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from, terminal point of Vijayawada - Nellore - Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in Tamilnadu to consumers in various parts of the country , Chennai - Bangalore - Mangalore pipeline should be laid by M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited ;

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

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri.K.Mallinath , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , # 74 , 2nd Floor , Prestige Feroze , Cunningham Road , Bangalore - 560052 , Karnataka State.

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6749

Schedule

State : Karnataka

District : Kolar

Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk: Mulbagalu

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

1) Nagawara

52/2

52/3

55/1

11/3

11/2

10/2 Area to be acquired for ROU

Are

Hec

C-Are

5 3

08 00

78 00

23 00

61 00

54 00

64 00

04 00

75 00

25 00

39 00

96 00

58 00

30 00

Road between Sy.No. 11 & 5

383

2) Musturu

382

369

370

371

40 00

58 00

76 00

04 00

88 00

Nala between Sy.No. 87 & VB

451

449

94 00

26 00

14 01

19 00

56 00 6750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ASVIN 10 , 1932

52/4 2) Musturu ( Contd)

53/6

53/5

53/2

53/3

3) M.Chamakanahalli

60/3

60/2

61/1

61/2

75/9

75/8

75/7

75/5

75/2

75/3

75/4

74/1

71/1

104/4 4) M.Byappali

104/3

103

102

104/2

104/1

101/3

101/1

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) ] 4

70 00

82 00

69 00

58 00

75 00

30 00

63 00

79 00

33 00

57 00

10 00

16 00

68 00

82 00

10 00

27 00

43 00

25 00

08 00

10 00

83 00

16 00

95 00

43 00

10 00

44 00

08 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 1

101/2 4) M.Byappali ( Contd)

64/6

64/5

64/4

64/3

64/2

72/3

72/2

73 / 1B

73/2

73/ 1C

183

5) Kadenahalli

191

187

188

190

189

6751

29 00

98 00

39 00

00 00

14 00

13 00

68 00

30 00

65 00

66 00

43 00

56 00

27 00

56 00

Nala between Sy.No 189 & VB

193/3

211

6) Peramakanahalli

36 09

Nala between Sy . No. 77 & VB

3/1

2/1

3/2

67/1

56/2

56/3

55/2

55/1

16/5

7) Lakkadoddi

17/1

3696 Gl / 10-11

00 6752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

17/2

7) Lakkadoddi ( Centd )

15/1

14/1

14/2

8) Kurubarahalli

1/2

1/1

47/1

45/1

36/1

110 9) Byrkur

126

127

74/3 10 ) Iragamuthanahalli

74/1

73/2

74/4

50/2

105

101

102/1

182

Cart trackbetween Sy.No. 182 & 183

183

Road between Sy.No 183 & 113

113/1 [Part II Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

5 3

45 00

28 00

4.3 00

53 00

85 00

50 00

34 00

37 00

68 00

32 00

91 00

59 00

18 00

62 00

08 00

12 00

03 00

13 01

3-4 00

15 00 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

114

10) Iragamuthanahalli ( Contd )

115

165

164/2

147

148

149

150

1.31

142

141/2

141/1

140

158

11 ) Amblakala

202

203

201

194

204

192

191

190

6753 3

27 00

46 00

09 00

10 00

61 00

22 00

45 00

37 00

46 00

58 00

41 00

15 00

81 00

10 00

79 00

05 00

89 00

11 00

Nala between Sy.No. 190 & 219

219

222

223/2

223/1

224

225/2

226

225/1 00

13 00

91 00

00 00

49 00

Cart track between Sy.No. 225 & 249

248/1

249/3

249/2

249/1 00

10 00

31 00

39 00 6754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

249/6 11) Amblakala ( Contd )

272

263/2

263/1

262

254

255

256

12 ) Kondathumanahalli

5/1

5/2

13 ) Vommasandra

64/1

64/2

117/2

117/3

117/4

119

14) Tavarekeri

223

225

56/3

Sec . 3 ( ii) ] [Part II

5 3

59 00

98 00

01 00

95 00

55 00

40 00

29 00

09 00

91 00

14 00

66 00

80 00

29 00

34 00

35 00

++ 00

10 00

38 00

25 6755

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2. 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

52/2 14) Tavarekeri ( Contd )

52/1

7/5

7/4

7/6

7/1

7/2

7/3

20/1

20/2

20/6

20/10

212/1

212/2

212/3

212/4

212/5

213

211

214/1

210

98 00

21 00

44 00

19 00

37 00

88 00

10 00

46 00

55 00

26 00

25 00

99 00

42 00

Nala between Sy.No 210 & 209

209

217

174

63 00

65 00

Road between Sy.No. 174 & 177

177

15) Mandıkallu

12/5

12/4

12/1

12:3

12/2

10/4 00

57 00

10 00

65 00

87 00

08 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

6756

15) Mandikallu ( Contd)

20/5

20/4

20/6

20/3

20/1

20/2

21/2

21/1

23/9

23/4

23/3

23/5

23/2

23/1

332/3 16) Kolladevi

332/2

332/1

331

330/1

330/2

217

218

219

229

232/6

230

231

232/5

232/4

232/3

232/2

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

5 3

80 00

10 00

90 00

51 00

72 00

73 00

74 00

88 00

87 00

02 00

42 00

24 00

06 00

Nala between Sy . No 235 & 114

114

113

112/4

112/5

111/3

111/2

1094

14 00

94 00

84 00

52 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[भाग !!- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

109/3 16) Kolladevi ( Contd)

108

107/1

107/2

103

347

104

105/1

105/2

148

147

157

156

158/6

158/5

158/4

158/3

158/2

158/1

17) Nichanakunte

16/1

22/1

26/1

26/2

28/18

26/5

28/21

28/19

28/20

28/17

28/16

28/15

28/8

28/6

28/4

28/7

28/5

6757

62 00

93 00

62 00

01 00

13 00

83 00

16 00

38 00

88 00

19 00

49 00

00 6758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

Part II Sec. 500 1

5 7 ) Narok medtd )

28 :3

28/2

( 1)

だ

199

18 ) Gujanaballa

200

197

[ F. No. L - 14014 / 63 / 2010 - GP ] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 30 सितम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 2454.- भारत सरकार की लोकहिन में यह आवश्यक पतीन होता है कि नमिलनाडु में निख्नन्नी के पास विजयवाडा- नेल्लोर डेन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिग्गों में उपभोक्ताओं तक पाकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स ग्लिोजिमटितग इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चेन्नई वगला मंगलोर पाइपलाइन विखाई जानी चाहिए:

और, भान सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक पनीन होना है कि उस भूमि में, जिसके 'भानर उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने का परताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना में उपावद्ध अनुसूवी में वर्णिन है . उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवन्द्ध है, उम तारीख में जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधाग ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जानी हैं . इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री क. मल्लीनाथ, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , ग्लिॉजियटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, 74 , दूसरी मंजिल , प्रेस्टीज फेगेज , कन्निंगहाम गेड, वंगलौर 560052 , कर्नाटक गःत्य को लिखिन रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

6759

अनुसूची

तालुक: तीप्टूर

राज्य: कर्नाटक

जिला:तुमकुर

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

गाँव का नाम

2 1

1 ) कोडीहल्ली

61/2

61/1

आर ओ यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर 3

26 00

56 00

36 00

15 00

सर्वे नं 57 में रोड़

56/1

58/2

58/1

76/1

73/3

22 00

34 00

66 00

10 00

सर्वे नं 73 में नाला

73/2

73/1

35 00

16 00

सर्वे नं 74 और 16 के वीच में भूमि

71/1

71/2

42 00

86 00 19

01 00

22 00

मर्वे नं 10 और 11 के बीच में नाला

65 00

सर्वे नं 11 और 46 के बीच में गड़

2) होन्नेनहल्ली

67 00

55 00

सर्वे नं 84 में नाल

103

100

102

3696 GI /10-12

62 00

14 00

48 00

34 00

09 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVIN 10 , 1932

6760

2 1

105

2) होन्नेनहल्ली (निश्तर)

3 ) नागरगट्ट कावल

[Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

33 00

95 00

88 00

83 00

76 00

सर्वे नं 24 में नाला

सर्वे नं 24 में रोड़

31/1

4) बोचीहल्ली

30/2

30/1

43/1

5 ) सूगोर

43/2

43/3

43/4

43/5

44/1

47/1

47/2

47/3

295

293

51/सी

51/1 वी

36 00

49 00

66 00

72 01

64 00

33 00

42 00

01 00

21 00

93 00

57 00

70 00

12 00

सर्वे नं 51 में नाला

51/2

51/3वी

51/ 1 ए

51/ 3ए

15 00

23 00

70 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

5) सूगोर (निरंतर)

6761

5 3

23 00 16

24 00

सर्वे नं 22 और 21 के बीच में भूमि

1.7

37 00

67 00 34

99 00

सर्वे नं 18 और 17 के बीच में भूमि

44/1

6) कुरूवरहल्ली

44/2

54 00

00 00

89 00

02 00 01

98 00

सर्व 45 और 52 के बीच में भूषी

55/3

54/1

54/2

70 00

25 00

78 00

52 00

56 00 03

सर्वे नं 54 और 57 के बीच में रोड़

64/3

64/2

64/1

69/1

69/2

7 ) मत्तीघट्ट

सर्वे नं 46 में नाला

49/6

49/6वी

49/6ए 00 28

92 00

65 00 00

72 00 09

01 00

00 03

47 00

63 00

42 00

87 00 08

45 00

00 60

18 00 06

70 00

28.

92 00

47 00

सर्वे नं 49 और 4 के वीच में नाला

3/1

259/3

77 00 00

37 00

सर्वे नं 4 और 259 के वीच में नाला

259/1

57 00 26 6762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

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

5 00 05

259/2

7) मत्तीघट्ट (निरंतर)

97 00 02

28 00

229/1

229/3

सर्वे नं 229 और 225 के बीच में रोड़

04 00

03 00

225/4

09 00

225/4 ए

सर्वे नं 225 में नाला

224/1

49 00

224/2

89 00

224/4

18 00

224/3

220/2

77 00

152/4

152/6

00 06

82 00

152/5

35 00

152/9

10 00

152/8

152/7

150

34 00

61 00 43

43 00

सर्वे नं 150 में रोड़

114

115

74 00

116/2/3

116/1

136/2

136/1

135

134

119/1

120/1

98 00

61 00

51 00

91 00

21 00

120/2

81 00 09

122/5वी

24 00

122/ 5ए

122/पी

123/1

123/2

121

125

8 ) ससलहल्ली

189

198

58 00

61 00

20 00

00 00

07 00

30 00

48 00

60 00

67 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 1

30/1

8 ) ससलहल्ली (निरंतर )

30/2

31/1

26/ 2ए

26/ 2वी

25/1

25/ 2ए

36/1

6763

5 3

63 00

66 00

23 00 18

सर्वे नं 25 और 13 के बीच में रोड़

13/1

13/ 2ए

13/ 2वी

12/1/4

11/3

174/1 वी

173/2

174/ 1 ए

174/2

162

161

160/1

155/ 1 डी 2

155/ 1 डी 1 वी

155/ 1 डी 1 ए

155

157/2

157/1

7/1

9 ) जी. मेलनहल्ली

6/5

6/1

5/1

सर्वे नं 5 में नाला

सर्वे नं 3 में नाला

3/7

3/6

3/5

3/4

3/1

50/5

50/4

75 00

32 00

42 00 19

21 00

50 00

65 00

51 00

91 00

48 00

37 00 16

97 00

77 00

98 00

36 00

62 00

00 6764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

9 ) जी- मेलनहल्ली (निरंतर)

50/3

50/1

49/7

49/4

49/1

48/1

47/4

47/3

47/2

47/1

46/5

46/6

46/4

45/4

45/5

45/2

45/1

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

5 00 08

89 00

95 00 09

42 00

62 00

28 00

07 00

13 00

07 00

33 00

96 00

173/2

10 ) दासरीघट्ट

173/ 1 ए4

174

177/1

176

231

सर्वे नं 231 और 181 के बीच में नाला

181

63 00

60 00

64 00

सर्वे नं 181

और 18 के बीच में नाला

187

मर्वे नं 18 , 187 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में गड़,

नानुक तूश्वकर

राज्य कर्नाटक

जिला:तुमकुर

107

1 ) चीम्मनहल्ली

15 00

105/4

105/1

106

73 00 09

104/2

104/1

103

166

102

100

65 00

00 01

20 00

सर्वे नं 100 में नान्ना

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

164

1 ) चीम्मनहल्ली (निरंतर)

162

101/1

6765 3

5 00

92 00

56 00 43

96 00

सर्वे नं 101 और 150 के बीच में नाला

150/1

150/2

178

179/1

10 00

58 00

01 00

46 00

सर्वे नं 179 और 58 के बीच में नाला

58/9

58/8

57/ 1 ए

2 ) डी. सेट्टीहल्ली

41/6

44/1

44/2

00 00

94 00 06

35 00

67 00

20 00

93 00

सर्वे नं 43 और 44 के वीच में नाला

43/3

2/1

2/ 2 ए

12 00

70 00

75 00

90 00

91 00

28 00

61 00

35 00

सर्वे नं 5 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में नाला

सर्वे नं 23 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में नाला

3 ) दोंबरहल्ली

23/ 1 ए

23/1 वी

?3/2

24/2

24/1

3/4

15 00

98 00

75 00

85 6766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

3/5

3) दोंबररूल्ली (निरंतर)

3/6

3/7

3/8वी

3/8 ए

5/4

सर्वे नं 5 और 82 के बीच में नाला

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

65 00

40 00

72 01

37 00 00

सर्वे नं 8 में नाला

9/1

10/5

10/6

10/7

52 00

62 00

सर्वे नं 10 में नाला

10/8

4) एम. बेविनहल्ली

119

118

117

116

115

114

113

104

103

सर्वे नं 64 और 63 के वीच में भूर्णिम

55 00

53 00

65 00

31 00

16 00

45 00

79 00

90 00

77 00

08 00

00 06

89 00

41 00

36 00

61 00

16 00

32 00

66 00

71 00

88 00

54 00

76 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 1

4 ) एम. बेविनहल्ली (निरंतर )

5 ) चवडेनहल्ली

132

68/1

68/2

71/11

71/10

71/9

73/1

6767

5 3

50 00

10 00

00 00

68 00

80 00

71 00

36 00

64 00

06 00

47 00

60 00

90 00

99 00

सर्वे नं 82 और 83 के वीच में नाला

66 00

60 00

सर्वे नं 84 और 87 के बीच में नाला

6) ऐन. गंगनहल्ली

65/2

65/1

68/2

7) कोळगट्ट कावल

173

22/3

21/1

20/1

20/2

18/ 1 ए

37 00

64 00

76 01

32 00

26 00

00 05

51 00

39 00

66 00

00 00

सर्वे नं 18 और 137 के वीच में नाला

18/1वी

सर्वे नं 18/1 में नाला

137

3696 Gl /10-13

62 00

47 00

21 00

08 00

31 00 6768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

141

7 ) कोळगट्ट कावल (निरंतर)

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

5 00

58 00

142/2

92/2वी

92/ 2ए 2

92/ 2 ए 1

143/1

सर्वे नं 91 और 92 के वीच में रोड़

00 09

13 00

58 00 15

889/3वी

89/4बी

89/4ए

87/1

94 00 01

87/ 2ए

87/ 2वी

88/2

00 06

88/ 1 ए 1

00 02

27 00

88/ 1 ए2

00 06

88/ 1 ए3

86 00

69/2

69/3

69/1

2/2

8 ) आनेकेरे

सर्वे नं 1 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में नाला

00 46

76 00

24 00

32 राज्य: कर्नाटक

जिला: तुमकुर

तालुक: तूमकूर

21 00

121/2

1 ) कोलीहल्ली

121/1

00 09

121/3

120

157

125/1

2) हरकुर ब्यार

सर्वे नं 37 और 43 के बीच में गुप्ता

44/2

45/2

45/1

46/9

सर्वे नं 46 और गावँ सीमा के वीच में नाला

98 00

88 00

03 00

01 00

74 00

94 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

51/4

2) हरकुर ब्यारसमुद्र (निरंतर)

51/1

57/1

62/2

62/1

6769

52 00

62 00

89 00

46 00

95. 00

84 00

44 00

सर्वे नं 88 और गावँ सीमा के वीच में नाला

3 ) हरकुरू

88/2

43 00

सर्वे 88 और 87 के वीच में नाला

84/8

84/7

84/6

84/5

84/10

84/9

39/3

4 ) कावतमारनहल्ली

39/2

39/1

42/2

41/2

41/1

52/7

52/8

53/2

3/2

5 ) शेट्टप्पनहल्ली

3/1

7/4

10 00

37 00 08

48 00

22 00

19 00

65 00

73 00

39 00

33 00

89 00

23 00

68 00

25 00

32 00

01 00

99 00

95 00

89 00

47 00

66 00 48 6770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10, 1932

7/3

5) शेट्टप्पनहल्ली (निरंतर )

11/3

11/4

11/5

12/3

12/4

14/3

14/2

166

6) दोम्मनकुप्पे

[Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

30 00

64 00

80 00

72 00

65 00

04 00

62 01

70 00

123/2

88 00

123/1

सर्वे नं 123 और 124 के बीच में नाला

124

125

126

132

129

128

सर्वे नं 128 और 108 के वीच में रोड़

82 00 00

95 00

89 00

01 00

97 00

30 00

108/2

108/1

100

सर्वे नं 99 और 100 के बीच में नाला

111

सर्वे नं 100 और 111 के बीच में नाला

सर्वे नं 111 और 99 के बीच में नाला

सर्वे नं 99 और 92 के बीच में नाला

17 00

21 00 02

75 00

65 00

22 00

47 00

50 00

92/2

92/1

50/1

44/2

44/1

43/5

43/6

62 00

46 00

13 00

64 00

20 00

25 00

03 00

55 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 1

6 ) दोम्मनकुप्पे (निरंतर)

6771

5 00

93 00 03

सर्वे नं 42 और 38 के बीच में नाला

6/8

7) बीदरकट्टे

6/9

2/1

101

102/2

102/3

102/1

つい

22 00

88 00

80 00

21 00

18 00

12 00

00 00

39 00

24 00

सर्वे नं 102 और 80 के वीच में नाला

78/2

91 00

86 00

63 00

80 00

84 00

60 00

58 00

92 00

सर्वे नं 60 और 59 के वीच में रोड़

58/1

59/2

59/1

58/2

58/3

8 ) गोल्लहल्ली

52/1

15/2

15/1

86 00

36 00

35 00

42 00

10 00

20 00

43 00

37 00

15 00

54 00

55 00

सर्वे नं 15, 36 और गावँ सीमीत के वीच भूमि

36/13

16/3

16/4

16/2

23 00

54 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

6772

2 1

Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] [ Part II

5 3

16/1

8) गोल्लहल्ली (निरंतर)

17/2

20/5

45 00

20/8

20/6

20/7

26/1

80 00

26/2

26/3

सर्वे नं 25 और गावँ सीमा के वीच में नाला

सर्वे नं 24 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में नाला

9 ) पूरदकट्टे कावल

47 00

52 00

09 00

07 00

92 00

26 00

21 00

20/1

20/2

21 00

20/3

250

86 00

सर्वे नं 54 में नाला

सर्वे नं 51 में गेड़

10 00

48/6

78 00

48/5

48/4

22/13

82 00

22/14

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6773

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन10 , 1932

22/15 10 ) शीरवार (निरंतर )

48/3

48/1

35/7

35/6

35/4

35/3

35/2

35/1

5 00 04

10 00

23 00

53 00

64 00 41

52 00

00 00

72 00

10 00

सर्वे नं 41 और 42 के नीच में नाला

सर्वे नं 41 और 42 के बीच में रोड़

तालुक: गूब्बी

जिला: तुमकुर

4/3

1) मल्लप्पनहल्ली

4/4

15/4

15/3

15/2

15/1

14/2

14/1 ए

13/2

13/1

25/2

25/1

27/2 ए

27/2वी

28/2

28/1

66/2

67: 2

सबै न 70 में रोड़

62/1

109

2) कोणमादेनहल्ली

सर्वे नं 24 में रोड 00

06 राज्य:कर्नाटक

13 00

10 00

88 00

45 00

92 00

78 00

43 00

07 00

71 00 08

74 00

30 00

39 00 00

50 00

26 00

75 00

86 00

24 00

55 00

08 00

09 00 28

30 00

29 00

86 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

6774

2 1

2) कोयपारे हल्ली (निरंतर )

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

14 00

19 00

73 00 06

34/4

34/6

25 00

34/5

33/1

32/1

46/1

46/2

सर्वे नं 46/1 में रोड़

49/2

49/3

84 00

50/2

50/1

98 00

12 00

51/2

51/1

59/2

16 00

59/1

62/3

62/2

62/1

63/3

मर्वे नं 63 और गावँ मीमा के बीच में एम. डी. आर.

मर्वे नं 36 और गावँ मीमा के वीच में एम . डी. आर.

3 ) जीगनहल्ली

4 ) ब्याडमल्लेनहल्ली

102 5 ) कूंनाला

101

100

65 00

54 00

97 00

मर्वे नं 99 में नाला

170 6 ) यलाचीहल्ली

64 00

मर्वे नं 170 में गेड़

मर्ने नं 170 में और एक गेड़

168

00 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

169

6 ) यलाचीहल्ली (निरंतर )

167

162

6775

5 00

60 00

36 00

सर्वे नं 162 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में नाला

7) ब्याडगेरी

58/19

58/21

58/22

64/1

63/2

63/1

62/2

60/2

60/1

60/4

12/1

161/4

161/3

163/2

163/1

164/10

164/9

164/8

164/20

164/7

164/6

165/1

165/2

164/18

167/1

167/2

167/31

154/1 वी

154/ 2 ए

154/3 वी 3696 GI /10-14

00 81

43 00

69 00

80 00

09 00

32 00 07

10 00

87 00

84 00

39 00

97 00

60 00

94 00

00 20

59 00

50 00 15

01 00 00

72 00 06

99 00

82 00 03

00 00

69 00

03 00

00 02

65 00

47 00 05

05 00

25 00

21 00

09 6776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOPER2 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

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

5 3

63 00 06

154/4

7) ब्याडगेरी (निरंतर)

155

45 00

2.1

156/2

150

10 00

148/1

36 00

148/2

146

8 ) मत्तीगा

63 00

88 00

54/3

55/2

55/1

55/3

57/5

10 00

20 00

41 00

57/4

57/1

83 00

57/ 2वी

57/2

57/3

10 00

35 00

66/1

58 00

66/2

56 00

77/1 वी

19 00

77/ 1 ए

सर्वे नं 77 और 82 के बीच में गेह

62 00

93 00

48 00

75 00

28 00

84/1

87 00

84/2

82 00

सर्वे नं 84 में नाला

सर्वे नं 82 और गावँ सीमा के वीच में

सर्वे नं 84 और 82 के बीच में रोड़

सर्वे नं 82 में रोड,

9 ) कूणगट्ट

74/3

44 00

98 00

75 00

57 00

01 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

74/2

9 ) कूणगट्ट (निरंतर )

74/1

66/1

6777

08 00

40 00

07 00

सर्वे न 67 और 80 के बीच में नाला

80/1वो

80/2

75/2

72/1

79/9

78/8

78/7

710

78/4

78/3

78/2

94/3

94/2

94/1

96/2

96/ 1 ए

96/1वी

97/2

97/1

100

48 00

87 00

90 00

31 00

28 00

37 00

20 00

90 00

43 00

88 00

52 00

सर्वे नं 100 में नाला

[फा सं. एल.-14014/67/ 2010 - जी.पी. ] स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th September , 2010

S. O. 2454. Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from terminal point of Vijayawada - Nellore - Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in Tamilnadu to consumers in various parts of the country , Chennai - Bangalore - Mangalore 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 ;

6778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

[ Part 11-- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri K.Mallinath , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , # 74 , 2nd Floor , Prestige Feroze , Cunningham Road , Bangalore - 560052 , Karnataka State .

Schedule

District: Tumkur Taluk: Tiptur

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

2 1

1) Kodihalli

61/2

61/1

State: Karnataka

Area to be acquired for RoU

Are

Hec

C-Are

Road in the Sy . No. 57

56/1

58/2

58/1

76/1

73/3

Nala in the Sy . No. 73

73/2

73/1

Land between Sy . No.74 & 16

71/1

71/2

Nala between Sy. No 10 & 11

Road between Sy. No 11 & 46

2) Honnenahalli

Nala in the Sy . No. 84

103

100

102

34 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

105

2) Honnenahalli ( Contd )

3) Nagaraghatta Kaval

6779

95 00

28 00

Nala in the Sy . No. 24

Road in the Sy . No 24

31/1 4) Bochihalli

30/2

30/1

43/1 5) Sugora

43/2

43/3

43/4

43/5

44/1

47/1

47/2

47/3

295

293

51/ C

51/ 1B

88 00

72 01

82 00

84 00

69 00

95 00

38 00

21 00

93 00

87 00

69 00

Nala in the Sy. No. 51

51/2

51/3B

51 / 1A

51 /3A

15 00

57 00

00 6780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

5) Sugora ( Contd)

Land between Sy. No 22 & 21

Land between Sy. No 18 & 17

44/1

6) Kurubarahalli

44/2

Land between sy.no 45 & 52

55/3

54/1

54/2

Road between Sy . No. 54 & 57

64/3

64/2

64/1

69/1

69/2

7) Mattighatta

[ Part II - Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 00

37 00

99 00

89 00

02 00

98 00

70 00

25 00

52 00

56 03

18 00

85 00

65 00

72 00

55 00

42 00

87 08

45 00

Naia in the sy.no 46

49/6

49/6B

49 /6A

Nala between sy.no 49 & 4

3/1

259/3

Nala between sy.no 4 & 259

259/1 00

70 05

49 00

37 00

03 06

57 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 1

259/2 7) Mattighatta ( Contd)

229/1

229/3

6781 3

03 00

Road between sy.no 229 & 225

225/4

225/4A 00

Nala in the sy.no 225

224/1

224/2

224/4

224/3

220/2

152/4

152/6

152/5

152/9

152/8

152/7

150

49 00

89 00

18 00

77 00

82 00

35 00

34 00

43 00 .

Road in the sy.no 150

114

115

116/2/3

116/1

136/2

136/1

135

134

119/1

120/1

120/2

22/ 5B

120/5A

122/ P

123/1

123/2

121

125

8 ) Sasalahalli

189

196

74 00

98 00

61 00

51 00

91 00

08 00

21 00

40 00

81 00

24 00

20 04

00 00

07 00

30 00

48 00

60 00

67 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

6782

2 1

30/1

8) Sasalaba !!! ( Contd )

30/2

31/1

26/ 2A

26/2B

25/1

25 / 2A

36/1

[ Part 11 -Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

63 00

18 00

60 00

74 00

Road between sy.no 25 & 13

13/1

13 / 2A

13/2B

12/1/4

11/3

174/ 1B

173/2

174/ 1A

174/2

162

161

160/1

155 / 1D2

155 / 1DIB

155 / 1D1A

155

157/2

157/1

7/1 9) G.Melanahalli

6/5

6/1

5/1

67 00

40 00

75 00

32 00

.00

54 00

91 00

05 00

48 00

93 00

Nala in the SY . No. 5

Nala in the Sy . No. 3

3/7

3/6

3/5

3/4

3/1

50/5

50/4

76 00

62 00

46 00

02 00 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/ आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्डं 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

9) G.Melunahalli ( Contd )

50 :3

50/1

49/7

49/4

49/1

48/1

47/4

47/3

47/2

47/1

46/5

46/6

46/4

45/4

45/5

45/2

45/1

173/2 10 ) Dasarigatta

173 / 1A4

174

177/1

176

231

6783 4

89 00

59 00

42 00

83 00

92 00

62 00

25 00

53 00

07 00

13 00

98 00

07 00

03 00

64 00

2.1

72 00

56 01

63 00

Nala between sy.no 231 & 181

131

هان

Road between sy.no 181 & 18

187

101

45 00

Road berween sy.no 18,187 & V.B

State : Kataka

District: Tumkur

Taluk: Turuvekere

107 1) Chiremanan

105/4

105/1

106

104/2

1041

103

166

102

100

42 00

65 00

76 00

98 00

20 00

Nala in the Syv. No. 00

6784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 193.2

2 1

164

1) Chimunanahalli ( Contd ,

162

101/1

Nala between Sy.No. 101 & 150

150/1

150/2

178

179/1

Nala between Sy.No. 179 & 58

58/9

58/8

57/ 1A

2) D.Sertihalli

416

44: 1

44/2

Nala between Sy. No 43 & 44

43/3

2/1

2/ 2A

Nala between Sy. No 5 & V.B

Nala between Sy . No. 23 & V.B

3 ) Dombaranahalli

23/ 1A

23/ 1B

23/2

24/2

24/1

3/4

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

5 00

85 00

96 00

58 00

28 00

25 00

67 00

74 00

49 00

93 00

36 00

70 00

78 00

75 00

90 00

91 00

28 00

35 00

67 00

15 00

09 00

68 00

85 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

3/5

3) Dombaranahalli ( Contd)

3/6

3/7

3/8B

3 / 8A

5/4

6785

5 3

51 00

28 00

10 00

19 00

65 00

Nala between Sy . No. 5 & 82

72 00

37 01

Nda in the Sy. No. 8

9/1

10/5

10/6

10 00

62 00

82 00

Nala in the Sy . No. 10

10/8

4 ) M.Bevinahalli

119

118

117

116

115

114

113

104

103

55 00

53 00

09 00

65 00

16.

45 00

79 00

90 00

08 00

61 00

16 00

66 00

71 00

54 00

Land between sy.no 64 & 63

76 00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ОСТОВЕ В 2. 2010

6786

-= "

2 1

M Bevimda Contd

5) Chavadenahallı

132

68/1

68/2

71/11

71:10

71:9

731

See Sui

[Part II

ASVIN 10. 1932

100

6-1

(X)

Nala in between sy.no 82 & 83

Nala in between sy.no 84 & 87

6) Gang.nahalli

65/2

65/1

68/2

71 Kojagatta Kavai

173

22/3

21/1

20/1

20/2

18/ 1A

Nala between Sy . No. 18 & 137

18/ 1B

Nala in sy.no 18/1

137

23 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

141

Kital

142/2

92/2B

92/ 2A2

92/ 2A1

143/1

Road between Sy . No. 91 & 92

89/3B

89/4B

89/4A

87/1

87 /2A

87 / 2B

88/2

88/ 1A1

88 / 1A2

88/ 1A3

69/2

69/3

69/1

2/2

8) Anekere

Nala between sy.no 1 & V.B

District: Tumkur Taluk : Tumkur

121/2 1) Kolihalli

121/1

121/3

120

157

125/1

2) Haralur Byrasamudra

6787

82 00

85 00

98 00

01 00

61 00

24 00

State : Karnataka

28 00

Cart Track between Sy.No 37 & 43

44/2

45/2

45/1

46/9

Nala between Sy . No. 46 & V.B

00 6788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

51/4 2) Haralur Byrasamudra ( Contd)

51/1

57/1

62/2

62/1

Nala between Sy.No 88 & V.B 3) Haralur

88/2

Nala between Sy.No 88 & 87

84/8

84/7

84/6

84/5

84/10

84/9

39/3 4) Kowthamaranahalli

39/2

39/1

42/2

41/2

41/1

52/7

52/8

53/2

3/2

5) Shettappanahalli

3/1

7/4

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

5 00

62 00

89 00

46 00

95 00

15 00

84 00

37 00

43 00

15 00

10 00

48 00

22 00

65 00

73 00

39 00

33 00

25 00

32 00

99 00

98 00

91 00

33 00

14 00

30 00

48 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग !! - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

7/3

5) Shettappanahalli ( Contd)

11/3

11/4

11/5

12/3

12/4

14/3

14/2

166

6) Dommarakuppe

123/2

123/1

6789

64 00

80 00

04 00

70 01

Nala between Sy. No. 123 & 124

124

125

126

132

129

128 00

95 00

89 00

01 00

30 00

Road between Sy . No. 128 & 108

108/2

108/1

100

33 00

44 00

17 00

76 00

Nala between Sy . No. 98 & 100

111

65 00

Nala between Sy . No 100 & 111

22 00

Nala boween Sy.No. 111 & 99

84 00

47 00

Nala between Sy . No. 99 & 92

92/2

92/1

50/1

44/2

44/1

43/3

43.6

83 00

46 00

13 00

60 00

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

6790

2 1

само дрог ontd )

[Part If Sec . 3010

5 3

Nala between Sy . No. 42 & 38

6/8

7) Bidarakatte

6/9

2/1

101

102/2

102/3

102/1

00 00

Nala between Sy.No. 102 & 80

78/2

0.4

86 00

60 00

(0)

Road between Sy . No. 60 & 59

58/1

59/2

59/1

58/2

58/3

8) Gollahalli

52/1

15/2

15/1

42 00

10 00

43 00

37 00

51 00

00 00

Land Between Sv . No. 15 , 36 & V.B

36/13

16/3

15/4

16/2

57 00

54 00

18 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 1

8) Gollahalli ( Contd)

16/1

17/2

20/5

20/8

20/6

20/7

26/1

26/2

26/3

6791

5 00

12 00

06 00

79 00

17 00

80 00

36 00

30 00

Nala between Sy. No. 25 & V.B

Nala between Sy . No. 24 & V.B

9) Puradakatte Kaval

20/1

20/2

20/3

10) Siravara

250

11 00

23 00

47 00

09 00

23 00

07 00

15 00

92 00

10 00

26 00

76 00

26 00

21 00

42 00

59 01

86 00

Nala in the Sy. No. 54

Road in the Sy . No. 51

48/6

48/5

48/4

22/13

22/14 3696 Gl /10-16

71 00

44 00

85 00

78 00

10 00

00 00

82 6792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

22/15 10) Siravara ( Contd)

48/3

48/1

35/7

35/6

35/4

35/3

35/2

35/1

41 [ Part II - Sec . ? ( ii ) ]

86 00

10 00

Nala between Sy . No. 41 & 42

Road between Sy . No. 41 & 42

06 00

State: Karnataka

District : Tumkur

Taluk: Gubbi

4/3 1 ) Mallappanahalli

4/4

15/4

15/3

15/2

15/1

14/2

14/1 A

13/2

13/1

25/2

25/1

27 / 2A

27/2B

28/2

28/1

66/2

67/2

Road in the Sy. No. 70

62/1

109

24 2) Konamadenahalli

Road in the Sy . No. 24

82 00

92 00

78 00

(00

71 00

04 00

30 00

39 00

50 00

26 00

75 00

86 00

71 00

55 00

44 00

09 00

30 00

86 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 1

2) Konamadenahalli ( Contd)

34/4

34/6

34/5

33/1

32/1

46/1

46/2

6793 3

14 00

19 00

73 00

07 00

52 00

25 00

90 00

91 00

99 00

83 00

Road in the Sy . No. 46/1

49/2

49/3

50/2

50/1

51/2

59/2

59/1

62/3

62/2

62/1

63/3

42 00

63 00

84 00

98 00

12 00

13 00

47 00

75 00

16 00

36 00

37 00

78 00

79 00

61 00

MDR in between Sy . No. 63 & V.B

3 ) Jeeganahalli

MDR in between Sy . No. 36 & V.B

4) Byadramallenahalli

5) Kunnala

102

101

100

54 00

97 00

75 00

78 00

62 04

Nala in the Sy . No. 99

6) Yalachihalli

170

Road in the Sy . No. 170

Another Road in the Sy . No. 170

168

89 6794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

169

6) Yalachihaki (Contd)

167

162

Nala Between Sy . No. 162 & V.B

7) Byadagerı

58/19

58/21

58/22

64/1

63/2

63/1

62/2

61/2

61/1

60/4

12/1

161/4

161/3

163/2

163/1

164/10

164/9

164/8

164/20

164/7

164/6

165/1

165/2

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

60 00

57 00

69 00

80 00

09 00

1 00

87 00

32 00

39 00

50 00

94 00

72 00

46 00

82 00

03 00

164/18

167/1

167/2

167/3B

65 00

47 00

154/ 1B

154/2A

154/3B

25 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

154/4 7) Byadageri ( Contd)

155

156/2

150

148/1

148/2

146

8) Mathigatta

54/3

55/2

55/1

55/3

57/5

57/4

57/1

57 /2B

57/ 2A

57/3

66/1

66/2

77/ 1B

77/ 1A

6795

45 00

10 00

63 00

88 00

93 00

20 00

41 00

44 00

83 00

41 00

48 00

63 00

19 00

Road between Sy . No. 77 & 82

84/1

84/2

93 00

48 00

75 00

87 00

Nala in the Sy . No. 84

Nala between Sy . No. 82 & V.B

Road between Sy. No. 84 & 82

Road in the Sy . No. 82

9) Kunagatta

74/3 00

44 00

58 00

75 00

65 6796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

74/2 9) Kunagatta ( Contd)

74/1

66/1

Part II Sec. 3 (ii) ]

5 3

Nala between Sy . No. 67 & 80

80/ 1B

80/2

79/2

79/1

78/9

78/8

78/7

78/6

78/5

78/4

78/3

78/2

94/3

94/2

94/1

96/2

96/ 1A

96/1B

97/2

97/1

100

56 00

Nala in the Sy . No. 100

[F. No. L-14014/67/2010-GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर, 2010

का. आ. 2455.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु में तिख्तन्नी के पास विजयवाडा- नेल्लोर - चेन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट में देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मेसर्स ग्लिोजिमटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वाग चेन्नई वंगलौर मंगलौर पाइपलाइन विछाई जानी चाहिए; और भाग्न सरकार को उक्न पाइपलाइन विछाने के पयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक पतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में , जिसके 'भीतर उक्न पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने का पग्नाव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपावद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अनःअच , भाग्न मग्कार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धाग 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदन्न शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करनी है;

कोई व्यक्नि, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णिन भूमि में हिनवद्ध है, उम नारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धाग 3 की उपधाग ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध कग दी जानी हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीच पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री के. मल्लीनाथ, मक्षम पाधिकारी , ग्लिोजिटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , 74 , दूसरी मंजिल , पेस्टीज फेगंज, कन्निंगहाम गेड, बंगलौर 560052 , कर्नाटक राज्य को लिन्छिन रूप में आक्षप भेज सकेगा। [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

6797

अनुसूची

राज्य: कर्नाटक

जिला: वंगलुरू रूग्ल

मंडल/ तेहमिल / तालुक: देवनहल्ली

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

2 1

आर ओ यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

एयर सिएयर हेक्टेयर

33 00 00

मर्वे नं 14 और गावँ मीमा के वीच में नाला

1 भट्रेनहल्ली

152

151

153

150

149/2

148/2

147/2

147/1

146/2

146/1

145/2

66 00

74 00

45 00

66 00

91 00

00 00

08 00

91 00

98 00

मर्वे नं 145 और 143 के बीच में गेड

143

142

141

159

5/5

2 ) हरलुरू नागेनहल्ली

5/4

5/3

5/2

5/1

4/2

4/1

00 00

41 00

27 00

22 00

53 00

95 00 06

89 00

97 00

00 00

मर्ने नं 4 और 71 के बीच में ग्ग्ना

71/3

71/2

71/1

70/2

70/1

69/4

67/2

67/1

98 00

62 00

73 00

71 00

10 00 6798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

65/3

2) हरलुरू नागेनहल्ली (निरंतर)

65/2

3 ) पाल्यगार रंगनाथपुर

39/1

39/2

38/2

38/4

38/1

47/1

47/2

61/1

61/4

61/3

61/2

+ ) गोल्ड मुदेनहल्ली

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

64 00

51 00 00

56 00

22 00

82 00

93 00 20

84 00

04 00

97 00

10 00

58 00

22 00

69 00 22

28 00 28

37 00 45

97 00

92 00

22 00

13 00

07 00

89 00

15 00

04 00

18 00

38 00

01 00

46 00

21 00 49

33 00

65 01

97 00

49 00

21 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

4) गोल्ड मुदेनहल्ली (निरंतर)

98/2

98/1

97/1

92/2

92/1

5 ) चीन्नंडनहल्ली

24/1

21/2

21/1

23/3

23/4 ए

23/2

36/3वी

36/2

37/5

6799 3

5 00

19 00

13 00

28 00

89 00

15 00

82 00

09 00

36 00

44 00

00 02

00 00

75 00 09

09 00

57 00

सर्वे नं 37 और 38 के बीच में रोड

5/3

6) होलेरहल्ली

5/1

5/2

61 00 09

65 00

49 00

सर्वे नं 4 और 1 के बीच में नाला

3/3

3/2

3/1

56/4

3696 GI /10-17

20 00

35 00 05

82 00

29 00 32

36 00

08 00

39 00 04

17 6800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

56/3

6 ) होलेरहल्ली (निरंतर)

56/2

56/1

53/4

53/3

53/2

9/1

7) नारायणपुर

9/2

15/3

15/2

15/1

55/1

55/2

55/3

55/4

55/7

55/8

8 ) बिजवार

70/3

70/1

70/2

30/9

१ ) गोनुरू

30/11

30/1

31/2

31/1

10) गुरूरायान होसुरू

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

5 00

39 00

70 00 09

८८

00 08

26 00 24

65 00 09

00 05

73 00

55 00

36 00

00 02

88 00

18 02

16 00 06

77 00

00 25

96 00

95 00 39

35 00

95 00

54 [ भाग II --- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 1

10 ) गुरूरायान होसुरू (निरंतर)

11/2

24/3

11 ) इरिगेनहल्ली

24/1

24/2

23/2

6801

63 00

61 00

77 00

37 00

सर्वे नं 23 और 35 के बीच में गेड

41/1

44/2

44/3

45/1

12 ) वेन्कटागिरीकोटे

72/21

72/20

72/19

72/18

114

64 00

00 00

68 00

64 00

00 09

30 00

मर्वे नं 71 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में रोड

सर्वे नं 8 और गावँ सीमा के वीच में एन एच 7

13 ) होसहुय्दा

8/3

8/2

8/1

5/3

5/2

5/1

47 00

61 00

71 00

32 00

सर्वे नं 6 और 70 के बीच में गेड

30/2

41/10

42/1

01 00

66 00

83 00

88 6802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

13 ) होमहुय्दा (निरंतर)

34/4

14। दोद्दसागरहल्ली

मर्वे नं 35 और 36 के बीच में नाला

38/2

36/1

36/2

36/3

सर्वे नं 37 और 18 के बीच में ग्म्ना

24/5

21/2

19/3

20/2

19/2

19/1

159

मर्वे नं 155 और 159 के बीच में नाला

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

18 00

83 00

37 00

26 00

42 00 09

58 00 01

20 00 20

02 00

35 00

34 00

04 00

155/8

155/7

155/6

155/5

22 00

155/2

155/1

80 00

00 03

156/1

75 00

154/1

158

15 ) केमपतीम्मनहल्ली

सर्वे नं 65 और 67 के बीच में गेड

मर्वे नं 67 और 53 के बीच में नाला

87 00 38

52 00

17 00 06

31 00 08

88 00

60 00 02

मर्वे नं 67 में नाला

90 00

64 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/ आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

15 ) केमपतीम्मनहल्ली (निरंतर )

6803

5 3

85 00

92 00

सर्वे नं 48 और 26 के बीच में नाला

सर्वे नं 48 और 17 के वीच में नाला

राज्य:कर्नाटक

जिला: वंगलुरू रूरल

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: दोद्दवळा पुर

110

1 ) हेग्गडीहल्ली

109

112

115/1 ए

115/1 वी

115/2

117

118

119

137

136/1

136/2

136/3

136/4

134/1

133/2

131/2

131/3

131/1

130

138

127

128

2 ) अच्याल्राहल्ली

33/4

31/3

29/1

29/2

15/2

01 00

54 00

39 00

29 00

93 00

01 00

39 00 09

07 00

39 00

80 00

73 00

87 00

16 00

38 00

00 00 6804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ASVIN 10 , 1932

15/1

2) अच्याल्राहल्ली (निरंतर)

16/2

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

5 00

77 00 16

10 00 19

55 00

13/3वी

344

3) गुळनंदीगंड

4) माचगोंडनहळळी

68 00

48 00

69 00 59

50 00 09

81 00 54

77 00

50 00

60 00

10 00

62 00

56 00

52 00

77 00

50 00

83 00

सर्वे नं 28 में नाला

112

5 ) चोगोंडनहल्ली

57/1

57/2

सर्वे नं 57 और 56 के बीच में रोड

56/1

56/2

56/3

45/1

46/4

46/3

54/1

54/2

47/3

सर्वे नं 49 और 96 के बीच में गेड

00 00

16 00

88 00

76 00

32 00 22

68 00 12

78 00

23 00 20

01 00 02

93 00 00

11 00 05

81 00 44

85 00

41 00

88 00

52 00

59 00

77 02

06 00

21 00

13 00 06

43 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

5 ) चोगोंडनहल्ली (निरंतर)

80/1

80/2

84/1

84/2

84/4

85/2

85/1

86/2

86/1

74/1

74/2

74/3

74/4

6 ) मारहल्ली

80/1

81/6

81/5

81/4

81/3

81/10

81/11

81/2

91/1

91/2

91/3

91/4

89/3

89/4

89/2

89/5

87/2

87/3

87/4

6805

5 00

96 00

05 00

34 00 00

61 00

13 00

04. 00 00

27 00

62 00

59 00

43 00 09

84 00

26 00

76 00

96 00

76 00

77 00

35 00

19 00

94 00

38 00

24 00

45 00

25 00

81 00

02 00 05

13 00

58 00

20 00

35 00 03

22 00 02

47 00

55 00

57 00

89 00

62 00

08 00 02

71 00

सर्वे नं 87 और गावँ मीमा के बीच में नाला

7 ) गंठगानहल्लौ

36/1

45 00

55 6806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10. 1932

2 1

[ Part 11 Sec . 3 (ii ) ] 3

36/2

7) गंठगानहल्ली (निरंतर)

34/2

34/1

सर्वे नं 33 और 88 के बीच में रोड

17 00

43 00

23 00

14 00

87/1

76 00

87/2

80/1

80/2

47 00 08

80/3

81/2

74/1

28 00

08 00

74/2

12 00

74/3 वी

94 00

69/1

8 ) हीरेनगुडदहल्ली

03 00

07 00

42 00

29/2

9 ) कंचीगनाळ

203

202

64 00

20 00

201/1

201/2

109

10 ) लकश्मेदेवीपुर

153

152

16 00

107/1

00 22

107/2

107/3

106/1

106/2 ए

106/2 वी

106/3

106/4

112

18 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

6807

5 3

00 14

सर्वे नं 112 और 113 के बीच में रोड

10 ) लकश्मेदेवीपुर (निरंतर)

113

114

11 ) कल्लदेवनहल्ली

49/2

49/3

56/4

56/3

56/2

56/1

12) चीक्कनहल्ली

13 ) बसवनपुर

9/3

9/2

9/1

14 ) लिंगपुर

25/1

25/2

1/2

3696 GI /10--18

32 00

84 00

53 00

84 00

05 00

46 00

86 00

11 00

68 00

63 00

18 00

27 00

35 00

75 00

67 00

17 00

47 00

10 00

89 00

32 00

39 00

05 00

62 00

27 00

68 00

19 00

60 00

42 00

40 00

06 6808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

14) लिंगपुर (निरंतर)

5/2

5/1

4/2

4/1

3/1

3/2

55/1

55/2

37/2

37/1

45/1

15 ) चीक्कमनकनाळ

भर्वे नं 25 में नाना

3/2

3/1

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

5 00

00 02

07 00

41 00 02

89 00

87 00 02

69 00

34 00

22 00 18

07 00

23 00 01

60 00

42 00 22

26 00 53

19 00 38

42 00

00 20

01 00 20

मर्वे नं 3 आर 38 के बीच

40/1

40/2

53/3

53/2

53/1

91 00

65 00

00 52

21 00

00 09

00 05

मर्वे नं 61 और 56 के बीच में नाला

5809 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

56/3

चीक्कमनकनाळ (निरंतर)

15 )

56/2

56/1

55/2

[फा सं. एल. - 14014/ 64/2010 - जो.पी. ]

स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th September , 2010

S. O. 2455.- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from, terminal point of Vijayawada - Nellore - Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in Tamilnadu to consumers in various parts of the country , Chennai - Bangalore - Mangalore 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 ;

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10, 1932

6810

[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

Schedule

State : Karnataka

District: Bangalore Rural

Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Devanhalli

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

Area to be acquired for RoU

C-Are Hec

Are

5 3

Nala between VB & 14

1) Bhattrenahalli

152

151

153

150

149/2

148/2

147/2

147/1

146/2

146/1

145/2 00

45 00

89 00

66 00

91 G

Road between Sy.No. 145 & 143

143

142

141

159

5/5

2) Haralur Nagenahalli

5/4

5/3

5/2

5/1

4/2

4/1

00 00

27 00

22 00

53 00

89 00

05.

97 00

Carttrack between Sy.No. 4 & 71

71/3

71/2

71: 1

70:2

70/1

69:4

67/2

67-1

70 00

71 00

10 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

65/3 2, Haralur Nagenahalli ( Contd )

65/2

3 ) Palyagara Ranganathapura

39/1

39/2

38/2

38/4

38/1

47/1

47/2

61/1

61/4

61/3

61/2

4) Godła Muddenahalli

6811

5 3

64 00

05 00

82 00

84 00

10 00

76 00

22 00

97 00

57 00

71 00

11 00

13 00

45 00

89 00

15 00

04 00

18 00

38 00

46 00

33 00

65 00

97 01

49 00

21 00 6812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

4) Godla Muddenahalli ( Coutd )

98/2

98/1

97/1

92/2

92/1

5) Chinandanahalli

24/1

21/2

21/1

23/3

23/4A

23/2

36/3B

36/2

37/5

Road between Sy . No.37 & 38

5/3

6) Holerahalli

5/1

5/2

Nala between Sy . No. 4 & 1

()

3/3

3/2

3/1

56/4

[ Part 11 Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 00

19 00

46 00

23 00

1.3

09 00

03 00

36 00

01 00

86 00

08 00

14 00

10 (010

( )( ) 00

62 00

( 10)

()() 00

( ))

(0 )

א 00

1.4

(11 00

( 09

10 00

35 00

82 00

20 00

36 00

08 00

39 00

04 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 1

6 ) Holerahalli ( Contd)

56/3

56/2

56/1

53/4

53/3

53/2

9/1

7) Narayanapura

9/2

15/3

15/2

15/1

55/1

55/2

55/3

55/4

55/7

55/8

8) Bijawara

70/3

70/1

70/2

30/9

9) Gonuru

30/11

30/1

31/2

31/1

10 ) Gururayana Hosuru

6813

39 00

03 00

14 00

66 00

26 00

27 00

73 00

55 00

36 00

50 00

25 00

47 00

87 00

60 00

14 00

16 00

77 00

19 00

01 00

13 00

96 00

95 00

51 00

21 00

91 00

49 00

76 00

93 00 6814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

10) Gururayana Hosuru ( Contd)

11/2

24/3

11) Irigenahalli

24/1

24/2

23/2 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 00

75 00

61 00

02 00

37 00

34 00

65 00

Road between Sy.No. 23 & 35

41/1

44/2

44/3

45/1

12) Venkatagirikote

72/21

72/20

72/19

72/18

114

35 00

22 00

00 00

64 00

60 00

97 00

47 00

98 00

15 00

32 00

30 00

Road between Sy. No. 71 & VB

N.H. - 7 between Sy.No. 8 & VB

13) Hosahudya

8/3

8/2

8/1

5/3

5/2

5/1

61 00

30 00

71 00

05 00

14 00

Road between Sy.No. 6 & 70

30/2

41/10

42/1

01 00

95 00

88 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

13 ) Hosahudya ( Contd)

34/4 14) Doddasagarahalli

6815

83 00

Nala between Sy.No. 35 & 36

38/2

36/1

36/2

36/3

71 00

15 00

42 00

Carttrack between Sy.No. 37 & 18

24/5

21/2

19/3

20/2

19/2

19/1

159 00

73 00

79 00

09 00

35 00

Nala between Sy.No. 155 & 159

155/8

155/7

155/6

155/5

155/2

155/1

156/1

154/1

158

15) Kempathimmanahalli

33 00

94 00

87 00

17 00

49 00

Road between Sy.No 65 & 67

74 00

14 00

Nala between Sy.No 67 & 53

60 00

Nala in Sy.No.67

3696 Gi /10-19

43 00

34 00

90 00

64 6816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

15) Kempathimmanahalli (Contd)

[Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 00

85 00

Nala between Sy.No 48 & 26

Nala between Sy.No 48 & 17

Mandai/ Tehsil / Taluk : Dodballapur

State: Karnataka

District : Bangalore Rural

110

1) Heggadihalli

109

112

115/ 1A

115/ JB

115/2

117

118

119

137

136/1

136/2

136/3

136/4

134/1

133/2

131/2

131/3

131/1

130

138

127

128

2) Acharlahalli

33/4

31/3

29/1

29/2

15/2

72 00

28 00

01 00

21 00

47 00

54 00

39 00

85 00

30 00

67 00

(04

والی 00

(17

61 00

65 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 2) Acharłahalli ( Contd)

15/1

16/2

13/3B

344

3) Gulanandigunda

4) Machagondanahalli

Nala in Sy.No.28

112

5 ) Chowgondahalli

57 /1A

57/2

6817 3

5 00

77 00

44 00

10 00

68 00

48 00

69 00

29 00

50 00

81 00

77 00

50 00

60 00

10 00

56 00

52 00

77 00

50 00

16 00

88 00

76 00

32 00

68 00

78 00

Road between Sy.No 57 & 56

56/1

56/2

56/3

45/1

46/4

46/3

54/1

54/2

47/3

Road between Sy.No 49 & 96

43 6818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

5) Chowgondahalli ( Contd)

80/1

80/2

84/1

84/2

84/4

85/2

85/1

86/2

86/1

74/1

74/2

74/3

74/4

80/1 6) Marahalli

81/6

81/5

81/4

81/3

81/10

81/11

81/2

91/1

91/2

91/3

91/4

89/3

89/4

89/2

89/5

87/2

87/3

87/4 [ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

26 00

00-

57 00

Nala between Sy . No 87 & VB

36/1 7) Gantaganahalli

00 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/ आश्विन 10 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

36/2 7) Gantaganahalli ( Contd)

34/2

34/1

6819

17 00

43 00

Road between Sy.No. 33 & 88

87/1

87/2

80/1

80/2

80/3

81/2

74/1

74/2

74/3B

69/1

8) Hirenaguddadahalli

29/2

9 ) Kanchiganala

203

202

201/1

201/2

109 10) Lakshmidevipura

153

152

107/1

107/2

107/3

106/1

106/ 2A

106/2B

106/3

106/4

112

23 00

85 00

28 00

73 00

36 00

03 00

35 00

27 00

55 00

16 00

94 00

31 00

00 6820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVIN 10 , 1932

2 1

10) Lakshmidevipura( Contd)

Road between Sy. No. 112 & 113

113

114

11 ) Kalladevanahalli

49/2

49/3

56/4

56/3

56/2

56/1

12) Chikkanahalli

13) Basavanapura

9/3

9/2

9/1

14) Lingapura

25/1

25/2

1/2

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

5 3

32 00

84 00

53 00

84 00

05 00

86 00

27 00

88 00

77 00

47 00

97 00

89 00

32 00

85 00

39 00

62 00

81 00

68 00

19 00

24 00

54 00

37 00

45 00

20 00

42 00

40 00

06 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

2 14) Lingapura ( Contd)

5/2

5/1

4/2

4/1

3/1

3/2

55/1

55/2

37/2

37/1

45/1

15) Chikkamankanala

Nala in Sy . No 25

3/2

3/1

6821 3

5 00

60 00

11 00

21 00

07 00

67 00

41 00

89 00

87 00

89 00

34 00

20 00

22 00

23 00

60 00

36 00

42 00

26 00

19 00

42 00

57 00

32 00

19 00

01 00

75 00

89 00

Road between Sy . No 3 & 38

40/1

40/2

53/3

53/2

53/1

60 00

91 00

65 00

03 00

31 00

58 00

32 00

78 00

21 00

84 00

41 00

98 00

10 00

95 00

Nala between Sy . No 61 & 56

15) . Chikkamankanala ( Contd)

56/3

56/2

56/1

55/2

46 00

42 00

22 00

30 00

03 [ F. No. L - 14014/64/2010 -GP ] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy .

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

6822

just fair and legal ? If yes what relief the workman is entitled ?

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 8 सिप्तम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2456. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-9-10 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011 /76/09- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

पुष्पेन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 8th September , 2010

3. Brief facts are that the union raising the dispute on behalf of the workman Sri Lalta Prasad has filed his claim statement alleging that he is entitled for transfer to Manjhanpur from Kaushambi under the existing policy of the management and non transfer of the workman from branch office to Utrethu Ambedkar Nagar to Branch Office Manjhanpur Kushambi is totally unjust unfair" and arbitrary and in violation of the bank rules . It is stated that he was appointed on the post of peon on 7-3-95 and in the year 2004 he was posted at branch office Civil Lines Allahabad. He was promoted on the post of cashier - cum- clerk and transferred from Allahabad to Branch Office Utrehu Ambedkarnagar and he joined the duties there . Again he waspromoted on the post of head cashier at the same place and working since then .

S.O. 2456. In pursuancersuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 49/2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 07-9-10.

[No. L- 12011/76/09 - IR (B - II) ]

PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 49 of 09

Between

Sri Ramesh Khare .

General Secretary,

Puinjab National Bank Worker Union ( UP ) Rajroop Pur ,

Allahabad

And

The Senior Manager ,

Punjab National Bank, S20/56D,

The Mall Kannedy Road ,

Varanasi.

4. A new branch was opened at Manjhanpur Kaushambi in the year 2008 then he submitted an application through proper channel for his transfer to the newly proposed post at the branch for any clerical post with a request that he is ready to forego any special allowance of head cashier . Photocopy of the same are annexed. Thereafter the opposite party issued a circular to all the branches of Varanasi circle regarding requirement of staff for the proposed branch . Photocopy of the same is annexed . In response to the circular the workman submitted an application dated 15-9-08 through proper channel for transfer. Vide circular of the bank they have invited application for two post i.e. one post of Head Cashier and one post of CTOB and the workman was eligible for both the post. It is stated that in the month of December 2008 an additional post of clerk- cum-cashier was sanctioned and created and fell vacant at BO Manjonpur Kausharnbi but the management posted one Sri Hazari Lal on that post at B.O. Manjhanpur without considering the request of the workman. Whereas the name of Sri Hazari Lal was not registered under the transfer roaster therefore , opposite party was bound to consider the name which were already entered in the transfer register . Therefore , the action of the management in not transferring the workman at BO Manjhanpur is illegal and posting of Hazari Lal by the opposite party is also unjust . Therefore , he has prayed that the award be given in his favour. Therefore he has filed the photocopies of the concerned documents as annexure ,

AWARD

5. The union raising the dispute on behalf of the workman has also filed certain photocopies of the documents in support of its claim petition which are annexure 1 to 8 .

1. Central Goverment MOL , New Delhi vide notification no.L - 12011 / 76/09 - IR { B - II ) dated 11.11.09, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

6. The opposite party has filed written reply wherein itis stated that the service conditions of the workmen staff are governed by the provisions of Desai Award and various bipartite settlement . Para 535 of Sastri Award interalia 2. Whether the demand of General Secretary, Punjab National Bank Workers Union ( UP ) for transfer of Sri Lalta Prasad Head Cashier from Branch Office Utrethu District Ambedkar Branch to Manjhanpur District Kaushambi is [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6823

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

provides that the transfers are normal incidence ofworking of the bank and as transfer do not constitute conditions of service , it is submitted that what has been raised cannot be termed as industrial dispute . It is stated that the workman has applied for transfer to anyone of the station at Kaushambi , Allahabad and Azamgarh vide application dated 15-09-08 . New branch was to be opened at Manjanpur for which circle office has called application for posting at the said branch vide letter dated 15-09-08 and in response to the said applications Sri Ram Kumar Singh , cash clerk BO Naini , Sri Sunil Kumar Shukla CTO VO Tanda and Sri Lalta Prasad Head Cashier BO Uttrethu . When the branch was opened at Manjhanpur on 20-11-08 Sri Ram Kumar Singh clerk- cum-cashier and Sri Sunil Kumar Shukla were posted as CTIO at the branch on the basis of their inter- se - seniority . Subsequently it was felt that there was a need for one more clerical staff at that branch Sri Sunil Kumar Shukla who was working at BO Manjanpur was going for leave on account of his treatment for paralysis . Hence on administrative ground one more clerical staff Sri Hazari Lal who was promoted from subordinate cadre at BO Manjhanpur on 22-12-08 was posted at the aforesaid branch . There was not suitable substitute available for Sri Lalta Prasad as he is working as head cashier ofthe branch holding keys and also looking after other clerical work, Sri Hazari Lal being a promotee from subordinate cadre could, notbe posted at BO Uttrethu because of lack of experience , thus he was not considered suitable substitute ofSri Lalta Prasad . It is stated that the transfer of Sri Hazari Lal at BO Manjhanpur was neither unjust nor arbitrary nor illegal . It is stated that the management has not violated any policy of the bank . It is therefore prayed that the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected being devoid of merit .

7. None of the parties have adduced oral or documentary evidence in support of their claim .

8. Heard and perused the record .

9. Claimant has not adduced any oral evidence . Initial burden lies on the claimant to prove the pleadings especially when the claimant is alleging malafide on the point of transfer against the opposite party. Pleadings cannot take the shape of proof. Opposite party has specifically contended in their written statement that no malafide has been committed.

10. Therefore , considering all the facts and circumstances of the case , I am of the view that the claimant has failed to prove his case .

11. Therefore, reference is decided against the claimant holding that the claimant is not entitled for any relief in pursuance the present reference order .

26-08-10

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer 3696 /10-20

नई दिल्ली, 8 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2457. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चाइना ट्रस्ट कमर्शियल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 06/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-09-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/262/2003- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th September , 2010 S.O. 2457. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No 6/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of China Trust Commercial Bank , Janpath, New Delhi , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 08-09-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/ 262/2003 - IR ( B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR . R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI I.D. No. 6/2006

Shri Ghanshyam and Shri Rajesh ,

C/o Bhartiya Shramjeevi Sangh (Regd .) . 240, Western Wing , 'Tis Hazari , New Delhi - 110054

Workinan

Versus

The Manager,

China Trust Commercial Bank , Head Office , 21A, Janpath , New Delhi

...Management

AWARD

China Trust Commercial Bank , New Delhi , ( hereinafter referred to as the Bank) , employed Shri Ghanshyam Singh as security guard on 1-5-97 and Shri Rajesh as pentry boy on 26-6-98 respectively. They were treated as adhoc ' temporary employees . They were paid fixed wages , while regular employees were paid wages in scale pay, besides other emoluments /benefits . Since statutory benefits like provident fund contribution , employees state insurance contribution and leave wages etc. were not paidto 6824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2. 2010 /ASVINA 10, 19 : 3

Shri Ghanshyam Singh and Rajesh , they joined Bhartya Sharamjivi Sangh ( Regd . ) , a union . The said union served a notice dated 4-6-2003 on the bank , which proved red rag to the bull . Annoyed with union activities of Shri Ghanshyam and Rajesh , the bank terminated their services on 6-6-2003 . Feeling aggrieved from that action , a claim was filed before the Conciliation Officer . When conciliation proceedings failed, the Conciliation Officer subinitted his failure report to the Central Governinent. However , the Central Government declined to make a reference of the dispute for adjudication , vide its order dated 24-11-2003 . Writ petitions ( Civil) No. 9302-03 of 2004 were moved before High Court ofDelhi . High Court , vide its order dated 23-12-05 , commanded the Central Government to make a reference of the dispute for adjudication . In compliance of the said order, appнершаю Government referred the dispute to this tribunal fur adjudication vide order No. L - 12012/262 /2003-(R( B-1 ) New Delhi , dated 6th of march , 2006 , with followi terms:

"Whether the action of the management Trust Commercial Bank , New Delhi intern services of S. Shri Rajesh Site Late Shri Ram and Chanshyan . Sto Shi Jat aran Sir 6.6.2003 sealed for whether are mod to ?"

2. Claim stevent was filed pleading the Ghanshyam Singh joined services with the bank as samy guard w.e.i. 1-5-97 and Shri Rajesh joined services with the bank as pentry boy . On 26-6-98 . They were appointed to do jobs of permanent in nature . They used to perform duties for 12 hours a day but no overtime was ever prid to them . Their signatures were obtained on certain blank papers . Bank had not paid wages to them , as admissible to its regular employees . They joined Bhartya Sharanjivi Sangh (Regd.) and the said union served a notice of deinand on the bank, on 4-6-2003 . It annoyed the bank and their services wereterminated w.e.f.6-6-2003 , without any thyme or reason . Shri Ghanshyam Singh was getting Rs . 3800 PM as his wages , while Shri Rajesh was getting a sum of Rs. 3500 as his wages , at the time of termination of their services . No notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to them. No retrenchment compensation was paid. Terakton oftheir services is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F, 25 G and 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947( in short the Act ) . Provisions of Sections 25G and 2014 of the Actwere also violated . Act of the bank in terminating their services is illegal and uncalled for. A claim was made that they be reinstated in service with continuity and full back. wages.

3. The bank demurred the claim pleading es Shri Ghanshyam and Rajesh were as such there no relation employee betwe

PART SEC. 3 (66)] being ad-hoc employees no employee code number was ever allotted to them . Regulor employees of ic bank were entitled to P.F. contribution , grauity contribution, leave encashment, loans as per staft lear schemes , medical claim insurance, medical clausucai.bursement and L. A. , whi facilities were never accorded Ganyanand Rajesh These facts make it clear that they were new apposted by the bank and being acaronery mφίοςες, relationsiup of employer and empiece wever reaisd between the parties. It is not disputed that Ghanshyam Singh was engaged as security 1-5-57 and Rajest was engaged as perus hom is also not a maner of dirgue that Ghanshyan was getung Rs . 3800 Phi while Rajesh vas getting Rs 3500 PM as wages . It is denied that they got a densand noticeserved on the bank through Bharya Shatamjiva Sangh Regd.!! is further demed that the bank felt annoyed and dispensed with then services it has been adinitted that their services were deconected from 6-4-2005 The bank properes thai neither sobur bar pay b. tou thenud tequired to be giv Share they trad -haeremporary employees no Camachomc.empensation was to be paid iBank proje, Meherdensatement des dismissal being devord 4 Duplodngs of the persar , follow fod fastes wers sathni sem id preden

employer and croptosse between the clamurs snd the managemen

2 Whether the claims tamimable " 4. Reich

5. to discharge ond r them Ghanshyam and Rajesh tendered the WWIA and Ex .WW2 /A respectively.tous docunems They were cross e camined the bank VES Madhurima Ghosh tendensat EXMWEA evidence on behalf of length on benaffich the sams anduccé be the stres

mobic with inc clain from the back , received thu fen in cash besides, cheque No. rasamfRs. 9000 drawn on China Trus ! Araudia Mang branch, New 24el se sted his grievances with the nakhon storespot of his claur shoot retrenchmen [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

compensation , bonus , gratuity and other terminal benefits , He projected that all of his claims stood satisfied .

7. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Rajesh Kumar, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of claimant Rajesh . Shri Dinesh Bhatt, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the bank. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:---

Issue No. 1 and 2

8. Rajesh swears in his affidavn hx . WW2 / A that he was appointed by the bank as pentry boy on 26-6-98 . His last drawn wages were Rs . 3500 PM . He worked to entire satisfaction of the bank. He was denied pay and allowances as equal to that of regular employee . Whenever he asked for regular pay scale and allowance as well as benefits such as appointment letter , pay slip. P.F. , leaves , medical facilities and L.T.A. etc. the bank deliberately obtained his signatures on blank papers . He was assured that his demand would be considered sympathetically . He was working with the bank in permanent capacity and not as an ad - hoc employee . He became member of the Bhartya Shramjivi Sangh Regd . and got a demand notice , served through that union on the bank on 4-6-2003 . Or receipt of that demand notice , bank got annoyed and illegally terminated his services on 6-6-2003 without any rhyme or reason . His juniors are still working with the bank . Act of terminating his services is illegal and unjustified .

9. Ms. Madhurima Ghosh , Manager ( HR ) , swears in her affidavit Ex.MW1 / A that the claimant was working with the bank purely on ad - hoc basis . He was not on the rolls of the bank. No appointment letter was issued to him . Regular employees of the bank were entitled to wages , besides various fringe benefits . Claimant was not entitled to any of fringe benefits , which were available to regular employees . Those fringe benefits are P.F. contribution , gratuity contribution , leave encashment , loans as per staff loan scheme , medical insurance , medical claim , reimbursement claim. , L.T.A. etc. Salaries of regular employees were credited to their respective bank accounts , while in case of the claimant no such procedure was adopted . Being an ad- hoc employee , he cannot claim that there existed relationship of employer and aployee between the parties . During the course of her cross examination , she concedes that no appointment letter was issued in favour of Rajesh . However , she admits that the bank was under an obligation to issue appointment letter as well as pay slips to him. Documents Ex . WW2/ 99 to Ex . WW2 / 180 were not disputed by her . She projects that Ex. WW1/ 104 , Ex . WW1 / 108 and Ex. WW1 / 110 bear correct address of the bank . She could not detail whether Ex . WW 1/108 was replied by the bank or not.

6825

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/ आश्विन 10 , 1932

10 The relationship of employer and employee is constituted by a contract , express or implied between employer and employce . A contract of service is one in which a person undertakes to serve another and to obey his reasonable orders within the scope of the duty undertaken. A contract of employment may be inferred nom the conduct which goes to show that such a contract was intended although never expressed and when there has , in fact, been employment of the kind usually perforined by the employees . Any such inference however , is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relation between the parties concerned was ' on a charitable footing or the parties were relations or partners or were directors of a limited company which employed no staff . While the employee , at the time, when his services were engaged , need not have known the identity of his employer , there must have been some act or contract by which the parties recognized one another as master or servant .

11. Out of facts projected by Shri Rajesh and Ms. Madhurima Ghosh it emerge over the record that Rajesh was engaged by the bank as pentry boy on 26-6-98 . His salary was paid through documents Ex . WW2/ 99 to Ex.WW2/ 131 . Documents Ex . WW2 / 132 to Ex . WW2 / 167 highlight that Rajesh Kumar was in the employment ofthe bank . Ex . WW2 / 168 to Ex . WW2 / 181 project that Rajesh was shown as a member of staff by the bank in its circulars issued to the staff, on various occasions . Therefore , these documents high light that Rajesh was engaged by the bank as pentry boy , by an express contract , creating relation- ship of employment . Though no appointment letter was issued in his favour yet a contract of employment emerge from the conduct of the parties , which has been portraited by documents , referred above . These documents creates a relationship of employer and employee between the parties , nor by implication but in express terms . Hence I am constrained to conclude that the documents referred above describe relationship of employer and employee between Rajesh and the bank .

12. Whether ad- hoc / temporary employment of Rajesh , as claimed by the bank , denudes status of workman ? For an answer it would be expedient to know as to what word " workman " means . For that answer the Tribunal has to construe the definition of the word given in the Act Clause ( 2 ) of Section 2 of the Act defines the worl worknes which definition is extracted thus:

( 5 ) " sukas" met my person ( including an appreчное ) в in any industry to do any mamaisilled, technical , operational . clericstrap wory 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 dismissed , lischarged or retrenched in connection with , or as a consequence of, that dispute , or whose dismissal , 6826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute , but does not include any such person-

(1) who is subject to the Air Force Act , 1950 (45 of 1950 ) , or the Army Act , 1950 (46 of 1950 ) or the Navy Act , 1957 ( 62 of 1957) ; or

( i) 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 mensem 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 .

13. Definition of workman contains three limbs . First limb of the definition gives statutory meaning of the word and determines a workmanby reference to a person (including an apprentice ) employed in an industry to do any manual , unskilled, skilled, technical , operative , clerical or supervisery work for hire or reward . The second limb is designed to incide 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 te pay him in cash or kind , as agreed between then, 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 ] .

14. A distinction is also drawn between " contract for service " and " contract of service " . In one case the master can order or require what is to be done , while in the other case he cannot only order or require what is to be done , but how itself it shall be done . The distinction is- under a contract of service , a man is employed as a part of the business and work is done as an integral part of the business , while under contract for service , his work , although done for the business , is not integrated into it but is only assessory to it . But the test of being a servant

[ PART 11 - SEC. 3 ( ii ) | does not rest now a days on submissions to orders . it depends on whether person is part and parcel of the organization.

15. The bank projects that since the claimant was employed in adhoc capacity , he was not a workman . Contention put forward by the bank is unfounded Determination whether an employee is a workman or not depends upon nature of duties performed by him . The determinative factor is the duties of the concerned employee and not his designation . An employee may perform manual , unskilled , skilled , technical , clerical , supervisory or operational work . To bring an employee within ambit of definition of workman , natuz . of work performed by him must fall within one or the other of the above classifications , as held by the Apex Court in Burma Cell Oil Storage and Distribution Co of India Limited | 1970 ( 11 ) LLJ 590 ] . Specification el above seven types of work obviously was intended to lay ma that an employee is to become a " workman " only he is en ployed to do work of one of those types , while there may be employees who , in doing such work would not be out of the scope of the work without any resort to exceptions . An opposite example was that of a person employed in convassing and promoting sales of an industry . Though such a person may be an employee but would not fall within the definition of " workman " because his work would not fall within any of the classification enumerated in the definition . The above proposition led to enactment of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service ) Act , 1975 to bring " Sales representatives employed for sales promotion in medical and pharmaceutical concerns within the purview of workman . "

16. The dominant purpose of employment must be first taken into consideration , to determine status and character of a person . Here in the case the claimant was performing duties of a pentry boy , which were manual jobs . He falls within the ambit of definition of workman , since the Act nowhere makes distinction like an adhoc employee or a regular employee . A person employed to do purely one of the seven types of work , enumerated above would be treated as a workman , without any difficulty . Contention of the bank that being an ad hoc employee , he does not fall the ambit of the definition as contained in clause( s ) of section 2 of the Act , is uncalled for . Principal or main work of the claimant is the determinate factor in respect of his character and status as a workman . The claimant cannot be taken out from the category of the workman merely because that he has been termed as an adhoc employee . Therefore , mere description of his status as adhoc employee would not be a conclusive factor . Consequently it is announced that the claim answers the definition of the workman as contained in clause ( s ) of section 2 of the Act .

17. Services of Rajesh were dispensed with by the bank on 6-6-2003 . Bank agitates that the claim put forward [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

6827 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

class have a direct or substantial interest . The observations made by the Apex Court are to be extracted thus :

by Shri Rajesh for reinstatement of his services is not maintainable . The Tribunal would address to the proposition as to whether Rajesh has raised an industrial dispute before it . It becomes expedient to take into account definition ofword " industrial dispute" . Hence the definition ofthe word , as enacted in clause (k ) of Section 2 of the Act , is extracted thus:

" Industrial 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 . "

" We also agree with the expression ' any person ' is not co extensive with any workman , particular or otherwise , equal with other , that the crucial test is one of community of interest and the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in whose employment , non employment , terms of employment , conditions of labour ( as the case may be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest . Whether such direct or substantial interest has been established in a particular case will depend on its facts and circumstances . "

18. The definition 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 is an " an industrial dispute" or not , itmust first be determined whether the workman concerned orworkmen sponsoring his cause satisfy the conditions of clause ( s ) of section 2 of the Act . Here in the case , the management does not dispute that the claimants are workmen within the meaning of clause ( s ) of Section 2 of the Act .

20. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt . ) Ltd. [ 1958 (2) LLJ 660 ] Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute need not be a dispute between the employer and his workman and that the definition of the expression " industrial dispute " is wide enough to cater a dispute raised by the employer's workman with regard to non employment of others , who may not be employed as workman at the relevant time . The Apex Court in Bombay Union of Journalist [ 1961 ( II ) LLJ 436 ] has observed that in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute , the test is whether at the date of reference , the dispute was taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen of the employer against whom , the dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an appreciable number of workmen . In order , therefore , to convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute , it has to be established that it has been taken up by the union of employees of the establishment or by an appreciable number of the employees of the establishment . As far as union of the workmen of establishment itself is concerned , the problem of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty , since such workmen who are members of such unions generally have a continuity of interest with an individual employee who is one of their fellow workman . But difficulty arise when the cause of a workman , in a particular establishment is sponsored by a union which is not of the workmen of that establishment but is one of which membership is open to workmen of their establishment as well as in that industry . In such a case a union which has only microscopic number of the workmen as its member , cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen and the management . A representative character of the union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual number of co - workers sponsoring the dispute . The mere fact that a substantial number of workmen of the establishment in which the concerned workman was employee were also members of the union would not constitute sponsorship . It must be shown that they were connected together and arrived at an Understanding by a resolution or by other means and collectively submitted the dispute .

19. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of "industrial dispute " in Dimakuchi Tea Estate [ 1958 ( 1 ) LLJ 500 ] and ruled that the expression " any person " in clause ( k) of Section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such limitation and qualification as arise from the context , the two crucial limitations are ( i ) the dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute ( as indicated in the first two parts of the definition clause ) so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute giving necessary relief to other , and (2 ) the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for whose employment, non employment , terms of employment or conditions of labour , as case may be , the parties dispute for a direct or substantial interest . Where workman raised a dispute as against their employment , the person regarding whose employment , non employer , terms of employment or conditions of labour , the dispute is raised need not be strictly speaking " workman " within the meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose employment , non employer terms of employment , or conditions of labour the workmen as a [PART 11--SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ASVINA 10 , 1932

6828

the workman's cause , it is sufficient to convert it into an industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 507 ] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual workmenthemselves . But their case was subsquently taken upby a new union formed by a large number of co -workmen , ifnot a majority ofthem . Since this union was not registered or recognized , the workmen elected five representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed workmen . Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were espoused by the new union , yet unregistered and unrecognized . The Apex Court held that the fact that these disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized union does not mean that they were not " industrial dispute" .

21. The expression " industrial disputes " has been construed by the Apex Court to include individual disputes , because of the scheme of the Act . In Raghu Nath Gopal Patvardhan [ 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ 27 ] the Apex Court ruled as to whatdispute can be called as an industrial dispute . It was laid thereon that ( 1 ) a dispute between the employer and a single workman cannot be an industrial dispute , (2 ) it can not be per - se be an industrial dispute but may become if it is taken up by a trade union or a number of workmen . In Dharam Pal Prem Chand [ 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 668 ] it was commanded by the Apex Court that a dispute raised by a single workman cannot become an industrial dispute unless itis supported either by his union or in the absence of a union by substantial number of workmen . Same law was laid in the case of Indian Express Newspaper ( Pvt . ) Limited [1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 132 ] . However in Western India Match Company [ 1970 ( II ) LLJ 256 ] , the Apex Court referredthe precedent in Drona Kuchi Tea Estate's case [ 1958 ( 1 ) LLJ 500 ] and ruled that a dispute relating to " any person becomes a dispute where the person in respect of whom it is raised is one in whose employment , non employment , terms of employment or conditions of labour , the parties dispute for a direct or substantial interest " .

24. It is not expedient that same union should remain incharge of that dispute till its adjudication . The dispute may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment, through a particular union for making such a dispute an " industrial dispute " , while the workman may be represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of Section 36 of the Act by a number of executive or office bearer of altogether another union . The crux of the matter is that the dispute should be a dispute between the employer and his workmen . It is not necessary that the dispute must be espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union . Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union during continuance of adjudication proceedings that would not affect the maintainability of the order of reference . Law to this effect was laid by the High Court of Orissa in Gammon India Limited [ 1974 ( II ) LLJ 34 ] . For ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has acquired character of an individual dispute , the test is whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the union of the workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is raised by the individual workman or by an appreciable number of the workman . In other words , the validity of the reference of an industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on the date when the cause occurs. Reference can be made to a precedent in Western India Match Co.Ltd. ( 1970 ( 11 ) LLJ 256 ) .

22. What a substantial or considerable number of workmen would be in a given case , depend on particular facts of the case . The fact that an " industrial dispute" , is supported by other workmen will have to be established either in the form of a resolution of the union of which workman may be member or of the workmen themselves who support the dispute or in any other manner . From the mere fact that a general union , at whose instance an "industrial dispute " concerning an individual workman is referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the workmen of the establishment as its members , it cannot be inferred that the individual dispute has been converted into an "industrial dispute " . The Tribunal has therefore , to consider the question as to how many of the fellow workman actually espoused the cause of the concerned workman by participating in the particular resolution of the Union. In the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal , it cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute . Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an industrial dispute, it is not necessary that there should always be a resolution of substantial or appreciable number of workmen. What is necessary is that there should be some express or collective will of a substantial or an appreciable member of the workmen treating the cause of the individual workman as their own cause . Law to this effect was laid in P. Somasundrameran [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 558 ] .

25. A long line of decisions had established that an individual dispute could not per se be an industrial dispute , butcould become one if it was taken up by a trade union or substantial number of workmen of the establishment . This position of law created hardship for individual workman , who were discharged, dismissed , retrenched or whose services were otherwise terminated when they could not get support by a union or any appreciable number of workmen to espouse their cause . Section 2A of the Act , was enacted todo away requirement of espousal of an individual dispute for converting it to an industrial dispute in cases where the dispute arises out of ( i ) discharge , ( ii ) dismissal , ( iii ) retrenchment , or (iv) otherwise termination of service of an individual workman . By introducing legal 23. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a registered trade union or a recognized trade union . Once it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

fiction to the effect that an individual dispute connected with " discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or termination , is deemed to be " industrial dispute " notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen espouses such a dispute . "

26. Since service of Shri Rajesh were terminated by the bank on 6-6-2003 , he can raise an industrial dispute before this Tribunal for reinstatement of his services . His dispute is competent , within the meaning " of ' Section 2 A of the Act and it does not lie in the mouth of the bank to agitate that his dispute is not maintainable . Consequently contention advanced by the bank is unfounded . Claim raised by Rajesh , in respect of his termination of services is maintainable before this Tribunal . Issues are , therefore , answered in favour of the claimant and against the bank .

Issue No. 3

27. Ms. Madhurima Ghosh explains that on 6-6-2003 there was no exigency with the bank to continue with the employment of Rajesh , hence he was made to go . Whether termination of his services amounts to retrenchment ? Word " retrenchment " has been defined in clause ( oo ) of Section 2 of the Act , which definition is reproduced thus :

(oo) " retrenchment " means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever , otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman ; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age ofsuperannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb ) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein ; or

28. Ms. Ghosh nowhere explains in her testimony that Rajesh sought voluntary retirement or he stood retired on reaching the age of superannuation . No case has been projected by the bank that his services were dispensed with on account of non renewal of contract of employment or on the ground of continued ill health . No evidence was adduced to establish that Rajesh was made to go , by way of infliction of a penalty of dismissal . Therefore , case of Rajesh does not fall within the exceptions provided in clause ( oo ) of Section 2 of the Act Termination of his services squarely came within the ambit of retrenchment , as defined in the said section .

6829

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

29. Shri Rajesh unfolds that he joined his services with the bank on 26-6-98 and his services were dispensed with on 6-6-2003 . Ms. Ghosh does not dispute these facts . A continuity in service has been claimed by Rajesh from 26-6-98 till 6-6-2003 . It is not the case of the bank that Rajesh served the institution on intermittent periods . No agitation was raised on behalf of the bank that he had not rendered continuous service to the bank from 26-6-98 till 6-6-2003 .

30. " Continuous Service " has been defined by Section 25B of the Act . Under sub - section ( 1 ) of the said section , " continuous service for a period " may comprise of two period viz . ( i ) uninterrupted service , and (ii ) interrupted service on account of ( a) sickness , ( b ) authorized leave , ( c ) and accident , ( d ) a strike which is not legal , ( e ) a lock - out , and ( f) a cessation of work that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman , shall be included in the " continuous service . " Sub- section (2 ) of the said section introduces a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in " continuous service " within the meaning ofclause ( 1 ) for a period of one year or six months , he shall be deemed to in continuous service for the period under an employer if he has actually worked for the days sepcified in clauses ( a) and (b ) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo ( 1968 Lab . I.C. 1180 ) it was held that one year's period contemplated by Sub - section ( 2 ) furnished a unit of measure and if during that unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days , then he can be considered to have rendered one year's continous service for the purpose of the section . The idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had put in at least 240 days of service , then he must get the benefit conferred by the Act . Consequently , an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman has actually worked for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment .

31. Out of facts projected by Rajesh and those conceded by Ms. Madhurima Ghosh , it is evident that Rajesh rendered continous service of 240 days in every calendar year preceding the date of termination of his service . In such a situation bank was under an obligation to comply the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act . One months notice or pay in lieu thereof was to be given to Rajesh prior to termination of his services . Retrenchment compensation , as contemplated by Section 25 - F of the Actwas not paid . It was obligatory on the bank to make payment of such compensation , prior to termination of his services . Therefore , termination of services of Shri Rajesh is in violation of the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act .

32. Ms. Ghosh admits that Vijay , who was a contractual employee , was serving the bank as a regular employee . It has been agitated on behalf of Rajesh that Vijay was junior to him , whose services have been regularized . His contention was not dispelled on behalf of the bank. Therefore , it is emerging over the record that after termination of services of Rajesh , Vijay was taken on 6830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ASVINA 10 , 1932

job. The management was under an obligation to offer that job to Rajesh , in pursuance of Section 25 -H of the Act . Since junior of Rajesh was retained and his services were dispensed with , in that situation provisions of Section 25 -G ofthe Act were also violated . Therefore , all these violations on the part of the bank make its action of termination of services of Rajesh illegal and unjustified . Issue is , therefore, answered in favour of the claimant and against the bank. Relief.

33. Services of Shri Rajesh were dispensed with in violaltion of the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act . The bank projects that since Rajesh was engaged in violation ofthe rules , he cannot claim reinstatement in service . It has been agitated that a man who enters service through a back door has no right to continue in service . In Uma Devi [2006(4) SCC I ] , the Apex Court considered the proposition as to whether the persons who got employment , without following of a regular procedure or even from the back door or on daily wages can be ordered to be made permanent in their posts , to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned . Catena of decisions over the subject were considered and the court declined the submissions of the workmen to be made permanent on the posts which were held by them in temporary or ad hoc capacity for a fairly long spell . The Court ruled thus:

"With respect, why should the State be allowedto depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts ? This Court , in our view, is bound to insists on the State making regular and proper recruitments , and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules ofregular recruitment . The direction to make permanent the distinction between regularization and making permanent , was not emphasized here - can only encourage the State , the modal employer , to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete . With respect the directions made in Piara Singh [ 1992 ( 4 ) SCC 118 ] is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 of the saidjudgement therein . With great respect , it appears tous that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision . Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad hoc , temporary or casual employees engaged without following a regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent . "

34. Taking not of some of recent decisions , the Apex Court heid that the State does not enjoy a power to make appointments in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution . TheCourt quoted its decision in Girish Jyanti Lal Vaghela [2006 ( 2) SCC 482 ] with approval , wherein it was ruledthus.

"The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates

[PART II Six. 3 (11 ) and holding of a selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made . A regular appointment to the post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange, where eligible candidate get their names registered . Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to Compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution" .

35. In P. Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others | 2006 (7) SCC 488 ] the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's Case (supra) with approval . It also refied the decision in a Uma Rani [ 2004 ( 7 ) SCC 112 | and ruled that no regularization is permissible in exercise of statutory powers conferred i Article 162 of the Constitution , if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules In Somveer Singh | 2006 ( 5 ) SCC 493 ] the Apex Court ruled that appointment made without following due procedure cannot be regularized . In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [ 2007 ( 1 ) SCC 408 ] the Apex Court reiterated the law and announced that the rules of recruitment can not be relaxed and court can not direct regularisation of temporary employees dehors the rules , nor can it direct continuation ofservice of a temporary emploce ( whether called a casual , ad hoc or daily rated employce ) or payment of regular salaries to them.

36. In Uma Devi ( supra ) it was laid that when a person enters a temporary employment or get engagement as contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure , he is aware of the consequence of the appointment being temporary , casual or contractual in nature . Such a person cannot invoke theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed for the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure or selection in any concerned cases, in consultation with the public service commission . Therefore , theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary , contractual or casual employees It cannot also be held that the State held out any promisc while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent . The State annot constitutionally make such a promise . It is also obvious thatthe theory cannot be invoked to seek relief of being made permanent in the post . In view of those precedents neither continuance nor regularisation of services of the claimant can be ordered , since it would amount to back door entry , argued the bank भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

37. Question for consideration comes as to whether the aforesaid precedents are applicable to the present controversy. For an answer the definition of the word State as given in Article 12 of the Constitution is to be appreciated . For sake of convenience , the said definition is reproduced thus:

" 12. Definition . In this Part , unless the context otherwise requires , " the State " includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India."

Since fundamental rights are a protection against State action , accordingly, a definition of the term " the State " at the top of the chapter on fundamental rights is meant to indicate the authorities and instrumentalities functioning within or without the territory of India which shall be deemed to be "the State " and which , therefore , shall act in conformity with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution . These are :

(i) the Government and Parliament of India;

( ii) the Government and the Legislature of each of the States;

(iii) all local authorities ; and

(iv) other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

Thus , the expression " the State " includes the legislative as well as the executive action . The fundamental rights bind the action of the legislature no less than that of the executive . Both in the Centre and the State neither acts of the legislature nor administrative orders of the Government can violate a fundamental right secured to the individual by this part of the Constitution . A department of the Executive Government , such as Income Tax Department, is " the State " .

38. Whether the bank is a local authority functioning inthe territory of India ? Whether it can be termed as other authorities functioning within the territory of India ? It is not the case of the bank that it is a local authority, within the ambit of above definition . The expression " other authorities " is used after mentioning a few ofthem , namely, the Government and Parliament of India, the Govt . and the legislature of each of the states and local authorities , it would be reasonable to construe this expression ejusdem generis with the Government or legislature . Such construction could only mean authorities exercising governmental or sovereign functions . On this interpretation , expression " other authorities " , would only include such bodies as are functioning as agents to the executive Government . But this narrow construction was rejected by the Apex Court in Smt . Ujjam Bai [ 1963 (1 ) S.C.R. 778 ] , concluding that there is nothing common genus running through the named bodies nor can these bodies be placed in one single category on any rational basis . In 3696 Gl /10-21

6831 Mohan Lal [ AIR 1967 S.C. 1857 ] , the Apex Court ruled that "other authorities , " would include particular authorities created by the Constitution or Statute and on whom powers are conferred by law . It was announced that it is not necessary that the statutory authority should be engaged in performing governmental or sovereign functions , since Article 298 contemplates trade or business being carried on by the state. Hence other authorities created for the purpose of promoting the economic interest of the people would fall within the ambit of function of the State . Statutory corporations were held to fall within the ambit of "other authorities " , in Sukhdev Singh [AIR 1975 ( 1 ) SCC 421 ] . The bank is not a corporation created by any statute passed by the Parliament or legislature of any state . The bank is not conducting any trade or business on behalf of any of the State ,to promote economic interest of the people . Therefore , it does not fall within the ambit of other authorities as mentioned in Article 12 of the Constitution .

39. The function of the State as provided in Article 12 of the Constitution would not answer the true intent of the word State, which is being considered in the present controversy. Therefore , that definition is not to help the parties any more . In international law State would mean "people permanently occupying a fixed temporary , bound together into one body politic by common subjection to some definite authority and exercising through the medium of an organized Government , a control over all persons and things within its territory , capable of maintaining relation of peace and war and free from external political control " . The word State has been defined by clause ( 58 ) ofSection 3 ofthe General Clauses Act , 1897 , as follows:-

"State " - ( a ) as regards any period before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment ) Act, 1956 , shall mean a part A State , a part B State or a part C State and ( b ) as regards any period after such commencement , shall mean a State specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution and shall include a Union Territory.

40. The above definitions make it clear that for construing the bank as a State it should be an organ of the state to answer the definitions referred above . Neither the definition provided in international law nor definition provided by clause (58 ) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is answered by the bank , so that it may assume a character of State . It does not answer the ambit of " other authorities " as mentioned in Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore , the bank does not fall within the ambit of definition of the State . When the bank is not a State , employment with the bank cannot be termed as an employment with the State. Hence precedents , referred above , nowhere come for application in the present controversy. Contention raised on behalf of the bank that claimant would have a back door entry in the service ofthe bank, on being reinstated in service , is uncalled for . The bank is to be governed by the precedents , which are applicable to a private employer .

6832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

41. When provisions of Section 25 - F , 25-G and 25 -H of the Act were not complied with , claimant is entitled for relief ofreinstatement . On the count of back wages , the bank projects that the claimant is gainfully employed . Rajesh admits that he is doing labour job and earns about a sum of Rs . 2100-2200 PM . This factor is to be taken into account as to whether Rajesh is entitled to full back wages . Reinstatement postulates that the workman should be put back in the position in which he was before the termination ofhis services , as if his services were never terminated . He should be restored to the work which he was doing before the termination of his services with all attendant benefits . But when the claimant was gainfully employed , though as a labour getting a sum of Rs . 2200 PM , in that situation it would not be expedient to order his reinstatement with full back wages .

42. It is well settled that in a case of wrongful retrenchment , dismissal or discharge , the normal rule is to award reinstatement with full back wages . But when the claimant was earning Rs . 2200 per month , in such a situation the industrial adjudicator has discretion to award reasonable and adequate compensation , in lieu of full back wages . Section 11A of the Act vests the industrial adjudicator with discretionary jurisdiction to give " such other relief to the workman " in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require , where for some valid reasons it considers that reinstatement with or without conditions will not be fair or proper . No definite yardstick for measuring the quantum of compensation is available . In S. S. Shetty [ 1957 ( 11 ) LLJ 696 ] the Apex Court indicated some relevant factors which an adjudicator has to take into account in computing compensation in lieu of reinstatement , in the following words:

"The industrial Tribunal would have to take into account the terms and conditions of employment , the tenure of service , the possibility oftermination of the employment at the instance ofeither party , the possibility of retrenchment by the employer or resignation or retirement by the workman and even of the employer himself ceasing to exist or of the workman being awarded various benefits including reinstatement urider the terms of future awards by Industrial Tribunal in the event of industrial disputes arising between the parties in future .... In computing the money value of the benefits of reinstatement , the industrial adjudicator would also have to take into account the present value of what his salary , benefits etc. would be till he attained the age of superannuation and the value of such benefits would have to be computed as from the date when such reinstatement was ordered under the terms ofthe award.

Having regard to the considerations detailed above , it is impossible to compute the money value of this benefit of reinstatement awarded to the appellant with mathematical

[PART 11 - SEC . 3 ( ii) ] exactitude and the best that any tribunai or court would do under the circumstances would be to make as correct as estimate as is possible bearing , of course in mind all the relevant factors pro and con" .

43. A Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court in B.Choudhary Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court , Jamshedpur ( 1983 ) Lab . I. C. 1755 ( 1758 ) deduced certain guidelines which have to be borne in mind in determining the quantum of compensation viz . ( i ) the back wages receivable ( ii ) compensation for deprivation of the job with future prospect and obtainability of alternative employment ; ( iii ) employee's age ( iv) length of service in the establishment ; (v ) capacity of the employer to pay and the nature of the employer's business; ( vi ) gainful employment in mitigation of damages ; and ( vii ) circumstances leading to the disengagement and the past conduct . These factors are only illustrative and not exhaustive . In addition to the amount of compensation , it is also within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award interest on the amount determined as compensation . Futhermore , the rate of such interest is also in the discretion ofthe Tribunal . Reference can be made to Tabesh Process , Shivakashi ( 1989 Lab.1.C.1887 ) .

44. In Assam Oil Co. Ltd. [ 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 587 ] the Apex Court took into account countervailing facts that the employer had paid certain sums to the workmen and her own earning in the alternative employment and ordered that " it would be fair and just to direct the appellant a substantial sum as compensation to her . " In Utkal Machinery Ltd. [ 1966 ( 1 ) LLJ 398 ] the amount of compensation equivalent to two years salary of the employee awarded by the Industrial Tribunal was reduced by the Supreme Court to an amount equivalent to one year salary ofthe employee in view of the fact that she had been in service with the employer only for 5 months and also took into consideration the unusual manner of her appointment at the instance of the Chief Minister of the State . In A. K. Roy [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 228 ] compensation equivalent to two years salary last drawn by the workmen was held to be fair and proper to meet the ends ofjustice . In Anil Kumar Chakaraborty [ 1962 ( II ) LLJ 483 the Count converted the award of reinstatement into compensation of a sum of Rs . 50000 as just and fair compensation in full satisfaction of all his claims for wrongful dismissal from service . In O. P. Bhandari [ 1986 ( II ) LLJ 509 J. The Apex Court observed that it was a fit case for grant of compensation in view of reinstatement . The Court awarded compensation equivalent to 3.33 years salary as reasonable . In M. K. Aggarwal [ 1988 Lab . I. C. 380 ] , the Apex Court though confirmed the order of reinstatement yet restricted the back salary to 50 % of what would otherwise be payable to the employee . In Yashveer Singh ( 1993 Lab . I. C. 44 ) the court directed payment of Rs . 750001 in view of reinstatement with back wages . In Naval Kishor ( 1984 ( 11 ) LL.J 473 ) the Apex Court observed that in view of the special circumstances of the case adequate compensation would be in the interest of the appellant . A sum of Rs . 2 lac was [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement . In Sant Raj [ 1985 ( II ) LLJ 19 ] a sum of Rs . 2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement . In Chandu Lal [ 1985 Lab . I. C. 1225 ] a compensation of Rs . 2lac by way ofback wages in lieu of reinstatement was awarded. In Ras Bihari ( 1988 Lab . I. C. 107) a compensation of Rs . 650001- was granted in lieu of reinstatement , since the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere . In V.V. Rao ( 1991 Lab . I. C. 1650 ) a compensation of Rs . 2.50 lac was awarded in lieu of reinstatement .

45. Claimant worked with the bank for six years and thereafter his services were terminated . He was kept as an adhoc employee , despite the fact that the work was available for sufficient duration and for reasonable time . After termination of his services , Vijay Kumar was regularized . He had to litigate for a period of seven years to get requital . During the period of nis struggle , he worked as a labour and could earn Rs . 2200/ - per month . Considering all these facts , it is ordered that the bank shall reinstate Shri Rajesh in service , with continuity and all consquential benefits , besides 50 % of back wages from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement . He shall be regularized in service from the date his junior was regularized by the bank and will get salary of a regular employee from that date . Since Ghanshyam has compounded his grievances with the bank , he is not entitled to any relief . An award is , accordingly , passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated : 13-8-2010

Dr. R. K. YADAV , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 8 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2458.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-1/ 38 ऑफ 2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42011 /72/ 2007- आई आर ( डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 8th September , 2010 S.O. 2458. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. CGIT- 1/38 of 2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of C.P.W.D. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 08-09-2010.

[No. L -42011 / 72/2007 - IR ( DU ) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

6833

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 MUMBAI Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer in charge .

Reference No. CGIT - 1 / 38 of 2007

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of C.P.W.D.

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

Absent

For the Management

Forthe Workman

Workman present

Maharashtra

State

Mumbai dated the 24th day of August 2010 AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d ) of sub - section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( The Act for short ) vide Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi Order No. L - 42011 / 72 / 2007 - IR ( DU ) dated 24-07-2007 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the demand of the CPWD Mazdoor Union for grant of ACP upgradation to Shri P. Shohraj , Work Assistant , on completion of 12 years of service , is legal and justified ? If yes , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?

2. The workman Mr. Palanivelu is present . None is present for the Management .

3. The workman has filed an application for non- prosecution of the reference in the style of withdrawing the same . It is submitted by the workman himself that the present reference is not in relation to the claim made by him before the Management and it is a wrong reference and so he does not want to proceed with this reference any more. The workman also admits to the application filed earlier from the side of the workman Union where the Union also expressed the desire for non - prosecution of the matter. On the scrutiny of the record , it is found that such an application was filed by Union on 13th August , 2008.

can 4. Since the workman and the workman Union does not want to proceed with the present reference this mater be disposed off even in the absence of the Management. So let the present reference be disposed off by treating the same as not prosecuted by the workman.

JUSTICE MANEK MOHAN SARKAR , Presiding Officer 6834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 8 सितम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 2459.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जोधपुर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं एल -40012 / 275 / 2002- आई आर ( डी यू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 8th September , 2010 S.O. 2459.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 8-9-2010 .

[No. L -40012/ 275/2002 - IR( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

अनुबन्ध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जोधपुर पीठासीन अधिकारी:- श्री एच. आर. नागौरी , आर . एच. जे. एस. औद्योगिक विवाद ( केन्द्रीय ) संख्या -08 सन् 2003 पुष्पा देवी पत्नि श्री दलपत हरिजन , निवासी हरिजन बस्ती , राईकाबाग , जोधपुर ।

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 27 सितम्बर 2005 के द्वारा निम्न विवाद अधिनिर्णय हेतु इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया गया है ।

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager , BSNL , Telecom District , Jodhpur in terminating Smt . Pushpa Devi W/ o Sh . Dalpat Harizan , Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 10-8-2001 instead of regularizing her as a full time casual labour from the date from which her juniors have been regularized is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled to"

2. प्रार्थीया ने अपने मांग पत्र में यह उल्लेख किया है कि वह जाति से मेहतर है तथा अनुसूचित जाति की श्रेणी में आती है । प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया है कि वह आठवीं कक्षा पास है तथा चुतर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी की योग्यता रखती है । तथा उसने अपना नाम रोजगार कार्यालय में भी पंजीकृत करवाया हुआ है । प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया है कि उसे उपखण्ड अधिकारी , दूरभाष ( द्वितीय ) उप मण्डल दूरभाष, जोधपुर में सन् 1986 में सफाई कर्मचारी के पद पर अस्थायी तौर पर चार घण्टे प्रतिदिन कार्य करने के लिए लगाया था जहां पर प्रार्थीया ने 1991 तक कार्य किया । प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया है कि उसका कार्य संतोषजनक था , उसके खिलाफ कभी कोई शिकायत नहीं हुई । इस आधार पर प्रार्थीया ने अप्रार्थी विभाग में चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के रिक्त पड़े पद पर नियमित करने हेतु प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किये , लेकिन अप्रार्थी ने बिना किसी कारण के उसे नियमित नहीं किया ।

..प्रार्थीया

बनाम

1. महाप्रबन्धक, दूरसंचार जिला जोधपुर ।

2 डी/ओ. टेलीकॉम डिप्टी सेक्रेट्री एडमिनिस्ट्रेशन , संचार भवन , नई दिल्ली -110 001

3. प्रार्थीया ने आगे उल्लेख किया है कि जुलाई 1994 में पुनः प्रार्थीया को अंशकालीन सफाई कर्मचारी के पद पर केन्द्रीय तारघर में नियुक्त किया । यहां पर भी प्रार्थीया ने संतोषजनक कार्य किया तथा उसके विरूद्ध कभी कोई शिकायत नहीं हुई । इस आधार पर प्रार्थीया ने नियमित करने हेतु प्रार्थना - पत्र दिये तो अप्रार्थी द्वारा उसे सूचित किया किसरकार ने नियुक्ति हेतु पाबंदी लगा रखी है अतः जब पाबंदी हट जायेगी उसको नियमित कर दिया जावेगा , लेकिन पाबंदी हटने के बाद भी अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थीया को नियमित नहीं किया गया । प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया है कि उसे अंशकालीन चार घण्टे प्रतिदिन कार्य करने हेतु लगाया गया था , लेकिन उससे पूरे समय कार्य लिया जाता था । प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया है कि केन्द्रीय तारघर के परिसर की सम्पूर्ण सफाई की जिम्मेवारी प्रार्थीया की थी ।

अप्रार्थीगण

उपस्थिति:-

( 1 ) प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि श्री विनय जैन उपस्थित । (2) अप्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि श्री देवीलाल व्यास उपस्थित ।

अधिनिर्णय

दिनांक: 25-05-2010

1. भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल. - 40012 /275/ 2002- आई आर ( डी यू) नई दिल्ली दिनांक 4. प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया है कि माह अक्तूबर 1998 में अचानक प्रार्थीया को सेवा से निकाल दिया तथा सफाई का कार्य बाहरी ठेका एंजेसी सुलभ को दे दिया । प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया है कि वह ठेका ऐजेंसी के मार्फत लगातार केन्द्रीय तारघर में कार्य करती रही तथा प्रार्थीया को पैसा विभाग के ही जरिये एजेंसी से मिलता था । प्रार्थीया उल्लेख किया है 'क केन्द्रीय सरकार ने एक परिपत्र दिनांक 169-99 को इस पशय का जारी किया कि जो अंश्कालीन कर्मचारी चार घण्टे अथवा कार्य कर रहे हैं तथा जिन्हांनाये साल में 240 तथा अधिक दिन कार्य कर लिया होनां उन्हें रिक्त पद होने पर नियमित कर दिया जावे । इस आधार पर प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया है कि वह माह जुलाई 1994 से लगातार कार्य कर रही थी तथा [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

रोजाना चार घण्टे से अधिक कार्य कर रही थी , वह चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी की समस्त योग्यता रखती थी तथा उसने एक साल में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया है तथा विभाग में पद भी रिक्त हैं । अतः उसे उक्त परिपत्र दिनांक 16-9-1999 के अर्न्तगत नियमित कर दिया जाना चाहिये था , लेकिन विभाग ने बिना किसी उचित कारण के प्रार्थीया को नियमित नहीं किया ।

5. प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया है कि जब विभाग ने काफी समय तक नियमितिकरण बाबत कोई आदेश पारित नहीं किये तब उसने एक ओ.ए. केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण में प्रस्तुत की । उक्त वाद के लम्बित रहते विभाग ने प्रार्थीया से जुनियर श्रमिकों को नियमित कर दिया तथा प्रार्थीया को यह कहते हुए नियमित नहीं किया कि उसका कैस न्यायालय में लम्बित है । दिनांक 16-5-2001 को केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण , जोधपुर ने उक्त वाद का निर्णय करते हुए आदेश पारित किया कि प्रार्थीया विभाग को एक प्रार्थना - पत्र देगी जिसे विभाग दो माह में परिपत्र दिनांक 16-9-1999 के अर्न्तगत तय करे । केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण के आदेशानुसार प्रार्थीया ने एक प्रतिवेदन दिनांक 12-6-2001 को विभाग को दिया जिसमें उसने स्पष्ट तौर पर अंकित किया कि उसने 16-9-1999 के गये साल में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया है तथा वह चर्तुथ श्रेणी कर्मचारी की योग्यता रखती है उसका कार्य संतोषजनक है तथा विभाग में चर्तुथ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद रिक्त पड़े हैं । प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया कि उसका उक्त प्रतिवेदन दिनांक 10-8-2001 को अप्रार्थी ने यह कहते हुए खारिज कर दिया कि प्रार्थीया का पेमेन्ट एसीजी 17 से किया जाता है, अतः प्रार्थीया को नियमित नहीं किया जा सकता तथा प्रार्थीया को बिना औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ की पालना किये सेवा से निकाल दिया ।

6. प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी विभाग ने प्रार्थीया के साथ भेदभाव किया है तथा श्रीमती जमना देवी , श्री जेठाराम , श्री केवलराम , श्रीमती लादूडी, श्री प्रेमसिंह , श्रीमती रामकुमारी , श्रीमती सीता देवी , श्री अशोक , श्री कंवरलाल , श्रीमती बादामी , श्रीमती कान्ता देवी इत्यादि जो प्रार्थीया से जुनियर थे तथा बाद में लगाये थे उन्हें नियमित कर दिया तथा वे आज भी नौकरी में हैं । इस प्रकार अप्रार्थीगण ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा- 25-जी तथा 25 - एच का भी उल्लंघन किया है । प्रार्थीया ने उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थीगण ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के नियम 77 की पालना में वरियता सूची भी प्रकाशित नहीं की । उक्त आधारों पर प्रार्थीया ने प्रार्थना की है कि उसका सेवामुक्ति आदेश दिनांक 10-8-2001 को अनुचित एवं अवैध घोषित किया जाकर प्रार्थीया को चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर पुनः पदस्थापित किया जावे तथा जिस दिनांक से प्रार्थीया से जुनियर व्यक्तियों को नियमित किया गया है उस तारीख से प्रार्थीया को नियमित किया जाकर समस्त परिलाभ दिलाये जावें ।

7. अप्रार्थीगण ने अपने प्रतिउत्तर में यह उल्लेख किया है कि विभाग के परिपत्र संख्या 269-13/ 99 - STN - II / 16-9-1999 के तहत नई भर्ती पर 1985 से ही प्रतिबन्ध लगा रखा है , अतः प्रार्थीया का यह

6835

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन10 , 1932

कथन गलत है कि उसे वर्ष 1986 , 1987 , 1990 तथा 1991 में सफाई कार्य हेतु लगातार बुलाया गया । अप्रार्थीगण ने उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थीया को विभाग में कार्य की आवश्यकता अनुसार ही कार्य पर रखा जाता था जिसका पारिश्रमिक का भुगतान एसीजी 17 के द्वारा किया गया । अप्रार्थीगण ने उल्लेख किया है कि नियमित कर्मचारी का भुगतान वेतन- पे- रोल द्वारा किया जाता है जबकि अंशकालीन श्रमिकों को पारिश्रमिक का भुगतान एसीजी -17 द्वारा ही किया जाता है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थीया अप्रार्थी विभाग में चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर नियमित किये जाने के योग्य नहीं है ।

8. अप्रार्थीगण ने उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थीया ने 1994 से लगातार 7-8 घण्टे कार्य नहीं किया । प्रार्थीया की कभी भी अंशकालीन नियुक्तिनहीं की गई । प्रार्थीया ने कभी भी पूर्णकालिक 8 घण्टे कार्य नहीं किया । प्रार्थीया को कुछ घंटों के लिए दिनांक 21-7-1994 से सितम्बर 1998 तक की अवधि में किये गये कार्य के पारिश्रमिक का भुगतान नकद किया जा चुका है । नियुक्तियां उन लोगों की गई जिन्होंने नियमित रूप से अंशकालीन कार्य किया है तथा उनका भुगतान पे - रोल से किया जाता था । अप्रार्थीगण ने उल्लेख किया है कि विभाग द्वारा प्रार्थीया को केन्द्रीय तारघर के परिसर की सफाई हेतु आवश्यकता होने पर समय - समय पर लगाया जाता था तथा उसके पारिश्रमिक का भुगतान एसीजी 17 पर किया जाता था । इस प्रकार प्रार्थीया का मामला विभागीय नियमों के अनुसार चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर नियमित किये जाने योग्य नहीं है । अप्रार्थीगण ने उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी विभाग द्वारा सुलभ ऐजेन्सी को सफाई कार्य का ठेका दिया गया था तथा प्रार्थीया ने माह अक्तूबर 1998 से सुलभ ऐजेन्सी के पास कार्य किया है तथा प्रार्थीया को भुगतान भी सुलभ ऐजेन्सी द्वारा किया गया है । अप्रार्थी विभाग द्वारा अक्टूबर 1998 के बाद प्रार्थीया को कोई कार्य नहीं सौंपा गया । अप्रार्थीगण ने उल्लेख किया है कि परिपत्र दिनांक 16-9-1999 तथा मुख्य महाप्रबन्धक दूरसंचार परिमण्डल कार्यालय , जयपुर के पत्र क्रमांक Rectt/ 1-20/V/97 दिनांक 23-9-1999 के अनुसार उन्हीं पार्ट टाईम कर्मचारियों को फुल टाईम केज्युअल मजदूर के रूप में रखा जा सकता है जिनका भुगतान ए.ओ. द्वारा किया गया है । जब कि प्रार्थीया को भुगतान एसीजी 17 पर किया गया है । अतः प्रार्थीया नियमित किये जाने योग्य नहीं है ।

9. अप्रार्थीगण ने उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थीया को कभी भी वेतन पे-रोल पर भुगतान नहीं किया गया तथा प्रार्थीया ने कभी भी लगातार 7-8 घण्टे कार्य नहीं किया तथा न ही उसकी सेवाएं नियमित करने का विभाग की ओर से उसे कोई आश्वासन दिया गया । अप्रार्थीगण ने इस तथ्य को गलत बताया है कि प्रार्थीया का मामला न्यायालय में लम्बित होने से उसको नियमित नहीं किया गया । इस तथ्य को भी गलत बताया है कि केन्दीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण में वाद लम्बित होने के दौरान प्रार्थी से जुनियर को नियमित कर दिया गया । अप्रार्थीगण ने उल्लेख किया है कि कुछ व्यक्तियों को फुल टाईम केज्युअल मजदूर के रूप में रखा गया था जिनका मामला डी.ओ.टी. पत्र क्रमांक 269-13/99 एस.टी.एन. 11 दिनांक 25-8-200 मुख्य महाप्रबन्धक दूरसंचार राजस्थान परिमण्डल , जयपुर के पृष्ठांकन 6836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVINA 10 , 1932

संख्या Rectt/1-2-/V/ 113 दिनांक 4-9-2000 के अर्न्तगत फुल टाईम केज्युअल मजदूर करने के योग्य पाया गया । प्रार्थीया का मामला उक्त विभागीय नियमों के अर्न्तगत नहीं पाया गया । अप्रार्थीगण ने उल्लेख किया है कि केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण , जोधपुर के आदेश दिनांक 16-5-2001 की पालना में अप्रार्थी विभाग द्वारा प्रार्थीया के प्रार्थना- पत्र का निर्णय महाप्रबन्धक दूरसंचार जिला जोधपुर के पत्र क्रमॉक ई -24/पीटी/ 2001-2002/के . डब्लू./ 11 दिनांक 10-8-2001 द्वारा किया जा चुका है ।

10. अप्रार्थीगण ने उल्लेख किया है कि अक्टूबर 1998 से विभाग ने सफाई का कार्य ठेके पर दे दिया था यदि प्रार्थीया ने अक्तूबर 1998 से ठेका ऐजेन्सी के अधीन कार्य किया है तो विभाग को इसकी जानकारी नहीं है । उक्त आधारों पर अप्रार्थीगण ने प्रार्थीया के प्रार्थना- पत्र को निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की ।

11. प्रार्थीया ने अपने प्रार्थना - पत्र में उल्लेख किये गये तथ्यों की पुष्टि में स्वंय का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । उससे प्रतिपरीक्षा की गई । अप्रार्थी की ओर से श्री बृजवीरसिंह का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत हुआ । उससे भी प्रतिपरीक्षा की गई । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में परिपत्र दिनांक 16-9-1999 प्रदर्श ए -1 , प्रार्थीया द्वारा अप्रार्थी के अधीन पार्टटाईम कार्य का विवरण प्रदर्श ए -2 लगायत प्रदर्श ए -16 , अप्रार्थी का आदेश दिनांक 9-5-2001 प्रदर्श ए -17 तथा महाप्रबन्धक दूरसंचार विभाग का आदेश दिनांक 23-9-1999 प्रदर्श ए-18 को प्रस्तुत कर प्रदर्श करवाये गये ।

गया । 12. बहस उभय - पक्ष सुनी गई । पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया 13. अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा श्रमिक की छंटनी करने के पूर्व औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ की पालना करने के लिए यह आवश्यक है कि वह श्रमिक कम से कम एक वर्ष तक अप्रार्थी संस्थान में नियमित सेवा में रहा हो । औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 - बी नियमित सेवा को निम्नप्रकार परिभाषित करती है:-

( 1 ) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is , for that period in uninterrupted service , including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal , or a lock - out or a cesssation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause( 1 ) for a period of one year or six months , he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year , if the workman , during a period of twelve calenedar months preceding the datewith reference to which calculation is to be made , has actualy worked under the employer for not less than-

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] ( i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine ; and ( ii) two hundred and forty days , in any other case ;

(b) for a period of six months , if the workman , during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made , has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

( i) ninety five days , in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine ; and ( ii) one hundred and twenty days.in any other case .

उक्त प्रावधानों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में हमें उक्त रेफरेन्स पर विचार करना है । प्रार्थीया ने अपने मॉग - पत्र की चरण संख्या -3 में यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान में उसे सन् 1986 में लगाया था तथा उसने वहाँ सन् 1991 तक कार्य किया । इसके बाद प्रार्थीया ने अपने मॉग - पत्र की चरण संख्या 4 में यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसके प्रार्थना- पत्र देने पर सन् 1994 में उसे पुनः अंशकालीन सफाई कर्मचारी के पद पर नियुक्त किया । हमारी राय में पत्रावली पर ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य नहीं है। जिसके आधार पर यह माना जा सके कि प्रार्थीया सन् 1986 से सन् 1991 तक अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहाँ उक्त परिभाषा के अनुसार नियमित सेवा में रही हो ।

14. प्रार्थीया ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह उल्लेख किया है कि उस सन् 1994 में साढ़े चार साल तक लगातार काम पर बुलाया था । यह भी उल्लेख किया है कि सन् 1998 से उसने सुलभ ऐजेन्सी के अधीन ठेके के अर्न्तगत काम किया था । इस साक्षी ने यह कहा है कि यह ठेका सन् 1998 से 2000 तक चला था । उसने सन् 1998 के बाद सन् 2000 तक ठेके पर काम किया था । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने मॉग - पत्र के प्रतिउत्तर के चरण संख्या 6 में यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थीया को अप्रार्थी विभाग द्वारा अक्तूबर 1998 के बाद कोई कार्य नहीं सौंपा गया था । यह भी उल्लेख किया है कि अक्तूबर 1995 से सितम्बर 1998 तक प्रार्थीया को कार्य की आवश्यकता अनुसार समय - समय पर सफाई कार्य हेतु कुछ घन्टों के लिए लगाया जाता था । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने अपने इस प्रतिउत्तर में यह भी उल्लेख किया है कि यदि प्रार्थीया ने अक्तूबर 1998 में ठेका ऐजेन्सी के अधीन कार्य किया हो तो विभाग को इसकी जानकारी नहीं है । अप्रार्थी नियोजक के साक्षी श्री बृजवीरसिंह ने प्रतिपरीक्षा मे स्पष्ट रूप से इस तथ्य को गलत बताया है कि प्रार्थीया ने उनके विभाग में सन् 1986 से 10-8-2001 तक लगातार काम किया । इस साक्षी ने कहा है कि प्रार्थीया ने सन् 1986 , 1987 , 1990 , 1991 तथा दिनांक 21-7-1994 से सितम्बर 1998 तक कार्य की आवश्यकता अनुसार काम किया । 15. उक्त तथ्यों तथा साक्ष्य के विवेचन के पश्चात् हमें एक निश्चित निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचना है । प्रार्थीया द्वारा अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहाँ किये गये कार्य के सम्बन्ध में विवरण प्रदर्श ए -2 लगायत प्रदर्श ए-16 प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं । इनमें से जुलाई 1994 से दिसम्बर 1994 के विवरण प्रदर्श ए -11 लगायत प्रदर्श ए -16 तथा जनवरी 1995 से [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

सितम्बर 1995 तक के विवरण प्रदर्श ए-2 लगायत प्रदर्श ए-10 हैं । इसके अलावा प्रार्थीया ने अप्रार्थी संस्थान में किये गये अपने कार्य के सम्बन्ध में कोई विवरण , उपस्थिति पंजिका अथवा वेतन सम्बन्धी कोई दस्तावेज साक्ष्य में न तो तलब करवाये हैं और न ही प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने मॉग - पत्र के प्रतिउत्तर तथा अपनी साक्ष्य में भी स्पष्ट रूप से यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थीया ने जुलाई 1994 से सितम्बर 1998 तक उनके विभाग में कार्य की आवश्यकता अनुसार कार्य किया । साक्ष्य के अभाव में यह नहीं माना जा सकता कि प्रार्थीया इस अवधि में औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 - बी के अनुसार नियमित सेवा में रही । पत्रावली पर ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य नहीं है , जिसके आधार पर यह माना जा सके कि प्रार्थीया ने अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहां सितम्बर 1998 के पश्चात् कार्य किया हो । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थीया का यह तर्क रहा है कि प्रार्थीया ने सन्1998 के बाद अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहाँ ठेके के अधीन कार्य किया था और ऐसा कार्य भी अप्रार्थी नियोजक के अधीन किया हुआ कार्य ही माना जायेगा । यह सही है कि यदि प्रार्थीया ने अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहाँ ठेके के अधीन कार्य किया हो तब भी ऐसा कार्य अप्रार्थी नियोजक के अधीन किया हुआ कार्य ही माना जाता है , लेकिन प्रार्थीया को एक निश्चित साक्ष्य से यह प्रमाणित करना होता है कि उसने ठेके के अधीन भी निरन्तर कार्य किया था । प्रार्थीया ने सितम्बर 1998 के पश्चात् अपने द्वारा अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहाँ ठेके के अधीन किये गये कार्य के सम्बन्ध में कोई दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत नहीं किये हैं । ऐसी स्थिति में यह प्रमाणित नहीं होता है कि प्रार्थीया ने अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहाँ औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 - बी के अनुसार निरन्तर तथा नियमित कार्य किया ।

16. प्रार्थीया ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में स्पष्ट रूप से स्वीकार किया है कि उसने अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहाँ ठेके के अधीन सन् 1998 से सन् 2000 तक कार्य किया था । रेफरेन्स में प्रार्थीया की सेवामुक्ति की तिथि दिनांक 10-8-2001 बताई गई है । ऐसी स्थिति में यह तथ्य भी प्रमाणित नहीं होता है कि प्रार्थीया ने अपनी सेवामुक्ति की दिनांक के पूर्व एक वर्ष के भीतर अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहाँ कम से कम 240 दिन निरन्तर कार्य किया ।

17. उक्त विवेचन के अलावा यहाँ यह उल्लेख करना समीचीन है कि पत्रावली पर स्पष्ट रूप से यह साक्ष्य है कि प्रार्थीया को अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने जब- जब अपने यहाँ कार्य की आवश्यकता हुई तब - तब कार्य पर रखा । ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थीया अंशकालीन आकस्मिक श्रमिक की परिभाषा में नहीं आती । यदि प्रार्थीया को अंशकालीन आकस्मिक श्रमिक दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में रखा जाता तो उसे वेतन का भुगतान वेतन पे रोल द्वारा किया जाता । पत्रावली पर ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य नहीं है जिसके आधार पर यह माना जा सके कि प्रार्थीया को वेतन का भुगतान वेतन पे रोल द्वारा किया गया । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने अपनी साक्ष्य से यह प्रमाणित किया है कि प्रार्थीया को वेतन का भुगतान पारिश्रमिक के रूप में भुगतान प्राप्ति द्वारा किया जाता था । अतः समस्त परिस्थितियों पर सावधानीपूर्वक विचार करने के पश्चात् हमारी राय में अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा प्रार्थीया की सेवा

6837

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

पूर्णकालिक आकस्मिक श्रमिक के रूप में नियमित नहीं कर उसे दिनांक 10-8-2001 से सेवामुक्त किया जाना अवैध तथा अनुचित नहीं है ।

आदेश

18. अतः यह अधिनिर्णित किया जाता है कि अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा प्रार्थीया की सेवा पूर्णकालिक आकस्मिक श्रमिक के रूप में नियमित न कर उसे दिनांक 10-8-2001 से सेवामुक्त किया जाना अवैध तथा अनुचित नहीं है । प्रार्थीया किसी अनुतोष को प्राप्त करने की अधिकारी नहींहै ।

19. इस अधिनिर्णय को प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली को प्रेषित किया जावे ।

20. यह अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 25-05-2010 को खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर सुनाया गया ।

एच. आर. नागौरी , न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली , 8 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2460.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेमी कन्डक्टर कॉम्प्लैक्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं एल -42025 / 10 / 2010 - आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ]

जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 8th September , 2010 S.O. 2460. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 30 / 2004) of the Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Hyderbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Semi Conductor Complex Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-9-2010 .

[No. L -42025 / 10 /2010 - IR ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD

Present: - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated 3rd day of August , 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 30/2004 6838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVINA 10 , 1932

BETWEEN:

Sri S. Uday Kumar ,

R/ o 8-5-57/2 ,

Opp . Govt . Primary School ,

Mallikarjun Nagar Colony,

OldBowenpalli ,

Secunderabad - 500 011 .

[PART II-SEC . (ii)

Petitioner

AND

1. TheExecutive Director ( GAETEC ) Semi Conductor Complex Ltd. , Gaetec Project , Vigyankancha Post , Hyderabad-69

2. The Chairman - cum- Managing Director , Semi Conductor Complex Ltd. , Phase - VIII , Mohali .

Punjab - 160061 .

Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/ s . G. Vidya Sagar , K.Udaya Sri . P. Sudheer Rao & D. Madusudhan , Advocates

For the Respondent : M/ s . Radha Krishna Murthy , D.V. K. Mohan , K. Pinakapani & V.V. Siva Satyananda Kumar ,

Advocates

AWARD

Sri S. Uday Kumar has filed this petition under Sec . 2 A(2) of the I.D. Act , in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotten Corporation of India and two others challenging the order of his dismissal dated 27-3-2003 and for his reinstatement with continuity of service full back wages .

2. Ithas been alleged by the Petitioner that he joined the Respodent organization as Draftsman - IV at Mohali on 5-9-1984 and he was promoted to the post of Draftsman - V in the year 1987 , thereafter he was promoted to the post of Technical Assistant ( D/ Man ) -I in the year 1991. After working for 7 years he was transferred to Mohali to Hyderabad in the month of July , 1991 and was posted in HRD Department . He was designated as Co - ordinator (HRD) during the year 1993. He got promotion in the 1994 as Co - coordinator - II HRD , Co - ordinator HRD - III in the year 2001. He has been discharging the duty to the entire satisfaction of the superiors . While so , a charge sheet 9-7-2002 alleging misconduct under Standing Orders of the company was issued to the Petitioner as follows: - "21 (45 ) : Indulging in any action of sexual harassment of any woman at her work place ."

3. Petitioner submitted explanation to the charge sheet explaining the circumstances of the case . He stated that he was not in office on 2-6-2002 . He further stated that the joint complaint dated 4-6-2002 does not indicate the date of alleged misconduct. His explanation was not considered and an enquiry was ordered , notice was issued tim appointing Enquiry Officer . While the matter stood thus, another complaint was made against the Petitioner on 26-8-2002 by Head (MM) that on 26-8-2002 the Petitioner entered the MM Hall and used unparliamentary language against the officers for which Petitioner submitted explanation on 11-9-2002 clarifying that on 26-8-2002 he was in his seat and doing his official work . Not satisfied with the explanation of the Petitioner another enquiry was ordered . The enquiry proceeding begun on 16-9-2002 . The Statement of Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam in first charge sheet was obtainted . Correction was made in the statement of Smt . P. V. Lakshmi Rajyam . The Petitioner challenged the enquiry proceeding before the Enquiry Officer itself. So far as second charge sheet is concerned it was issued on the following charges :

" 1. 21-04 : Drunkenness , fighting , riotous or disorderly of indecent behaviour within the factory premises and or while on duty or outside in connection with the work of factory.

2.21.25 : Creating disturbances or confusion agitation of any nature whatsoever in the factory and interfering with or stopping his own or another's work for any reason or by any means whatsoever .

3.21.29 : Engaging or abetting in abuses and physical violence to any other workman or employee at any time or in the factory. "

4. Along with the charge sheet the Petitioner was suspended from service w.e.f. 20-9-2002 pending enquiry in the first charge sheet and second charge sheet issued against the Petitioner . Petitioner submitted his explanation to the 2nd charge sheet on 7-10-2002 . Thereafter Petitioner has assailed the enquiry proceeding and manner in which it was conducted in para 7-20 of the claim statement . The Enquiry Officer has submitted report holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges . The Disciplinary Authority without applying his mind and going through the material placed before him ordered removal of Petitioner from the service in illegal manner as such the Petitioner has challenged the removal order through this claim petition.

5. Respondent management has filed counter statemant conceding that Petitioner joined in the year 1984 and he was promoted upto the post of coordinator - II and he was transferred from Mohali to Hyderabad . It has further been alleged by the Respondent that right from the date of joining of the service Petitioner was in habit of committing various misconducts such as sleeping while on the duty refusal to dscharge duty entrusted by superiors and irritating behaviour . The Petitioner was warned and advised on several occasions but he did not charge his attitude nor mend his ways towards discipline .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6. It is further submitted by the Respondent that one lady by name Smt. P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam is working in HRD Department of Respondent company in which Petitioner wasworking . On 2-5-2002 at 9-10 PM while entering in his department the Petitioner pulled the cheeks of Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam with an ulterior motive for no reason on part of said Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam and misbehaved with her due to which Smt. P.V;. Lakshmi Rajyam felt shocked and became panic . It was complained by Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam and Ms. K. Sumathi co -employee of Smt . P.V.Lakshmi Rajyam through letter dated 4-6-2002 about the harassing mentality, insulting behaviour and malafide intentions by the Petitioner . Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam also gave a complaint dated 4-7-2002 about the insulting behaviour of pulling her cheeks by the Petitioner and also informed about unwanted interference by the Petitioner about the issue of gate passes .

7. It was also found that the Petitioner is in the habit ofmisbehaving with Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam for the past one year by talking nonsence /giving indecent proposals in front ofher and also was in commenting her with ulterior motive. This fact was also brought to the notice of the management by Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam by her representation dated 4-7-2002 . The management issued a charge sheet dated 9-7-2002 calling upon Petitioner to explain but instead of submitting his explanation Petitioner submitted letters dated 11-7-2002 and 16-7-2002 seeking time for submitting explanation which was duly granted to the Petitioner . Petitioner submitted his explanation on 17-2-2002 . He did not deny his presence at the place of incident as mentioned in complaint dated 4-6-2002 . Since Petitioner's explanation was unsatisfactory, Lt. Col. Bhaskar Raghunath was appointed as Enquiry Officer , he conducted the enquiry in a full and fair manner giving fair opportunity to the Petitioner , who sought several adjourments . However the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry observing the principles of natural justice . Management witness Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam was examined in the presence of the Petitioner workman who cross examinated Smt. P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam through his co- worker . Other management witnesses were also examined in the presence of the Petitioner , he and his co- worker cross examined them . Petitioner has also examined himself, Enquiry Officer submitted his report with the finding that the charges against the Petitioner were found proved. As regards the second charge sheet another enquiry was ordered where management has examined five witnesses in presence of Petitioner and his assistant co - worker who were crossexmined by them , Petitioner also examined six witnesses on the second charge sheet . However , the Enquiry Officer submitted his report with the conclusion thatmisconduct alleged in the second charge sheet was also found to be proved against the Petitioner workman . After conclusion of enquiry and on the receipt of the enquiry report show cuase notice was given to the 3696 GI /10-22

6839

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

Petitioner . Petitioner filed his explanation . The Disciplinary Authority looking into the gravity of the misconduct imposed the punishment of removal from service on the workmanthere is no material in the claim statement, which may prove malafide on part of management it is unfounded, no leniency and sympathetic attitude is required in the case of the present Petitioner. His conduct has been mist undesirable . He has misbehaved with the lady worker at the place ofwork as such the punishment is quite sufficient. It is nether shocking nor disproporationate . Petition deserves to dismissed .

8. Parties were directed to file their evidence . Respondent counsel has filed two volumes of the enquiry proceeding book as entire material collected during the course of enquiry proceedings by management as well as that of delinquent employee , the statement of witnesses , finding of the Enquiry Officer , order of Disciplinary Authority . Petitioner has also filed his representation dated 23-9-2002 regarding violation of procedure during enquiry proceeding, his explanation dated 7-10-2002 , objection against the enquiry finding dated 17-2-2003 , another objection dated 17-2-2003 against the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer .Copy ofthe explanation dated 6-3-2003 against the show cause notice and copy of appeal dated 1-4-2003 filed by the Petitioner.

9. The Petitioner through his claim petition challenged the legality and validity and propriety of domestic enquiry . It has been denied by the Respondent management through their counter statement . My Learned Predecessor has taken up the question of legality and validity of demestic enquiry and by his order dated 1-8-2006 he has held that domestic enquiry conducted by the management was legal and valid . It has been conducted in view of the decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported AIR 1963 page 1914 and the Enquiry Officer has not committed any illegality or irregularity in conducting the domestic enquiry. Thus , the question of legality and validity of domestic enquiry has already been settled. The only question which has to be decided by this tribunal under Sec . 11A of the Industria ! Disputes Act, 1947 is whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the misconduct committed.

10. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner through his written argument that there was no direct official relationship between the Petitioner and the two lady employee nor they alleged in the complaint that they were sexually harassed by the Petitioner . Thus , the allegation was made with intention to create punishment on the Petitioner without any fault .

11. It has further been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the alleged mis - behaviour has been said to have taken place at 9.10 AM, in fact from 9AM onwards employees will be coming into company to attend their duties , their is heavy rush at the entrance of the department . Thus , there is no possibililty for any 6840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

individual to harass sexually in presence of so many people .

Moreover, Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam , in reply to question No. 13 has admitted that nobody has witnessed the incident . Therefore , the allegation of the complainant Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam was without any corroboration and what- ever Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam has complained is not corroborated by any evidence , as such , the misconduct said to have been committed has not been proved . These , material facts has not been considered by the Enquiry Officer , he has not applied his mind while at the conclusion that the Petitioner workman has committed misconduct by indulging in such an act which amounts to sexual harassment of any woman at her work placed .

12. He has further argued that so far as question of 2nd charge - sheet is concerned it is out come of MM Sri K.S. Randhawa alone who was having grudge against the Petitioner . But for Sri K.S. Randhawa , Manager , MM none of the officials of the MM department has corroborated the allegation of Sri K.S. Randhawa that the Petitioner has used abusive language by calling the lady employee of the MM department as prostitute and other employees as bastards . So the alleged complaint Sr. K.S. Randhawa is deviod of any merit not supported by any staff member whereas defence witness has stated that the Petitioner workman has not used any abusive language as alleged by Sri K. S. Randhawa , the Enquiry Officer has not considered these material facts of the case . Thus , the report of the Enquiry Officer is biased and without any evidence and no credence can be given to the biased and one - sided or lopsided evidence of the management by the Enquiry Officer. Thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse without any basis or without application of mind and without any evidence . So the Disciplinary Authority has also committed mistake . Disciplinary Authority has also not applied his mind and has passed the order of removal prejudicially . Hence , the interference by this tribunal is required in the present case .

13. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the Learned Predecessor of this tribunal has already held that the departmental proceeding or domestic enquiry was legal and valid hence , this tribunal can not sit in appeal against the order passed by the predecessor . Secondly , there is ample material beforee this tribunal in form of the evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate the allegation of sexual harassment of the lady employee at her work place by the Petitioner through the statement ofthe victim Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam . In the matter of Vishaka and others , Vs. State of Rajasthan and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that- " Sexual harassment of the working woman- Amounts to violation of rights of gender equality and right to life and liberty- Also as a logical consequence amounts to violation of right to practice any professon , occupation or trade- Victim is therefore entitled to remedy of Art . " In the present case Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam has complained against the

[ PARI 11-- SEC. 3 (ii ) ) Petitioner that he has harassed her with an ulterior motive by pulling her cheeks at the work place . Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam has appeared before the Enquiry Officer , she was harassed by the Petitioner on several occasions , several irrelevant questions were asked about the husband and other family members of Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam by the Petitioner during course of alleged cross examiniation , to which she has responded coolly , she answered each and every irrelevant question of the Petitioner workman and proved her case before the Enquiry Officer . The contention of Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam was supported by another worker Mrs. K. Raja Rajeswari and Mrs. Sumathi , proved that Petitioner workman has misbehaved with Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam with ulterior motive , there is nothing on record to prove that Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam has any ulterior motive to implicate the present Petitioner in the matter of her sexual harassment . Thus , the Enquiry Officer has given cogent and logical finding in respect of charge- sheet No. I proving the allegation of sexual harassment by the workman Petitioner against the co - lady employee of his department at the work place during working hours .

14. It has further been argued by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Sri K.S. Randhawa as a Manager has no grudge aginst the Petitioner , had the Petitioner not uttered the unparliamentary language regarding the entire staff of MM Department calling the lady employees as prostitutes and male employees as bastards . Sri K.S. Randhawa has no reason to make complaint against the Petitioner , the contention of Sri K.S. Randhawa was supported by other witnesses produced by the management , the Petitioner workman thereby committed misconduct within the meaning of Sec . 21.04, 25.25 , 21.29 of the Standing Orders . The Disciplinary Authority has not committed any mistake nor has imposed such punishment wł.ich can be said to be disproportionate or shocking to the conscience of a prudent man . In the matter of Punjab Financial Corporation and Union Territory , Chandigarh and others , Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that " if workman shouting . abusive slogan and using filthy language against lady Managing Director - ' Misconduct ' has specific connotation and what is misconduct will depend on circumstances of each case- Termination of service is proper punishment and no lenient punishment is warranted " , as in the present case as reported in II LLJ Punjab and Haryana 1992 page 825. He has further relied upon the case law 1998 LLJ by the High Court of Allahabad page 1016 in the matter of M.C. Gupta and Labour Court , Meerut and another wherein Hon'ble High Court has heid that . " Workman charged with abusing , threatening and beating Personnel Officer--- It is grave and serious misconduct Punishment of dismissal rightly upheld by Labour Court Dismissal in this case is not disproportionate to misconduct. "

15.He has further relied on the case law reported in AIR 2005 Hon'ble Supreme Court page 1993 in the matter ofMahindra and Mahindra Ltd .. Vs. N.B. Naravade wherein 6841 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010 / आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

matters and punishment can not be equated with appellate jurisdiction. The tribunal can not interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the competent authority where they are not arbitrary or perverse . "

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that , " Use of abusive language by workman against supreior officer twice in presence of his subordinates Cannot be termed as indiscipline calling for lessor punishment -Punishment of dismissal from service not disproportionate to misconduct . " On the basis of the above case laws Learned Counsel for Respondent has argued that the misconduct committed by the present Petitioner is not a minor misconduct . It is very serious and punishment wherein dismissal is only proper and adequate punishment as done in the present case . The petition has got no force and deserves to be dismissed .

18. He has further relied upon case law reported in 1999 ( 83 FLR226 Supreme Court ) in the matter ofU.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Munshirani and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " the question whether the authority can act upon the report filed by Enquiry Officer or not and whether these reports should be accepted or not is a matter which has to be examined by the Enquiry Officer . If the findings are based on uncontraverted material it can not be said that these findings are perverse . "

16. I have considered argument of both the parties and I have also gone through the claim statement and other materials placed before this tribunal by the parties ' counsels . In this matter following points has to be determined by this tribunal: -

(A) Whether the Petitioner workman has committed the misconduct of ( I ) Sec . 21 ( 45) of company's Standing Orders i.e. indulging in any action of sexual harassment of any woman at her work place .

(II ) 21.04: Drunkenness , fighting riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour within the factory premises while on duty or outside in connection with the work of the factory .

(III ) . 21.25 : Creating disturbances or confusion agitation of any nature whatsoever in the factory and interfering with or stopping his own or another's work for any reason or by any means whatsoever .

19. He has further placed reliance on case law reported in 2005 ( 3 ) SCC 254 , Hon'ble Supreme Court Divisional Controller , Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. A T marce wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " Under Sec . 11A domestic enquiry and judicial review- it is held that one such domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion which is not open to the Appellate Tribunal and Courts to substitute their own opinion in place of one arrived at by law. " Learned Counsel for the Respondent has futher argued that since this court can not substitute its own opinion in the matter where this tribunal has expressed his earlier opinion then , this tribunal can not sit in appeal over the finding of his own predecessor who has held that enquiry proceeding held by the domestic tribunal was legal and valid and finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer was justified .

(IV) 21.29 : Engaging or abetting in abuses and physical violence to any other workman or employee at any time or in the factory . "

(B) Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not based on evidence as alleged by the Petitioner ?

(D) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for any relief , if so , to what relief?

20. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to place any such law before this tribunal or pronouncement of any higher authority to contradict the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that once the enquiry is held valid it can not be re - appreciated and come to a different conclusion . Thus , in the present matter my Learned Predecessor has already held that enquiry proceeding as legal and valid by his order , as such , the same question can not be re - appreciated by this tribunal nor this tribunal can go into the merits of the finding arrived at by My Predecessor .

21. So far as the question of perversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer is concerned I have gone through the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the evidence addued by the management before the Enquiry Officer wherein Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam , Mrs. Sumathi and Mrs. Raja Rajeswari were examined in presence of Petitioner and his co-worker . Workman was asked by Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam to apologize in writing , he agreed to apologize but later on he did not file written apology it goes to show that whatever Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam has complained against the Petitioner was not concoction or fabrication . The Petitioner has not been able to come forward with any such logical defence that why Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam 17. Point Nos . (A) & ( B ) : Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the question of legality and validity of the finding of the Enquiry Officer has already beenconsidered by earlier Presiding Officer of this corut/ tribunal who has not found any fault in the finding of the Enquiry Officer , as such, this tribunal can not sit in the appeal against the finding of his own predecessor not only that the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court is not a court of appeal and it can not sit in appeal against the finding of Enquiry Officer nor it can act like Appellate Tribunal and can substitute their own opinion . He has placed reliance on the case law published in 1999 ( 8 FLR 516 (SU) in the matter of State of Karnataka and others Vs. H. Naga Raj , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that , " the jurisdiction of the tribunal to interfere with disciplinary 6842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2, 2010/ ASVINA 10 , 1932

has made such a serious allegation against the Petitioner . Ifthe Petitioner was an innocent man or he has not harassed the lady worker Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam or he has not pulled the cheek of Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam she would not have made the complaint against him . There was no motive behind implicating the Petitioner on the false charges . The Enquiry Officer has considered all these facts and he has come to a conclusion that charges of sexual harassment against the Petitioner were proved.

22. To the second , third and fourth charge also which was given through second charge - sheet I have gone through the enquiry proceeding of the second charge- sheet also , my Learned Predecessor has already held that the enquiry was legal and held there is nothing illegal in the finding of the Enquiry Officer even then , I have gone through the domestic enquiry proceeding book , there was sufficient material before the Enquiry Officer to hold that the charges 2 , 3 and 4 are proved against the Petitioner . Moreover this court can not deviate from the finding arrived at by My Learned Predecessor vide his order dated 1-8-2006 . My Learned Predecessor has arrived at the finding that the Enquiry Officer had discussed the evidence of the witness in length and has given reason for his conclusion holding that the charges of the Petitioner were proved . Thus , there is nothing on the record to disagree with the finding of My Learned Predecessor nor this tribunal can sit on appeal over the order of My Learned Predecessor in the light of pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra .

23. On the basis of the above discussion this tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner committed the misconduct of indulging in action of sexual harassment of hisco - worker i.e. , woman employee at her work place and thereby the charges under Sec . 21 (45 ) of the Standing Orders and other charges are also proved against him . There is nothing on the record to agree with the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there is no material of sexual harassment in the statement of Smt . P.V. Lakshmi Rajyam or that other witnesses has not corroborated the alleged misbeheviour of the Petitioner with the complainant lady. Since this question has already been discussed by My Learned Predecessor the same can not be re - agitated. Point Nos . ( A) & ( B ) are decided accordingly.

24. Point Nos . ( C) & ( D) : These two questions are interrelated , they can be disposed off together. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the charges of alleged sexual harassment are that of interference with the disorderly or indecent behaviour or engaging or abating abusing and physical violence to other workman has also not been proved because defence witnesses were also examined which was not considered by the Enquiry Officer , as such , if this tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the charges were proved then , a sympathetic attitude should be adopted and lenient punishment be awarded to

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] the Petitioner . This argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has been opposed by Learned Counsel for the Respondent vehemently and he has argued that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade reported in AIR 1993 SCC , wherein it was held that , " use of abusive language by workman against superior officer can not be termed as indiscipline calling for lesser punishment than that of dismissal . Punishment of dismissal from service is not disproportionate to the misconduct. " He has also placed reliance on " if a workman has outraged modesty on a woman workman in the work place , the punishment of dismissal from service is not disproportionate and call for no interference , " Reported in 2006 ( 2) Karnataka Law Journal page 47 in the matter of G. V. Viswanath Vs. Himalaya Drug Company . He has also placed reliance on case law reported in 1999 AIR Hon'ble Supreme Court of India page 2625 in the matter of Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra , which was also a case of sexual harassment wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the matter of sexual harassment at work place ofa female employee it is a grave misconduct and punishment of dismissal is the only appropriate punishment in such case. I have gone through the case laws produced by the Respondent and I am bound with the pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts . In the present matter the Petitioner has committed grave misconduct of sexual harassment of lady co - worker , he does not deserve any lenient and sympathetic attitude from this tribunal . The punishment of dismissal awarded to him is the only proper and appropriate punishment , no leniency can be shown to the Petitioner , petition is unfounded and baseless , deserves to be dismissed. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence , this award .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 3rd day of August, 2010.

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence NIL

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 9 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2461.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार रबर रिसर्च इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके 6843 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Tapper Hevea Breeding Sub Station , Nettana w.e.f. 18-2-1999 . If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ? "

कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/42/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010

S.O. 2461. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 44/ 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Rubber Research Institute of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-9-2010 .

[No. L-42012/ 42/2000 - IR(DU) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT " SHRAM SADAN "

III MAIN , III CROSS , II PHASE , TUMKUR ROAD , YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560022

Dated 18th August , 2010

PRESENT

Shri S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 44/2000

IIParty

IParty

TheDirector ,

Shri M. Sebastian , Kombar, C.R.C.

Nettana - 574230

Rubber Research Institute of India, Rubber Board , Kottayam - 686009 (Kerala State ) .

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-42012/42/ 2000 - IR ( DU ) dated 21st June , 2000 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

2. A charge- sheet - dated 12-1-1998 ( Ex.M1 ) was issued against the first party (hereinafter referred as workman) by the management on the allegations that on 4- 11-1997 he brought only 9 litres of latex tapped by him and abandoned another bucket of latex containing 12.5 kg in Block No. 1 assigned to him for tapping resulting in coagualation which could not be processed and sheeted due to belated collection and gave an untenable reply to the memo issued in that regard saying that he was instructed to bring only one bucket of latex tapped by him in the processing shed and the remaining to be secured by the management deputing a worker from the factory and secondly on 15-11-1997 he brought only 12.25 litres of latex as against an average of around 20 litres of latex and as his explanation was unsatisfactory , the Field Assistant when personally inspected the block tapped by him found 136 trees adjoining 1988 trial area being not tapped by him and similarly on 17-11-1997 in Block No. 2 he left the tapping uncompleted and left the station by about 11.15 a.m. under the guise of suffering from headache and on inspection 25 trees were found being left untapped and despite issuing of memos in that regard he continued to indulge in dereliction of duties and making false allegations against the management substantiating his illegal acts and again on 24-11-1997 since he brought only 11 litres of latex to the processing shed , on verification it was found that he had tapped only 70 trees in the border as against 306 trees and again on 28-11-1997 he brought only one bucket of latex quantifying 15 litres and scrap weighing 2kgs informing that he will bring only one bucket of latex and inspite of informing that it is his responsibility to bring all the tapped latex by him , he went away without bringing the remaining latex tapped by him and on verification of his block on that day a bucket containing 13 litres of latex was found in neglected condition and similarly on 29-11-1997 he brought only 11 litres of latex from Block No. 1 and refused to bring 15 litres latex he left in the field and again on 1-12-1997 he who attended tapping in Block No. 2 deliberately left 13.5 litres of latex in field and brought only 11.5 litres to the processing shed and thus despite oral and written directions issued by the controlling officers , he habitually failed to tap all the trees alloted to him and left part of the latex collected by him in the blocks in a neglected condition causing loss to the institution and thereby committed acts ofmisconduct of willful insubordination and disobedience to the lawful and reasonable orders of the superior ; willful damage to the employer's property ; habitual breach of the orders issued to him and habitual neglect of work.

"Whether the action of the management of Rubber Research Institute of India , Rubber Board , Kottayam is justified in imposing the capital punishment of dismissal from service to Shri M. Sebastian , Ex .

3. To the above said charge - sheet the first party workman gave his reply dated 19-1-1998 . The management being not satisfied with his reply ordered for domestic enquiry appointing Shri Achyuthankutty , P. Managing 6844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVINA 10 , 1932

[PART I -SEC . 3 (il) ] Director as enquiry officer /MWlwithout appointing the Presenting Officer . The said enquiry officer after recording the evidence of Shri K.K. Vinod , Plant Breeder/MW2 , Shri C.K. Thomas , Assistant Farm Superintendent/MW3 , Shri K. Gopala Krishna Pillai , Sr. Field Assistant/MW4 and Shri C.S. Ramachandra Murthy , Field Assistant/MW5 as witnesses and getting marked Ex . M1 to M28 , ultimately submitted a report holding charges as proved by his report dated 23rd September , 1998 which is at Ex . M9 . Then a show cause notice was issued to show cause as to why he should not dismissed from service and after receipt of his reply , the management being not satisfied with the same by order dated 18-2-1999 dismissed him from its services .

4.Aggrieved by his dismissal , the first party workman raised the dispute before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Mangalore and on its failure the Contral Govt . has made this reference for adjudication on the above schedule .

to meet other general grievances including the denial of Rs . 2 per day to tappers and he was also elected as President of that Union and the management refused to recognize the Union but agreed to continue to pay Rs.2 per day for the tappers and in view of these developments the management had developed ill will against him as a result atthe instance of Gopala Krishna the present charge sheet was given to him . He also asserted that enquiry was conducted violating the Principles of natural justice in Mahayalam language not known to him and that the enquiry officer himself acted as Presenting Officer and favoured the management . He also asserted that the tappers were instructed to carry from the filed only one bucket of latex tapped by them to the processing shed and the remaining was required to be collected by the management deputing workers , as such the charges levelled against him are baseless and are to victimize him to stop his union activities . With his assertion he prayed to declare the suspension order dated 1-12-1997 as illegal , arbitrary not warranted and the enquiry conducted being unjust , arbitrary , illegal and to give direction to the managementto reinstate him in service along with all consequential benefits including the full back wages .

5. Pursuant to the notice issued by this tribunal , both parties entered their appearance through their respective advocates and filed claim statement and counter statement respectively . The first party in his claim statement asserts that he was appointed as a worker Naveen Breeeding Sub Station at Nettana under the second party management on 21-8-1988 . Since then he worked continuously to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of the second party and attended to all types of work like masonary work , test work , taping , filed works , watchman and even cooking even though it was not his job and in the month of August/ September , 1991 , the then Farm Superintendent , Mr. Bhagavan instruct him to arrange two watchmen and accordingly he arranged the watchmen and as the said watchmen were denied the wages , he opposed the same and raised the matter before concerned officer and since then the second party started harassing him without any reason and as a first step he was dismissed from service without proper notice and enquiry w.e.f. 9-12-1991 and on the dispute raised by him before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) , Mangalore he was reinstated in service and his co - worker Shri Gopala Krishna / MW4 was elevated as Field Assistant in the year 1991 and the same was opposed by him but it went in vain and the said Gopala Krishna conducted a chit to which he contributed his share and when the said Gopala Krishna refused to pay the amount on its maturity he complained to the management and the management failed to direct said Shri Gopala Krishna to return the amount and after this Shri Gopala Krishna started abusing his power and position and harassed him . It is further asserted that in the year 1991 the workers were paid extra Rs . 2 per day for taping and this practice was stopped when he was dismissed from service and after his reinstatement he organized a trade union affiliated to the General Employees Union , Plantation Workers Bhavan , Shuntikoppa for collective bargaining , job security, better service conditions , minimum wages and

6. In the counter statement filed by the second party while denying all the assertions of the first party regarding victimization and the instigation of Shri Gopala Krishna , It is contended that the first party was initially appointed as a General worker in the Hevea Breeding Sub Station of the Rubber Research Institute of India at Nettana and not at Naveen Breeding Sub Station as alleged by him , that Shra Gopala Krishna , the co - worker of the first party having better qualification than him and had passed SSLC against pass of 8th standard by the first party he was elevated to the post of Field Assistant during 1991 and that he/ first party was removed from service after holding the disciplinary proceeding and on his undertaking that he would work sincerely and at the advise of the conciliation officer he was reinstated . It is further contended that after getting the first party trained in tapping of the rubber trees in the month of July 1997 appointed as tapper and that the Research Farm Nettana where the first party was working being located at non - traditional Rubber growing area in Karnataka , where the age of putting trees under tapping is almost 9 to 10 years , the contention of the first party that he worked as a tapper from 1987 and tappers were paid additional wage of Rs . 2 per day is false as the first planting of rubber trees in this station was being done during 1987the tapping of rubber trees commenced during 1997 only just before the selection of tappers was done and an additional wage of Rs . 2 per day was granted w.e.f 29-7-1997 as per the order No.7 / N / 26 / 97 /Res . Dated 24-10-1997 issued by the head quarters .It is further contended it is the practice of the Rubber Plantation Industry that the tapper is allotted to tap the trees as per the task to collect and bring the latex to the processing, 6845 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

factory irrespective of the quantity of latex collected by him and for that purpose only a special allowance of Rs . 2 per day was approved and as the first party started bringing only one bucket of latex and abandoned the remaining in the field inspite of repeated memos insisting that he should be provided with an assistant to bring the other bucket of latex collected by him , he was duly charge- sheeted and the enquiry officer after holding fair and proper enquiry found him guilty of the charges and as he failed to submit a proper explanation for his exonneration the appropriate punishment of dismissal was imposed . Thus the second party justified its order of dismissal of the first party from its services .

7.Having regard to the assertion of the claimant that the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer by himself as a Prosecutor in Malayalam language not known to him inspite of his objection , my Learned Predecessor framed a Preliminary Issue as to ' whether the Domstic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party is fair and proper ? and after receiving the evidence of the enquiry officer as MW1 and the first party as WW1 , hearing their learned advocates , by order dated 23-7-2004 hold the enquiry being not fair and proper on the ground that the enquiry officer himself acted as Presenting Officer as well , which is against the principles of natural justice vitiated the enquiry refusing to accept the assertion of the first party that inspite of his opposition , the enquiry proceeding was proceeding in Malayalam language .

8. Consequent to the order of this tribunal on the Preliminary Issue , the second party management examined Shri K. K. Vinod , Plant Breeder , Shri C. K. Thomas , Assistant Farm Superintendent , Shri K. Gopal Krishna Pillai , Sr. Field Assistant and Shri C. S. Ramachandra Murthy, Field Assistant as MW2 to MW5 respectively and got marked documents at Ex . Ml to M28 . Interalia , the first party examined himself as WW2 and getting marked his reinstatement order dated 27-10-1992 inrespect ofhis earlier dismissal dated 9-12-1991 as Ex . W1 , examined his two co- workers viz . Shri K. Narayana Gowda and V. S. Venu as WW3 & WW4 respectively to depose that there was a practice of deputting factory workers to carry buckets of latex to processing unit from the field.

9. With the above , evidence brought on record by the parties on merits , the learned advocate appearing for the first party filed his written arguments on 18-12-2007, whereas , counsel for the second party addressed his oral arguments to which the counsel for the first party gave his reply.

alloted the Block No. 1 & 2 for tapping in the experimental fields since from 30-07-1997 comprising of 300 trees and he was to tap Block No. I on one day and Block No. 2 on the next day and again go back to Block No. 1 on the 3rd day and so on and that on 4-11-1997 he attended to the tapping of trees in Block No. 1 and brought a bucket of latex measuring 9 liters to the processing shed and on 5-11-97 whenthe officer in charge i.e. MW2 along with Assistant Farm Superintendent and Field Assistant on routine inspection found a bucket of latex in Block No. 1 in a neglected condition and they brought the same to the processing shed and measured it was 12.5 Liters and was coagulated due to belated collection and then on 6-11-1997 a memo as per Ex . M10 was issed to him by MW2 directing him to explain as to why he left the latex in the block in the neglected condition and to that the first party gave his reply dated 10-11-1997 which is at Ex. M2 contending that it is a well established practice in line with the arrangements of the management to tap the trees and to collect latex from field and to carry one bucket of latex by the tapper and the rest has to be collected by the management deputing the factory workers and accordingly on 4-11-1997 out of the 2 buckets of latex be tapped, he brought one bucket of latex which measured 9 Liters to the processing shed and Shri Gopalakrishna purposely avoided to secure another bucket of latex collected by him purposely not sending the factory workmen as such he is not responsible for coagulation of that bucket of latex and the officer in charge ( MW2 ) being not satisfied with his explanation issued a memo dated 17-11-1997 which is at Ex . M11 to first party informing that assistance is provided to tappers engaged in experimental blocks for carrying latex for plotwise data collection since they tap around 15 to 18 buckets of latex in one experimental block whereas , the tappers in bulk area tap only 2 to 3 buckets , no assistance isrequired for them to carry the bucket of latex collected by them to the processing shed and thereafter on 15-11-1997 the first party who attended tapping of rubber trees in Block No. I brought a bucket of latex measuring 12.25 liters and a sit was below average of 20 liters of latex the Field Assistant inspected that block and found 136 trees being not tapped and on 17-11-1997 he attended the taping of rubber trees in Block No. 2 and left the station at about 11.15 AM on the ground of suffering from headache and when the Field Assistant inspected that block they found 25 trees being left untapped and brought the latex found there and then a memo dated 18-11-1997 which is at Ex . M12was issued him seeking his explanation for his failure to tap 136 trees on 15-11-1997 and 25 trees on 17-11-1997 to which he gave his reply dated 21-11-1997 which is produced at Ex . M14 , wherein he has asserted that it was due to not providing the assistance with some allegations

against shri Gopalakrishna and to that the Officer Incharge

i.e. MW 2 by his memo dated 28-11-1997 which is at Ex . M15

informed the first party that the explanation given by him is 10. The facts that are borne out from records not in dispute are that the first party was initially taken as a general worker in the Hevea Breeding Sub Station of the Rubber Research Institute of India at Nettana and not at Naveen Breeding Sub Station as claimed by the first party in his claim statement and that he was trained in the tapping work and continued as a tapper w.e.f. 28-07-1997 and was

not satisfactory and it amounts to misconduct or violation 6846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

the blockwise tappers is quite reasonable and acceptable . When on 5-11-1997 the immediate superior of the first party having found a bucket of coagulation in a neglected manner in the block tapped by him on the previous day i.e. on 4-11-1997 issued a memo , if it was against the existing practice , the first party ought to have brought this fact to the notice of head office and would not have continued to bring only one bucket of latex leaving other in the field . As claimed by the first party himself he being actively involved in the union activities and not an ordinary workman his omission to bring to the notice of the head office about his immediate superior insisting him to bring all the buckets of latex collected by him from the field to the processing shed , an adverse inference arises against the first party. Since a worker is expected to obey the orders of his immediate superior and then bring to the notice of the head office if the order of his immediate superior was against the practice or to harass him and he cannot continue to repeat the same and this certainly in my opinion amounts to willful in subordination and disobedience to the lawful and reasonable orders of the superior . Similarly he having not disputed about tapping of part of the rubber trees leaving some trees untapped as mentioned in the chargesheet it do amounts to willful damage to the employers property and habitual neglect of work . Since continuously he disobeyed the orders of his immediate superior in bringing all the buckets of latex collected by him from the field to the processing shed it do amount to habitual breach of the orders given to his and also habitual neglect of work . Under the circumstances , I arrived at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the first party by the management have been proved .

11. Since admittedly the second party being a Research Institute , the acts proved agaisnt the first party affect the research work and first party continued his act of misconduct in spite of intimating that his claim of an assistant to bring the bucket of latex more than one from the field to the processing shed is not warranted , it did affect there search work of the second Party and if such attitude or conduct on the part of the workers are to be viewed leniently , it would lead all the other workers to do the same and thereby affect the research work of the second party . As such in my opinion the second party is justified in imposing the capital punishment of dismissal of the first party from service . In the result , I pass the following award:

AWARD

The action of the management of Rubber Research Institute of India , Rubber Board , Kottayam is justified in imposing the capital punishment of dismissal from service to Shri M. Sebastian, Ex. tapper , Hevea Breeding Sub- Station w.e.f. 18-02-1999 and he is not entitled for any relief. No costs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 18th August , 2010 ) of powers and that on 24-11-1997 the first party tapped trees in Block No. 2 and brought a bucket of latex measuring 11 liters and then on verification of that block it was found that he had tapped only 70 trees in the border as against 306 trees and again on 28-11-1997 he tapped trees of Block No.2 brought a bucket of latexs quantifying 15 liters and scrap weighing 2 Kgs and on that day Assistant Farm Superintendent and Field Assistant on verification found another bucket of latex left in the block which was measuring 13 liters and similarly on 29-11-1997 he attended tapping in Block No.2 and brought 11 liters of latex in the processing shed and refused to bring another bucket of latex measuring 15 liters . Similarly on 1-12-1997 he attended tapping in Block No.2 and brought only one bucket of latex measuring 11.5 liters to the processing shed and left another bucket measuring 13.5 liters in the field and having regard to this tendency/ attitude on the part of the first party in spite of informing that he is bound to bring all the buckets of latex collected by him to the processing shed , he continued to bring only one bucket leaving the other in the field itself and also started leaving some of the trees untapped , the officer in charge directly reported these facts to the head office on 28-11-1997 as per Ex.M16 and then the management issued the impugned charge - sheet to the first party which is at Ex.M1 . From the above referred admitted facts borne out of records one thing is clear that from 4-11-1997 the first party started insisting to provide him an assistant or to depute factory worker to bring the latex colleted by him and that he would bring only one bucket of latex collected by him to the processing shed and also developed a havit of tapping part of the rubber trees from the blocks entrusted to him. of course , as admitted by the management witnesses there are no separate written instructions to the tappers or any appointment orders are issued in corporating their duties and liabilities and however , as both parties claim practice , it is to be seen whether there was any practice of deputing the factory worker to bring the buckets of latex collected by the tappers from bulk area exceeding one bucket.It has come in the evidence of the management witnesses that in case of tappers entrusted with the tapping of experimental blocks they have to tap everyday from 15 to 20 blocks , as such one or two workers working in the factory were deputed for bringing the latexs from such blocks to the processing shed whereas , in case of tapping from blocks they tap from one or two blocks comprising around 300 trees and collect at the maximum 2 to 3 buckets of latex , they were not provided with the assistance of workers to bring the buckets of latex to the processing shed . The first party has not denied the evidence of the management witnesses that in caseof tapping of experimental blocks the tapper having to tap from 15 to 20 plots and collect around 15 to 20 buckets of latex and the collection of latex from block wise tapping would be 2 to 3 buckets , the contention of the management that the practice to give the assistance of factory worker to bring the latex from the field to the processing shed is only to the tapers tapping in the experimental plots and not to

S. N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6847

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 9 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2462.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान कोपर लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. -1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46 , 47 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 71/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -43012/34/2000- आईआर( एम )

सं. एल-43012/28/2000- आईआर ( एम ) सं. एल-29012/115/2000- आईआर ( एम ) सं. एल-43012/30/2000- आईआर ( एम ) सं. एल -43012/ 29/2000- आईआर ( एम ) सं. एल-29012/117/2000- आईआर( एम ) ]

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th September, 2010 S.O. 2462. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46, 47, 66. 67, 68 , 71/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- I , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Copper Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-9-2010 .

[No. L-43012/34/2000- IR ( M)

No. L-43012/28 /2000 - IR (M )

No. L-29012/ 115/2000- IR (M)

No. L-43012/30/2000 - IR (M)

No. L-43012/29 /2000- IR ( M )

No. L- 29012/ 117/2000 - IR (M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.-I. DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U / s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of the I.D. Act. 1947

REFERENCE No. 46 of 2001

REFERENCE No. 47 of 2001

REFERENCE No. 66 of 2001

REFERENCE No. 67 of 2001

REFERENCE No. 68 of 2001

REFERENCE No. 71 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of HCL/Hindustan CopperLimited.

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Shri H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer 3696 GI /10-23

APPRARANCES

For the Employers : Shri D. K. Verma , Advocate For the Workman: Shri K. Chakravarty , Advocate State : Jharkhand Industry : Copper

Dated , the 12-8-2010

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

REFERENCE No. 46 of 2001- ( Ministry's Order No. L- 43012/34/2000 - IR ( M) dated 13-2-2001.

The schedule of the reference is-

"Whether the action of the management of HCL/ ICC in terminating the services of S.B. Patel is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman isentitled ? "

The case of the concerned workman , as per written statement is that he was appointed in HCL as Apprentice for three years and had completed NCTVT training successfully in the year 1983. He was appointed as permanent Welder Assistant against permanent vacancy asdependent nominee of his father late Kantilal Patel . The management terminated the services w.e. f. 29-8-98 without assigning any reason and without following mandatory provision of law . He was also a member of Provident Fund.

REFERENCE No. 47 of 2001- ( Ministry's Order No. L-43012/ 28/2000-1R (M ) dated 19-2-2001 .

The schedule of the reference is-

"Whether the action of the management of HCL/ ICC in terminating the services of Benudhar Shit is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman isentitled to ?"

The case of the concerned workman , as per written statement is that he was appointed in Hindustan Copper Ltd. as Fitter in the year 1980 to 1982 and completed the course of fitter training NCTVT successfully . He was appointed as Fitter Assistant in the year 1992 against permanent vacancy as dependent nominee of brother , Chitra Ranjan Shit. The management terminated the services w.e.f. 29-8-98 without assigning any reason and without following mandatory provision of law. He was also a member of Provident Fund .

REFERENCE No. 66 of 2001- ( Ministry's Order No. L-29012/ 115/2000 - IR (M ) dated 27-2-2001.

The schedule of reference is- 6848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ASVINA 10 , 1932

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] "Whether the action of the management of HCL/ ICC in terminating the services of Basudev Das is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

"Whether the action of the management of HCL/ ICC in terminating the services of Rajesh Lall is justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman isentitled to ? "

The case of the concerned workman , as per written statement is that he was appointed in Hindustan Copper Ltd. as Apprentice for 3 years and had completed apprenticeship period successfully in 1983. He was appointed as Fitter on 1-9-83 against permanent vacancy as dependent nominee of Joydev Das . The management terminated the services w.e.f. August 1998 without assigning any reason and without following the mandatory provision of law . He was also a member of Provident Fund.

The case of the concerned workman , as per written statement is that he was appointed in Hindustan Copper Ltd. as Apprentice for 3 years and had completed NCTVT training in the year 1983. He was appointed as Fitter against permanent vacancy as dependent nominee of his father , namely , Tipu Lall . The management terminated the services of the workman concered w.e.f. 29-8-98 without assigning any reason and without following the mandatory provision of law . He was also a member of Provident Fund .

REFERENCE No. 67 of 2001 ( Ministry's Order No. L- 43012/ 30 /2000 - IR ( M ) dated 27-2-2001 .

The schedule of reference is-

"Whether the action of the management of HCL / ICC in terminating the services of Subhas Chandra Giri is justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

2. The case of the management in all the above- mentioned reference cases , as per written statement , is that the concerned workmen were appointed as temporary employees as per term of the award dated 19-4-1987 whereby the Tribunal directed the management to give employment to the dependent nominee . The further submission of the management is that the concerned workman were given temporary employment and their services were terminated inview ofHon'ble High Court order dated 11-3-98 passed inCWJC No. 1863/96 (R) .

3. The management has examined one witness , Sri A. S. Verma , as MW - 1 in support of the case . Two documents have been marked as Exts . M - 1 and M - 2 on waiving formal proof.

The case of the concerned workman , as per written statement is that he was appointed in Hindustan Copper Ltd. as Apprentice for 3 years and had completed training ofTurner from I.T.I. in the years 1990 to 1992 and completed NCTVT training in 1992. He was appointed as permanent Turner Assistant in 1995 against permanent vacancy as dependent nominee of his father , Samarjit Giri . The management terminated the services of the concerned workman from 29-8-98 without assigning any reason and without following the mandatory provision of law . He was also a member of Provident Fund .

In all the above six cases , which have been heard analogously , each of the workman has been examined as WW- 1 . The documents have been proved and marked as Exts . W - 1 to W-6 .

REFERENCE No. 68 of 2001--( Ministry's Order No. L- 43012/ 29 / 2000 - IR ( M ) dated 27-2-2001 .

The schedule of reference is-

" Whether the action of the management of HCL/ ICC in terminating the services of Mantosh Das is justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman isentitled to ? "

4. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that all the concerned workmen were appointed in NCL as apprentices for three years and after completion of NCTVT training successfully they all were appointed in their respective posts against permanent vacancy as dependent nominee . The management terminated their services w.e.f. 29-8-98 without assigning any reason and without following the mandatory provision of law . It has been argued , as per written statement of the management , that in term of the award dated 19-4-1987 passed, the Tribunal directed the management to give employment to the dependent nominee.

The case of the concerned workman , as per written statement is that he was appointed in Hindustan Copper Ltd. as Apprentice for 3 years and had completed apprenticeship period successfully in the year 1983. He was appointed as permanent Asstt . Welder against permanent vacancy as dependent nominee of his brother , Santosh Kumar Das . The management terminated the services w.e.f. 29-8-98 without assigning any reason and without following the mandatory provision of law. He was also a member of Provident Fund.

REFERENCE No. 71 of 2001-( Ministry's Order No. L- 29012/117 /2000 - IR ( M ) dated 9-3-2001.

The schedule of the reference is-

5. The management has argued that the concerned workman of these reference cases were given temporary appointment for 30 days only with the condition that on completion of 30 days their employment will automatically lapse . The provision of Sec . 25 - F is not applicable in case ofthese workman because their employment was only for 30 days . After the order of Hon'ble High Court order dated 11-3-98 passed in CWJC No. 1863/96 ( R) the management stopped giving employment to the dependent employees .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

6849 6. Argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman that the management has not stated before the A.L.C. ( C) in its comment that the concerned workmen were appointed temporarily for very short period . It has been argued that Exts . W - 3 , W - 4 and W - 5 proved by the concerned workmen , show that they were appointed against permanent vacancy and not against short period . It has also been argued that Hon'ble High Court has given order not to give further employment and there is no order ofHon'ble High Court that who are already working those should be terminated and on this ground the termination ofthe concerned workman is ipso facto illegal and bad in law. It has also been argued that Ext . W- 1 written statement submitted before the conciliation officer shows that the concerned workmen have worked for 240 days attendance in many years and some years even more than 300 days attendance. This clearly shows violation of Sec. 25 - F and 25 - N of I.D. Act and they should be ordered to be regularised .

is 2009 ( 122 ) FLR 401 in which Hon'ble Allahabad High Court laid down that the appointment under Dying in Harness Rules of dependent of a Government servant ---- Who was working on a permanent Post Is permanent appointment His services could not have been terminated treating his appointment to be on temporary basis However disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against him for terminating his services . U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services ) Rules, 1975. Another law referred is 2007 ( 113 ) FLR - I ( SC ) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down - " Alternative remedy Industrial disputes Disputes relates to enforcement of a right under the statute And specific remedy is provided under statute --- High Court should not interfere under Act . 226" Also referred 2006 ( 108 ) FLR 592 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down " Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 - Section 25- F Resinstatement Respondent was employed on daily wage basis- Worked for more than 240 days in a period of one year prior to termination Without notice , notice pay and retrenchment compensation - As such there was a clear violation of Section 25 - F - No error found in direction for reinstatement . " In the present case the concerned workmen had not completed 240 days attendance in any calander year prior to termination of service .

7. All the concerned workmen stated in cross- examination that they have not filed their appointment letters before the Tribunal . They all have admitted that their signatures appear in the appointment letters , marked Exts . M - 1 series , but they were blank papers . They have denied that their appointments were for 30 days . It has been denied that the agreement on the basis of which such temporary employment was given to them has been stayed by the High Court . It has been stated that the management has not given any appointment letters to them.

Also referred AIR 1986 ( SC ) 132 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down- " Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 Section 2 ( oo ) , 25 - B - ' Retrenchment ' , meaning of- Daily- rated worker- His name struck off rolls on ground of passing matriculate examination In instant case retrenchment of appeallant by striking off name from rolls held to be retrenchment Retrenchment effected in violation of Section 25 - B is invalid . " Also referred 2010 (124) FLR 700 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down-

Management's witness , MW - 1 , A.S. Verma , stated that there was an interim order of the Court that during the pendency of writ application , management will not give employment to any person otherwise the same will be treated as contempt of Court . He has also stated that the concerned workmen of these reference cases were given temporary employment for 30 days only with the condition that on completion of 30 days their employment will automatically lapse . It has also been stated that after the order of Hon'ble High Court the management stopped giving employment to the nominees of employees . He has denied that the concerned workmen were working permanently against permanent vacancy and their services have been terminated without complying with the provision ofSec . 25 - F of I. D. Act .

8. On behalf of the concerned workmen the decision reported in AIR 1940 Patna 683 has been referred in which Hon'ble High Court held that the witness not cross- examined his evidence must be accepted . Another decision referred in 2009 ( 121 ) FLR - 4 in which Hon'ble Allahabad High Court laid down that appointment made on compassionate ground shall be considered as permanent appointment . Therefore , recovery of amount on ground thatservices of petitioner were regularised on later date is illegal . Another law referred by the workman representative

" Industrial Disputes Act , 1947- Sections 25 - F and 25 -N- Award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement in services Modified by the Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 No jurisdictional error in award of the Labour Court found by the Single Judge - No error found apparent on face of the record - Agreement of Corporation that termination of service of the appellant falls within the ambit ofSection 2 ( oo ) (bb) of the Act rejected by the Single Judge He unequivocaly agreed with the Labour Court that action of the Corporation was contrary to Section 25 -G of the Act Appellant's claim for reinstatement with back wages and resisted on ground that initial appointment of the appellant was illegal or unconstitutional Single Judge and justified in substituting the award of reinstatement with 50% back wages with compensation of Rs.87,582 Writ petition decided erroneously assuming that appellant was a daily wage employee [PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVINA 10, 1932

6850

Award passed by the Labour Court restored Constitution of India 1950- Articles 226 and 227. "

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 22/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/2/2008 - आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010 9. The argument advanced on behalf of the management is as per written statement in Writ Petition No. CWJC 1863/96 ( R) dated 11-3-98 observed that Hon'ble High Court of the management at page 4 , para 6 " Till this Writ Petition is being heard , no further appointment will be made by the Corporation on dependency grounds as per the scheme as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation . If any such appointment is being made then the Corporation is liable for contempt . "

S.O. 2463. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 22/2008 ) of the 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 Central Warehousing Corporation and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-9-2010.

[No. L-42012/2/2008 - IR ( M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD Hon'ble Court also observed " It is the submissions of Mrs. M.M.Pal appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners that even there was an observation by the Division Bench of this Court still then there were appointments being made on compassionate ground by giving appointments to the dependents of the employees and making no advertisement or keeping the matter opened to all the eligible candidates for the purpose of which is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India . The Writ Petition required to be heard as via media the petitioners have challenged the Scheme by which appointments of the dependents are being made in the Corporation."

PRESENT: Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 19th day of July, 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 22/2008 BETWEEN

10. As per order of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition CWJC No. 1863/96 (R) dated 11-3-98 the contempt matter is still pending before Hon'ble High Court So this court cannot pass order for regularisation of the concerned workman when the matter is already pending before Hon'ble High Court because no copy has been filed on behalf of the concerned workman that the Writ Petition CWJC No. 1863/96 (R) dated 11-3-98 has been disposed off by Hon'ble High Court .

Sri U. Sri Kanth Reddy , D.No.1-4-242/ 1 , RTC Workshop Road , Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada -12 Petitioner 11. In such circumstances , this Court cannot pass any order for regularisation of the concerned workmen of all the above reference cases .

AND

1. The Regional Manager , Central Warehousing Corporation, Behind Gandhi Bhawan , Warehousing Sadan , Nampally , Hyderabad -1

Hence , the action of the management of Hindustan Copper Ltd./ICC in terminating the services of the concernedworkmen of these reference cases Nos . 46/2001 , 47/2001, 66/2001 , 67/2001 , 68/2001 and 71/2001 in compliance ofinterim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court seems to be just and proper and accordingly the concerned workman are not entitled to any relief.

This is my Award.

Respondents

2. Sri N. Srinivasa Goud , The Contractor, 3-5-7, Hyderguda Rajendra Nagar (M) Rangareddy District.

H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 9 सितंबर , 2010

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner :NIL

Forthe Respondent : Sri B.V.B.N. Rao (Superintendent ) Representative का.आ. 2463.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल वैयरहाउसिंग कारपोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय 6851

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L -42012 /2 / 2008 - IR ( M ) dated 3-10-2008 referred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and their workman . The reference is ,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Warehousing Corporation , Vijayawada and M/s Vijaya Durga Labour Contract Co. Operative Society Limited , Vijayawada , its contractor in terminating the services of Shri U. Sri Kanth Reddy is legal and/ or justified ? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as f.D. No. 22/2008 and notices issued to the parties .

2. Even after service of notice Petitioner did not appear and file his claim statement . On 19-7-2010 Petitioner absent and Respondent's representative is present . In absence of workman or his claim statement a ' Nil ' Award is Passed . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 19th day of July , 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 9 सितंबर , 2010

का.आ. 2464, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय 2. , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 35/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11011/6/97- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010 S.O. 2464. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No.35 / 2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court- II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airport Authority of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 9-9-2010 .

[No. L - 11011 /6/97 - IR ( M ) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SH . SATNAM SINGH , PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT - II , KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D.NO 35/2002

Dated: 12-8-2010

In the matter of dispute between:

Shri Manohar Lal & Others ,

The President,

Delhi General Udyog Karamchari Sangh , HeadOffice, 5239 , Ajmeri Gate,

Delhi - 6

Workmen

Versus

The Superintending Engineer ( Horticulture )

Airport Authority of India ( I.A.D. )

IGI Airport

Gurgoan Road, New Delhi

Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour Vide Order No. L - 11011 /6 / 97 - IR ( M) dated 1-5-2002 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by ( copy enclosed) Delhi General Udyog Karmchari Sangh against the management of Airports Authority of India ( International Airport Division ) - A.R.C. Project over alleged illegal termination , non- regularization of service by the management , non- observance of provisions of Labour Laws and non - payment of wages in respect of Shri Manohar Lal Mali and others and Shri Baijnath , mali and others justified ? If so , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ? " 2. Statement of claim was filed by the workmen in Sep 2002. Written statement was filed by the management in Feb ' 2003. Replication was filed by the workmen in Jan ' 2004. There after the case was fixed for recording of evidence . Evidence by way of affidavitwas filed by one workman out of 52 workmen in this case and the case was fixed for recording of cross examination of that workman . However since 18-2-2009 none appeared from the side of the 6852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

Petitioner workmen including workman Baijnath whose affidavitas evidence was filed in this case . Since the workmen are not attending this court since 18-2-2009 it is evident that they are not interested in this case.

Sri U. Venkata Subba Reddy , D.No.1-4-242/ 1 , RTC Workshop Road , Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada -12 AND

Under these circumstances there is no way out except to pass a no dispute award in this case . No dispute award accordingly is passed in this case and the reference sent by Government of India stands disposed off accordingly.

1. The Regional Manager , Central Warehousing Corporation , Behind Gandhi Bhawan , Warehousing Sadan , Nampally , Hyderabad -1

Further, it is ordered that the requisite number of copies of this award be forwarded to the Central Government for necessary action at their end .

Dated: 12-8-2010

2. Sri N. Srinivasa Goud, The Contractor , 3-5-7 , Hyderguda Rajendra Nagar (M) Rangareddy District .

.... Respondents

APPEARANCES SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 सितंबर , 2010

For the Petitioner :NIL

Forthe Respondent : Sri B.V.B.N. Rao ( Superintendent ) Representative

AWARD

का.आ. 2465.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 कां 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल वैयरहाउसिग कारपोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L -42012 / 1 /2008 - IR ( M) dated 29-9-2008 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and their workman . The reference is ,

[सं. एल -42012/1/ 2008- आईआर ( एम ) ]

SCHEDULE

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010

"Whether the action of the management of Central Warehousing Corporation , Vijayawada and M/ sVijaya Durga Labour Contract Co. Operative Society Limited , Vijayawada , its contractor in terminating the services of Shri U. V. Subba Reddy is legal and / or justified ? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 23/2008 and notices issued to the parties .

S.O. 2465.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 23/2008 ) of the 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 Central Warehousing Corporation and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-9-2010 .

[No. L-42012/ 1 /2008 - IR (M ) ]

2. Even after service of notice Petitioner did not appear and file his claim statement. On 19-7-2010 Petitioner absent and Respondent's representative is present . In absence of workman or his claim statement a ' Nil ' .

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

Award is Passed . Transmit.

ANNEXURE

Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 19th day of July , 2010 .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer PRESENT : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR ,

Appendix of evidence Presiding Officer

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Dated the 19th day of July , 2010

Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 23/2008

Documents marked for the Petitioner NH BETWEEN

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नईदिल्ली , 9 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2466.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड पानीपत रिफाईनरी प्रोजक्ट पानीपत के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चन्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 572 / 2K5/ 2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30012/51 /2000- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010 S.O. 2466.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 572/ 2K5/ 2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the employers in relation to the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Panipat Refinery Panipat and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-9-2010 .

[No. L-30012/ 51 /2000 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - IL, CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri A. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer .

Case No. I.D. 572 /2K5

Instituted on 23-08-2005

Shri Rakesh C/ o Sh . Karan Singh Secretary , Bharatia Mazdoor Sangh , Lal Batti chowk , G.T. Road , Panipat .

6853

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Panipat , in terminating the services of Shri Rakesh w.e.f. 31-07-1998 is just and legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

According to the claim statement the workman was appointed by the management as Accountant Assistant on 03-08-1995 where he worked up to 31-071998 when the management terminated his services by refusing work . His termination is in violation of Section 25 F of the Act . He has claimed his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

The claim was contested by the management and it was stated that the period during which the claimant is alleging his appointment with the management , there was no industry and the work of construction was being carried out . There is no relationship of master and servant between the management and the claimant . In fact , the claimant was the employee of M / s . Vinay Jain & Co. , chartered Accountants and had been deputed by the said firm to work on its behalf. Neither he was in the employment of the management nor his services were terminated by the management . The claimant is not entitled to any relief.

While the case was still at the stage of evidence , the workman stop attending the court . On a fresh notice he appeared and moved an application for withdrawing the case, as he has got a Government job . It is thus clear that he is not pressing his claim . Reference is therefore , answered against him . Let two copies of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action and recordbe consigned after due compliance .

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 9 सितम्बर , 2010

....Applicant

Versus

The Executive Director , IOCL , Panipat refinery Project , Bohali , Panipat .

का.आ. 2467.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आन्ध्र बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 130/ 2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman :

Sh . Karan Singh Rana & Subhash Talwar ARs

Sh . S. Kaushal , AR For the Management :

AWARD

Passed on 27July, 2010

Government of India vide notification No. L - 30012/ 51 / 2000 - IR ( M ) , dated 31-08-2000 by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub section ( 1 ) ( d ) and sub section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( hereinafter referred as the Act ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : -

[सं. एल -12011 / 136/04 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ] पुष्पेन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010 S.O. 2467.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 130 / 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-9-2010 .

[No. L - 12011 / 136/04- IR (B - II ) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer 5854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVINA 10 , 1932

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT ATHYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

Dated the 5th day of August , 2010

Industrial Dispute No. 130/2004

Between :

The General Secretary ,

Andhra Bank Award Employees Union , 506, V Floor , Taramandal Complex,

Petitioner

Saifabad , Hyderabad - 4

AND

The General Manager ,

Andhra Bank,

Head Office , Saifabad ,

Hyderabad - 4

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner : M/ s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy , G. Srinivasa Reddy, S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates

For the Respondent : M/ s . S. Udayachala Rao , S. Vikramaditya Babu & S. Mujib

Kumar , Advocates

No. 688 /ZO/V 756 dated 20-5-2003 alleging therein that on 7-11-2003 the workman has stolen cash of Rs . 5000 from the cash given to her for bundling . The workman submitted her explanation on 30-5-2003 denying the charges levelled against her . Without considering the explanation of workman domestic enquiry was ordered and Enquiry Officer was appointed . The concerned workman appeared before the Enquiry Officer and denied the charges levelled against her . She was asked by the Enquiry Officer and other superiors who were present during the course of enquiry to sign on some papers assuring the workman that the charges would be dropped . The workman being illiterate and without any assistance during enquiry proceeding was forced to sign the papers . Thereafter Disciplinary Authority issued a notice to the workman concerned stating therein that she has admitted the charges before the Enquiry Officer and punishment of dismissal is imposed upon her . She immediately approached the Disciplinary Authority and she was heard personally on 29-9-2003/ 16-10-2003 . She requested to order an enquiry but without considering her request and without affording opportunity of enquiry she was dismissed from service vide letter No. 688/20/5/10222/6162 dated 28-10-2003 . The workman filed an appeal before Appellate Authority which was dismissed vide letter No. 666 / 20 / V / T - 564/ 677 dated 28-11-2003 . Thus , the action of the management in conducting the sham enquiry and imposition of the punishment of dismissal is arbitrary , illegal , unjust and violative of the principles of natural justice . Therefore , it is prayed that the dismissal order be revoked and she be reinstated with back wages .

AWARD

This case has been registered on the receipt of the reference from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L - 12011 / 136/ 2004 - IR ( B - II ) dated 20-10-2004 under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the managment of Andhra Bank and their workman and the schedule of reference is as under :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Andhra Bank , Hyderabad in imposing the punishment of 'Dismissal ' on Smt . T. Venkatamma , Sub - Staff, Ameerpet Branch is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

After receipt of this reference the case was registered in the office as I.D. No. 130/2004 and notices were issued to the parties .

3. The management has filed counter statement denying the charges levelled against the management in the claim statement . It has been stated that the workman Smt . T. Venkatamma joined the services of bank as part time sweepers on 1-4-1979 . She was converted into a full time subordinate staff cadre w.e.f. 16-7-2001 . While working as cash peon at Ameerpet branch of the bank a shortage of Rs . 5000 at the branch on 7-2-2003 . on the same day at around 12.00 noon Mrs. Yuva Rani , Cashier gave 10 packets of Rs . 50 denomination containing hundred pieces in each packet for bundling to workman . After bundling the same the workman returned the cash to the cashier . Later on counting the cash , shortage of Rs . 5000 was found . Cashier Mrs. Yuva Rani made the shortage good immediately as she was duty bound to do so , the workman concerned was caught red handed in the evening while taking out a section ofRs.50 denomination notes clandestinely from the place where it was kept . When she was questioned the workman admitted her guilt and tendered apology. The Branch Manager immediately reported the matter to its Controlling office , pending enquiry the workman was suspended w.e.f. 10-2-2003 . Thereafter a chargesheet dated 20-5-2003 was served on the workman wherein it was stated or alleged that on 7-2-2003 the concerned workman has stolen a cash of Rs.5000from out of the cash given to her for bundling 2. The workman side presented the claim statement through General Secretary of the union . It was stated that workman of this case was appointed as sweeper in 1979 , she has been performing her duties to the best of her abilities . She has been working as sub - staff in the Ameerpet branch of the bank . She was served with a charge- sheet [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

and she accepted the guilt and confessed having stolen the cash amount . On 30-5-2003 the workman submitted her explanation. However , in view of the denial Disciplinary Authority ordered departmental enquiry and Sri P.V. Joga Rao , officer in MMGS - II was appointed as Enquiry Officer . Workman has attended the preliminary bearing wherein she pleaded guilty of the charge . Though the Enquiry Officer explained to the workman that she was not required to plead guilty and it was open to her to contest the case if she want to contest and she would be provided with the defence assistance but the concerned workman replied that she desired to confess her guilt. Left with no other option the Enquiry Officer concluded enquiry proceeding recording the confession of the workman and submitted report on 14-7-2003 holding charges of theft proved against the workman . On the basis of said report notice was issued to the workman for her explanation and penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on her . The punishment order is neither illegal not arbitrary nor violative of principles of natural justice. The allegation of the Petitioner is devoid of any merit and deserves to be rejected.

4. Parties were directed to file their evidence . Since domestic enquiry was conducted by the management before the imposition of the punishment the Respondent management produced the departmental proceeding , xerox copy of entire record . Petitioner has not filed any evidence . The matter was posted for determination of legality and validity of departmental proceedings . The Petitioner did not contest about the legality and validity of departmental proceedings . She remained absent on the date of hearing i.e. , on 29-4-2009 , as such , in the absence of the Petitioner or any challenge being made from her side, this tribunal held that the departmental proceeding held is legal and valid and posted this case for arguments under Sec. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. On that date also Petitioner remained absent . Then argument of the Respondent counsel was heard and case was reserved for the orders . Since the Presiding Officer remained on long leave case was reopened for re - argument , on the date of Re- argument i.e. , on 5-8-2010 there was none from the side of the Petitioner hence , Respondent's counsel argued the case before the tribunal .

5. I have gone through the claim statement and domestic enquiry proceeding record , counter statement filed by the Respondent and the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent .

6. This tribunal has to consider ,

(I ) Whether the workman of this charge- sheeted employee Smt . T. Venkatamma committed theft of Rs .5000 on 7-2-2003 and this allegation was found to be proved during domestic enquiry proceeding or not ?

(II) This tribunal has to see whether the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is disproportionate to the charges proved against her ?

3696 Gl /10-24

6855 7. Point No. (I ) I have gone through the proceeding book, the charge- sheet alleging theft of Rs . 5000 was issued to the Petitioner . Explanation to the charge - sheet dated 30-3-2003 on the back of which the plead of guilt has been recorded which is written in Telugu language and signed by Smt . T. Venkatamma that she has stolen Rs . 5000 on 7-2-2003 , she pleaded guilty of the charges . It was informed to her that there is no obligation or any compulsion to confess charges , she will be given fair and reasonable opportunity to contest her case . However , she reiterated that she want to confess and does not want to contest the enquiry proceeding . She has signed on her statement . On the basis of which Enquiry Officer has submitted his report since Petitioner has not contested the enquiry report or conduct of enquiry proceeding the same can not be reiterated at this stage and the point for determination is answered accordingly . The Enquiry Officer has given cogent finding and reason for arriving at the conclusion that the charges against the Petitioner is proved . This tribunal has no material to interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Officer .

8. Point No. (II ) : From the discussion of Point No. (I) itis clear that the Petitioner has committed theft of bank's property where she was working as cash peon when she was handling with the cash for making bundles committed act of theft at the place of work. Theft of property of the bank by employee of the bank is serious misconduct for which the punishment of dismissal is the only adequate and proper punishment because committing theft of the bank's property or management property which was entrusted to the Petitioner workman by the bank management for making bundles , she has lost trust of the management and her continuation in the service is most undesirable . I am of the opinion that punishment imposed on the Petitioner is adequate and proper. The action of the management of Andhra Bank, Hyderabad in imposing punishment of dismissal on Smt . T. Venkatamma , Sub -staff, Ameerpet Branch is justified and she is not entitled for any relief. Hence , this award .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 5th day of August , 2010 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined for Witnesses Examined for the Petitioner NIL

the Respondent NIL Documents Marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents Marked for the Respondent NIL 6856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2468. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा ! ? के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोलकाता पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -32011 / 1/2008 - आईआर ( बी -11 ) ] पुष्पेन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010 S.O. 2468.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 13 / 2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Kolkata Port Trust and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-9-2010 .

[No. L- 32011 / 1 /2008 - IR ( B - II ) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 13 of 2008

Parties Employers in relation to the Management of Kolkata Port frust

ANG

Their workmen

Present : Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of the :

Mr. G. Mukhopadhyay , Industrial Relations Officer Management

Mr. Ranen Dutta , Chief On behalf of the : Workmen

Adviser of the Union .

State: West Bengal Industry : Port & Dock Dated: 30th August , 2010

AWARD

By its Order No. L - 32011 / 1 / 2008 - IR ( B - II ) dated 15-5-2008 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) and ( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Kolkata Port Trust in not considering Sri Swapan Kumar Bhuiya , Junior Welfare Inspector for promotion to the post of Head

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Clerk in the labour & Industrial relation Department , whereas promoting his junior Sri Alok Kumar Mondal who is also a junior Welfare Inspector to the above post w.e.f. 14-09-2007 vide order No. E - 1 / 5 - III / 852 is justified and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled for ? יי

2. When the case is calledout today , one application has been filed by the workmen union and also there is signature of the concerned workman , Shri Swapan Kumar Bhuiya stating that the workman concerned in the present reference is not interested to pursue the matter since his grievance has been met by the management and so , the workmen union has prayed for disposal of th present matter for non prosecution . Mr. Mukhopadhyay , representative of the management also endorsed submission from the side of the workmen .

3. In such circumstances , present dispute is disposed of for non prosecution by the workmen and an Award to that effect is passed.

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 9 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2469. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सहायक महाप्रबंधक , भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 920/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -12012 / 77/1998 - आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010 S.O. 2469. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 920/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 2 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Assistant General Manager , SBI , Zonal Office , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 9-9-2010 .

[No. L - 12012/ 77 / 1998 - IR ( B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - II , CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri A. K. RASTOGI , Presiding Officer Case No. I.D. 920/2005 Instituted on 13-09-2005 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Smt. Shankari Devi w/o Sh. Sukh Ram , R/ o Vill. Knalti , P.O. Kandraur , Tehsil Ghumarwi , District Bilaspur (H.P. )

6857 termination with effect from February 1997 is just and legal ?

2. To what relief is the workman entitled to ?

....Applicants

Versus

1. State Bank of India , The Assistant General Manager , SBI , Zonal Office , P.B. No. 13 , Cart Road , Lower Lakkar Bazar , Shimla (H.P . ) - 171001 .

2. The Branch Manager , State Bank of India , Kandraur , District Bilaspur- 174001 .

In support of her case , the workman has filed her affidavit and a copy of her birth certificate . While on behalf ofmanagement affidavit of M.R. Dhiman, Branch Manager , SBI , Kandraur Branch , District Bilaspur ( H.P. ) has been filed along with certain documents , which will be referred to at a proper place . I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record . My findings on various issues are as follows: -

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman :

Anita Ahuja , Advocate

Shri S. K. Gupta , Advocate , For the Management :

AWARD

Passed on 27 August , 2010

The Government of India vide notification No. L - 12012/ 77 / 98 - IR ( B - 1 ) , dated 30-10-1998 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub - section ( 1 ) Clause (d ) and sub section ( 2A ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal :-

" Whether the action of the Branch Manager , State Bank of India , Kandraur , District Bilaspur ( H.P. ) and the Assistant General Manager , State Bank of India in terminating the services of Smt . Shankari Devi w.e.f. Feb , 1997 is just and legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

The claimant has raised an industrial dispute stating that she was engaged as a Sweepress by the respondent management in the year 1989 in the State Bank of India , Kandraur Branch District Bilaspur (H.P. ) . There is no break in her service till the date of her termination in February , 1997. She completed more than 240 days but her services were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Act . After termination , the management employed another person without giving her an opportunity for re- employment . She has claimed her reinstatement with full back wages and benefits .

The claim was contested by the Respondent . According to the management the workman was engaged on fixed wages of Rs . 190 per month since July 1994. Before that she was working as casual labour from March 1991 . Her engagement , however , was not valid . Being over - age , she was not eligible for the employment . Her services were discontinued as she was not eligible . She is not entitled to any relief.

Onthe pleadings of the parties , the following issues arise for consideration : -

1. Whether the workman is entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Act , if so , whether her Issue No. 1 .

Regarding the entitlement of protection of Section 25F of the Act to the workman , the arguments of the learned counsel for the management is that termination of daily wage employee whose appointment is made on the basis ofneed of work cannot be construed as retrenchment . He has cited Mansukh Kumar Bharti Versus State of Bihar 1997 LLB I.C. 2075. In this regard it will be sufficient to say that it is not a case of daily wager . The management admits the employment of the workman on fixed wages @ Rs . 190 per month and law cited by the learned counsel does not apply in this case.

It was next argued on behalf of management that as per instructions contained in letter date 10-01-1987 of the Central Office of State Bank of India marked ' E ' the upper age limit for Farrash , Water boy , Cash carrier etc. is 24 years , relaxable up to 5 years in case of S.C. and S. T. candidates . Thus , the upper age limit for a sweeper is 29 years , while the workman during her cross - examination statement has admitted her date of birth as 19-11-1958. Thus , she was over - age on the date of her appointment in July 1994 on fixed wages and her engagement was void abinitio . She was , therefore , not entitled to the protection ofSection 25F of the Act. I do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the management. Even if the engagement of the workman was void ab - initio , still she cannot be denied the status of workman and also to the protection of Section 25F of the Act .

It is in the claim statement and in the affidavit of the workman that she was in the employment of the management from 1989 to February 1997 when her services were terminated and she had completed more than 240 days of service. The management has not denied the workman hadworked for 240 days . It is not the case of management thatbefore her termination the workman had not completed 240 days service in the preceding twelve calendar months before her termination . It is , therefore , established that she had completed more than 240 days service in the preceding 12 calendar months before her termination . She being a workman and in employment of the management was entitled to one month's notice or notice pay and reinstatement compensation , which was admittedly not given to her.l agree with the learned counsel for the 6858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVINA 10 , 1932

workman that the services of the workman were terminated in violation of Section 25 F of the Act . She was entitled to the protection of the said provisions . Her termination was not just and legal . Issue no . 1 is , therefore , decided in favour of the workman and against the management.

Issue No. 2 .

So far as the relief is concerned , the learned counsel for the workman submitted that the workman is presently employed elsewhere . He therefore , pressed for compensation instead of her reinstatement . Otherwise also , since the workman being over - age was not entitled to the employment , hence , the reinstatement cannot be granted . Instead of reinstatement compensation would be a proper relief. According to management the workman was in the employment of management since 1991 first as casual labour and thereafter on a fixed wages till her termination in February 1997. She had about six years service with the management . Under the circumstances I think a compensation of Rs . 30,000 would be just and proper . The workman is therefore , entitled to get compensation of Rs . 30,000 from the management/ respondent and the management/ respondent will pay the same within one month from the date of receiving a copy of the award . The reference is accordingly , answered against the management . Let two copies of the award be sent to Central Government after due compliance .

A. K. RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 9 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2470.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार केलॉन बैंक क्रेडिट एग्रीकोल ग्रुप के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी 2/51/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/94/ 2006- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010 S.O. 2470. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.CGIT 2 / 51 of 2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - 2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Caylon Bank Credit Agricole Group and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-9-2010 .

[No. L - 12012/94/ 2006 - IR ( B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 2 , MUMBAI PRESENT : A. A. Lad , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT 2/51 of 2006

Employers in relation to the Management of Caylon Bank Credit Agricole Group The Authorised Signatory

Caylon Bank Credit Agricole Group Hoechst House , 11th , 12th & 14th floors Nariman Point Mumbai -400 021 . AND

Theirworkmen

Smt . Asavari Jetli 29 - A Singhania Building , 2nd floor , Balaram Street , Grant Road Mumbai -400 007 APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employer :

Mr. Bharat Goyal , Advocate

For the Workman :

Mr. Umesh Nabar , Advocate

Mumbai , dated 9th August , 2010

AWARD

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L - 12012 / 94 / 2006 - IR ( B - I ) dated 7-9-2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Caylon Bank Mumbai by terminating the services of Smt . Asavari Jetly w.e.f. 21-7-2005 is justified ? If not what relief the workman . Smt . Asavari Jetli is entitled to ? "

2. Claim Statement is filed by the concerned workman at Ex - 6 which was replied by first party by filing written statement at Ex - 7 . Issues were framed at Ex - 9 and matter was posted for filing of documents by both .

3. However vide Ex - 10 , both arrived to settlement and informed accordingly . hence the order :

ORDER

In terms of Ex - 10 , reference is disposed of. 9-8-2010

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer Settlement under Section 18 ( 1 ) read with Section 2 ( p ) of The Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Names of the Parties :

Employer CreditAgricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Earlier Known as Calyon Bank) Hoechst House , 11th , 12th & 14th Floors Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 Employee

Ms. Asavari Sunil Jetly 29A, Singhania Building, 2nd Floor Balaram Street , Grant Road Mumbai -400 007

Representing Employer

Ms. Renu Vijayanand Head- Human Resources CreditAgricoleCorporate and Investment Bank Hoechst House , 11th, 12th & 14th Floors Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 Representing employee

Ms. Asavari Jetly The Employee herself, 29A, Singhania Building , 2nd Floor Balaram Street , Grant Road Mumbai -400 007

SHORT RECITAL OF CASE

Whereas , Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (hereinafter referred to as ' the Employer ' ) is engaged in the business of Banking at its premises situated at the address as mentioned hereinabove ;

And Whereas , Ms. Asavari Jetly (hereinafter referred to as ' the Employee ' ) was emmployed and working with the employer as Operations Assistant since 1st December 1994;

And Whereas , the services of the employee were terminated on the ground of loss of confidence by Order ofTermination of Services dated 21st July 2005 ;

And Whereas , the employee challenged her termination of services with effect from 21st July , 2005 by raising the demand by Communication dated 14th October , 2005 for her reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service , which demand resulted in Reference No. CGIT 2/51 of 2006 pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Mumbai .

And Whereas during the course of discussions held by and between the parties , certian proposals emerged which were found favourable to both the parties which they now desire to record hereinbelow with the intent that the same is binding on them in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 (p ) read with Section 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

NOW THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE AGREED TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS , WHICH ARE REDUCED IN WRITING

3696 GI /10-25

6859 1. The employee will be entitled to an amount of Rs.67,862 by way of Gratuity, which has been calculate on the basis of number of years of service put in by the employee . The amount of Gratuity will be paid by the employer to the employee within a period of 30 days from the date of signing the present settlement .

2. There is an accumulated balance of Rs . 3,71,828 as on 31-03-2010 in respect of the Provident Fund of the employee . The employer shall pay interest upto 31-08-2010. The employee will have an option either to withdraw the said amount or transfer the balance in her account to her current employer . The employee may convey either option to the employer forthwith and after filling up the requisite withdrawal / transfter form , the amount will be settled within 30days.

3. The accumulated balance in the employee's Superannuation account is Rs . 2,21,118 as of 31-03-2010. The employee will be entitled to interest payable upto 31-08-2010 . The employee will be required to fill up the relevant form by choosing the type of pension scheme from options available , whereupon the settlement will be processed within a period of 30 days from the date of signing of the present settlement.

4. The employer has agreed to pay an amount of Rs . 8,00,000 (Rupees Eight Lacs only ) to the employee vide cheque No. 762142 dated 6-8-2010 drawn in favour ofthe employee by way of compensation in lieu of re - instatement , re-employment , back wages and all other claims , including the claims made by the employee in Reference No. CGIT - 2/ 51 of2006.

5. The employee would be entitled to relief under Section 89 of the Income- tax Act . The employee would be entitled to the necessary reliefs upon an application made by her to the Income- tax Officer as prescribed under Rule 21A of the Income - tax Rules . The above amount of compensation of Rs . 8,00,000 ( Rupees Eight Lacs only ) shall be treated as spread - over for the period from the date of her termination order , i.e. 21-07-2005 , till date . The employee would be entitled to necessary relief under Section 89 ofthe Income- tax Act read with Rule 21 A of the Income-tax Rules .

6. The employee agrees that the above payment of compensation made to her by the employer is in full and final settlement of all her claims , including that of reinstatement , re - employment , back wages and all other claims , including the claims made by her in Reference No. CGIT - 2/ 51 of 2006 , against the employer relating to her entire period of service with the employer.

This Settlement is signed at Mumbai on this 9th day osAugust 2010 .

The Workman (Ms. ASAVARI JETLY , (Mr. Umesh Nabar ) Advocate for the Employee ForCreditAgricole CIB (Ms. RENU VIJAYANAND) (Mr. Bharat Goyal ) Advocate for the Employer 6860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

THE UNION OF INDIA MAHARASHTRA STATE MOTOR DRIVING LICENCE

Di No MH01 20080080114

( 17-02-2004

Vand The 21-12-200

DLD 19-07-2008

POMM RULE 18 ED AURORAMAN TO DRINT HOLLOWING CIARS

COV

27-02-2004

22-12-1970 3GB

ASAVARI JETLI

SW SUNIL JE ATO 21A, SINGHANIA BLOG , BALARAM ST GRANT ROAD , MUMBAI

Sat 10 MM01 2008101

नई दिल्ली , 9 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2471. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार , सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या -07/ 2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल -12012/ 123/ 2005- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] पुष्पेन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010 S.O. 2471 - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref No. 07/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Couri . Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managenten . of Syndiacate Bank and their workman , which was received oy the Central Government on 9-9-2010.

[No. L- 12012/ 123/ 05 - IR ( B - II ) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNLA CUM LABOUR COURT " SHRAM SADAN " ,

III MAIN , III CROSS , II PHASE , TUMKUR ROAD , YESHWANTHPUR , BANGALORE - 560022 Dated 9th August , 2010

Present :- Shri S. N. Naval Gund , Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 07/2006

I PARTY

Shri Shankar,

S Annappra Chivade ,

FA. Attender ,

[PART 11 S3 ( ii Syndicate Bank .

Budhwarpet Locality . Basavakalayan , Bidar( Karnataka )

ILPARTY

Syndicate Bank , Regional Office ,

The Regional Manager , Personnel Cell , Bijapur ( Karnataka )

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and ub- section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Ac ., 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12012 / 123 / 2005 - IR ( B - II ) dated 2nd March , 2006 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of Syndicate Bank, Bijapur in not providing temporary employmem to Shri Shankar , S / o Annappa Chivade and also not considering him for permanent post of Attender in the bank despite his claim of engagement for a number of years and rendering more than 240 days service in 2000-01 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this tribunal , both parties entered their appearance through their respective Advocales ' and the first party workman filed his clamı statement on 12-07-2007 . In his claim statement he claims that he was appointed as an Attender during the year 1983 ontemporary basis and was posted to work at Bidar District and accordingly he worked there continuously up to 2004 and then onwards the second party refused employment without issuing any memo or notice and it also did not pas any compensation to him. It is further alleged that he also submitted a representation to the General Manager . Zonal Office, Bangalore but there was no response and as the conciliation ended in failure and he has worked continuously for more than 240 days , he is ientitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits .

3.When the matter was at the stage of filing of Counter Statement , on 5-04-2010 the counsel appearing for the second party filed a memo submitting that letter of appointment dated 04-09-2008 was issued to the first party and accordingly he joined on 15-09-2008 as an Attender as such the reference does not survive for consideration and in support of the same he produced the Xerox copies of the letter of appointment and joining report of the first party.

4. The counsel appearing for the first party after availing several adjournments to ascertain whether the first party has settled his dispute and joined the duty as [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

submitted by the second party counsel , ultimately on 5-08-2010 submitted that the letter posted by him to the first party to the address given by him being returned with endorsement ' insufficient address , the court may proceed to pass award on the submissions made by the counsel for the second party through his memo dated 05-04-2010 .

5. Since the documentary evidence produced by the second party counsel discloses that the second party issued the appointment order in favour of the first party dated 4-9-2008 in the sub staff cadre and he accepted the same and reported to duty on 15-09-2008 it shows or implies that he has settled his dispute and accepted the appointment taking that he has accepted the appointment and abandoned the reference , I am of the opinion that the reference deserves to be rejected as parties settled the dispute out of court . Hence ! pass the following Award :

AWARD

The reference is rejected since the parties appears to have settled their dispute outside the tribunal . No costs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 9th August , 2010 )

S. N. NAVAL GUND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 9 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2472. औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत सरकार , विजया बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 58/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल -12011 / 88/2001-आई आर ( बी- II ) ;

पुष्पेन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi . the 9th September , 2010 S.) / 2. pursuance of Section 17 of the dustrianDisputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central 6. vemme hereby publishes the award ( Ref No.58 /2001 ) the Centra Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, noe now as shown in the Annexure in the ialispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndiacate Bank and their workman , which was receive the Central Government on 9-9-2010.

[No. L - 120 / 88 /2001 - IR ( B - II ) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

REFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNLA CUM LABOUR COURT " SHRAM SADAN" ,

II MAIN III CROSS , II PHASE , TUMKUR ROAD , YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560022

6861

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

Dated 31-8-2010

Present : - Shri S. N. Naval Gund , Presiding Officer C.R. No. 58/2001 I PARTY

The General Secretary, Vijaya Bank Workers Organization , 37/1 , 1st Floor , Cer Street , Ulsoor , Bangalore - 560008

11 PARTY

The Regional Manager, VB . Head Office , 11/2 , M.G. Ro Trinity Circle ,

Dangalore - 560001

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clame of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2.A of Section 10 ofdustrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide order No. L - 12011 / 88 / 2001 - IR( B - II ) dated 20th July, 2001 for adjudication on the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management Vya Bank tot hec interminating/discontinuing te servires or Shr . S Manjunath , Temporary Sub Stef Whether talin of the Vijaya Bank Workers Organisation for the regular employment to St 3.B. Manjunath , Former temporary worker , under the management of Vijaya Bank is justified ? If not , what relief the disputant is entitled to ?"

2 Pursuant to the ices issued by this tramal the first party and the secor party ntered their appearance through their respective advocates and iled cision statement and counter statement spectively.bsec tently , the second party/ management examined two witnesses as MWI & MW2 and got marked documents at ExMI to M4 and closed their side substantiating the action of the management in terminating / discontinuing the services of Shri S.B. Manjunath , temporary sub staff and also is refusal for regularizing his employment .

3. When the matter was at the stage of the evidence of the first party on 31-08-2010 , the . learned advocate appearing for the first party fd an application for withdrawal of the reference signed by the first parts workman as well as Shri K. Muddanna Shett. , Gen " Secretary, Vijaya Bank . Workers Organsation wherem is stated that the first party workman is not interested to pursue the dispute and he wish to withdraw the dispute raised under the reference . in view of this application filed by the first party workman signed by himself and also the General Secretary , Vijaya Bank Workers Organisation . the 6862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 / ASVINA 10 , 1932

reference deserves to be rejected as withdrawn. Hence I pass the following award:

AWARD

The reference is rejected as withdrawn . No costs .

(Dictated to P A , transcribed by her , corrected and signed by me on 31st August , 2010 )

S. N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 सितम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 2473 , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 अक्तूबर , 2010 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्ययाय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

" पतालयम विल्लेज , कोइलांडी तालुक , कोजिकोड जिला " [सं. एस -38013/34/2010 - एस.एस. 1 ] एस..डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th September , 2010 S.O. 2473. -In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) , the Central Government , hereby, appoints the 1st October , 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sub - Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter- V and VI [ except sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely : --

District ." "Pathalyam Village in Quilandy Taluk , Kozhikode

[No. S - 38013 /34/2010 - S.S. - I ] S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 20 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2474, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा । की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा । अक्तूबर , 2010 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है . जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध हरियाणा राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

जिला

हदबस्त संख्या

राजस्व भाग

क्र.सं.

(4)

(3)

(2)

( 1)

1. घसौला

गुड़गाँव

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

( 3)

(2)

(1)

2. तिगरा

गुड़गाँव

वजीराबाद

गुड़गाँव 3.

4. घाटा

गुड़गाँव

127

गुड़गाँव 5. बासकुशला

122

गुड़गाँव 6. भगरौला

126

गुड़गाँव 7. धाना

125

8. अलीयर

गुड़गाँव

[सं. एस-38013/35/2010 - एस.एस. - 1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 20th September , 2010 S.O. 2474. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) , the Central Government , hereby, appoints the Ist October , 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter V and VI [ except sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Haryana namely :-

District

Had Bast No.

Sl No. Revenue Village

Ghasula

1 .

Gurgaon

Gurgaon Tigra

Wazirabad

Gurgaon

4. Ghata

Gurgaon

127

5. Bash Kushla

Gurgaon

122

Gurgaon Bhagrola

126

Dhana

Gurgaon

125

8. Alier

Gurgaon

[No. S - 38013 / 35 / 2010 - SS - 1

S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2475. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा । की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा । अक्तूबर , 2010 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्ययाय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 [ धारा -76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी हैं ] के उपबंध आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात् " आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के खम्मम् जिले के भद्राचलम मण्डल में स्थित भद्राचलम एवं एट्टापाका राजस्व गाँव की सीमा के अंतर्गत आने वाले सभी क्षेत्र । "

[सं. एस 38013 /36/2010 - एस.एस. - 1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6863

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2, 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

New Delhi , the 20th September , 2010 S.O. 2475.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) , the Central Government, hereby , appoints the 1st October , 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) Chapter IV and VI [ except sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely :-

"All the areas falling within the limits of Revenue Villages of Bhadrachalam and Ettapaka of Bhadrachalam Mandal in Khammam District of Andhra Pradesh . "

[No. S - 38013 /36/2010- S.S. - I]

S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 20 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2476, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 अक्तूबर , 2010 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध कर्नाटक राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

होबली तालुक जिला क्र. राजस्व ग्राम का नाम सं. व नगर पालिका सीमाएं

कसबा मालूर कोलार 1. नोसगेरेमालूर ( टी.एम.सी. लिमिट)

कसबा

कोलार

मालूर 2. मालूर टी.एम.सी

कसबा

कोलार 3. पुरूसन हल्ली ग्रा. पं

मालूर

लक्कूर मालूर कोलार 4. सीतानायकन हल्ली , जयमंगल

ग्रा. पं

कसबा

कोलार

मालूर 5. गुडडन हल्ली , कुन्दूर ग्रा. पं

मालूर कोलार

त्याकल

6. कुन्दूर ग्रा. पं

7. अब्बेनहल्ली ग्रा. पं

कसबा मालूर कोलार

कसबा

8. चेन्नकल विलेज , संतेहल्ली ग्रा. पं

मालूर कोलार

कसबा

9. मैलांडहल्ली , संतेहल्ली ग्रा. पं

मालूर कोलार

कसबा

10. अरलेरी ग्रा. पं

मालूर कोलार

कसबा

11. शिवारपटना ग्रा. पं

कोलार

मालूर

कसबा

कोलार

मालूर 12. दोड्‌डाकाडतूर विलेज , होंगेनहल्ली ग्रा. पं

कसबा

कोलार

मालूर 13. यशवंतपुर ग्रा. पं

कसबा

14. बेल्लावी ग्रा. पं

कोलार

मालूर

[सं. एस -38013/37/2010 - एसएस -1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 20th September , 2010 S.O. 2476. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) , the Central Government , hereby, appoints the ist October , 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI [ except sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely :-

Hobli Taluk District Sl Name of the Revenue No. village or Municipal Limits

Kasaba Malur Kolar 1. Nosagere ( Malur TMC Limits

2. Malur TMC

Kasaba Malur Kolar 3. Purusana Halli G.P. Kasaba Malur Kolar

Lakkur Malur Kolar 4. Seethanayakana Halli Jayamangala G.P.

Kasaba Malur Kolar 5. Guddana Halli KunturG.P.

6. KunturG.P.

Tyakal Malur Kolar

Kasaba Malur Kolar 7. Abbenahalli G.P.

Kasaba Malur Kolar 8. Chennakal village. Santhe Halli G.P.

Kasaba Malur Kolar 9. Mylanda Halli Santhe HalliG.P.

10. Araleri G.P.

Kasaba Malur Kolar

Kasaba Malur Kolar 11. Shivarpatna G.P.

Kasaba Malur Kolar 12. Doddakadathur Village Hongena Halli G.P.

Kasaba Malur Kolar 13. Yeshwanthpur G.P.

14. Bellavi G.P.

Kasaba Malur Kolar

[No. S - 38013 /37/ 2010- S.S. - I ] S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर , 2010

को प्राप्त हुआ था । का.आ. 2477. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , चण्डीगढ़ -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-9-2010 [ सं एल -12012 / 123 / 2006- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी 6864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010 /ASVINA 10 , 1932

New Delhi , the 30th September , 2010 S.O. 2477.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( I. D. No. 71/99 ) delivered by the Central Government Industrial - cum- Labour Court - 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 27-9-2010 .

[No. L - 12012/ 123 /2006 - IR (B - I ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case I. D No- . 15/2007

Shri Updesh Passi , H. No. 151 , Friends Colony , Near Old Truck Union , Moga ( Punjab ) , Moga

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( it) !

The main issue for adjudication before this fribunal in this reference is whether the proper enquiry was conducted against Shri Updesh Passi on the charge sheet served upon him on 11.12.2000 for his initial appointment in 1972 and 1977 respectively in different cadres?

The workman was initially appointed on temporary basis as messenger - cum waterman on 16.07.1970 and nis services were regularized on 22.05.1972 . It is the contention of the management that he has given a false information regarding his educational qualifications . In facthe was matriculate at the time when he was initially appointed But he has not informed that he is a matriculate . The qualification prescribed for the post on which he was appointed was middle class , whereas , at the time he was appointed he was matriculation . On this account and on account of misusing about his qualifications in the department of Regional Pass po : Office and Punjat: Schoc . Education Board he was also charged . He was also charged for misinforming the management on account of his medical leaves claimed by him .

On perusal of the materials on record , it is clear that workman was charge heeted on 11.12 : 2000 as follows

...Applicant

Versus

The Assistant General Manager , State Bank of India , Region- , Z.O. Punjab , Fountain Chowk , Civil Lines , Ludhiana ( Punjab )

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman :

Shri D.C. Mittal

Shri Ashok Khuilar .

For the Management:

AWARD

Passed on 24-8-2010

Government of India vide notification No. L - 12012 / 123-2006- ( IR ( B - I ) , dated 01.03.2007 by exercising its powers ander Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , ( the Act in short ) referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of SBI , Ludhiana in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from the services of Shri Updesh Passi is illegal and unjustified . If so , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

After receiving the reference , parties were informed . Parties appeared and filed their respective plendi . Parties were also afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Evidence was recorded . I have heard the parties at length and perused the entire materials on record .

(1) In order to get yourself recruited as 'Messenger- com- Water Boy' in the subordinate cadre in the Bank , during the year 1972 , you knowingly made false statemen regarding your academic qualifications . Whereas only non - matriculate candidates were eligible for the above recruitment , the fact that you were matriculate , was concealed by you. Thus , y mie to get the job in the bank on 22.02.1972 . by misrepresenting the facts relating to your academic qualifications .

(2) During the year 1977 , you passed the matriculation examination for me second time , though you were already matriculate Accordingly you heated not one the Bank butalso the Punjab sal ool Education Board (3) While applying for issuance or Passport , you submitted wrong information about your academic qualifications to the Regis al Passport Office . Ministry of Externa . Af ... irs. Government of India , Ghandigarh . Whereas , you had passed the matriculation esan nation during the vear 1969 , you submitted that you had passed the matricoiation examination during the year 1977 .

(1) In order te derive pecuniary benefits , you knowingly submitted faise representation on 22.03 1999 to the Chief Manager . Court Read . Moga Branch that you did not avail an medical leave in your entire vice. You again concealed the facts and male a false [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

representation on 13.03.2000 to the Branch Manager , Moga Branch that you did not avail any medical leave in your entire service prior to 03.08.1996 . On 13.07.2000 , you advised the Chief Manager , Moga Branch , that if you claim regarding non availing of medical leave proves wrong at a later date , you will be liable for disciplinary action for concealment of facts and claiming a wrong benefit . However , it is observed that you had already availed of medical leave for three months and twenty two days on half of pay up to July 1978 , during your posting at ADB , Moga Branch . " The workman has admitted that there is no procedural error while conducting the enquiry . He has challenged the decision making ofthe enquiry officer . I have gone through the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report . As per the enquiry report the Charge No. 1 , 2 and 4 have been said to be proved against the workman , whereas , Charge No. 3 relating to the supplying the wrong information about his educational qualifications to the Regional Passport Office has ordered not to be proved . The claim of the management is that he has already passed matriculation examination in the year 1968 but without the permission of the management to conceal his misconduct , he again admit in the matriculation examination 1977 and again passed the same . If the contention of the management is found true , any information , regarding his qualification given to the Punjab School Education Board or to the Regional Passport Office shall be correct . If the workman has already passed the matriculation and he wanted to pass matriculation again the management has fail to prove the legal bar in doing so . Having matriculation certificate and again appearing in the matriculation examination in my view is not misconduct , if no complaint hy the Punjab School Education . Board is made . It is admitted that Punjab School Education Board has not made any complaint regarding so called cheating by the workman to the Board . I am unable to understand how the act of the workman comes under the definition of the cheating and how it is misconduct . Thus , it was the perversity in decision making of the enquiry officer to hold the Charge No. 2 well proved .

Likewise , on Charge No. 3 , it is the duty of the management to maintain the record regarding the medical leaves , earned leaves , ane any other type of leaves . On failure of the management to maintain a correct record , the workman was asked to give information regarding the medical leaves he has availed . The workman supplied the information . It was not mandatory on the workman to supply the information and the information given by the workmancould be accepted or rejected by the management . It was failure of the management to maintain a correct record regarding the medical leaves and on his failure the workman could not be penalized . If the management was not satisfied with the statement given by the workman , it

6865

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 2 , 2010/आश्विन 10 , 1932

was within the preview of the management not to consider the statement but it never constitutes the misconduct of the workman . It was the help of the workman to the management in maintaining the correct record relating to the medical leaves and on account of latches on the part of the management , the workman cannot be penalized . Accordingly , the enquiry officer has wrongly held Charge No. 4 to be well proved .

So far as the Charge No. 1 is concerned , the workman has admitted that he was matriculate at the time he was initially appointed . It is the contention of the workman that he has informed the management that he is matriculate. During the enquiry proceedings the records relating to the initial appointment of the workman were not available . On thebasis of the . service record of the workman and the oral contentions of the certain witness , enquiry officer reached to the conclusion that workman has not informed the management about his real qualification . It is admitted that workman was engaged in writing after getting all formalities before appointment . Thus , documents were not available to the enquiry officer .

There is a strong circumstance which favoured the version of management . If the workman was matriculate at the time of his initial appointment and has informed the management about his qualification what was the reason to seek permission to appear in the matriculation examination and to passed the same once again in 1977. It is a very strong circumstance , which supported the contention of the management that workman was on such a seat from where documents relating to his services can be displaced . No doubt , it is not the charge against the workman that he has misplaced the documents but the circumstances mentioned above indicate that if the workman had informed the management that he is matriculate there was no necessity for permission to appear in the same examination he has earlier qualified . Moreover , he has sought the benefit of matriculation examination which he passed in the year 1977 after seeking permission from the management . Thus , on this charge the enquiry officer has rightly held this charge to be well proved .

On the basis of the above discussion , I am of the view that enquiry officer has rightly held the charge no . 1 to be proved , whereas , he has wrongly held the charge no . 2 & 4 proved against the workman . Now , the question arises whether the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was proportionate to the committed misconduct . The disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement of Updesh Passi . Under similar circumstances Hon'ble the Apex Court in State Bank of India versus Mahesh Kumar and others decided on 20th August 2008 has held that concealing correct educational qualification and the initial appointment is a technical 6866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2 , 2010/ ASVINA 10 , 1932

misconduct . On such technical misconduct , if completed 11 years of service , removal of the workman from the services will be arbitrary and uncalled for .

Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 8463/2008 , SBI versus Presiding Officer . Labour Court and others decided on 13.08.2009 or the similar nature ofmisconduct has converted the punishment of dismissal for stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect . In both of the above mentioned case laws , the ratio of the judgment is that non - informing the higher qualification at the time of initial appointment is a misconduct of the technical nature and where the workman has served for a substantial period in the bank he must be punished accordingly.

It isalso the settled principle of service jurisprudence that this Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under section 11 A cannot act as the appellate authority of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority . The jurisdiction under section 11 - A can only be invoked where the punishment awarded has caused glaring injustice . From both of the above mentioned case laws it is evidently clear that the Printed by the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road . and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .

[PART 11 - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] punishment of compulsory retirement is harsh and has caused glaring injustice to the workman . The workman has served more than 20 years in the bank . After 20 years he was issued the charge sheet and on technical misconduct he was compulsory retired from the services which in my view is an example of glaring injustice to the workman. Thus , considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the views that it is the fit case for exercising jurisdiction under section 11 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly by exercising jurisdiction . under section 11 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act , I am setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement and converting it to stoppage of two increments with cumulative affect . The management is accordingly directed to reinstate the services of the workman with full back wages after implementing the substituted punishment within one month from the date of publication of award . The reference is accordingly answered. Central Government be approached for publication of the award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064