REGD . NO . D. L. ( N ) 04 / 0007 / 2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04 / 0007 / 2003-05
भारतका राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
नई दिल्ली, नवम्बर 14 नवम्बर 20 , 2010 , शनिवार /कार्तिक 23 कार्तिक 29 , 1932 सं. 47]
NEW DELHI , NOVEMBER 14- NOVEMBER 20 , 2010, SATURDAY / KARTIKA 23- KARTIKA 29 , 1932 No. 47 ]
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 )
सीमाशुल्क आयुक्त का कार्यालय
कोचिन , 14 अक्तूबर , 2010
सं. 2/2010
का.आ. 2864.- सीमाशुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 10 के अन्तर्गत मुझे प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैं, बी. रमा मैथ्यू , सीमाशुल्क आयुक्त , सीमाशुल्क गृह , कोचिन एतद्वारा सीमाशुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 के प्रावधानों तथा भारत सरकार या सीमाशुल्क आयुक्त. सीमाशुल्क गृह , कोचिन द्वारा समय समय पर जारी निर्देशों के सख्त अनुपालन की शर्तों पर , सीमाशुल्क अधिकारियों द्वारा जहाजों में चढ़ने और उतरने के लिए कोचि इन्टरनेशनल मरीना , बोलघाटी द्वीप , एरणाकुलम को बोर्डिंग स्टेशन के रूप में निर्धारित करती हूँ ।
[ फा. सं. एस-31 / 167/ 2010 पीआर कस्टम । वी. रमा मैथ्यू, सीमाशुल्क आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
Cochin , the 14th October , 20100
No. 2/2010
S.O. 2864. - In exercise of the powers conferred on me under Section 10 of the Customs Act . 1962. I. V.Rama Mathew, Commissioner of Customs , Custom House , Cochin , here appoint , Kochi International Marina , Bolgatty Island . Ernakulam , as a boarding station for the purpose of boarding of, or disembarkation from , vessels by officers of Customs subject to the strict observance of the provisions of the Customs Act , 1962 and other instructions issued in this behalf by the Government of India or Commissioner of Customs , Customs House , Cochin from time to time .
[ F. No. S - 31 / 167 2010 -Pr Cus .
V. RAMA , MATHEW, Commissioner of Customs
(7887)
4322 G1 / 2010 7888
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
PART 6 SUC3
वित्त मंत्रालय
(राजस्व विभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2865.- केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 में उपनियम ( के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सीमा शुल्क बोर्ड के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मच वृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है ।
केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, आयुक्तालय, पूणे -1
41- ए, आई सी ई हाउस , ससून रोड, वाड़िया कॉलेज के सामने , पूर्ण-411001
फा. २. 11012-2008 हिंदी
मधु शर्मा , रंजक ( ग.१
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
New Delhi , the 10th October, 2010
S.O. 2865. In pursuance of Sub Rule 4 of 10 of the Official Language ( use of Official purpose of the uni Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the Central Board of Excise & Custon Department of Revenue , the 80 % staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :
Office ofthe Commissioner of Central Excise ,
Pune-J 41-A , ICE House , Sasoon Road , Opposite to Wadia College Pune-411001
File No.11012 | 2008 -Hind
MADHU SHARMA , Director ( ( उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
नई दिल्ली, 3 नवम्बर, 2010
का.आ. 2866.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :
अनुसूची
क्रम संख्या
संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधन लागू होने व तिथि (1)
(2)
( 3)
(4) 1.
आईएस 1342 :2002 तेल दाब स्टोव विशिष्टि
संशोधन नं. 3 ,
30 मितम्बर, 2010 (छठा पुनरीक्षण)
सितम्बर , 2010
2.
संशोधन नं. 4,
5 अक्तूबर, 2010 आईएस 5244 : 1991 सुरक्षित जमा लाकर
सितम्बर , 2010
केबिनेट-विशिष्टि ( दूसग पुनरीक्षण )
3.
आईएस 10109 : 2002 तेल दाब स्टोव-
15 नवम्बर, 2010
संशोधन नं. 3 .
सितम्बर , 2010
अन्तर्लम्ब बर्नर टाइप - विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण ) 7889 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
-खण्ड (1)
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई कोलकावा , चण्डीगढ़ , चेत्रई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , पुर, नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनंतपुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
बर 2010
[संदर्भ : एम.ई.डी./डी 2:11
सी. के. वेदा , वैज्ञा. ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION (Depart of Consumer Affairs )
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STA DARDS )
New Delhi , the 3rd November , 2010
S.O. 2866.- In pursuance of clause ( b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards kulk: 1987 . rears of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the hedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
No. and year of the amendment
No. and year of the Indian Standards
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(4)
(3)
(2)
30 Septemvr
Amendment No. 3 September , 2010
IS 1342 : 2002 Oil pressure stoves- Specification ( Sixth Revision )
5 October
Amendment No. 4 September . 2010
IS 5244 : 1991 Safe Deposit locker cabinet- Specification ( Second Revision )
15November
Amendment No. 3 September, 2010
IS 10109 : 2002 Oil pressure stoves- Offset burner type - Specification (First Revision )
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards . Manak Bhavan , 9. Bahadur Shah Mar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch lices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna . me. Thiruvananthapuram .
ate: 3rd November , 2010
[Ref: MED /G - 2 : 11
C. K. VEDA , Sc . F & Head ( Mechanical Engineering )
नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2867.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :
अनुसूची
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
(4)
(3)
(2)
31 10 2010 1 .
संशोधन नं. 3 . अक्तूबर , 2010
आईएस 3074: 2005 - मोटर वाहन हेतु इस्पात नलिकाएँ - विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) 7890
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29, 1932
PAR ! II Sti इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेत्रई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनंतापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
दिनांक : 9 नवम्बर , 2010
| संदर्भ : एमटीडी 19 नी !
पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)
New Delhi , the 9th November , 2010
S.O. 2867. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :
SCHEDULE
Si. No.
No. and Title of the Indian Standards ( s)
(1)
(2)
1.
IS 3074 : 2005 Steel tubes for automotive Purposes- Specification ( Second Revision) No. & year of the amendment
Date from which the amendment shall have effect (3)
(4)
31 October, 2010 Amendment No. 3 October, 2010
Copy ofthis amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Officers : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices. Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune. Thiruvananthapuram .
Date: 9 November , 2010
[Ref: MTD 19 1-71 P. GHOSH , Sc . F ' & Head ( Met Engg. )
नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2868.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं ।
अनुसूची
संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की क्रम संख्या
संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
(1)
(2)
1.
आईएस 101 ( भाग ४ /अनुभाग 2 ): 1990 रोगनों , वार्निशों और सम्बद्ध उत्पादों के नमूने लेने और परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग 8 वर्णकों और अन्य ठोसों के परीक्षण अनुभाग 2 वर्णक , अवाष्पशील वाहन और अवाष्पशील पदार्थ
स्थापित संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
तिथि
(3)
(4)
30 सितम्बर 2010 संशोधन संख्या नं. 4 . सितम्बर , 201 ()
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनंतापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ : सीएचडी 20/ आईएस 101 ( भाग 2/ अनुभाग 2 ) | ई. देवेन्दर , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन ) 7891 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 / कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 9th November , 2010
S.O. 2868.- In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
No. and year of the amendment
No. and year of the Indian Standards
Si No.
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
30 September . 2010 1.
Amendment No. 4 September , 2010
IS 101 ( Part 8 / Sec 2 ) : 1990 Methods of Sampling and Test for Paints , Varnishes and Related Products Part 8 Test for Pigments and other Solids Section 2 Pigments , Non -Volatile and Non - Volatile Matter
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubnaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur . Kanpur . Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.
[ Ref: CHD 20 / 1S 101 ( Part 8 / Sec . 2 ) E. DEVENDAR , Scientist ' " & Head ( Chemical )
कोयला मंत्रालय
आदेश
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2869 ,-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 भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 3821 तारीख 13 सितम्बर , 2006 के भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 23 सितम्बर , 2006 में प्रकाशित होने पर, उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर के 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 , आत्यतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए है :
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि नार्दन कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सिंगरौली ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कम्पनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शतों को , जिन्हें केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामंद है ;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा ।। की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि और उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार तारीख 2.3 सितम्बर , 2006 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने की बजाय , निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात्: -
( 1 ) उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर , ब्याज , नुकसानी और वैसी ही मदों की बावत किए गए सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ;
(2 ) उक्त सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपमत सभी व्यय , उक्त सरकारी कंपनी बहन करेगी और इसी प्रकार, इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों 7892
PARC S THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
के लिए या उनके संबंध में सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों , जैसे अपील आदि की बावत उपमत , सभी व्यय पी, उक्त मरकार्य करन वहन करेगी ;
(3 ) उक्त सरकारी कंपनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार और उसके पदधारियों की ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में , जो इस प्रकार निहित उपत भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में , कंन्द्रीय सरकार और या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके निरूद्रकीरि के संबंध में आवश्यक हो क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी ;
(4) उक्त सरकारी कंपनी को, केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना , उक्त भूमि और अधिकार किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंनि करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी और
( 5 ) उक्त सरकारी कंपनी , ऐसे निर्देशों या शतों का , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उक्त भूमि के गांगण क्षेत्रों क लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित को जाए, पालन करेगी ।
(फा. सं. 43015/1/2003 पोरक्यू ।।
एस. मो. मरियम , निदेश
MINISTRY OF COAL
ORDER
New Delhi, the 18th November , 2010
S.O. 2869. Whereas, on the publication of the notification of the Government of India , in Ministry of Coal , number S.O. 3821 dated the 13th September, 2006 in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section 3. Sub - Section ( ii ) dated the d September, 2006 , issued under sub- section (1) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Developirent ) A. 1957 (20 of 1957 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) the land and rights in or over such land as described in the Schedale appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Governsical t from all encumbrances under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act;
And whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that the Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli therematies referred to as the 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 powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section li of the Coal Isears, Arc (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby directs that the said land and rights in et a such land so vested shall , with effect from the 23rd September, 2006, instead of continuing to so vest in the Centre Government , shall vest in the said Government company, subjectto the following terms and conditions , nameiv ( 1) The said Government Company shall reimburse the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation , interest, damages and the like asdetermined under the provisions of the said Act :
(2) A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of said Act , for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the said Government company under conditions ( 1 ) , and all expenditure incorred 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 legal proceedings like appeals, ic, lo or in connection with the rights in or over the said land so vested shall also be borne by the saidGovernmen .
company :
(3 ) The said Government company shali indemnify the Central Government or its officials against an, ther expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or agamst the Central Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested:
(4) The said Government company shail have no power to transfer the said land and the rights to any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government; and
(5) The said Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.
E. No. 430151 2003 - PRIW- 1
S. C. BHATIA, Director 7893 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
आदेश
नई दिल्ली, 18 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2870.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ . 861 तारीख 29 सितम्बर , 2010 जो भारत के राजपत्र , भाग -11 , खंड 3 , उप - खंड ( ii ) तारीख 3 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 उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर , आत्यांतिक रूप से निहित हो गए थे ;
और , केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह समाधान हो गया है कि साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड- विलासपुर ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी कहा गया है ) , ऐसे निबंधनों और शतर्तों का , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिए तैयार है;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त 752.456 हेक्टर भूमि और उस पर के सभी अधिकार तारीख 3 अप्रैल , 2010 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने की बजाय , निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात्:-
( 1 ) उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज , नुकसान और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गए सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ;
( 2 ) उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय , उक्त कंपनी वहन करेगी और इसी प्रकार , निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकारों के लिए या उसके संबंध में सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत उपगत , सभी व्यय भी, उक्त सरकारी कंपनी वहन करेगी:
(3 ) उक्त सरकारी कंपनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में , जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार और या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके निरूद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी;
(4 ) उक्त सरकारी कंपनी को , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना , उक्त भूमि और अधिकार किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी ; और
( 5 ) उक्त सरकारी कंपनी , ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित की जाएं , पालन करेगी ।
[फा. सं. 43015 / 12/ 2009-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू ।।
एस. सी. भाटिया , निदेशक
ORDER
New Delhi , the 18th November , 2010
S.O. 2870. Whereas , on the publication of the notification of the Government of India , in the Ministry of Coal , number S.O. 861 dated the 29th March , 2010 in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section 3. Sub - section (ii ) dated the 3rd 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 land and all rights in or over such land as described in the Schedule appended to the said notification ( hereinafter referred to as the said land ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act;
And, whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Bilaspur ( hereinafter referred to as the 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 conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acqusition and Development ) Act , 1957, the Central Government hereby directs that the said land and all rights in or over such land so vested shall , with effect from the 3rd April , 2010 , instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , shall vest in the Government Company , subject to the following terms and conditions namely : - 7894
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
[PART II Stc. 3 (ii ) ] 1. The 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 ;
2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under Section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Governmentby the 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 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 land so vested shall also be borne by the Government Company;
3. The 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 land so vested;
4. The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said land and the rights to any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government ; and
5. The Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary .
[ E. No. 43015/12/ 2009 - PRIW- 1 |
S. C. BHATIA . Director
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
शुद्धिपत्र
नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2871,-अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ . 1641 दिनांक 28 जून , 2010 की चौथी पंक्ति में सक्षम प्राधिकारी का नाम अर्थात् " श्री बी.एस. कृष्णमूर्ति " के स्थान पर " श्री एस. कृष्णमूर्ति " पढ़ा जाए ।
[फा. सं. पी -25011 / 1 /2009- आपूर्ति |
जे. के. सिंह , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi , the 12th November, 2010
S.O. 2871. In the line 4 of the Notification bearing S.O. 1641 dated 28th June , 2010, the name of the Competent Authority i.e. , " Shri B. S. Krishnamoorthi " may be read as " Shri S. Krishnamurthy" .
[ F. No. P- 25011 / 1/2009 -Sup.
J. K. SINGH . Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 18 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2872.- भारत सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन संलग्न सूची के कालम ( 1 ) में वर्णित व्यक्ति को कालम ( 2 ) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त करती है ।
अनुसूची
व्यक्ति का नाम और पता
अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र (2)
(2)
सम्पूर्ण कर्नाटका राज्य श्री एन. सूर्यानारायण, सहायक आयुक्त, मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया) लिमिटेड, बेंगलूरू में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर
| फाइल सं. एल 14014/29/09 जी.पी .।
के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7895
New Delhi , the 18th November, 2010
S.O. 2872. Whereas , in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Government of India hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying pipelines by the said M/ s GAIL ( India ) Limited in the area mentioned in column (2 ) of the said schedule.
SCHEDULE Name and Address of the person
Shri N. Suryanarayan ,
Assistant Commissioner ,
Ondeputation basis to M/s. GAIL (India ) Limited, Bengaluru
Area ofJurisdiction
Whole State of Karnataka
[F. No. 1-14014/29/09-GP1 K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली , 15 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2873.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में रमन मंडी से हरियाणा राज्य में बहादुरगढ़ तक, पैट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि में , जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की 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 भूि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री प्रहलाद सिंह ( हरियाणा ) , हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना , एस सी एफ नं. -29 , सैक्टर-6 , बहादुरगढ़-124507 , हरियाणा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची राज्य: हरियाणा
जिला : हिसार
तहसील : नारनौंद
गाँव का नाम
खसरा/किला संख्या
मुस्ततिल संख्या
हदबस्त संख्या
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
20
2
82
1. लौहारी राघो
24
50
18
2
88
2. मोठ रागंरान
25/1
25
25/2
25/3/1
25/3/2 4322G1/10-2
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
हेक्टेयर
(7)
(6)
(5)
50
00
00
77
01
00
75
000
00
51
01
00
28
03
00
50
00
00
01
01
00
[फा. सं. आर-31015/41/2009- ओआर ।। |
ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव 7896
==
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
[ PART II SEC . 3 (ii )|
New Delhi , the 15th November, 2010
S.O. 2873.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh ", should be laid by the HindustanPetroleum Corporation Limited;
And, whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein ;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein or laying ofthe pipeline under the land , to Shri Prahlad Singh, Competent Authority ( Haryana ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Guru Gobind Singh Refinery Product Evacuation Project , SCF No. - 29 , Sector - 6 Market, Bahadurgarh- 124507, Haryana.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Narnaund
District: Hisar
State:Haryana NameofVillage
Hadbast No.
Mustatil No.
Khasra/ KillaNo.
Hectare
Area Are Square Metre (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) 82
2
1. Lohari Ragho
20
00
00
50
50
24
00
01
77 88
2
2. Moth Rangran
18
00
00
75
25
25/1
00
01
51
25/2
00
03
28
25/3/1
00
00
50
25/3/2
00
01
[F. No. R -31015/41/ 2009- OR - II |
A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 15 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2874, केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में रमन मंडी से हरियाणा राज्य में बहादुरगढ़ तक, पैट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि में, जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की 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 ;
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
( भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7897 कोई भी व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री प्रहलाद सिंह , ( हरियाणा ) , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना , एस सी एफ नं. - 29 , सेक्टर -6 , बहादुरगढ़ -124 507 , हरियाणा को लिखित रूपं में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूधी राज्य : हरियाणा
जिला : हिसार
तहसील : हांसी
खसरा/किला गाँव का नाम
संख्या
मुस्ततिल संख्या
हदबला संख्या
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
10
65
61
1. बडछप्पर
वर्गमीटर.
हेक्टेयर
क्षेत्रफल एयर
(7) (5)
(6)
78
00
02
[फा. सं. आर-31015/10/2009- ओआर-11 |
ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 15th November , 2010
S.O. 2874. - Whereas , it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " , should be laid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;
And , whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid , and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein ;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein or laying of the pipeline under the land , to Shri Prahlad Singh , Competent Authority ( Haryana ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Guru Gobind Singh Refinery Product Evacuation Project , SCF No. 29 , Sector - 6 Market , Bahadurgarh - 124 507, Haryana.
SCHEDULE State: Haryana
District: Hisar
Tehsil: Hansi
Name of Village
Khasra/ KillaNo.
Hadbast No.
Mustatil No.
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
10
65
61
1. Badchhapar
Area Are
Hectare
Square Metre
(7)
(6)
(5)
78
00
02
[ F. No. R - 31015 / 10 / 2009 - OR - II A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली , 15 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2875.- 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 ;
7898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि में , जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदप्त 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 धर्णित 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 नीले पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री प्रहलाद सिंह , ( हरियाणा ) , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना, एस सी एफ नं. - 29 , सेक्टर -6, बहादुरगढ़ -124 507 , हरियाणा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची तहसील : बरवाला
जिला : हिसार
गाँव का नाम
हदबस्त संख्या
मुस्ततिल संख्या
खसरा/किला संख्या (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
65
196
4 1. पाबड़ा
476
10/2
630
10
11
12
13
18
19 2. इंश्रहेडी
126
11
8
9/1
125
38
23 3. भैणी बादशाहपुर
19
53
20 धावड़
78
4/1/2
99
21 5. ढाड
8
3
7/1
9
21
75
7
16
134
20 6. ब्याना खेड़ा
राज्य: हरियाणा
हेक्टेयर
वर्गमीटर
क्षेत्रफल एयर
(5)
(6)
(7) 00
00
25
00
05
31
00
06
83
00
07
33
00
91
13
00
03
03
00
06
32
00
00
25
00
00
50
00
00
25
00
29
03
00
00
25
00
07
34
00
01
01
00
03
03
00
01
51
00
02
02
00
76
01
00
00
25
[फा. सं. आर-31015/16/2009- ओआर ।।।
ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 15th November , 2010
375.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the net Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh ' in the State of Haryana for भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7899 implementation of " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " , should be laid by the HindustanPetroleum Corporation Limited;
And , whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid , and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein ;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein or laying of the pipeline under the land , to Shri Prahlad Singh , Competent Authority ( Haryana ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Guru Gobind Singh Refinery Product Evacuation Project , SCF No. - 29 , Sector - 6 Market , Bahadurgarh - 124507, Haryana.
SCHEDULE State : Haryana
District: Hisar
Tehsil : Barwala
Mustatil Name ofVillage
Khasra/ KillaNo.
No.
Hadbast No.
(4)
(2)
(3 )
(1)
4
196
65
1. Pabra
10/2
476
10
630
11
12
13
18
19
8
11
126
2. Iserheri
9/1
23
38
125
3. Bhaini Badshahpur
20
53
19
4. Badhawar
4/1/2
78
21
99
3
8
5. Dhad
7/1
21
9
7
75
20
134
16
6. Biyana Khera
Area
Are
Hectare
Square Metre
(7)
(6)
(5)
25
00
00
31
05
00
83
06
00
33
07
00
91
13
00
03
03
00
32
06
00
25
00
00
50
00
00
25
00
00
29
03
00
25
00
00
34
07
00
01
01
00
03
03
00
51
01
00
02
02
00
76
01
00
25
00
00
[ F. No. R -31015 /16 / 2009 - OR - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .
7900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
PARI 11 SIC. 3 ( ii ) |
=
नई दिल्ली , 19 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2876.-पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइप लाइन ( भू उपयोग अधिकार अधिग्रहण ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 के 50 ) के खंड 2 की धारा ( क) के अनुसरण में , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री एस. बी. दूबे , डिप्टी जिला कलेक्टर ( सब- डिविजनल ऑफिसर , मनगांव , जिला रायगढ़ ) , महाराष्ट्र सरकार को महाराष्ट्र राज्य की सीमा में हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड ( एचपीसीएल ) की उरान चाकण/शिक्रापुर एलपीजी पाइप लाइन परियोजना के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के तहत सक्षम प्राधिकारी के रूप में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर कार्य निष्पादन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।
[फा.सं.आर-31015/6/2004 ओआर ।।।
ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 19th November , 2010
S.O. 2876.- In pursuance of clause ( a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ), the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri S. B. Dubey, Deputy District Collector (Sub Divisional Officer , Mangaon , Dist . Raighad ), Government of Maharashtra on deputation to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.(HPCL) to perform the functions of CompetentAuthority for HPCL's Uran - Chakan/ Shikrapur LPG Pipeline Project under the said Act , within the Territory of Maharashtra .
[F. No. R - 31015/6 / 2004 - OR - II ]
A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 19 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2877.-पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइप लाइन ( भू उपयोग अधिकार अधिग्रहण ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 के 50 ) के खंड 2 की धारा ( क ) के अनुसरण में तथा भारत सरकार पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की दिनांकित 7-9-2009 की अधिसूचना संख्या एसओ 2306 ( ई ) को निरस्त करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री आशीष मोहन, दानिक्स /एसडीएम ( नजफगढ़ ) , राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली सरकार को राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र , दिल्ली की सीमा में हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड ( एचपीसीएल ) की एमडीपीएल उत्पाद पाइप लाइन के अंग बहादुरगढ़ टीकरीकलां स्परलाइन पाइप लाइन परियोजना के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के तहत , अपने कर्तव्यों के साथ- साथ , सक्षम प्राधिकारी के रूप में कार्य निष्पादन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।
[फा. सं.आर -31015/6/2004- ओआर ।।
ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 19th November , 2010
S.O. 2877. In pursuance of clause ( a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) and in supersession of Notification of the Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas No. S.O. 2306( E) dated 7-9-2009 , the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri Ashish Mohan , DANICS /SDM (Najafgarh ) , Government of NCT of Delhi to perform the functions of Competent Authority for Bahadurgarh- Tikrikalan spurlines as a part of MDPL product pipeline of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , in addition to his own duties , under the said Act , within the territory of NCT Delhi .
[ F. No. R-31015 / 6/2004 -OR - III
A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
{ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7901
नई दिल्ली, 12 नवम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 2878. - भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाडा- नैल्लोर -चैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई - ट्यूटीकोरिन 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 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धाग 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलव्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री वी . वेंकटसुव्वु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , न . 89, डॉ . राधाकृष्णन सलाई , छठवीं मंजिल , मैलापुर , चैन्नई 600004 , तमिलनाडु राज्य को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्य: तमिलनाडु
जिला:विल्लुपुरम
तालुक जिंजीं
सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं
गाँव का नाम
2 1
189
1 ) टेप्पीरंपटु
171
174
84/ 2सी
84/2वी
84/ 2ए
84/ 2डी
84/25
84/3
175/2
84/1 ए
84/4ए
84/6
84/7
84/8
84/9
86/1
84/10
84/11
84/12 आर- ओ- यू- अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर
4
5 3
57
50
00
08
54 00
45
58
00
08
07
00
17
91 00
00
10 00
09
75 00
31
04
00
06
04
00
74
00
00
53 00
14
48
25
00
10
02
00
39
02
00
20
02
00
02
38 00
30
02
00
81
04
00
32
03
00
26
04
00 7902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 [Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5 00 04 92
84/13
1 ) टेप्पीरंपटु (निरंतर)
85/5
12
86 00
01
00
58
85/6
85/4
85/3
04
40 00
06
52 00
10 00
00
85/2
12
93 00
90/ 2सी
00 07
07
90/2वी
50 00 06
90/ 2ए
00 00
84
90/1वी
50 00 02
90/4
23 00 00
90/1 एफ
00 00
31
90/1जी
00
33 00
90/1एच
00 07
01
90/3वी
23
02
00
90/3ए
00 05
23
90/3सी
16
01
00
90/3號
02
20 00
90/3एफ
18
18 00
91/8
91/7
00
00
10 00 11
49
92/5
00
10 00
92/7
02
80 00
92/6
00 05
18
92/4
12 00 09
92/2वी
92/1
16
00
00
00
92
05
80/3
80/5
50 00
03
07
00
91
80/2
80/1
17
00
99
00 00 08
180/8
17
95 00
180/7
58 00
07
180/5
00
58
22
180/6
05
39 00
180/4वी
81/2
81/1
182
01
07 00
12
04 00
26 00
18
06
00
91
188/4वी
03
00
87
188/7ए
00 08
39
188/7एफ
63 00
01
188/75
55
13
00
188/7जी
00
68
05
188/ 7एच
186
66 00 08 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2
502/1
2) वैलामुर (मेल)
491/2
491/3
491/4
492/3
491/5
492/4एफ
492/4जी
492/4
495
494/ 1 ए
494/1 वी
494/ 2एफ
494/ 2वी
494/2
494/ 2डी
494/2मी
494/3ए
494/4
496/1 वी1/ए
496/1 वी 1 /मी
496/1 वी1/ई
496/1 बी 1 / ड्डी
498
496
496/1 वी3/ ए
355/1
355/2
355/4
355/5
355/6
487/3
487/2
487/4
486/3
486/2
486/4
481/1 वी
481/1 मी
485/7
485/8
482/1
455/ 2 ए
365/2
455/ 2वी
483/2 4322GI/10-3
7903 3
4
5
16
00
94
01
15 00
13
72 00
76
02
00
30
79 00
00
00
30
20 00 08
07
81 00
04
53 00
20 00 01
71 00 15
13
87 00
06
66 00
93
08
00
03
93 00
79
01
00
12
50 00
02
01
00
81
15
00
46
13 00
12
01
00
50 00 15
22
02
00
26
03
00
88
06
00
66
02
00
05
09
00
43
02
00
60 00
04
60
01
00
76
04
00
13 00
00
70
08
00
60 00
05
73 00 02
48
00
00
36 00
10
31
36
00
45
10
00
85
01
00
30
31
00
09
42
00
42
08
00
80 00 08
73
23
00
85
13
00 7904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 KARTIKA 29 , 1930
1
2
Part 1 Se
5 3 T T 7 00
11
39
455/ 2 मी
2) वैलापुर (मेल ) (निरंतर )
00
06
01
455/1 वी1
00
04
82
455/1 वी 2
00
27
71
455/1 गी
367
109
72/1
00
43
97 00
00
10 00
42
03
00
02
42
72/ 2वी
00
03
30
72/ 2 मी
20
05
00
72/ 2 एफ
49 00 00
72/ 2डी
04 00
03
72/23
00
50 00
31/5ए
10
00
88
31/ 1 ए
02
38 00
31/1वी
00
00
81
31/ 2ए
14
06 00
73/10ए
13
00
00
73/9 ए
00
55 00
73/9वी
01
84 00
73/9मी
51
02
00
73/10वी
00
07
38
73/9g
02
60 00
73/9डी
50
03
00
73/ 9एफ
22
01
00
73/9जी
49 00
00
73/ 8एच
00
26
01
73/8 आइ
01
76 00
73/ 8जे
14
21 00
73/8के
57
08
00
73/ 8 एल
73/7
72 00
01
77
00
00
73/ 7 एफ
70
65
53 00
21
00
00
74/ 5वी
71/8
10 00
00
46 00
27
396/1
10 00 00
397/1
03
98 00
397/2
22 00
00
396/ 2 ए
390
00
47
28
02
58 00
392/4ए
10
00
96
392/1 वी
66 00
07
392/ 1 ए
00
38 00
392/3वी
04
92 00
392/ 3ए
392/ 2 मी...
80
09
00 | भाग ।। खण्ड (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20, 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
2
392/ 2वी 2) वैलामुर (मेल ) (निरंतर)
392/ 2 ए
393/4ए
393/4वी
393/3डी
36/601
36/55
36/5डी
36/5मी
38/ 3डी
38/ 3ए
38/3मी
38/3वी
36/1
38/2
38/1
38/ 6ए
38/ 5ए
38/ 5वी
38/ 5मी
37/3सी
37/4वी
53
52/1 आड
52/ 2 ए
52/ 2वी
51/2
51/ 1 ए
51/1 वी
398/3
398/5जी
398/ 5वी
398/ 5 एच
398/ 6वी
273/1
मर्वे न . 401 में गस्ता
406/4
406/ 3ए4
406/ 3 मी 1
406/ 3 ए3
406/ 3ए 2
406/3वी1
406/3ची 2
406/ 2मी
405
404/2
404/3
7905 3
4
5
5 00
80
01
27 00
01
10
71 00
27 00 08
10 00
17
00 09
00
51
11
00
36
07
00
54 00
03
14
00
00
62
06
00
47 00 00
80
04
00
28
02
00
95
09
00
75
00
00
21
02
00
75
07
00
63
01
00
19
08
00
10
00
00
28
17
00
12
71
00
72
07
00
09
01
00
00
03
91 00
18
03
04 00
64 00
16
52
10
00
95
03
00
14
00
00
37 00
10
32
94 00
17
45 00
77
07
00
56
33
00
59 00 09
27
01
00
12
18 00
52
01
00
77 00
16
43
05
00
10 00
00
37
41
00
28
02
00
00
02
00 7906
NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29. 1932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA
2 1
404/4 2) वैलापुर (मेल) (निरंतर)
211/1 वी 2 3 ) टलंकुनराम
212/3
214/6
214/3
214/1
214/ 2 मी 2
214/ 2 मी3
214/24
215/1 मी 3
215/ 1 मी 2
215/ 1 मी4
215/1 सी 1
215/3मी
215/ 2 वी1
215/ 2 ए3 ए
215/ 2 ए3वी [Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
4
5 3
02
32 00
00
16
49
26
00
29
07 00
11
16
68 00
05
18 00
58 00 08
57 00
08
11
52 00
06 00
03
00 00
48
17 00 05
03
64 00
12
00
04
00
13 00
87
09
00
00
94
01
00
05
99
गर्ने न . 215/ 2 ए 2 में रास्ता
232
215/3
216/1 जी
216/ 1 ए1 ए
216/ 1 ए1वी
217/8
10
00
00
03
00
67
21
00
00
00
07
51
15 00
20
00
05
01
50
05
00
सर्वे न . 217/1 में रास्ता
217/7
217/38
217/39
217/40
217/41
217/5
217/3
91/2
91/1
91/4
90
89/90
91/6
215/ 2ए1/वी
89/ 8 ए
89/9वी
89/8वी
67 00
00
00 00
05
00
05
55 00
05
96 00
04
15 00
02
32 00 29
14
28 00 00
25
14 00
14
93 00
00 03
01
31 00
12
00
00
81
00
00
11 00
10
00
00
10
21 00
08
08 7907
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2 1
89/7
3) टलंकुनराम (निरंतर)
89/1
88/1
88/2
88/3
87/4
96
81/3वी
81/4वी
81/6
81/5ए
81/5वी
80/1
79/2
79/1 ए
79/21
79/1वी
79/1सी
4
5 3
10 00
00
01
24 00
54
04
00
04
19
00
60 00 00
22 00
14
43
52
01
00
88 00
60 00
04
02
31 00
11 00
19
42 00
31
12
36 00
85 00
17
46
00
00
00
00
10 00
23
55 00
05
87 राज्य: तमिलनाडु
जिला:विल्लुपुरम
तालुक तिरुक्कोयलुर
83/ 2ए 1 ) पल्लिच्वंडल
83/ 2वी
83/1
83/8
83/10
07
76 00
07
74 00
45 00 08
00
09
96 00
12
52
85
02
00
सर्वे न . 83/ 3 सी 1 में रास्ता
83/ 3सी 2 ए
83/ 3 सी 2वी
83/4ए
83/13
83/4
83/4वी
84/ 2वी
84/ 2 ए5
83/5
85/ 2 सी 2 वी
85/ 2सी 2 सी
85/3
85/8
85/4वी
86/2
86/3
86/5
86/4
95 00 08
20 00 09
00
21
09
24 00 00
12
43 00
05 00 12
02
71 00
00 10
45
20 00 05
26
06
00
01
58 00
52 00
04
02
64 00
02
00
94
43 00 00
27
75 00
00
15
09
72 00
01 7908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29, 1932
1
2
86/ 6 वी 2 1 ) पल्लिच्चंडल (निरंतर)
86/ 6वी1
62/16वी
62/10+16ए
62/17वी
62/18 मी
62/18वी
52/18 ए
62/18號
60/1 ए
60/1वी
60/3ए
60/4ए1
60/402
60/3वी
60/10 मी 1
60/5ए
60/10मी 2
60/10मी3
60/9वी 1
60/ 9वी2
60/9वी 7
60/96
60/12वी1
60/12वी2
60/12वी 3
57/601
59/10
59/1 ए
सर्वे न . 59 में गस्ता
59/17
59/18
59/19
59/20
59/21
57/1
59/50
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
4
3
5 00 03
77 00
14
03
00
07
62
10
00
94 00
34
11
00
01
75
16
00
42 00 03
50 00
03
32 00
39
03
04
64 00
00 04
67
94 00
14
05
35 00
00
01
21 00
05
36 00 03
55 00
01
39 00
00
23 00
10
15
00
03
02
01
00
98
71 00
04
00
27
37 00
00
10 00
11
30 00
00
21 00
05
12 00
12
75 00
10
69
00
00
10 00
00
52 00
00
82 00
00
92 00 01
02 00
15
94
02
00
43 00
73
05
सर्वे न. 59/7 में गम्ता
59/12ए
59/11
59/5ची
59/12मा 00
01
99 00
14
00
00
06
02
00
01
66 भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1
2
55/ 8 मी 2 1) पल्लिच्चंडल (निरंतर)
59/12वी
55/10 ए
55/11 ए
55/ 12 ए1
55/11 वी
55/12ए 2
55/12ए3
55/11 मी
40/1 ए
40/1 वी
39/2वी1
39/1 ए
40/ 2ए2
40/2वी 2
39/1वी
40/4
39/ 8 ए
39/8वी
39/ 8मी
39/8डी
39/ 8 एफ
40/5
40/6
40/7
40/8
40/9
40/10
40/3
41/4
48/7
48/10
48/11
48/12
48/13
48/14
48/6
48/15
48/16
48/17
48/19
42
7909
4
3
5 00
03
72 00
30
09
01
00
07 00
08
31 00
00
55 00
07
01 00
02
96 00
06
57 00
03
35
00
00
10 00 09
40 00
02
21 00 06
17 00
04
01 00
02
09 00
08
55 00
11
42 00
00
75 00
01
18 00
03
97 00
05
65
07
00
12
00
00
46 00
03
03 00
03
44
04
00
80
02
00
96
00
00
10
60 00
14
00
30
14
06
00
72 00
00
38 00
02
64 00
76 02
00
85
04
00
14
75 00 03
10
03
00
00 00
02
01 00 01
91 00
02
57 00
05
33 [Part II Sec. S THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
7910
2 1
5 3
4
00
14
04
सर्वे न . 107 में रास्ता
1 ) पल्लिच्चंडल (निरंतर)
43/3
04
00
80 00
07
04
47/17
16 00
05
47/18
45
07
00
47/16
37 00
08
47/15
43/8
72 00
03
32 00
10
43/9
66 00
08
43/10ए
03
81 00
43/10वी
00
05
79
43/11
23
02
00
43/13
72
44
00
सर्वे न . 100 में रास्ता
जिला: विल्लुपुरम तालुक: शंकरापुरम
गज्य: नमिलनाडु
65 00
48
सर्वे न . 210 में नदी
1 ) श्रीपदनाल्लुर
86
46 00
20
29
05
00
सर्वे न . 85 में नाला
84/5
84/3
27
04
00
03
53 00
87 00
02
84/2
84/1
10
00
00
00
03
58
84/4ए
00
02
84
84/4वी
02
93 00
84/13
50 00
02
84/14
62 00 08
84/12
63 00 00
84/11 ए
00
09
01
84/11वी
12 00
04
84/22
26 00
04
84/18ए
00
02
17
84/19 ए
97
01
00
84/19वी
42 00 04
84/21
83
81
64/1
00
18
86 00
51
09
42
13 00
21
11
00
50/ 6डी
50/6
06
00
37
77
07
00
50/ 6एफ
07
08
00
51/ 9 ए
01
69 00
51/ 6वी
03
00
30
51/ 6 ड्डी 1
00
07
74
51/ 7 वी
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
51/9वी 1 ) श्रीपदनाल्लुर (निरंतर)
51/ 8वी
61/1
61/2
61/3
61/4
61/6
61/7
61/10 ए
61/10वी
61/11सी
61/11वी
60/1 ए
60/1वी
60/ 2ए2
60/ 2ए1
60/2वी
60/ 2मी
22/1
22/3
2) जंबादाय
161/ 1 ए1
161/12
161/13
161/1वी
164/2
164/1
164/4
164/7ए
165/ 2ए
165/ 2वी
165/ 2मी
166
175/3
175/2
175/8
175/4
178/7
178/1
178/4
178/3
178/5
4322GI/104
7911 3
4
5 00
03
73 00
12
68 00
09
38 00
08
75 00
04
95 00 04
20 00
13
11 00
03
69 00 04
07 00
04
69 00
07
45 00
07
41 00
04
14 00
71
05
00
03
40 00
04
60 00
03
03 00
66
04
00
00
88 00
02
78 00
18
11 00
01
59 00
01
93
07
58 00
00
C7
12
22
00
93 00
17
61 00
24
74 00 02
76 00 21
93 00
02
52 00 18
16 00
72
79 00
10
77 01
00
34 00
12
95 00
32
36 00
14
13 22
00
76 00 00
56 23
00
80 00
18
40 [Part II Sec . 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29, 1932
7912
2 1
4
3
5
44 00
01
178/2
2) जंबादाय (निरंतर)
71 00 06
187/5
00
05
89
187/7
46 00 20
187/4
00
73
07
187/1
00 06
39
187/3
67 00 04
188/3
00
13
85
188/1
00
26
98
188/2
10 00
00
212/1
01
02 00
212/2
00
02
49
212/3
04
35 00
212/4
16 00
12
212/7
211
74
00
95 00
15
85
210/1
75
02
00
136/ 3ए
3) श्रीपन्नदल
99
00
00
136/3वी
23
12
00
136/2
00 03
91
136/1 ए
16
06 00
136/1वी
02
65 00
136/14ए
00
27 00
136/14वी
00
19 00
137/1
25 00 05
137/2
12
52 00
137/3
00
19
05
137/4
06
86 00
128/1 मी
01
09 00
128/1 डी
76 00 05
128/ 2वी
63 00 08
128/ 2सी
10
00
00
128/ 2ए
00
00
97
128/ 6सी
65 00 06
128/ 6ए
04
36 00
128/ 6वी
04
57 00
128/ 5वी
35
01
00
128/ 8 ए
12
69 00
128/ 7 वी1
01
15 00
128/ 7 वी 2
04
90 00
128/9वी3
00 06
81
128/9वी 2
46
00
00
128/9वी1
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 / कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1
2
128/4वी3 3 ) श्रीपन्नदल (निरंतर)
128/4वी 2
128/4वी1
143/3
मर्वे न . 127/1 में गस्ता
127/2
143/4
143/5
143/ 2 मी 1
143/ 1 वी
143/ 2 ए 1 जी
143/ 2 ए 2
143/ 2ए3 मी
143/ 2 मी 2
144/ 6ए
144/ 6वी
150/2
150/1 वी1
150/ 1 मी 1
सर्वे न . 150/3 में गस्ता
150/12
150/ 1 मी 3
149/1 ए
149/1 वी
149/2
149/3
181/1
183
184/9ए
184/3वी
184/ 9मी
185/ 3 मी
185/3ची
185/ 3ए
185/ 5ए
185/4
185/8
185/7
मर्व न . 185/9 में गम्ना
186/1 ए एच
186/1 ए जी
186/ 1 ए मी
7913 3
4
5 00
00
42 00
07
18 00
05
54 00
00
19 00 02
99
04
00
18 00
13
65 00
13
13 00
02
44
02
05 00
05
00
00
00
49 00
00
21 00
01
77 00
00
89
35
00
63
11
00
95 00
13
26
12
00
17
04
00
41 00
08
00
04
00
00
10 00
12
2.
05
00
00
13
82 00
02
44 00
05
54
21
00
74 00
01
77 00 02
10
02
00
93
16
00
91 00 02
49
06
00
84 00
50
13
10
00
17 00
16
88
04
00
07
03
00
75 00 00
10 00
01
70 7914
Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]
[Part II
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 20, 2010/ KARTIKA 29, 1932
1
2 3
4
5 00 04
18
186/1 ए ई
3 ) श्रीपन्नदल (निरंतर)
00
36
03
186/1 ए वी
00
00
14
186/1जेड
02
00
87
186/1 ए डी
01
64 00
186/1 ए ए
14 00 02
186/1वाय
01
63 00
186/5
00
95
09
186/4
186/3
00
13
05 00
08
80
186/2
00
12 00
186/ 1 वी 1
00
00
59
186/ 1 डक्ल्य
00
11
81
187/ 1 ए
00
03
19
187/ 2 ए
188
00 25
72 00
34
00
200/ 6ए
00
07
62
200/6g
00
01
68
200/6 आड
00 01
81
200/ 6वी
00
50
02
200/ 6एफ
00
03
19
200/ 6जी
00
01
70
200/6एच
00 00
10
200/ 6एम
00 09
48
200/ 6एन
00 00
200/ 6डी
84 00
00
32
201/3ए
26 00 07
201/3वी
00
03
39
201/4ए
00
01
38
201/115
00
02
93
201/114
00
04
59
201/5ए
00
04
98
गर्ने न . 201 में गम्ता
00 00
31
201/5मी
00
05
57
201/ 6वी
202
00 05
99 00
44
08
205/2
205/3
00
22
88 00 19
64
205/1 मी4
00 06
90
207/ 5ए
00
03
84
207/70
00
48
02
207/9
00
25
00
207/10
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7915 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 / कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
3
4
5
207/ 3ए
00
3 ) श्रीपन्नदल (निरंतर )
06
89
207/4
00
16
63
208/2
00
16
69
00
208 / 3 ए
04
23
208/3वी
00
09
74
208/5
00
08
87
209
00
19
07
[फा सं. एल. - 14014/ 82 / 2010 - जी.पी. ]
स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 12th November , 2010
S. O. 2878.- 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 Tamil Nadu to consumers in various parts of the country , Chennai - Tuticorin 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 this 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 fo . laying the pipeline under the land to Shri V.Venkatasubbu , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , No. 89 , Dr. RadhaKrishnan Salai , 6th Floor , Mylapore , Chennai - 600004 , Tamil Nadu State .
7916
NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA
Part II Sec. 3 ) |
Schedule
District: Villupuram Taluk: Gingee
Survey No./Sub-Division No.
Village
1
2
189
1) Teppirampattu
171
174
8-1/2C
84/2B
84/20
84/2D
84/2E
84/3
175/2
84/1A
84/4A
8-4/6
84/7
84/8
84/9
86/1
84/10
84/11
84/12
84/13
85/5
85/6
85/4
85/3
85/2
90/2C
90/2B
90/2A
90/1B
90/4
90/ 1F
90/1G
90/1H
90/3B
90/3A
90/3C State: Tamil Nadu
Area to be acquired for RoU
Are
C-Are Hec
4
3
5
57 00
50
08
54 00
45
58
00
07
08 00
00
17
91
00
10 00
00
(09
75
04
00
31
04
06 00
00
7-4 00
53
14
00
00
25
48
02
10 00
39 00
02
20 00
02
38
02
00
02
00
30 00
04
81 00
03
32
26
04
00
92 00
04
86 00
12
58
01
00
40
04
00
52 00
06
00
00
110
12
93 00
07
00
07
06
00
50 00
00
84
50 00
02
23 00
00
31
00
00
33 00
(X)
00
07
01
23 00
02
05
23 00 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1
2 1 ) Teppirampattu ( Contd)
90/3E
90/3F
91/8
91/7
92/5
92/7
92/6
92/4
92/2B
92/1
80/3
80/5
80/2
80/1
180/8
180/7
180/5
180/6
180/4B
81/2
81/1
182
188 /4B
188 /7A
188 / 7F
188 / 7E
188/ 7G
188 / 7H
186
502/1
2 ) Vailamur ( Mel )
491/2
491/3
491/4
492/3
491/5
492/4F
492/4G
492/4E
495
494/ 1A
494/ 1B
494/2F
7917 3
4
5 00
01
16 00
02
20 00
18
18 00
00
10 00
49
11
00
00
10 00
02
80 00
05
18 00
09
12 00
00
16
05
00
92 00
03
50 00
07
91 00
17
99 00
08
00 00
17
95 00
07
58
22
00
58 00
05
39 00
07
01
00
12
04 00
18
26 00
06
91 00
03
87 00
08
39 00
01
63 00
13
55 00
05
68 00
08
66 00
16
94 00
15
01
00
72
13
00
02
76 00
30
79
00
00
30 00
08
20 00
81
07
00
53
04
00
01
20 00
15
71 00
13
87 00
66 06 7918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29. 1932
2 1
494/2B 2) Vailamur( Mel ) ( Contd)
494/ 2E
494/2D
494/2C
494/3A
494/4
496/ 1B1/A
496/1B1/C
496/ 1B1/E
496/ IB1/D
498
496
496/ 1B3/ A
355/1
355/2
355/4
355/5
355/6
487/3
487/2
487/4
486/3
486/2
486/4
481/18
481 / 1C
485/7
-485/8
482/1
455/2A
365/2
455/2B
483/2
455/2C
455/ 1B1
455/ 1B2
455/ JC
367
109
72/1
72/2B
72/2C
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5
08
93 00
03
00
93 00
01
79 00
50
12
01
00
02 00
81
15
46
13 00
12
01
00
15
00
50 00
02
22
26
03
00
00
06
88 00
02
66
05 00
09
00
02
43 00
04
60 00
01
60
76
04
00
00
00
13 00
08
70
05
60 00
73 00
02
() ()
00
48 00
36
10
31
36
00
45
10
00
85 00
01
30 00
31
09 00
42
42 00
08
(00
08
80
23
73 00
00
85
13
39 00
11
01
06 00
82
04
00
00
27
71
43
97 00
00
00
00
42
03
00
02
42
03
00
30 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
72/2F 2) Vailamur( Mel ) ( Contd)
72/2D
72/ 2E
31/5A
31 / 1A
31/ 1B
31 /2A
73/10A
73/9A
73/9B
73/9C
73/ 10B
73/9E
73/9D
73/9F
73/9G
73 / 8H
73/81
73/8J
73/8K
73 /8L
73/7E
73/ 7F
70
74/5B
71/8
396/1
397/1
397/2
396/ 2A
390
392/4A
392/ 1B
392/ 1A
392/3B
392/3A
392/2C
392/2B
392/2A
393/4A
393/4B
393 /3D 4322GI /10-5
7919
4
5 3
00
20
05
49 00
00
00
03
04
00
00
50
88 00
10
00
02
38 00
00
81
14
06 00
00
00
13 00
00
55 00
84
01
02
51 00
07
38 00
02
60 00
03
50 00
22 00
(01
00
00
49 00
26
01
00
76
01
21
14
00
57
08
00
00
72
01
00
00
77 00
65
53
21
00
00
00
10
00
00
27
46
00
10 00
00
03
98
22 00
00
28
47
00
02
58 00
00
10
96
07
66 00
00
00
38
04
92 00
00
09
80 00
80
01
00
01
27 00
71
10
08
00
27
00
00
10 7920
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 2) Vailamurt Mel ) ( Contd )
36/6A1
36/5E
36/5D
36/5C
38/3D
38/3A
38/3C
38/3B
36/1
38/2
38/1
38/6A
38/5A
38 /5B
38/5C
37/3C
37/4B
53
52/11
52/2A
52/2B
$1/2
51 / 1A
51/18
398/3
398/5G
398/5B
398/5H
398/6B
273/1 [Part 11 Sec . 3 ( ii ) | 3
4
5 00
09
17 00
51
07
00
36 00
03
54 00
14
00
00
62
06
00
00
47 00
04
80 00
28
02
00
09
95 00
00
75
02
21 00
75
07
00
00
01
63 00
08
19
10 00
00
00
17
28
71
12 00
00
07
72 00
03 00
15
03
00
18
91 00
03
04
64 00
16
52
10
00
95 00
03
14
00
00
00
10
37 00
32
94 00
17
45 00
77
07
Road in Survey No.401
406/4
406/3A4
406/3C1
406/3A3
406/3A2
406/3B1
406/3B2
406/2C
405
404/2
404/3 00
33
56 00
(09
59 00
27 00
12
18 00
52
01
00
16
77 (00
05
43 00
10
00
37 00
41
00
02
28 00
02
00 | भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
'भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20, 2010 कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 2) Vailamurt Mel ) ( Contd )
404/4 3 ) Talankunram
211/ 1B2
212/3
214/6
214/3
214/1
214/2C2
214/ 2C3
214/2C4
215 / 1C3
215 / 1C2
215/ 1C4
215 / 1C1
215 /3C
215/281
215 / 2A3A
215 / 2A3B
7921 3
4
5 00
02
32 00
16
49 00
26
29 00
11
07 00
16
68 (00
05
18 00
08
58 00
08
57 00
11
52 ()()
03
06 00
00
48 (0)
17
05
00
03
64 00
12
04 00
00
13 00
09
87 00
01
94 00
05
Road in Survey No.215 / 2A2
232
215/3
216/ 1G
216 /JAIA
216 / LAIB
217/8
99 00
00
10 00
67
03
00
(00
21 00
07
51 00
20
15 00
01
05 00
05
Road in Survey No.217 / 1
217/7
217/38
217/39
217/40
217/41
217/5
217/3
91/2
91/1
91/4
90
89/9A
91/6
215 /2A1 / B
89/ 8A
89/ 9B
89/ 8B
50 00
00
67 00
05
00 00
05
55
00
05
96 00
04
15 00
02
32 00
29
14 00
00
28 00
25
14
00
14
93
00
03
01
00
12
31
00
00
81
00
00
11
00
00
10
00
10
21
00
08
08 Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
Part II
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
7922
2 1
89/7
3 ) Talankunram ( Contd )
89/1
88/1
88/2
88/3
87/4
96
81/3B
81 /4B
81/6
81/ 5A
81/ 5B
80/1
79/2
79/ 1A
79/21
79/ 1B
79 / 1C Taluk: Tirukkoyilur
District: Villupuram
83 /2A 1) Pallichchandal
83 /2B
83/1
83/8
83/10
Road in Survey No.83 / 3C1
5 3
4
00
10 00
24 00
01
54 00
04
04
19
00
00
60 00
22
14
00
43
52
01
88 00
00
60 00
04
02
31 (00
11
00
19
42 00
31
12
36 00
85 00
17
46
(00
00
10 (00
00
23
00
55
87 (00
05
Stae: Tamil Nadu
76
07
00
07
74 00
45 00
08
96 00
09
52
12
00
85 00
02
95 ()()
08
83 /3C2A
00
09
20
83 /3C2B
83 /4A
83/13
83/4
83/4B
84/2B
84/2A5
83/5
09
21 00
24
00
() ()
12
43 00
12
05 00
71 00
02
45
10
05
2(1 00
06
26 00
85 /2C2B
85 / 2C2C
85/3
85/8
85/4B
86/2
86/3
86/5
86/4 00
(01
58 00
04
64
02
00
94
02
00
00
00
43
27
75 00
15
09
00
72 00 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
86/6B2 1) Pallichchandal ( Contd)
86/6B1
62/ 16B
62/ 10+ 16A
62/ 17B
62/ 18C
62/ 18B
62/ 18A
62/ 18E
60/ 1A
60/ 1B
60/3A
60/4A1
60/4A2
60/3B
60/ 10C1
60/5A
60/ 10C2
60/10C3
60/9B1
60/9B2
60/9B7
60/9B6
60/ 12B1
60/ 12B2
60/ 12B3
57/6A1
59/10
59 / 1A
7923 3
5
4
77
03
00
00
14
03
62
07
00
00
10
94
34
11
00
75 00
01
42
16
00
03
50 00
32
03
00
00
03
39
64
04
00
67
04
00
14
94 00
05
35 00
21
01
00
05
36 00
55
03
00
39 00
01
00
00
23
10
15
00
00
02
03
98
(01
00
71
04
00
27
37 00
10
00
00
30
11
00
00
21 00
12
05
00
12
75 00
69 00
10
Road in Survey No.59
59/17
59/18
59/19
59/20
59/21
57/1
59/ 5A
10 00
00
52
00
00
00
82 00
92
00
00
02
01
00
00
94
15
02
43 00
73
05
00
Road in Survey No.59/ 7
59/ 12A
59/ 11C
59/5B
59/ 12C
99 00
01
14 00
00
02
06 00
66 00
01 7924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
1
2 1 ) Pallichchandal( Contd)
55/8C2
59/12B
55/ 10A
55/ 11A
55/ 12A1
55/ 11B
55/ 12A2
55/ 12A3
55/ 11C
40/ 1A
40/1B
39/2B1
39/1A
40 /2A2
40/2B2
39/1B
40/4
39/8A
39/8B
39/8C
39/8D
39/8F
40/5
40/6
40/7
40/8
40/9
40/10
40/3
41/4
-48/7
48/10
48/11
48/12
48/13
48/14
48/6
48/15
48/16
48/17
48/19
42
Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | 3
4
5 00
03
72
00
09
30
00
01
07
00
08
31
00
00
55
00
07
01
02
00
96
00
06
57
00
03
35
00
00
10
00
09
40
00
02
21
00
06
17
00
04
01
00
02
09
00
08
55
00
42
11
00
00
75
00
01
18
00
03
97
00
05
65
00
07
12
00
46
00
00
03
03
00
03
44
00
04
80
00
02
96
00
00
10
00
14
60
00
30
14
00
06
72
00
00
38
00
02
64
00
02
76
00
04
85
00
75
14
00
03
10
00
03
00
00
02
01
00
01
91
00
02
57
00
05
33 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1 ) Pallichchandal ( Contd )
7925 3
4
5 00
14
04
Road in Survey No.107
43/3
47/17
47/18
47/16
47/15
43/8
43/9
43/ 10A
43/10B
43/11
43/13
River in Survey No. 100 Taluk: Sankarapuram
00
04
80 00
07
04 00
05
16 00
07
45 00
08
37 00
03
72 00
10
32 00
08
66 00
03
81
00
05
79 00
02
23
00
44
72
State : Tamil Nadu
District: Villupuram
1 ) Sripadanallur
River in Survey No.210
86
Nala in Survey No.85
84/5
84/3
84/2
84/1
84/4A
84/4B
84/13
84/14
84/12
84/ 11A
84/ 11B
84/22
84/ 18A
84/19A
84/19B
84/21
83
81
64/1
50/6D
50/6E
50/ 6F
51 /9A
51/6B
51 /6D1
51/ 7B
00
48
65
00
20
46
00
05
29
00
04
27
00
03
53
02
00
87
00
00
10
00
03
58
00
02
84
00
02
93
00
02
50
00
08
62
00
00
63
00
01
09
00
04
12
00
04
26
00
02
17
00
01
97
00
04
42
00
18
86
00
51
09
00
42
13
00
21
00
06
37
00
07
77
00
08
07
00
01
69
00
03
30
00
07
74 Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]
Part II
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
7926
2 1
51/9B 1) Sripadanallur ( Contd)
51/8B
61/1
61/2
61/3
61/4
61/6
61/7
5
4
3
73
03
00
68
12
00
38
09
00
75
08
00
95
04
00
20
04
00
00
13
11
69
03
00
04
07 00
61/ 10A
61/ 10B
69
04
00
45
07
00
61/ 11C
41
07
00
61/ 11B
60/ 1A
60/ 1B
14
04
00
71
05
00
40
03
00
60/2A2
60/2A1
60/2B
60/2C
22/1
22/3
60
04
00
03
03
00
04
66 00
00
00
88
78
02
00
11 00
18
59 00
01
161 / JA1
2) Jambadai
93
01
00
161 / 1A2
07
58 00
161 / 1A3
161 / 1B
164/2
164/1
164/4
07
12 00
22
93 00
17
61 00
74
24
00
76
02
00
164/ 7A
93
21
00
165/ 2A
165/ 2B
165 / 2C
166
175/3
175/2
175/8
175/4
178/7
178/1
178/4
178/3
178/5
52
02
00
16 00
18
72
79 00
10
77 00
00
34
01
12
95 00
36
32
00
13
14
00
22
76 00
56 00
00
80
23
00
18
40 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
7927
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 2) Jambadai ( Contd)
178/2
187/5
187/7
187/4
187/1
187/3
188/3
188/1
188/2
212/1
212/2
212/3
212/4
212/7
211
210/1
136/3A 3) Sirpanandal
136/3B
136/2
136/ 1A
136/ 1B
136/14A
136/14B
137/1
137/2
137/3
137/4
128/ 1C
128/ 1D
128/2B
128/2C
128/2A
128/6C
128 /6A
128/6B
128/5B
128/8A
128/ 7B1
128/ 7B2
128/9B3
128/9B2
128/9B1 4322GI/10-6
3
4
5 00
01
44 00
06
71 00
05
89
20
46 00
00
07
73 00
06
39 00
04
67 00
13
85 00
26
98 00
00
10 00
02
01
00
02
49 00
04
35 00
12
16 00
74
95 00
15
85 00
02
75
00
00
99 00
12
23 00
03
91
00
16
06
00
02
65
00
00
27
00
00
19
00
05
25
00
12
52
00
19
05
00
06
86
00
01
09
00
05
76
00
08
63
00
10
00
00
97
00
00
06
65
00
04
36
00
04
57
00
01
35
00
12
69
00
01
15
00
04
90
00
06
81
00
00
46 7928
Part II Sec. Su THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
128 /4B3 3) Sirpanandal (Contd)
128/4B2
128/4B1
143/3
Road in Survey No.127/ 1
127/2
143/4
143/5A
143 /2C1
143/1B
143/2AIG
143/2A2
143/2A3C
143/2C2
144/ 6A
144/68
150/2
150/1B1
150/ 1C1
Road in Survey No. 150/3
150/ 1C2
150/ 1C3
149/1A
149/ 1B
149/2
149/3
181/1
183
184/9A
184/3B
184/9C
185/3C
185/3B
185/3A
185/5A
185/4
185/8
185/7
Road in Survey No. 185/9
186/ LAH
186/ LAG
186/ 1AC 3
4
5 00
00
42
18 00
07
00
05
54 00
00
19 00
02
99
04
18 00
65 00
13
13
13
00
00
02
00
02
05
05 00
00
00
19
00
21 00
00
77
01
00
00
(0)
89
63 00
35
95 00
11
00
13
26 00
12
17 00
41
04
27 00
08
04
2.4 00
00
00
10 00
12
27
13
05
00
13
00
02
14 00
05
00
00
21
7-4 00
01
77 00
102
112
りう 00
00
16
(0)
02
19
106
()()
S4 (X)
16
50
(0
17 (0)
88 ( X)
16
01
00
03
(0)
(13
(0)
()()
EKEP 75 10 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010 / कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 3) Sirpanandal ( Contd )
186 / 1AE
186/ 1AB
186/ 1Z
186/ 1AD
186 / 1AA
186/ 1Y
186/5
186/4
186/3
186/2
186 / 1V1
186/ 1W
187/ 1A
187 /2A
188
200 / 6A
200/6E
200/61
200/6B
200/ 6F
200/6G
200/ 6H
200/ 6M
200/ 6N
200 /6D
201 /3A
201 /3B
201 /4A
201 / 1A15
201 / LA14
201 / 5A
7929 3
4
5 00
04
18 00
03
36 00
00
14 00
02
87 00
01
64 00
02
14 00
01
63 00
09
95 00
13
05 00
08
80 00
00
12 00
00
59 00
11
81 00
03
19 00
25
72 00
00
34 00
07
62 00
(01
68 00
Of
81 00
02
50 00
03
19 00
01
00
00
00
09
00
00
00
00
32
00
2
07
00
03
39
00
01
00
(02
00
04
59
00
04
Road in Survey No.201 / 1B
201 / 5C
201 /6B
202
205/2
205/3
205/ 1C4
207 /5A
207/ 7A
207/9
207/10
98
00
00
31
00
05
57
00
05
99
00
08
44
00
22
88
00
19
64
00
06
90
00
03
84
00
02
48
(0)
00
25 Sec. S (0 ) |
[Part II 7930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29. 1932
4
5
3
2
1
06
89
00
207/3A
3) Sirpanandal ( Contd)
63
16
00
207/4
16
69
00
208/2
23
04
00
208/3A
74
09
00
208/3B
87
08
00
208/5
07
19
00
209
[ F. No. L- 14014/82/2010-GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 2879. भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मगर्स ग्लिाएन्म इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की आन्ध प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनजीर टर्गमनल में देश के विभिन्न हिग्यों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैम के परिवहन के लिए, ममर्म ग्लिॉजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वाग काकीनाडा-वामुदेवपुर- हावड़ा पाइपलाइन विछाई जानी चाहिए:
और, भाग्न सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विधान के पयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक पनीत होता है कि, उभ भूमि में. जिसक भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने का परनाथ है और जो इम अधिसूचना में उपावद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है. उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः, अव, भारत भरकार, पेट्रोलियम और श्रनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धाग 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्न शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करनी है:
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है, उम तारीख में जिमको उक्त अधिनियम की धाग 3 की उपधाग (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिगृचना की प्रतियों माधारण जनता को उपलव्ध कग दी जाती हैं, इक्कीम दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीच पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपायोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री व्रज किशोर पंडा, मक्षम प्राधिकारी , ग्लिॉजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, प्रथम मंजिल , फोर्चुन टावर, चन्द्रशेखरपुर , भुवनेश्वर ओडिशा गज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षप भेज सकेगा । 751023, 7931
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
अनुसूची
राज्य: ओडिशा
जिला:खोरडा
मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: वनपुर
गाँव का नाम
सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं
2 1
41
1 ) नीलकंठपुर
46
36/45
35/44
34/43
33/39
26/32
27/33
17/21
16/20
14/18
15/19
9
52
2 ) जीबनदेईपुरससन
53
54
51
55
36
50
48
49
47
46
45
44
8/9
9/10
43
10/11
12
13
14
15
41
16/22
15/21
आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर 3
4
5
00
01
55 00
00
45 12
00
65 00
03
11
00 00
10 00 40
55 00
02
27 00
00
83 00
24
91 00
19
69 00
00
20 00
09
75 02
00
90 00
06
98 00
02
68 00
08
22 00
96 08
00
22
44
00 06
66 00
01
17
00
04
80
00
03
97
00
07
16
00
04
54
01
00
85
00 02
01
00
01
45
00
05
04
00
09
29
01
00
83
02
00
68
00
68
00
10
12
00
02
01
00
00
00
28
20
00
95
01
62
00 7932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 4
3
5
00 10
24
26/32
2) जीबनदेईपुरससन (निरंतर)
00
11
78
25/31
34/71
33/70
00
26 00
00 16
71
00
00
14
36/73
12
00
44
35/72
40/79
41/80 00
14
17
00 08
52
00 08
60
165/391
3) पैकेरापुर
390
00
04
39
00
01
60
161/385
10
00
92
164/389
388
324
4) नुआकोट
00
01
92
00 02
28 00
00
70
43/323
322
327
00
18
74
00
08
28 00
00
10
42/321
00
02
65
41/320
00
27
04
44/328
40/319
329
00 05
61
00
00
70
00
04
68
39/318
00
15
00
36/315
00
70
06
37/316
00
13
38/317
48
00
00
39
57/342
00
06
33
34/311
00
11
99
32/309
07
00
90
31/308
22
47
00
30/307
00
00
34
26/301
00
06
43
29/306
219
00
01
81
33
00
92
28/305
00
30
81
18/290
00 00
55
16/288
00
04
17/289
75
00
01
30
15/287
10
66
00
19/291
00
15
01
121/499
5 ) जगबंधुपुरससन
07
00
25
120/498
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
118/496 5) जगबंधुपुरससन (निरंतर)
117/495
119/497
116/494
115/493
91/469
93/471
94/472
92/470
95/473
38/345
461
460
84/459
83/458
70/444
72/446
68/442
67/441
71/445
64/438
63/437
62/436
50/420
53/427
55/429
56/430
54/428
426
1711
6) गोराराझरी
1710
1709
413/1195
414/1196
415/1197
1194
416
1199
417/1200
1206
1170
1169
7933 3
4
5
00
04
18 00
00
10 00
00
11 00
08
82 00
00
23 00 06
40 00
14
35 00
00
10 00
04
06 00
16
47 00
02
89 00 00
47 00
01
02 00
12
81 00
00
77
00
17
78 00
00
21 00
00
20 00
01
61 00 08
48
00
07
13
00
05
08
00
07
58
00
09
40
00
03
19
00
01
41
00
00
10
00
08
80
00
00
88
00
03
15
00
07
97
00
02
35
00 06
46
00
02
43
00
13
62
00
01
38
00
15
81
00
02
40
00
02
59
00
03
43
00
61
04
00
08
91 7934
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKΑ 29 , 1932
2 1
1168
6) गोराराझरी (निरंतर)
4
5
3
34 00 02
75 03
00
409/1166
1218
1217
1219
1220
1221
1133
1132
1234
1235
1231
1233
1237
1262
1260
1261
1263
1254
1253
1284
1252
1251
1250
1249
1248
1247
1289
1291
1292
1290
1294
81 01
00
24 12
00
10
59 00
11 02
00
24 13
00
01
84 00
03
64 00
96 03
00
20 00 05
17 00
00
23 00
01
58 00
01
34 05
00
00
37 00
67 00 03
49 00
00
96 00
14
22 01
00
31 08
00
06
17 00
12
27 00
51 04
00
24 07
00
74 00
01
01
99 00
89
07
00
03 00 06
61 06
00
26 02
00
01
01
00
96
01
00
1293
1307
1308
1517
1516
1515
1514
1513
1512
1511
15
17
01
06
21 00
78
11
00
61 00
10
42 00
12
61
05
00
02
37 00
16
01
00
54
00
00 7935
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2 1
1489
6) गोराराझरी (निरंतर )
1494
1493
1490
1488
1487
1491
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1418
1415
428/1414
1386
1413
1412
1411
1408
1409
427/1410
1405
जिला:खोरडा मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: टंगी
947
1) जरीपुत
926
925
923
922
918
921
920
919
907
909
911
910
782
783
902
679
786
785
4322G1/10-7
4
5
3
15
47 00
89 00
09
37
00
00
25
65 00
70 00
04
25
21
00
12 00 01
29
14
00
14
15
00
33
00
00
12
75 00
00
18 00
00
14 00
28
61 00
05 00
08
00
49 00
03
00
78
03
00
89
82
03
00
00
16 00
27
07
00
00
51 00
64 00
00
राज्य: ओडिशा
84 00 41
51 00
27
20
16 00
65 00 01
78 00
01
62 00
08
41
07
00
52 00
02
71
05
00
00
85 00
13
57 00
00
12
89
18
26 00
70 00 08
86 00
05
24 00
00
66
01
00
05
80 00
00
94 00 7936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
1
2
784
1) जरीपुत (निरंतर)
788
787
789
790
795
794
793
791
792
676
675
649
650
651
653
667
666
665
664
654
1417
662
658
661
660
1390
1391
689
563
1425
1426
601
558
565
564
600
599
566
596
584
582
[Part II Sec. Sinj 3
4
5
00
00
10 00
01
20 00
02
11 00
01
67 00 04
95 00
00
10 00
00
14 00
00
25 00
01
26 00
02
18 00
02
57 00 00
22 00
03
85 00
06
03
00
07
54
00 09
31
00
00
10
00
03
84
00
10
36
00
10
96
00
01
03
00
02
80
00
04
65
00
04
49
00
11
11
00
00
10
00
07
05
00
02
28
00
76
10
00
00
21
00
03
67
00
02
62
00
00
24
00
00
47
00
00
10
00
01
35
00
02
82
00
06
29
00
33
21
00
00
45
00
06
79
00 01
61 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
581
1 ) जरीपुत (निरंतर)
580
579
576
577
575
417
416
1022
2) जयमंगल
1021
1020
1019
1018
1017
737
738
739
747
742
740
590
586
587
580
581
585
550
579
552
551
553
549
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
548
561
547
793 3
4
5 00
01
99 00
01
40 00 00
98 00
08
68 00
03
34 00 00
95 00
00
10 00
13
93 00
01
32 00
32
86 00
09
03 00
14
11 00
17
57 00
00
23
13
00
76 00
03
37 00
08
79 00
62
17
00
12
87 00
00
37 00
02
90 00
07
80 00
03
74 00
00
79 00
17 14
00
01
45 00
00
18 00
00
25 00
01
42 00
02
08 00
00
10 00
05
16 00 00
35 00
69 01
00 02
12
00
01
63 00
00
69
00
00
10
00
08
04
00
02
78
00
01
08
00
07
73 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
7938
2 1
533
2) जयमंगल (निरंतर)
534
535
536
546
545
540
505
504
506
503
502
501
500
491
490
498
496
495
493
492
222
913
226
1703
225
1702
224
223
220
221
219
218
212
216
238
239
242
241
207
240
208
[ Part 11 Sec . 3 ( ii ) ) 4
5
3
00
19 02
34 00
00
10 00
00
37 00 09
60 00 21
00
49 00
99 13
00
25 20
00
00
10 00
00
17
91 00
10
42 00
0
76 02
0 )
69 01
00
97 00
52 00
00
63 00
00
02 30
00
00 00
98 04
96 00
00
12
92 01
57 00
02
94 00
54 00
02
95 00
01
01
00
98
11 00
02
26 01
00
96 01
00
38 00
03
02
20 00
00
00
35 03
96 00
13 00
09
02
00
54
85 00
01
00
06
32 00
10 00
01
00
15 00
10
89 00
01
13 02
13 00 भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1
2
206
2) जयमंगल (निरंतर)
205
193
192
1696
150
152
153
155
139
140
137
138
131
1694
503
3 ) अरीयापारा
631
304
302
301
300
295
666
643
294
293
644
662
280
292
279
281
650
452
4 ) बृशाबंधा
454
453
459
460
461
462
463
447
7939 4
3
5
00
10
83 07
00
14 00
20
94 00
00
10 00
00
89 00
82 01
72 00 07
00
02
45
02
33
00
00
55
18
00
00
44
00
01
00
03
00
33
00
03
20 00
20
01
36
00
18
00
14
87
00
23
22
00
32
14
00
15
45
00
00
65
00
77
04
00
00
41
00
05
29
21
00
36
00
05
99
02
42
00
00
00
10
00
15
55
00
00
10
00
00
50
00
16
14
00
05
91
00 02
11
00
01
81
00
26
69
00 00
69
00
22
01
00
02
99
00
06
30
00
09
07
00
04
49 7940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
1
2
437
4) बृशाबंधा (निरंतर)
439
438
436
435
434
432
433
391
392
426
393
399
398
400
397
402
403
381
350
347
346
345
344
343
342
340
339
217
216
341
214
215
77
213
82
78
79
81
96
880
127
Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | 3
4
5
63 00
05
00
00
10 01
00
67 03
00
11 00
10
30 02
00
26 00 02
87 00
73 09
00
01
70 00
11
42 00
12
28 06
00
39 03
00
84 00
43 06
00
00
10 00 28
35 00
11
17 07
00
05 00 02
09 00
17
74 00
27
28 00
03
03
79 00
01
00
15
97 00
06
64
79 00
00
00
05
87 00
08
76 00
01
10 00
37 07
00
00
48 00
24
42 00
00
10
72 00
09
02
32 00
00
03
68 00
14
78 00
00
23 00
67 17
00
79 01
14 00
00
00
00
50 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
126
4 ) बृशाबंधा (निरंतर)
125
129
130
124
131
134
117
132
5) दिखितपारा
577
578
579
581
582
583
584
585
576
588
587
596
599
598
464
465
549
466
467
468
470
471
463
473
476
475
474
704
422
421
750
428
411
7941 3
4
5
00
08
64 00
06
16 00
03
52 00
12
40 00
02
32 00
24
64 00
00
10 00
00
29 00
02
30 00
07
77 00
14
03 00
00
90 00
01
50 00
04
62 00 05
36 00
04
48 00
03
57 00
04
77
00
16
32
00
10
01
00
01
06
00
05
26 00
10
25
00
03
27
00
02
84
00
00
10
00
01
97
00
05
24
00
00
25
00
00
10
00
26
33
00
00
10
00
05
65
00
00
10
00
01
80
00
08
53
00
00
48
00
19
42
00
08
13
00
00
14
00
01
30
00
16
54 Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
[ Part II
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29 , 1932
7942
==
2 1
419
5 ) दिखितपारा (निरंतर)
417
413
416
367
364
363
359
360
358
617
618
104
102
101
103
119
118
116
120
121
117
123
124
126
125
27
28
12
26
25
24
13
23
668
669
18
20
19
504 6 ) तलागराकुहुरी
505
506
5
4
3
10 00
00
75 04
00
10 00
00
11 19
00
70 09
00
73 03
00
60 00
00
91 16
00
10 00
00
44 02
00
43 08
00
13 00
00
19 00
00
56 05
00
54 01
00
34 04
00
04
03
00
73 02
00
66
00
00
36
03
00
10
00
00
07
04
00
33
12
00
03
10
00
78
00
00
25
19
00
57
10
00
78
05
00
69
06
00
60
06
00
33
04
00
68
11
00
10
00
00
36
04
00
87
00
00
70
03
00
60
12
00
62
01
00
04
45 00
10
00
00
76
05
00
32
05
00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
333
6) तलागराकुहुरी (निरंतर)
334
335
331
336
337
651
650
121
122
123
517
124
98
95
94
241
86
79
80
129
130
133
132
429
136
515
7) तुतंबरपली
519
522
520
659
521
660
605
606
607
608
587
594
593
592
591
4322GI/10-8
7943 3
4
5
00
01
73 00
12
72 00
02
69 00
49
90 00 48
42 00 49
24 00
01
69 00
41
60 00
08
59 00
04
46 00 00
25 00
02
68 00
01
27
00
35
29 00
02
96
00
26
78
00
10
85
00
00
77
00
20
58
00
23
14
00
03
16
00
02
84
00
03
28
00
13
60
00
12
64
00
36
76
00
76
73
00
11
35
00
11
84
00
01
97
00
00
63
00
20
49
00
00
83
01 09
61
00
24
80
00
04
51
00
14
62
00
05
84
00 01
07
00
07
54
00
09
91
00
11
48 7944
NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA
2 1
590
7) तुतंबरपली (निरंतर)
579
289
578
727
290
291
292
293
306
308
307
314
99
101
100
127
199
120
121
119
122
123
126
125
124
129
130
134
168
235
236
237
233
231
238
230
229
228
226
225
179
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5
00 00
13 06
30 00
00 03
00 01
63 00
13
57 00
00 00
18 00 20
55 00 03
36 00
01
90 00
10
98 00 00
62 00
10 00
00
02
31 00
20 21
00
02
68 00
86 01
04
00
15 00
16 04
35 00
00
00
11
60 02
61 00
00
12
95 01
67 00
00
10
83 00
01
19 00
10 00
00
04
64 00 06
73 00
00
53 04
00
95 00
02
79 00 02
88 00
57 01
03 00
01
03
14 00
05
00
03
72 05
00
00 02
15 00
62 12
00
01
40 00
02
16 00
03
46 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
158
8) पनसपुर
455
159
235
456
163
214
233
232
231
229
243
228
278
276
277
273
274
293
294
292
301
320
318
316
317
313
315
314
319
1117
१ ) रामचन्द्रपुर
1108
1109
1107
1111
1105
1101
1099
1100
1096
1085
1086
79 3
4
5 02
00
03 00
01
96 00
10
22 00
01
75 00
06
91 00
01
17 06
00
95 00
05
33 12
00
56 00
11
94 00
13
80 00
38
77 00
01
72 00
11
82 04
00
96 00
11
41 00
19
11 00
66
14
00
21
86 00
01
28
11
00
09 00
00
97 00
01
05 00
36 15
00
11
98 00
05
15 00
07
92 00
03
62 00
08
10 00
04
25 00
02
28 00
01
42 00
16
03 00
00
25 00
00
47 00
08
55 11
00
61 00
24 00
00
17
24 00
09
01 00
27 00
00
69 13 7946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2010/ KARTIKA 29, 1932
2 1
1088
9) रामचन्द्रपुर (निरंतर)
1058
1087
1081
[Part II Sec. 3 ( ii ) | 4
5
3
84 00
05
00
90 04
07
44 00
82 05
00
68 00
00
1059/1415
1067
1080
1059
1066
1060
1061
1062
1053
1052
646
647
648
652
653
651
657
666
667
668
669
672
671/1387
671
1388
677
683
676
674
675
686
687
831
827
828
829
830
688
04 04
00
10 00
00
04
22 00
03
01 00
04
37 00
85 00
11
02
79 01
00 08
86
15 06
00
65 00
00
30 0 )
16
60 16
00
78 00
11
63 00
03
00
00
50 01
00
93 00 22
46 00 02
19 03
86 00
00
10
.42
65 00
01
00
08
04 07
48 00
00
01
16
02 00
07
04
22 00
00
03
90
33 00 26
02
00
09 00
10
33
07 00
04
00
02
83 00
02
73 00
05
11 00
00
33
50 00
00
00
02
49 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
703
9 ) रामचन्द्रपुर (निरंतर)
704
702
705
706
726
725
731
721
732
733
735
742
741
744
745
364
361
360
377
343
342
341
337
340
339
338
1401
462
10 ) भोबारा
461
463
464
465
466
469
484
482
480
470
428
426
427
7947 3
4
5
00
08
96 00
05
94 00
04
16 00
14
03 00
11
99 00
08
15 00
14
53 00
02
01 00
12
12 00
01
43 00
16
13 00
00
10 00
10
18 00
16
23 00
07
76 00
03
81 00
05
75 00
00
69 00
20
66 00
01
28 00
02
45
00
01
59
00
09
17
00
01
15
00
10
60
00
42
05
00 00
10
00 03
18
00
13
85
00
08
99
00
16
61
00
00
69
00
00
32
00
00
10
00
01
30
00
02
01
00
04
97
00
15
42
00
19
15
00
15
59
00 00
21
00
00
40 7948
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
432
10 ) भोबारा (निरंतर)
431
435
434
360
375
376
373
372
371
370
381
154
155
158
159
160
161
162
168
163
141
137
136
135
134
132
131
129
126
125
124
123
122
120
511
121
118
117
77
19
76
4
5
3
09
37 00
12 00
11
35 00 18
00
20 03
07
58 00
01
58 00
18 00
12
42 00 07
00 04
81 13
81 00
21 00
09
02
27 00
00
14
63 14
12 00
00 08
02 00
36 17
00
84 04
05
47 00
00
25
53 01
02 00
86 23
00
78 00
17
02
87 00
00
06
98
12 00
05
76 05
00
18 00 06
80 00
06
22 00
05
00
04
95
25 06
00
48 00 04
39 00 05
58 00
03
91 00 05
00
00
46
91 00
01
57 00
11
00
50 00
00
01
47 00
00
10
20
53 00 7949 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii)]
2
4
5
3
526
03
00
89 10 ) भोबारा (निरंतर)
75
00 00
75
369
00
00
50
[फा सं. एल.-14014/61/2010-जी.पी. ]
स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th November , 2010
S. O. 2879.- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country, Kakinada Basudebpur Howrah pipeline should be laid by M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited ;
And whereas . it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , Government of India hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of Usertherein;
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 Braja Kishore Panda, Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , 1st Floor , Fortune Tower , Chandrasekharpur , Bhubaneswar 751023 , Orissa State .
Schedule
District : Khorda
State: Orissa
Mahdal/ Tehsil / Taluk : Banpur
Village
Survey No./Sub-Division
Area to be acquired for
Hec
Are
C-Are
2
3
4
5
41
00
01
55 1) Nilkanthpur
46
00
45
00
36/45
00
65
12
35/44
00
03
11
34/43
00
00
10
33/39
40
00
55
26/32
00
02
27
27/33
00
00
83
17/21
00
24
91
16/20
00
19
69
14/18
00
00
20
15/19
00
09
75
9
00
02
90 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
7950
1
2
52
2) Jibandeipursasan
53
54
51
55
36
50
48
49
47
46
45
44
8/9
9/10
43
10/11
12
13
14
15
41
16/22
15/21
26/32
25/31
34/71
33/70
36/73
35/72
40/79
41/80
165/391 3) Paikerapur
390
161/385
164/389
388
4) Nuakot
324
43/323
322
327
42/321
41/320
44/328
40/319
329
39/318
36/315
37/316
38/317
57/342
34/311
32/309
[ Part II Sec. 3 ( ii ) | 4
3
5
00
06
98
00
02
68
00
08
22
08
00
96
00
22
44
00
00
66
00
17
01
00
04
80
03
00
97
00
07
16
00
54
04
00
01
85
00
02
01
00
45
00
05
04
00
29
09
01
00
83
00
02
68
00
00
68
00
10
12
00
02
01
00
28
00
00
95
20
00
62
01
00
10
24
78
00
11
00
00
26
00
16
71
00
00
14
00
44
12
00
14
17
08
00
52
00
08
60
00
04
39
00
01
60
00
10
92
00
92
01
00
02
28
00
00
70
00
18
74
00
08
28
00
00
10
00
02
65
00
04
27
00
05
61
00
00
70
00
04
68
00
00
15
00
06
70
00
13
48
00
00
39
00
06
33
00
11
99 [भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
31/308 4) Nuahof ( Contd)
30/307
26/301
29/306
219
28/305
18/290
16/288
17/289
15/287
19/291
121/499 5 ) Jagabandhupursasan
120/498
118/496
117/495
119/497
116/494
115/493
91/469
93/471
94/472
92/470
95/473
38/345
461
460
84/459
83/458
70/444
72/446
68/442
67/441
71/445
64/438
63/437
62/436
50/420
53/427
55/429
56/430
54/428
426
6 ) Gorarajhari
1711
1710
1709
413/1195
4141196
415.1197
1194
416
1199
417/1200 4322GI/10-9
7951 3
4
5
00
07
90
00
22
47
00
00
34
00
06
43
00
01
81
00
33
92
00
30
81
00
00
55
00
04
75
00
01
30
00
10
66
00
15
01
07
00
25
00
04
18
00
00
10
00
00
11
00
08
82
00
00
23
00
06
40
00
14
35
00
00
10
00
04
06
00
16
47
00
02
89
00
00
47
00
01
02
00
12
81
00
00
77
00
17
78
00
00
21
00
00
20
00
01
61
00
08
48
00
07
13
00
05
08
00
07
58
00
09
40
03
00
19
00
01
41
00
00
10
00
08
80
00
00
88
00
03
15
00
07
97
00
02
35
00
06
46
00
02
43
00
13
62
00
01
38
00
15
81
00
02
40
00
02
59 7952
Part 11 Sec .Si THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIΚΑ 29. 1932
2
1206 6) Gorarajhari ( Contd)
1170
1169
1168
409/1166
1218
1217
1219
1220
1221
1133
1132
1234
1235
1231
1233
1237
1262
1260
1261
1263
1254
1253
1284
1252
1251
1250
1249
1248
1247
1289
1291
1292
1290
1294
1293
1307
1308
1517
1516
1515
1514
1513
1512
1511
5 3
03
43
00
(61
00
04
91
00
08
34
00
02
75
00
03
81
01
00
24
12
00
59
10
00
11
02
00
24
13
00
84
01
00
64
03
00
96
03
00
20
05
00
17
00
00
23
01
00
58
00
01
34
00
05
37
00
00
67
03
00
49
00
00
96
14
00
22
01
00
31
08
00
17
06
00
27
12
00
00
51
04
24
07
00
74
01
00
99
01
00
89
07
00
03
00
06
61
06
00
26
02
00
01
01 00
96
01
00
15 01
17
21
06
00
78
11
00
61
10
00
42
12
00
61
05
00
02
37 00
16
01
00
54
00
00 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1
2
1489 6) Gorarajhari ( Contd)
1494
1493
1490
1488
1487
1491
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1418
1415
428/1414
1386
1413
1412
1411
1408
1409
427/1410
1405
7953 3
4
5
00
15
47
09
00
89
00
00
37
00
25
65
00
04
70
00
21
25
00
01
12
00
14
29
00
15
14
00
00
33
00
12
75
00
00
18
00
00
14
00
61
28
00
08
05
00
00
49
00
03
78
03
00
89
00
03
82
00
00
16
00
07
27
00
00
51
00
00
64
District : Khorda
Mandal/ Tehsil / Taluk : Tangi
947
1) Jariput
926
925
923
922
918
921
920
919
907
909
911
910
782
783
902
679
786
785
State : Orissa
00
41
84
00
27
51
00
20
16
00
01
65
00
01
78
00
08
62
00
07
41
00
02
52
00
05
71
00
00
85
00
57
13
00
12
89
00
26
18
00
70
08
00
05
86
00
00
24
00
66
01
00
05
80
00
00
94 7954
[ Part 11 Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
784
1) Jariput ( Contd)
788
787
789
790
795
794
793
791
792
676
675
649
650
651
652
667
666
665
664
654
1417
662
658
661
660
1390
1391
689
563
1425
1426
601
558
565
564
600
599
566
596
584
582 4
3
5
00
00
10
00
20
01
02
00
11
01
67
00
95
00
04
00
00
10
14
00
00
00
00
25
00
01
26
02
18
00
02
57
00
22
00
00
85
00
03
00
06
03
54
00
07
00
09
31
00
00
10
84
00
03
00
10
36
96
00
10
00
01
03
02
80
00
00
04
65
04
49
00
00
11
11
00
00
10
07
05
00
28
00
02
00
10
76
21
00
00
00
67
03
00
62
02
24
00
00
00
00
47
00
10
00
00
01
35
82
00
02
29
00
06
21
33
00
00
00
45
00
79
06
00
01
61 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1 ) Jariput ( Contd)
581
580
579
576
577
575
417
416
1022 2) Jayamangal
1021
1020
1019
1018
1017
737
738
739
747
742
740
590
586
587
580
581
585
550
579
552
551
553
549
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
548
561
547
7955 3
4
5
00
01
99
00
01
40
00
00
98
00
08
68
00
03
34
00
00
95
00
00
10
00
93
13
00
01
32
00
32
86
00
09
03
00
14
11
00
17
57
00
00
23
00
13
76
00
03
37
00
08
79
00
17
62
00
12
87
00
00
37
00
02
90
00
07
80
00
03
74
00
00
79
00
14
17
00
01
45
00
00
18
00
00
25
00
01
42
00
02
08
00
00
10
00
05
16
00
00
35
00
01
69
00
02
12
00
01
63
00
00
69
00
00
10
00
08
04
00
02
78
00
01
08
00
07
73 7956
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
533
2) Jayamangal ( Contd)
534
535
536
546
545
540
505
504
506
503
502
501
500
491
490
498
496
495
493
492
222
913
226
1703
225
1702
224
223
220
221
219
218
212
216
238
239
242
241
207
240
208
5
4
3
00
02
19
00
34
00
00
00
10
00
09
37
21
60
00
00
00
49
00
13
99
00
20
25
00
00
10
91
00
17
00
00
10
42
00
00
02
00
76
01
00
69
00
00
97
00
52
00
63
00
00
02
00
30
98
00
00
96
00
04
92
00
12
57
00
01
02
00
94
54
00
02
00
01
95
01
98
00
11
00
02
01
26
00
96
00
01
38
00
03
20
00
02
35
00
00
00
96
03
00
09
13
54
00
02
00
01
85
00
06
32
00
00
10
15
00
01
89
00
10
13
00
01
13
00
02 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
206
2) Jayamangal ( Contd )
205
193
192
1696
150
152
153
155
139
140
137
138
131
1694
503
3) Ariapara
631
304
302
301
300
295
666
643
294
293
644
662
280
292
279
281
650
452
4) Brushabandha
454
453
459
460
461
462
463
447
7957 .
4
5
3
00
10
83
07
00
14
00
20
94
00
00
10
00
00
89
00
01
82
07
00
72
00
02
45
02
00
33
00
18
55
00
00
44
00
01
00
00
03
33
00
20
03
00
20
01
00
36
18
14
00
87
00
22
23
00
14
32
00
15
45
00
65
00
00
04
77
41
00
00
00
05
29
00
21
36
99
00
05
02
42
00
00
00
10
15
00
55
00
00
10
00
00
50
00
14
16
00
05
91
00
02
11
01
81
00
69
00
26
00
00
69
22
00
01
02
99
00
06
00
30
00
07
09
00
04
49 7958
Part II See 3 ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29. 1932
2 1
437
4) Brushabandha (Contd)
439
438
436
435
434
432
433
391
392
426
393
399
398
400
397
402
403
381
350
347
346
345
344
343
342
340
339
217
216
341
214
215
77
213
82
78
79
81
96
880
127
3
5
1
05
00
63
10
00
00
67
00
01
00
03
11
00
30
10
00
02
26
87
00
02
09
73
00
70
00
01
42
00
11
28
00
12
39
00
06
00
84
03
00
06
43
00
10
00
00
35
28
00
17
11
05
00
07
00
02
(09
00
74
17
28
00
27
03
03
00
01
79
00
15
97
00
06
64
00
79
00
00
00
05
87
76
00
08
00
01
10
07
37
00
00
00
48
00
24
42
00
10
00
09
00
72
00
02
32
00
03
68
14
78
00
00
00
23
00
17
67
00
01
79
14
00
00
00
50
00 | भाग II - खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1 ) Brushabandha ( Contd )
126
125
129
130
124
131
134
117
132
577
5) Dikhitpara
578
579
581
582
583
584
585
576
588
587
596
599
598
464
465
549
466
467
468
470
471
463
473
476
475
474
704
422
421
750
428
411
4322Gl /10-10
7959 3
4
5
00
08
64
00
06
16
00
03
52
12
00
40
00
02
32
00
24
64
00
00
10
00
00
29
00
02
30
00
07
77
00
14
03
00
00
90
00
01
50
00
04
62
00
05
36
00
04
48
00
03
57
00
04
77
00
16
32
00
10
01
00
01
06
00
05
26
00
10
25
00
03
27
02
00
84
00
00
10
00
01
97
00
05
24
00
00
25
00
00
10
00
26
33
00
00
10
00
05
65
00
00
10
00
01
80
00
08
53
00
00
48
00
19
42
00
08
13
00
00
14
00
01
30
00
16
54 [Part 11 Sec. Stil
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29. 1932
7960
2 1
419
5) Dakhitpara ( Contd)
417
413
416
367
364
363
359
360
358
617
618
104
102
101
103
1:0
118
116
1210
121
117
123
124
126
125
27
28
12
26
25
24
13
23
668
669
18
20
19
504 6) Talagarakuhuri
505
506 1
5
3
00
00
10
75
04
00
00
00
10
00
19
11
70
00
09
73
03
00
00
00
60
16
91
00
00
00
10
44
00
02
43
00
08
00
13
00
19
00
00
05
56
00
00
54
01
34
00
04
00
03
04
73
02
00
66
00
00
36
03
00
00
00
10
07
00
04
12
33
00
00
10
03
78
00
00
25
00
19
00
10
57
05
78
00
69
06
00
06
60
00
00
04
33
68
00
11
00
00
10
36
00
04
00
00
87
03
70
00
60
00
12
62
00
01
45
04
00
00
10
00
05
76
00
05
00
32 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 6) Talagarakuhuri ( Contd )
333
334
335
331
336
337
651
650
121
122
123
517
124
98
95
94
241
86
79
80
129
130
133
132
429
136
515
7) Tutambarpali
519
522
520
659
521
660
605
606
607
608
587
594
593
592
591
::
3
4
5 00
01
73 00
12
72 00
02
69 00
49
90
48
00
42 00
49
24 00
01
69 00
41
60 00
08
59 00
04
46 00
00
25 00
02
68 00
01
27 00
35
29 00
02
96 00
26
78 00
10
85 00
00
77 00
20
58 00
23
14 00
03
16 00
02
84 00
03
28 00
13
60 00
12
64 00
36
76 00
76
73 00
35 00
11
84 00
01
97 00
00
63 00
20
49 00
00
83 01
09
61 00
24
80 00
04
51 00
14
62 00
05
84 00
07
01
00
07
54 00
09
91 00
11
48 7962
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
590
7) Tutambarpalı ( Contd)
579
289
578
727
290
291
292
293
306
308
307
314
99
101
100
127
199
120
121
119
122
123
126
125
124
129
130
134
168
235
236
237
233
231
238
230
229
228
226
225
179
4
5
3
13
00
00
00
06
30
03
00
00
00
63
01
00
13
57
00
18
00
55
20
00
00
03
36
90
01
00
00
98
10
62
00
00
10
00
H
02
31
21
20
02
68
((
0
01
86
04
00
15
16
00
14
35
GO
10
11
60
00
02
61
00
00
12
95
01
67
00
10
83
19
00
01
00
10
04
00
64
73
00
06
00
00
53
00
95
04
02
79
02
88
00
00
57
01
00
01
03
00
03
14
00
05
03
72
00
05
00
15
02
00
12
62
40
00
01
00
02
16
46
00
03 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1
2 8 ) Panaspur
158
455
159
235
456
163
214
233
232
231
229
243
228
278
276
277
273
274
293
294
292
301
320
318
316
317
313
315
314
319
1117
9 ) Ramchandrapur
1108
1109
1107
1111
1105
1101
1099
1100
1096
1085
1086
7963 "
3
4
5
00
02
03
00
01
96
00
10
22
00
01
75
00
06
91
00
01
17
00
06
95
00
05
33
00
12
56
00
11
94
00
13
80
00
38
77
00
01
72
00
11
82
00
04
96
00
41
11
00
19
11
14
00
66
00
21
86
00
28
01
00
09
11
00
97
00
00
01
05
00
15
36
00
98
11
00
05
15
00
07
00
03
62
00
08
10
25
00
04
00
02
28
00
01
42
00
16
03
00
00
25
00
00
47
00
08
55
00
61
00
00
24
17
00
24
00
09
01
00
00
27
00
69
13 7964
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
1088 9) Ramchandrapur (Contd)
1058
1087
1081
1059/1415
1067
1080
1059
1066
1060
1061
1062
1053
1052
646
647
648
652
653
651
657
666
667
668
669
672
671/1387
671
1388
677
683
676
674
675
686
687
831
827
828
829
830
688 4
5
3
00
05
84
90
00
04
00
07
44
00
05
82
68
00
00
04
04
00
10
00
00
วว
00
04
00
03
01
37
00
04
85
00
11
02
79
00
86
00
08
00
15
06
65
00
00
30
16
00
60
00
16
78
00
03
63
00
50
00
00
93
00
01
22
00
46
02
19
00
86
00
03
42
00
10
00
01
65
04
08
00
48
07
00
00
16
01
02
00
07
22
00
04
00
90
03
33
26
00
09
00
02
33
00
10
04
07
00
83
00
02
00
02
73
00
05
11
00
00
33
00
00
35049
02
00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 9 ) Ramchandrapur ( Contd )
703
704
702
705
706
726
725
731
721
732
733
735
742
741
744
745
364
361
360
377
343
342
341
337
340
339
338
1401
10 ) Bhobara
462
461
463
464
465
466
469
484
482
480
470
428
426
427
7965 3
4
5
00
08
96
00
05
94
00
04
16
00
14
03
00
11
99
00
08
15
00
14
53
00
02
01
00
12
12
00
01
43
00
16
13
00
00
10
00
10
18
00
16
23
00
07
76
00
03
81
00
05
75
00
00
69
00
20
66
00
01
28
00
02
45
00
01
59
00
09
17
00
01
15
00
10
60
00
05
42
00
00
10
00
03
18
00
13
85
00
99
08
00
16
61
00
00
69
00
00
32
00
00
10
00
01
30
00
02
01
00
04
97
00
15
42
00
19
15
00
15
59
00
00
21
00
00
40 Sec. 30
Part II
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 20. 2010 /KARTIKA 29 , 1932
7966
2
432
10) Bhobara (Contd )
431
435
134
360
375
376
373
372
371
370
381
154
155
158
159
160
161
162
168
163
141
137
136
135
134
132
131
129
126
125
124
123
122
120
511
121
118
117
77
19
76
526
75
369 3
4
5 00
09
37
12
11
00
35
18
00
20
03
00
07
58 00
58
01
00
12
18 00
42
07
00
04
81 00
81
13
00
21 00
09
27
02
00
63 00
14
14
12 00
08
02 00
36
17
00
8-4
04
00
05
47 00
25
53 00
02
01
00
86
23
00
78 00
17
87
02
00
98
06
00
12
05
00
76
05
00
18 00
06
80
06
00
05
00
95
04
00
25
06
00
48
04
00
05
39 00
03
00
58
91
05
00
00
46 00
00
91
01
57 00
11
50
00
00
47
01
00
00
10 00
20
00
53
89 00
03
75
00
00
50 00
00
[F. No. L - 14014/61/2010 -GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy .
| भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
7967
नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 2880.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाडा-नैल्लोर -चैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई- ट्यूटीकोरिन 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 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री वी . वेंकटमुत्यु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , ग्लिोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, न. 89 , डॉ . गधाकृष्णन सलाई , छठवीं मंजिल, मैलापुर , चैन्नई 600004 , तमिलनाडु गज्य को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
तालुकचेय्यार
जिला:तिरुवन्नामलाई
गाँव का नाम
सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं .
1
2 1) मनपाक्कम
526/1वी
526/1 ए
526/1डी
453/1
453/ 2ए
456
458
2) नयनतंगल
302/3
73/1 वी
73/1ए
73/2वी
73/3
74/2
4322GI /10-11
गज्य: तमिलनाडु
आर- ओ- यू- अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर सिएयर 3
4
5
00
09
87
00
39
14
00 11
74
00
42
07
00
03
88
00
12
02
00
45
64
00
00
80
00
24
49
00
00
76
00
28
82
00
20
37
00
10
06 [Part 11 Sec. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29, 1932
7968
2 1
जिला:तिरुवन्नामलाई तालुक:पोलुर
सर्वे न . 223/11 में नाला 1 ) सिवेरापून्डी
3
4
5 राज्य: तमिलनाडु
37
00
00
66 00 02
सर्वे न . 223/9 में नाला
71
00
00
सर्वे न . 223/8 में नाला
02
75 00
223/9
26
09
00
223/8
92
09
00
223/6
10
00
00
223/4वी
91
03
00
223/5
66
00
00
223/2
51
02
00
223/12
85
01
00
223/15
28
06
00
223/14
11
00
00
225/2
46
06
00
223/13
33
07
00
225/1
12
00
00
225/3
224
33
04
00
13
04
00
283/1 थी
03
14
00
283/1 ए
03
86 00
283/2
74
02
00
283/4वी
50
01
00
283/4ए
38
03
00
283/3
04
02
00
284/1
41
38
00
284/2
90 00
00
284/3
75
17
00
284/4
80 00 02
284/5
47
34
00
286/2
16
00
00
289/1 ए
10
86 00
286/3
88
00
00
286/8बी
22
11
00
286/8सी
291
39
01
00
66
08
00
286/ 9सी
07
01
00
286/9वी
72
92
00
319/1
11
16
00
293/1
54
00
00
293/3
37
00
00
293/4
87
28
00
319/6
06
18
00
319/8
55
41
00
319/9
10
00
00
319/10
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
319/15 1 ) सिवेरापून्डी (निरंतर)
319/14
319/12
319/13 तालुक:तिरूवन्नमलाय
7969 3
4
5 00 53
20 00
23
58 00 04
16 00
31
12
जिला:तिरुवन्नामलाई
1 ) वेदन्डावाडी
153/ 1 ए 1 ए
153/ 1 ए3सी
153/1 वी 1
152/ 2वी
152/ 2 डी
156/1 वी
157/1वी
157/2
163/1 ए5वी
163/ 1 ए5ए
163/3
163/1 वी 1
163/ 1 ए4
सर्वे न . 169 में नाला
168/ 3ए
168/ 2वी
168/7ए
168/7वी
168/7 सी
168/ 7 डी
168/65
168/ 7एफ
168/75
168/6एच
168/ 6जी
174/3वी
174/3ए
174/ 2सी
174/3एफ
174/ 2डी
174/ 2वी
174/3जी
174/ 2एफ
174/ 2एच
174/ 2जी
174/ 5वी
174/5ए
174/1 आइ
174/1जे
174/1 के
174/ 6ए
राज्य तमिलनाडु
00
53
13 00
14
09 00
12
36 00
02
97 00 02
46 00
05
86 00
22
49 00
13
92 00
06
59 00
13
47 00 00
40 00 08
78 00
27
18 00
02
04 00 06
26 00
12
61
37 00
03
00
05
64
21 00 05
00
04
38 00
00
10 00
03
44 00
05
78 00
11
03
00
00
10
00
00
75 00
01
13 00
02
61 00
00
85 00
01
17 00
07
52 00 00
10 00
08
59 00
01
99 00
03
82 00
01
30 00
03
85 00
10
02 00
15
01
00
03
73 00
00
72 Part II Sec. 3 (1 ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29, 1932
7970
2 1
4
3
5
79 06
00
252/1सी
1 ) वेदन्डावाडी (निरंतर)
81 00 00
252/1 वी
44
08
00
252/ 1 ड्डी
33
03
00
252/15
54
26
00
252/1एच
94
00
00
252/1जी
02
53 00
255/4सी
83
12
00
255/4के
03
86 00
255/4जे
20
02
00
255/4 आड
22
00
00
255/4डी
04
08 00
255/4एच
76
01
00
255/45
28
02
00
255/ 4एफ
27
02
00
255/4जी
52 00
01
255/4वी
94
21
00
256/5
14
39
00
256/4
42
00
00
256/2
03
06 00
261/1वी
29
00
00
261/4ए
16
44 00
261/12
01
97 00
261/2
00
11
38
261/ 3ए
80
09
00
261/3वी
24 00
04
260/ 2ए 2 ए
46
02
00
260/ 2 ए 2 वी
25
00
00
260/ 2 ए 2 सी
27
23
00
260/ 2ए1
30
14
00
266/2
39
17
00
266/4वी
10 00 00
266/4ए
00 02
65
266/10वी 2
43 00 00
265/7सी
14 00
00
265/6वी
81
00
00
265/10 ए2
10 00
01
265/10 वी1
35
01
00
265/7वी
00
02
09
265/10 ए 1
00 00
41
265/9
07
08
00
265/7ए
10 00 00
265/11 वी
15 00 00
265/ 11 ए2
04
86 00
265/11 ए1
10
26 00
136/17ए
06 00
04
136/18ए
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
136/16 1) वेदन्डावाडी (निरंतर )
136/ 23 ए
136/21
136/20
सर्वे न . 302/3 में रास्ता
300/ 5ए
300/4
300/2
300/3
300/8
300/12
301/4
301/5
301/7
301/6
301/8
सर्वे न . 304 में नाला
303/7
303/9
305/ 6ए
305/6वी
303/8
305/5
305/4
305/3
305/2
305/1
305/19वी
305/18
305/15
305/16
305/17
298/2
298/1
305/14
305/13
305/11
305/12
397
295/15वी
295/20
295/19
295/18वी
295/18 ए
296/8
296/9वी
296/12वी
296/17
7971
4
5 3
02
00
15
01
00
78
32 00
10
00
00
55 00
02
86 00
01
52 00
03
84 00
00
95
01
00
80 00 03
19
00
00
10 00
04 00
10 08 04 08
00 01
71 00
03
92
76
00
00
67 00
14
00
01
16
06
39 00
95 00
03
00
00
59 00 02
38
42 00 04
03
00
98 00 02
89
21 00
01
10 00
00
00
19 00
02
19 00
20 00 04
00
02
20 00 02
25 00 00
28
02
27 00
28
06
00
00
76
03
00 00
10
04
00
09 00
30
28 00 00
51 00
04
85
03
52 00
56
00
00
11 00 00
00
00
10
01
21 00
00
02
35
85 00
08 7972
[ Part II -Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
5 3
4
54 00 01
283/1 ए
1 ) वेदन्डावाडी (निरंतर)
00 00
12
296/14
00
38
11
296/16
43
03
00
296/19वी
00 03
98
296/20
10
00
00
296/19ए
15 00
03
284/ 2ए
83 00 01
284/3ए
44
00
00
284/3वी
06 00
11
284/1
288
56
02
00
00
86 00
284/ 6ए
14
70 00
284/4ए
02
17
00
284/4वी
00
88 00
284/8
00
57 00
284/9
10
00
00
284/10
84 00 12
284/7
60 00
00
286/1ए
11 00
00
286/1वी
04
67 00
286/ 2ए
03
54 00
286/ वी
41
02
00
284/11
10 00 00
284/5
30 00 08
286/1जी
78 00 09
285/3
07
00 00
285/5
84 00 05
285/1
10
00
00
285/2
03 00 29
90/ 2ए
2) कोनलुर
79
09
00
90/2सी
77
09
00
90/2डी
26
11
00
90/ 2ई
92
84/2
84/1
60
37
00
35 00
24
98
01
00
53
14
00
84/3ए
37 00
11
84/3वी
48
04
00
84/6ए
00
03
69
84/5ए
62
01
00
84/ 6वी
42 00 06
84/5वी
47
00
00
84/4वी
74
04
00
84/5सी
53 00 02
84/4मी
55 00
02
84/5डी
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
84/4डी 2) कोनलुर (निरंतर)
85
87/ 2एफ
86/2
86/3
86/4
86/5
86/7
75/ 1 ए1
75/12
74
31/1वी
31/ 2बी
31/2ई
31/ 2डी 2
33/11
33/10
33/9वी
40/ 2ए
40/ 1 ए
40/1वी
40/1सी
40/1डी
39
सर्वे न . 42 में रास्ता
सर्वे न . 43 में रास्ता
46/6ए
46/5
46/3
46/4डी
46/4सी 2
सर्वे न . 46/1 में नाला
48
45
49/1
जिला:वेल्लोर तालुक अरक्कोणम
220/1 1 ) नंगामंगलम
219/1वी
219/1 ए
214/2
213/ 2डी
213/ 2सी
7973 3
4
5 00 05
82 00 21
33 00 00
59 00 01
64 00
03
56 00
04
60
35
17
00
00
21
28 00
20
77 00 27
16 00
76
08
00
05
78 00
01
72 00
20
28 00
03
62 00
04
64 00 32
01 00
01
91 00
03
35 00 04
49 00
05
13
00 06
92
05
00
43 00 54
22 00
03
90 00 02
50 00 02
09 00
03
08 00
02
47 00
07
14
04
00
45 00
05
99 00 29
71 00 14
41 00
55
03
राज्य: तमिलनाडु
00
01
79 00
25
79 00
65
33
00
00
10 00 06
19 00
00
10 7974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
4
3
5 00
21
19
213/3वी
1) नंगामंगलम (निरंतर)
00
01
39
213/ 3ए2
227
00
04
86 00
18
11
225/4
00
37
48
225/6
411
2) पनप्पाक्कम
392
1/2
3) मेलपुरम
2
3
10
16
9
12
13
69
71
73
75
00 12
56
29
00
10 00
05
22
15
00
59 00
03
08
14
02
00
30
20 00
00
75 00
00
33
19
59
69 00
00 03
91 00
21
09 00
64
92
44 00 72
55 00
01
मर्वे न . 78 में गस्ता
जिला:वेल्लोर
तालुक आग्कोट
राज्य:तमिलनाडु
71 00
18
17/ 2वी
1 ) पाली
18/1
18/2
17/4
17/5
17/6
18/3
00 02
24 00
00
10 00
05
15 00
03
75 00
58
00
00
83 00
00 07
54
15/4एवी
18/5
18/4
00
00
33
07
47 00
00
01
01
15/4वी
15/5
15/3
00
83
19
00
03
27
01
00
49
27/ 4ए
27/1
37 00 15
00
07
02
27/2
26/1
48
03
00
00
07
83
26/2
16 00 01
26/3
00
40
09
25/2
00
34
00
25/3
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1) पाली (निरंतर)
25/1
36/1
36/2
37/1
37/2
37/3
37/4ए
38/1ए
38/1वी
38/2
38/3
41/2
41/3
258
254
255
253/2
253/4ए
253/1वी
253/4वी
253/5
253/6
253/3
269/4वी
270
269/1
250/13
249/8
249/6
249/7
248/1
248/2
249/5
245/1
245/2
244/8
244/9
281/1
281/3
281/2
281/5
4322Gl /10-12
7975 3
4
5 00
02
49 00
00
94 00
03
49 00
08
86 00
08
35 00
00
65 00
02
58 00 01
91 00
03
19 00
07
71 00
13
12 00
01
23 00 06
53 00
00
10 00
14
78 00
05
67 00
01
15 00 08
28 00
06
16 00 05
23 00
02
46 00
01
44 00 10
31 00 00
23 00
10
65
00
00
11 00
00
10 00
04
31 00
00
10 00
01
19 00 06
75 00
02
85 00 04
78 00
14
86 00
10
68 00 00
10 00
04
68 00 09
24 00
02
99 00 06
87 00
00
93 7976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
1
2 [ Part II Sec . 3 (ii ) |
4
5 3
00
13
00
236/5
1) पाली (निरंतर)
00
16 00
236/6
00
82
19
283/3
17
01
00
283/1
00 08
55
284/1
00
74
00
284/3
00
10
09
284/2
285
286
00 04
50 00
01
55 00 06
14
287/5
10 00
15
287/3
00
287/2
00
15
60 00 09
287/4
287/1
00
95 00
00 00
16
289/4ए
00
75 00
289/4वी
00
01
09
289/50
00 03
13
289/5वी
00
00
67
288/1
299/1
08
33 00
66
299/2
00 08
00 06
37
299/3
00
298/1
82
00
20 00
11
298/2
327/2
05
00
11
87 00 06
327/1
327/4
328
01
39 00
00 22
23
29
71
345/30
00
00
25
15
343/1 डी
00
04
57
343/ 2एफ
48
16
00
343/25
07 00
10
343/ 2डी
04
00
49
343/3ऑर्ड
03
00
77
343/3ए
00 04
96
343/3वी
06
10 00
343/3 मी
06
61 00
343/3डी
07
06 00
343/3 號
51 00 06
343/3एफ
06
72 00
342/6
| भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1 ) पाली (निरंतर)
342/7
342/8
342/9 2 ) डोनिमेडु
180/ 2वी
180/ 2सी3
180/ 2सी4
180/25
180/3
सर्वे न . 180/5 में रास्ता
180/4
179/ 1 ए
178
179/2
177/7
177/8
181
183/2
180/ 2ए 2
183/1
184/2
184/3
184/4
184/5
184/6
185/11
185/10
185/9
185/8
222/1
185/7
185/6
192/3
192/6
192/5
186/1
187/4
187/7
187/8
187/6
187/5
219/1
7977 3
4
5 00 06
38 00
06
60 00
08
03 00
17
89 00
16
04 00 05
57 00
13
86 00
09
09 00
07
59 00 09
44 00
43
45 00
01
59 00
24
92 00
00
10 00
00
78 00
01
76 00
18
49 00
00
31 00
03
62 00
00
10 00
03
71 00
04
59 00
05
65 00
03
41 00
00
62 00
00
73 00
02
31 00
00
74 00
00
55 00
14
49 00
00
11 00
00
10 00
04
39 00
01
77 00
11
11 00
00
66 00 02
84 00
05
23 00
03
65 00
02
34 00 08
17 NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 KARTIKA 29 , 19.32
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA
7978
2 1
219/4 2) डोनिमेडु (निरंतर)
219/3
219/2
207
208
205
Part 11 See Souj
5 3
47
01
00
01
57 00
37
03
00
03
86 00
67 00 07
46
24
00
67
19
00
मर्वे न . 205 में नदी
99/2
230
3 ) कुप्पुडीसत्तम
194/1
194/2
195/6
195/7
193/1
193/2
193/3
193/6
193/4
193/5
189/4
190/6
190/5
190/4
191/1
190/3
190/2
190/1
180/1 वी
180/ 1 ए
180/2
180/4ए
180/4वी
180/ 3डी
180/3सी
180/3वी
180/3ए
179/ए/3
179/ए/14
181/9वी3
181/9मी 1
178/ए/ 2
92
21
00
09
45
00
50
06
00
40
04
00
71 00 00
76 00 06
00
65
03
02
21 00
00
02
00
30 00
07
02
00
91
00 00 05
11 00
00
05
00
63
36 00
07
23 00
10
97 00
00
44 00
03
01
28 00
10 00 00
09 00
13
00
36 00
35 00 04
26 00
05
70 00
00
52 00 20
38 00 00
87
03
00
00
29 00
10
86 00
45 00 00
04 00 01
00
01
88 00
60
47 7979 भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
| भाग ।। - खण्ड ( ii ) |
1
2
3
4
5
00
00
10 3 ) कुप्पुडीसत्तम (निरंतर)
178/ए/ 1 आर
00
05
28
178 /ए/ 1 वाय
00
08
75
सर्वे न . 374 में गम्ता
00
71
24
178/वी/ 2
00
21
178/ बी/ 1 वी
79
00
178/वी/ 1 ए
01
49
[फा सं. एल. - 14014 / 85 / 2010 - जी.पी. ]
स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 12th November, 2010
S. 0. 2880.- Whereas it appears to that Government of India that it is necessary in public interest transportation of watural gas from terminal point of Vijayawada - Nellore - Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in Tamilnadu to consumers in various parts of the country , Chennai - Tuticorin 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 this 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 V. Venkatasubbu , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , No. 89 , Dr. RadhaKrishnan Salai , 6th Floor , Mylapore , Chennai - 600004 , Tamil Nadu State .
7980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
Schedule
District: Thiruvannamalai
Taluk: Cheyyar
Village
Survey No./Sub-Division No.
1
2
526/ 1B 1) Manapakkam
526/ 1A
526/ 1D
453/1
453/2A
456
458
302/3 2) Nayantangal
73/ 1B
73/1A
73/2B
73/3
74/2
District: Thiruvannamalai
Taluk: Polur
Nala in Survey No.223/ 11 1) Severapoondi
Nala in Survey. No.223/9
Nala in Survey No.223/ 8
223/9
223/8
223/6
223/4B
223/5
223/2
223/12
223/15
223/14
225/2
223/13
225/1
225/3
224
283/ 1B
283/1A
283/2
283/4B
283/4A
283/3
284/1
[Part 11 Sec. 3 ( ii ) | State: Tamil Nadu
Area to be acquired for Rou Hec
Are
C-Are
5 3
4
09
00
87 00
14
39 00
74
11
00
42
07
03
88 00
12
00
02
45
00
64 00
00
80 00
24
49
76 00
00
00
28
82 00
20
37 00
06
10
State: Tamil Nadu
00
37 00
00
02
66 00
00
71 00
75
02
26 00
09
00
09
92 00
00
10 00
91
03
00
66
00
00
51
02
01
85 00
00
06
28 00
00
46 00
06
00
07
33 00
00
12
33 00
04
00
04
13 00
14
03
03
86 00
00
74
02
00
01
50 00
03
38
04
02
00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1 ) Severapoondi ( Contd )
284/2
284/3
284/4
284/5
286/2
289/ 1A
286/3
286/8B
286/8C
291
286/9C
286/9B
319/1
293/1
293/3
293/4
319/6
319/8
319/9
319/10
319/15
319/14
319/12
319/13 Taluk : Thiruvannamalai
7981 3
4
5 00
38
41 00
00
90 00
17
75 00
02
80 00
47
34
00
00
16 00
10
86 00
00
88 00
22
11
00
01
39 00
08
66 00
01
07 00
92
72 00
16
11 00
00
54 00
00
37 00
28
87 00
18
06 00
41
55 00
00
10 00
53
20 00
23
58 00
04
16 00
12
31
District: Thiruvannamalai
1 ) Vedandavadi
153/ 1A1A
153/ 1A3C
153/181
152/2B
152/2D
156/1B
157/ 1B
157/2
163 / 1A5B
163 /1A5A
163/3
163/ 1B1
163/1A4
Nala in Survey No.169
168/3A
168/2B
168/7A State: Tamil Nadu
00
53
13 00
14
09 00
12
36 00
02
97 00
02
46 00
05
86 00
22
49 00
13
92
00
06
59
00
13
47
00
00
40
00
08
78
00
27
18
00
02
04
00
06
26
00
12
61
00
03
37 7982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29 , 1932
1
2
168/7B 1 ) Vedandavadi ( Contd)
168/7C
168/7D
168/6E
168/7F
168/7E
168/6H
168/6G
174/3B
174/3A
174/2C
174/3F
174/2D
174/2B
174/3G
174/2F
174/ 2H
174/2G
174/5B
174/5A
174/11
174/1J
174/ 1K
174/6A
252/ 1C
252/ 1B
252/ 1D
252/ 1E
252/ 1H
252/ 1G
255/4C
255 /4K
255/43
255/41
255/4D
255/4H
255/4E
255/4F
255/4G
255/4B
256/5
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii )| 3
4
5 00
05
64 00
05
21
04
00
38 00
00
10 03
44 00
00
78 05
00
03
11 00
00
10 00
00
75 00
13
01
02
00
61
00
00
85 00
17 01
00
52 07
00
00
10 00
08
59 00
01
99 00
03
82 00
30 01
03
85 00
00
10
02 00
15
01
00
03
73
72 00
00
06
79 00
00
81 00
00
44 08
00
03
33
26
00
54
00
00
94
53 00
02
00
12
83 00
03
86
20 00
02
00
00
22 00
04
08 00
76
01
00
02
28 00
27 02
00
01
52 00
21
94 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7983
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1) Vedandavadi (Contd)
256/4
256/2
261/ 1B
261 /4A
261/ 1A2
261/2
261/3A
261 /3B
260/ 2A2A
260/ 2A2B
260/2A2C
260/2A1
266/2
266/4B
266/4A
266/10B2
265/7C
265/6B
265/10A2
265/ 10B1
265/7B
265/10A1
265/9
265/7A
265/ 11B
265/ 11A2
265/ 11A1
136/17A
136/ 18A
136/16
136/23A
136/21
136/20 3
4
5 00
39
14 00
00
42 00
03
06 00
00
29 00
16
44 00
97
01
00
38
11
09
00
80 00
04
24 00
02
46 00
00
25 00
23
27
14
00
30
00
17
39
00
00
10
00
02
65
00
00
43
00
00
14
00
00
81
00
10
01
00
01
35
02
09
00
00
41
00
08
00
07
00
00
10
15
00
00
00
04
86
10
00
26
00
04
06
00
02
15
00
01
78
00
10
32
00
00
55
00
02
86
Road in Survey No.302/3
300/5A
300/4
300/2
300/3
300/8
300/12
301/4 4322GI/10-13
00
01
52
00
03
84
00
95
00
00
01
80
00
03
19
00
00
10
00
04
04 7984
[Part 11 Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
301/5 1 ) Vedandavadi ( Contd)
301/7
301/6
301/8
4
5 3
08
00
10
01
71 00
00
03
92
76
00
00
14
67 00
Nala in Survey No.304
303/7
303/9
305/6A
305/6B
303/8
305/5
305/4
305/3
305/2
305/1
305/19B
305/18
305/15
305/16
305/17
298/2
298/1
305/14
305/13
305/11
305/12
397
295/ 15B
295/20
295/19
295/ 18B
295 /18A
296/8
296/9B
296/12B
296/17
283/ 1A
296/14
296/16
296/ 19B
296/20 00
16
01
06
39 00
95 00
03
59
00
00
00
38
02
42 00
04
00
03
98
89 00
02
21
01
00
10
00
00
00
00
19
19 00
02
20 00
04
20 00
02
02
25 00
00
28 00
00
02
27 00
06
28
76 00
03
10 00
00
00
04
09
28 00
30
00
51 00
85 00
04
52 00
03
56
00
00
11
00
00
10 00
00
00
21
01
02
35 00
85
08
00
54
01
00
00
00
12
11
38 00
43 00
03
98 00
03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1 ) Vedandavadi ( Contd)
296/19A
284/ 2A
284/3A
284/ 3B
284/1
288
284/6A
284/4A
284/ 4B
284/8
284/9
284/10
284/7
286/1A
286/ 1B
286 /2A
286/2B
284/11
284/5
286/ 1G
285/3
285/5
285/1
285/2 2) Konalur
90 /2A
90/2C
90/2D
90/ 2E
92
84/2
84/1
84/3A
84/3B
84/6A
84/5A
84/6B
84/5B
84/4B
84/5C
84/4C
84/ 5D
7985
4
3
5 00
00
10 00
03
15 00
01
83 00
00
44
11
06 00
00
02
56 00
00
86 00
70
14
00
17
02 00
00
88 00
00
57 00
00
10 00
84
12
00
00
60
00
00
11
00
04
67 00
03
54
02
00
41
00
00
10 00
08
30
00
09
78 00
07
00
00
05
84
00
00
10
00
29
03
00
09
79
00
09
77
00
26
11
00
37
60
00
24
35
00
98
01
00
14
53
00
37
00
04
48
00
03
69
00
01
62
00
06
42
00
00
47
00
04
74
00
02
53
00
55
02 7986
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2010 /KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
84/4D 2) Konalur (Contd)
85
87/2F
86/2
86/3
86/4
86/5
86/7
75/ JA1
75/ 1A2
74
31/ 1B
31/2B
31 /2E
31/2D2
33/11
33/10
33/9B
40/2A
40/1A
40/1B
40/ 1C
40/1D
39
4
5 3
05
82 00
00
21
33
00
59 00
01
64 00
56
03
00
60 00
04
00
17
35
28 00
21
77
20
00
16 00
27
76
08
00
05
00
78
72 00
01
28
20
00
62 00
03
04
64 00
00
32
01
91
01
00
35 00
03
04
49 00
13
05 00
92
06
00
05
00
43
22 00
54
03
90 00
Road in Survey No.42
00
02
50
Road in Survey No.43
46/6A
46/5
46/3
46/4D
46/4C2
09 00
02
08
03
00
47
02
00
14
07 00
45
04
00
00
99
05
Nala in Survey No.46/ 1
48
45
49/1
District: Vellore Taluk: Arakkonam
220/1 1) Nangamangalam
219/ IB
219/ 1A
214/2
213/2D
213/2C
29
00
71
41
14
00
55
03
00
State: Tamil Nadu
79 00
01
79
25
(0 )
65
33
00
10
00
00
00
06
19
00
10 00 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1
2
213/3B 1) Nangamangalam ( Contd)
213 /3A2
227
225/4
225/6
411
2) Panapakkam
392
1/2
3) Melapuram
2
3
10
16
9
12
13
69
71
73
75
Road in Survey No.78 Taluk: Arcot
7987
5
4
3
21
00
19
01
39
00
04
86 00
18
11
00
37
00
48
00
12
56
00
29
10
22
00
05
00
15
59
08
00
03
02
14
00
30
20
00
75
00
00
00
19
33
00
59
69
00
03
91
00
21
09
92
00
64
72
00
44
01
55
00
State: Tamil Nadu
District : Vellore
17/2B 1) Pali
18/1
18/2
17/4
17/5
17/6
18/3
15/4AB
18/5
18/4
15/4B
15/5
15/3
27/4A
27/1
27/2
26/1
26/2
26/3
25/2
25/3
00
71
18
24
00
02
00
00
10
05
00
15
00
03
75
58
00
00
00
83
00
07
00
54
00
00
33
07
47
00
00
01
83
00
19
03
27
00
00
01
49
00
37
15
02
07
00
03
48
00
07
00
83
00
01
16
40
00
09
00
00
34 7988
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
25/1
1) Pali (Contd)
36/1
36/2
37/1
37/2
37/3
37/4A
38/ 1A
38/1B
38/2
38/3
41/2
41/3
258
254
255
253/2
253/4A
253/ 1B
253/4B
253/5
253/6
253/3
269/4B
270
269/1
250/13
249/8
249/6
249/7
248/1
248/2
249/5
245/1
245/2
244/8
244/9
281/1
281/3
281/2
281/5 3
4
5
49
02
00
94 00
00
49 00
03
00
86
08
08
35 00
00
00
65
02
58 00
00
91
01
03
19 00
07
00
71 00
13
12
23 00
01
00
06
53
00
10 00
78 00
14
00
05
67
15 00
01
28 00
08
06
16 00
23
05
00
00
46
02
44 00
01
31 00
10
00
00
23
65
10
00
00
00
11 00
00
10
04
00
31 00
00
10 00
19
01
00
06
75
85 00
02
78 00
04
00
14
86
68 00
10
00
10
00
00
04
68
24 00
09
99
02
00
00
06
87
93 00
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1) Pali (Contd)
236/5
236/6
283/3
283/1
284/1
284/3
284/2
285
286
287/5
287/3
287/2
287/4
287/1
289/4A
289/4B
289/5A
289/5B
288/1
299/1
299/2
299/3
298/1
298/2
327/2
327/1
327/4
328
345/3A
343/ ID
343 /2F
343 /2E
343 /2D
343/31
343/3A
343/3B
343/3C
343/3D
343 /3E
343/3F
342/6
7989
4
3
5
13
00
00
00
00
16 00
19
82 00
01
17
55 00
08
00
74 00
00
09
10
50 00
04
00
01
55
06
00
14
00
10
15
00
15
00
00
09
60 00
00
95
00
00
16
00
00
75
00
01
09
00
03
13
00
67
00
00
08
33
00
08
66
00
06
37
00
00
82
00
11
20
00
05
11
06
87
00
00
01
39
00
22
23
00
29
71
25
00
15
00
04
57
00
48
16
00
10
07
00
04
49
00
03
77
00
04
96
00
06
10
00
06
61
00
07
06
06
51
00
00
06
72 7990
[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKΑ 29 , 1932
2 1
342/7 [) Pali (Contd)
342/8
342/9
180/2B 2) Donimedu
180/2C3
180/2C4
180/2E
180/3
Road in Survey No.180/5
180/4
179/ LA
178
179/2
177/7
177/8
181
183/2
180/2A2
183/1
184/2
184/3
184/4
184/5
184/6
185/11
185/10
185/9
185/8
222/1
185/7
185/6
192/3
192/6
192/5
186/1
187/4
187/7
187/8
187/6
187/5
219/1
4
3
5
06
00
38 00
06
60
03 00
08
89 00
17
04 00
16
00
05
57
86 00
13
00
09
09
07
00
59 00
09
44
43
45 00
00
59
01
00
24
92
10 00
00
00
78 00
76 00
01
18
49 00
00
00
31
62 00
03
00
10
00
00
03
71
04
59 00
00
65
05
41 00
03
62 00
00
73 00
00
00
31
02
74 00
00
00
00
55 00
49
14
11 00
00
10 00
00
04
39 00
00
77
01
00
11
11 00
66
00
02
00
84
23 00
05
03
00
65 00
34
02
17 00
08 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 2) Donimedu ( Contd)
219/4
219/3
219/2
207
208
205
7991 3
4
5 00
01
47 00
01
57 00
03
37 00
03
86 00
07
67 00
24
46 00
67
19
River in Survey No.205
99/2
230
3 ) Kuppudisatham
194/1
194/2
195/6
195/7
193/1
193/2
193/3
193/6
193/4
193/5
189/4
190/6
190/5
190/4
191/1
190/3
190/2
190/1
180/ 1B
180/ 1A
180/2
180/4A
180/4B
180/3D
180/3C
180/3B
180/3A
179/A/3
179/A/14
181/9B3
181/9C1
178/A/2 4322Gl /10-14
00
21
92 00
45
09 00
06
50 00
04
40 00
00
71 00
06
76 00
65
03
00
02
21
00
02
00 00
07
30 00
02
91
00
05
00
00
00
11
00
05
63
00
07
36
10
00
23
00
00
97
03
00
44
00
28
01
00
10 00
00
13
09
00
00
36
00
04
35
00
05
26
00
00
70
00
20
52
00
00
38
87
03
00
00
00
29
00
10
86
45
00
00
00
01
04
00
01
88
00
60
47 7992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
5
4
2
3
1
00
00
10
178 /A/ 1R
3) Kuppudisatham (Contd)
28
00
05
178/A/ 1Y
75
00
08
Road in Survey No.374
71
00
24
178/B/2
79
00
21
178/B/ 1B
49
00
01
178/B/1A
[F. No. L-14014/85/2010-GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 12 नवम्बर, 2010
का. आ. 2881.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाडा-नैल्लोर-चैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई- ट्यूटीकोरिन 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 (1962का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री वी . वेंकटसुव्वु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, न . 89, डॉ . राधाकृष्णन सलाई, छठवीं मंजिल, मैलापुर, चैन्नई 600004 , तमिलनाडु राज्य को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
7993
अनुसूची
तालुक: कल्लक्कुरिच्चि
राज्य: तमिलनाडु
जिला:विल्लुपुरम
गाँव कानाम
सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं
1
2
40/2
1 ) पदरमपाल्लाम
40/3
44/1
44/2
44/3
45/1
46
45/2
115/3
2) टेंगियानाटम
115/2
115/4
115/1
90/ 2ए
90/1
90/2वी
90/4
91/1
91/15वी
91/15ए
89/7
93/1
93/2
93/3
94/1 ए
94/1 वी
87
85/1
85/ 2ए
85/ 2वी
94/2
84/3
84/ 2वी
14/ 2ए
14/ 2वी1
33/1 ए
33/1 वी 2
33/4वी
आर- ओ -यू-अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर सिएयर 3
4
5 00
10
08 00
07
91 00
11
54 00
10
08 00
06
88 00
32
70 00
17
83
02
00
21 00
39
15
47 00 08
00
77
03
00
44
52 00
04
00 00
20
97 00
13
67 00
92
04
00
28
72
00
00
11 00
83
20
00
09
03 00
08
28 00
09
88 00
10
55 00
03
50
60 00
04
00
07 01
00
15
01 00
31
08 00
07
97 00
10 00
00
11
45 00 02
37 00
07
78 00
01
85
93 00 02
00
03
03
50 00 05 7994
[Part II -Sec . 3( ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
15/1
2) टेंगियानाटम (निरंतर)
4
3
5 00
11
37 00 09
83
32/4ओ
15/3
00
13
08 00
11
69
15/ 2ए
16
17/3
17/4
17/2
00 06
76
01
00
73 00
20
32
00 00
10 00
73
17
19/2ए
00
04
59
18/3अ
00
13
45
19/2वी
00
03
48
18/3वी
00 08
14
18/3सी
19/4ए
00
12
69 00
45
19
19/4वी
00
87
01
सर्वे न . 25/2 में रास्ता
00
44 00
सर्वे न . 26/ 2ए में रास्ता
27
04
00
26/ 2वी
25/1
31
00
27 00
10 00
59/1 ए
3) टेनर्सट्टियांडल
59/2
60/2
00 05
47 00
22
53
01
71 00
60/3ए
60/4
60/7
60/6
60/5
12
00
74 00
13
14 00 09
05
00
60 00
00
82
58/14
01
00
32 02
58/13
58/2
58/8
58/4
58/5
61/5
00
06
03
00
64
04
00
57
10
00
16
17
00
39
05
00
83
61/16
11
00
92
16
61/17
00
27
03
61/15
00
15
09
61/11
26 00
21
61/10
43 00
01
सर्वे न . 61/12 में नाला
00 02
42
61/21
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
61/24 3) टेनसट्टियांडल (निरंतर)
51/23
62/15
62/14
62/13
62/12
62/10
62/8
62/6
62/7
62/4
62/3
199/9
199/6
199/7
199/8
199/27
199/26
200/14
200/3
200/13
200/2
200/9
200/8
204/2
204/4
204/5
204/6
204/7
204/9
204/8
205/17
205/16
सर्वे न . 205/2 में रास्ता
205/13
205/14
205/15
205/1
162/14 4) मरवानाट्टाम
160/1वी
162/1 ए
7995
4
3
5 00 25
90 00 08
13 00
17
66 00 03
85
21
00
89 00
11
21 00
26
83 00
26
49 00
05
18 00 10
32 00 41
89 00
07
84 00
16
16 00
02
44 00
04
15
00
01
19 00
13
26 00
03
40 00
02
39 00
86
20
00
03
95 00
04
47 00
02
12 00 08
33 00
17
51 00
60
13
00
03
23 00
00
26 00
00
91 00
01
93 00 08
65 00
76
13
00
01
21 00 00
54 00
52 01
00
04
07 00 16
62 00
04
62 00
17
63 00
03
33 00 06
40 7996
[Part II-Sec . 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
2 1
4
5 3
00 12
87
160/3
4) मरवानाट्टाम (निरंतर)
19 00 09
160/10
00
56
09
160/11
06
00
59
160/12ए
00
00
49
160/4ए
108
5) टकराय
00
81
51
46 00
21
107/2
106
30
38 00
29
02
00
111/3
06 00 26
111/4
03
59 00
103/1सी
01
82 00
111/ 2वी
85
19
00
103/1 ए
00
00
88
103/1वी
06
99 00
सर्वे न . 102 में नाला
97/5
97/4
72
06
00
00
00
58
06
00
09
97/8
07
72 00
97/7वी
43 00 01
97/7ए
01
46 00
97/6
48
03
00
97/12
03
87 00
97/11
78 00
04
97/10
97/9
57
07
00
08
50 00
सर्वे न . 96 में रास्ता
00
00
63
92/5सी
03
34 00
92/6सी
05
29 00
92/7
35
08
00
92/9वी
01
03
00
92/9ए
02
78 00
92/8
79 00 08
92/10ए
00
83
14
92/10 ई
88/1
00 00
59
01
56 00
92/10वी
04
88 00
92/10सी
47
04
00
92/10डी
03
00
36
सर्वे न . 91 में चैनल
00
10
00
88/2
20 00 06
89/11
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 5) टकराय (निरंतर)
89/12
90
89/10वी
73/पी
89/10सी
89/9
73/1 वी 2
73/1 वी 1
73/ 1 ए
सर्वे न . 76 में रास्ता
80
79
78
40/1
40/ 2वी
40/ 2ए
40/3
44/4आड
44/4जे
40/4
सर्वे न . 41 में रास्ता
44/5वी
44/10
44/9
44/8
43/2
सर्वे न . 43/1 में रास्ता
54/3
54/2
54/1
47
54/5
54/4ए
54/4वी
53/ 1 ए
52/4सी 2
52/7डी
52/7सी
52/ 10 एच
52/10जी
52/ 7 वी
7997 3
4
5 00 14
61 00
11
24 00
01
42 00
00
50 00 08
34 00
04
75 00
18
10 00
01
96 00
15
66 00
04
65 00
51
40 00
00
49 00
07
26 00 02
06 00
13
11 00 02
05 00
09
73 00 00
81 00 00
91 00
00
93 00 01
51
14
00
75 00 00
10 00
06
05 00
18
11 00 09
09 00
07
60 00 00
96 00
12
52 00
14
15 00
14
37 00
04
76 00
06
96 00
11
55 00 02
62 00
04
57 00 09
81 00 06
74
16 03
00
28 00 00
40 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKΑ 29, 1932
7998
2 1
5 3
4
15 00 00
52/7ए
5) टकराय (निरंतर)
01
00
59
52/10ए
00
85 00
52/10आइ
04
01
00
52/10एफ
01
63 00
52/10 ई
15
01
00
52/10वी
00 02
36
52/10डी
12
63 00
52/10सी
74 00
04
52/9
37 00 05
52/13
20 00 08
52/12वी
19/4
00
81
04
02
58 00
19/2
19/3
20
22/1
00
85
15
46 00
26
00
85
03
73 00 23
22/ 2 ए
00 00
61
22/3ई
00
01
85
सर्वे न . 22/ 2वी में रास्ता
00
00
35
22/ 2सी
00
19
96
22/3सी
08
50 00
22/4
23
00
12
41 00
23
71
24/2
00
35
28
24/3
24/1
66
05
00
85 00 17
146/1 ए
6) कल्लानाट्टम
00 04
47
146/1वी
00
32
18
147/1 ए
00
40
08
147/1वी
03
00
89
133/1
54 00
45
133/2
04
56 00
133/3
17
80 00
132/3डी
00
90
01
132/ 3ए
00
01
32
132/3वी
00
27 00
132/3सी
00
02
32
132/ 2सी
12
00
86
132/ 2वी
00
01
77
132/ 2ए
06
07 00
132/1
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
134/1 6) कल्लानाट्टम (निरंतर)
134/2
136/1
126
137
125/1
125/2
122/2
122/3
122/1
121/ 6वी
121/6ए
121/8
121/5
121/4सी
121/4ए
121/4वी
121/3ए
121/3वी
119
113/3
113/4
115/ 1 ए3
115/1वी
115/ 1 ए1
102/4डी
7999 3
5
4
00
07
40 00
05
03
00
01
44
02
00
43 00 02
27
62 00 09
00
00
10
67 00
14
00
03
26
26
00
58 00
11
09 00
17
09
00 02
54 00
11
20 00
08
65 00
00
97
01
00
52 00
05
32
07
55 00
00
06
74
12
02 00
64
07
00
24
77 00
10
00
00
18 00
17
13
16 00
00
65 02
सर्वे न . 102/4ए में रास्ता
102/2
102/3
49/7
49/6
49/5
49/4वी
49/15
49/14वी
49/14ए
49/3
49/12
50/14ए
50/14वी
50/13वी 2ए 4322Gl /10-15
00
00
10
16 00
23
00
18 00
77 00
05
67 00
10
38 00
00
05
00
59
56 00
05
03
00
39 00
11
39 00
11
07 01
00
81
32 02
00
00
20 03 8000
[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
4
5 3
00
00
89
50/13वी1
6) कल्लानाट्टम (निरंतर)
56
04
00
50/8वी
64
03
00
50/9
00 04
59
50/10
01
49 00
50/11
00
00
39
51/21
01 00
11
51/22
10
00
00
50/12
02
28 00
51/ 2ए
08
00
69
सर्वे न . 64 में नाला
00
31
45
65/4वी
65/5
65/3
62
08
00
00 00
12
38 00
17
66/2
00
14
59
66/3
75/5
75/4
75/6
74/1
जिला:विल्लुपुरम तालुक:शंकरापुरम
79
1 ) चोलमबटु
80
40/1
2) तिरूक्कनगुर
21
00
41
00
57 00
75 00 35
08
17
00
राज्य:तमिलनाडु
03
00
30
17
21 00
25 00
00
00
04
46
40/2
00
50
61
40/3
20
00
91
40/4वी
00
18
04
40/4ए
00
04
02
42/3सी
12 00 01
42/3वी
01
00
79
40/5
43
94 00
04
23 00
15
52/5सी
22 00 00
52/5वी
20
33 00
52/6
15
01
00
52/4
51/4
06
49 00
14
00
58
51/ 1 सी
73 00 03
51/1 वी
51/3
51/2
00
61 00
25
48 00
77
00
00
50/3सी
00
04
80
50/3डी
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1
2
57/9ए 2) तिरूक्कनगुर (निरंतर)
57/9वी
57/8
57/7सी
57/7डी
57/ 7 वी 2
57/ 7वी 1
सर्वे न . 55 में रास्ता
178/1
177/3
177/4
177/7
177/8
188/3
188/4
188/5
188/ 2डी
188/2सी
188/8
188/6
187/4ए
187/3ए
187/3वी
187/1वी
187/1 ए
187/ 2 ए
187/ 2वी
190/9
190/6सी
186/1
186/3
186/2
191/1
191/2
191/3
192/3वी
192/ 3ए
58/ 2ए
3 ) पोमबराप्पटु
सर्वे न . 58 में रास्ता
59/2
60/4
8001 3
4
5 00 06
47 00 00
50 00
11
49 00
01
35 00 05
89
17
00
68 00
01
01 00
03
98 00
03
25
32
70 00
00
07
53 00
12
84 00 09
11
07
00
68 00
03
95 00
01
10 00
13
55 00
03
01 00
23
07 00
00
78 00
00
10 00
06
65
00
00
56 00
12
91 00
01
13 00
08
82 00
03
25
56 00
30
00 01
12 00
01
77 00
00
51 00
01
18 00
28
18 00
21
17
27
00
98 00
01
19 00
24
25
06
00
10 00
35
14
00
02
57 00
51
35 8002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29, 1932
1
2
67/1
3) पोमबराप्पटु (निरंतर)
60/3
61/7
61/1
66/5
66/1
[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
4
3
5 00
61
01
00
02
11
23
61 00
00
95
12
00
00
10
60 00
29
17
10 00
66/2
65/8
65/7
65/5
69/1
69/4
19
79 00
00
11
83 00
10
50 00
43
11
00
00
24 00
10
88
70/ 2वी
00
71
06
72/5
72/3
72/1
00
01
24
00
24
22
44 00 08
72/2
71/6
73/6
73/7
73/1
73/9
73/8
73/2
00
16
69 00
15
69 00
23
00
00
76
05
00
02
02
00
73
02
00
14
87 00
27
08
मर्वे न . 90 में नदी
91/2
91/1
91/3
00
04
48 00 07
57 00
01
01 00
00
39
91/4ए
00
37
00
91/4वी
00
05
95
सर्वे न . 1/1 में गस्ता
4 ) सेम्बदाकुरिच्चि
32
00
78
1/2ए3
1/5
1/4
1/3
1/9 ए
1/6
1/7
1/8
8/4
8/3
00 09
86 00 16
96
18 00 00
75 00 04
19 00 06
49 00
66
08
00
00
77 00 04
89 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
8003
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
8/2
4) सेम्बदाकुरिच्चि (निरंतर)
8/1
8/7ए
8/ 6ए
8/ 6वी
8/ 6सी
7/3
10/1
10/2
7/5
7/4ए
7/4वी
7/8
7/12
7/11
7/10ए
7/10वी
7/10सी
15/8
15/7
15/9
15/17
14/6
14/1
14/2
16/6
14/10
14/3
14/4
14/5
14/12वी
14/12ए
16/9
16/11
सर्वे न . 23 में गस्ता
24/1
25/3
25/4
25/6
25/10
25/9
3
4
5
05
00
60 00 03
74 00 04
65 00
03
21 00
03
93 00
03
19 00
02
08 00
04
08 00 02
68 00
01
86 00
02
56 00
04
01 00
06
02 00
02
84 00
09
01 00
00
48 00
01
46 00
03
13 00
03
10 00 05
64 00 00
84 00
07
97 00
03
97 00
70
02
00
03
43 00
10
00
00
00
78 00 02
00 00 02
34
01
00
95 00
00
30 00
03
39 00
01
59 00
07
36 00
01
88 00
05
35 00
02
03 00
04
34 00
05
25 00
01
96 04
00
06 [Part II--Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
8004
2 1
4
5 3
83 00 05
25/12
4) सेम्बदाकुरिच्चि (निरंतर)
01
31 00
25/11
00
57 00
25/14
06
15 00
25/13
37
01
00
25/17
16 00 03
25/16
69 00
01
25/15
20 00 00
25/19
10 00
00
25/20
63 00
05
25/18
10 00 00
26/17
26
02
00
52/ 2ए
04
72 00
52/1
00
91 00
52/5
28 00 05
52/4
28 00 00
52/9
57 00
08
52/8
10 00
00
52/7वी
87
00
00
52/13
00
16 00
52/14
06
64 00
52/12
07
25 00
52/11
00
00
55
52/10वी
01
00
49
52/10सी
51/1
26
01 00
02
00
19
48/6
00 07
17
48/11
00
30 00
48/10
03
02
00
48/13
54
01
00
48/14ए
04
01
00
48/15ए
00
86 00
48/15वी
01
43 00
48/14वी
11
06 00
48/16
26 00
01
48/20
71
10
00
48/19
17
00
47
60/122
02
93 00
61/5ए
61/4
61/3
61/2
00 07
58
16 00
12
42
10
00 8005 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
4
3
5
00
05
41
61/1
सेम्बदाकुरिच्चि (निरंतर)
4)
00 00
44
67/14
62
00
60
08
00 04
14
66/5
00 06
00
00
00
11
66/10
00 00
84
66/11
00
18
66
सर्वे न . 63 में नाला
[फा सं. एल. -14014/84/ 2010 - जी.पी. ]
स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 12th November, 2010
S. O. 2881.- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in that for public interest 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 - Tuticorin 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 this 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 V.Venkatasubbu , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , No. 89 , Dr. RadhaKrishnan Salai , 6th Floor , Mylapore , Chennai - 600004 , Tamil Nadu State .
8006
| Part II -Sec. 3 ( ii) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
Schedule Taluk: Kallakkurichchi
District : Villupuram
Survey No./Sub-Division No.
Village
2 1
40/2 1) Padarampallam
40/3
44/1
44/2
44/3
45/1
46
45/2
115/3 2) Tengiyanattam
115/2
115/4
115/1
90/2A
90/1
90/2B
90/4
91/1
91/15B
91/ 15A
89/7
93/1
93/2
93/3
94/ 1A
94/ 1B
87
85/1
85/2A
85/2B
94/2
84/3
84/2B
14/2A
14/2B1
33/ 1A
33/ 1B2
33/4B State: Tamil Nadu
Area to be acquired for Rou
C-Are
Are
Hec
4
5 3
00
10
08
07
00
91
54 00
11
00
08
10
00
06
88
70 00
32
00
17
83
02
21 00
00
15
39
47 00
08
00
03
77 00
52
44
04
00 00
00
20
97 00
67
13
92 00
04
72 00
28
00
11 00
00
20
83 00
09
03
28 00
08
09
88 00
00
10
55
50 00
03
60
04
00 .
07 00
01
00
15
01 00
31
08
07
97 00
00
00
10
45 00
11
37 00
02
78
07
00
85
01
00
93
02
00
00
03
03 00
50
05 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 2) Tengiyanattam(Contd)
15/1
32/40
15/3
15/2A
16
17/3
17/4
17/2
19/2A
18/3A
19/2B
18/3B
18/3C
19/4A
19/4B
8007 3
4
5 00
11
37 00
09
83 00
13
08 00
11
69 00
06
76 00
01
73 00
32
20
00
00
10 00
17
73 00
04
59 00
45
13
00
03
48 00
08
14 00
12
69
00
19
45
00
01
Road in Survey No.25/2
87
00
00
44
Road in Survey No.26/2A
26/2B
25/1
59/1A 3 ) TenSettiyandal
59/2
60/2
60/3A
60/4
60/7
60/6
60/5
58/14
58/13
58/2
58/8
58/4
58/5
61/5
61/16
61/17
61/15
61/11
61/10
04
00
27
00
31
27
00
00
10
05
00
47
22
53
00
00
01
71
00
12
74
00
13
14
00
09
05
00
00
60
00
01
82
00
02
32
00
03
06
00
04
64
00
10
57
00
17
16
00
05
39
00
11
83
00
16
92
00
03
27
00
15
09
00
21
26
00
01
43
Nala in Survey No.61 / 12
61/21
4322GI /10-16
00
02
42 8008
[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKΑ 29 , 1932
2 1
61/24 3) Ten settiyandal (Contd)
61/23
62/15
62/14
62/13
62/12
62/10
62/8
62/6
62/7
62/4
62/3
199/9
199/6
199/7
199/8
199/27
199/26
200/14
200/3
200/13
200/2
200/9
200/8
204/2
204/4
204/5
204/6
204/7
204/9
204/8
205/17
205/16
Road in Survey No.205/2
205/13
205/14
205/15
205/1
162/14 4) Maravanattam
160/ 1B
162/ 1A
5 3
4
25
90 00
08
13 00
66 00
17
85 00
03
21
00
89
21 00
11
26
83 00
00
26
49
05
18 00
32 00
10
00
89
41
84
07
00
16 00
16
02
44 00
00
04
15
19 00
01
26 00
13
40
03
00
00
39
02
86
20
00
00
03
95
47 00
04
12
02
00
33
08
00
51 00
17
60
13
00
23
03
00
26 00
00
00
00
91
01
00
93
65
08
00
76 00
13
01
21 00
00
00
54
01
52 00
07 00
04
62 00
16
00
04
62
17
63 00
03
33 00
40
06
00 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
160/3 4) Maravanattam ( Contd)
160/10
160/11
160/ 12A
160/4A
108
5) Takarai
107/2
106
111/3
111/4
103/ 1C
111 /2B
103 / 1A
103/ IB
8009
4
5 3
12
87 00
09
19 00
56
09
00
59
06
00
49 00
00
81 00
51
46
21
00
30
38 00
02
29 00
06
26
00
59 00
03
82 00
01
85
19
00
88
00
00
06
99 00
Nala in Survey No. 102
97/5
97/4
97/8
97/7B
97/7A
97/6
97/12
97/11
97/10
97/9
72 00
06
58
00
00
09 00
06
07
72 00
43
01
00
46
01
00
03
48 00
03
87 00
04
78 00
07
57 00
08
50 00
Road in Survey No.96
92/5C
92/6C
92/7
92/9B
92/9A
92/8
92/ 10A
92/ 10E
88/1
92/10B
92/ 10C
92/ 10D
63
00
00
34
03
00
29
05
00
35
08
00
01
03
00
02
78 00
79
08
00
14
83 00
59
00
00
56
01
00
88
04
00
47
04
00
36
03
00
Channel in Survey No.91
88/2
89/11
10
00
00
20
06
00 8010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
1
2 5) Takarai ( Contd)
89/12
90
[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
5 00
14
61 00
11
24
89/ 10B
73 /P
00
01
42 00
00
50
89/10C
89/9
00
08
34 00
04
75
73 / 1B2
73 / 1B1
73/1A 00
18
10 00
01
96 00
15
66 00
04
65
Road in Survey No.76
80
79
78
40/1
40/2B
40/2A
40/3
44/41
44/4J
40/4
00
51
40 00
00
49 00
07
26 00
02
06 00
11
13
00
02
05 00
09
73
00
00
81
00
00
91
00
00
93
00
01
51
Road in Survey No.41
44/5B
44/10
44/9
44/8
43/2
00
14
75
00
00
10
00
06
05
00
18
11
00
09
09
00
07
60
Road in Survey No.43 / 1
54/3
54/2
54/1
47
54/5
54/4A
54/4B
53/ 1A
52/ 4C2
52/7D
52/ 7C 00
96
00
00
12
52
00
14
15
00
14
37
00
04
76
00
06
96
00
55
11
00
02
62
00
04
57
00
81
09
00
06
74
52/ 10H
52/ 10G
52/ 7B 00
00
16
00
03
28
00
00
40 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
8011
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29, 1932
1
5) Takarai ( Contd)
52/7A
52/ 10A
52/101
52/ 10F
52/10E
52/10B
52/ 10D
52/10C
52/9
52/13
52/ 12B
19/4
19/2
19/3
20
22/1
22/2A
22/ 3E 3
5 00
00
15 00
01
59 00
00
85 00
01
04 00
01
63 00
01
15 00
02
36 00
12
63 00
04
74 00
05
37 00
08
20 00
81
04-
00
02
58 00
85
15
00
26
46 00
85
03
00
23
73 00
00
61 00
Road in Survey No.22/2B
22/2C
22/3C
22/4
23
24/2
24/3
24/1 6) Kailanattam
146/ 1A
146/1B
147 / 1A
147/ 1B
133/1
133/2
133/3
132/3D
132/3A
132/3B
132/3C
132/2C
132/2B
132/ 2A
132/1
01
85 00
00
35 00
19
96 00
50
08
00
12
41 00
23
71 00
28
35 00
05
66 00
17
85 00
04
47 00
32
18 00
40
08
00
03
89 00
45
54 00
04
56 00
80
17
00
01
90 00
32
01
00
00
27 00
02
32 00
12
86 00
01
77
00
06
07 [Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
8012
2 1
134/1 6) Kallanattam (Contd)
134/2
136/1
126
137
125/1
125/2
122/2
122/3
122/1
121/6B
121/6A
121/8
121/5
121/4C
121/4A
121/4B
121/3A
121/3B
119
113/3
113/4
115/ 1A3
115/IB
115 / 1A1
102/4D
Road in Survey No. 102/4A
102/2
102/3
49/7
49/6
49/5
49/4B
49/15
49/14B
49/ 14A
49/3
49/12
50/ 14A
50/14B
50/13B2A
5
4
3
40 00
07
05
03
00
01
44 00
02
43 00
27
02
00
62
09
00
10 00
00
67 00
14
26
03
00
58
26
00
00
09
11
17 00
09
54
02
00
20 00
11
65
08
00
97
00
00
52
01
00
32
05
00
55
07
00
06
74 00
02
12
00
07
64 00
77 00
24
10
00
00
18
17
00
16
13
00
65 00
02
10 00
00
16
23
00
18
00
00
77
05
00
67 00
10
38 00
00
59 00
05
05
56 00
39
03
00
39 00
11
07
11
00
01
81 00
32
02
00
20
03
00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 6) Kallanattam (Contd)
50/13B1
50/8B
50/9
50/10
50/11
51/21
51/22
50/12
51 / 2A
Nala in Survey No.64
65/4B
65/5
65/3
66/2
66/3
75/5
75/4
75/6
74/1
Taluk : Sankarapuram
8013
4
3
5 00
00
89 00
04
56 00
03
64 00
04
59 00
01
49 00
00
39 00
11
01 00
00
10 00
02
28 00
08
69 00
31
45 00
62
08
00
00
12
17
00
38 00
14
59 00
21
41 00
00
57
00
35
75 00
17
08
State: Tamil Nadu
District: Villupuram
1 ) Cholambattu
79
80
40/1
2) Tirukkanangur
40/2
40/3
40/4B
40/4A
42/3C
42/3B
40/5
43
52/5C
52/5B
52/6
52/4
51/4
51 / 1C
51/1B
51/3
51/2
50/3C
50/3D
00
03
30
00
17
21
00
00
25
00
04
46
00
50
61
00
20
91
00
04
18
00
02
04
00
01
12
00
01
79
00
04
94
00
15
23
00
00
22
00
20
33
01
00
15
00
06
49
00
14
58
00
03
73
00
00
61
00
25
48
00
00
77
00
04
80 [Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29, 1932
8014
2 1
57/9A 2) Tirukkanangur ( Contd)
57/9B
57/8
57/7C
57/7D
57/7B2
57/7B1
4
5 3
47
06
00
50
00
00
00
49
11
35 00
01
89 00
05
17
68 00
01 00
01
03
00
98
Road in Survey No.55
178/1
177/3
177/4
177/7
177/8
188/3
188/4
188/5
188/2D
188/2C
188/8
188/6
187/4A
187/3A
187/3B
187/ IB
187/ 1A
187/2A
187/2B
190/9
190/6C
186/1
186/3
186/2
191/1
191/2
191/3
192/3B
192/3A
58/2A 3) Pombarappattu
25
03
00
70
32
00
53
07
00
84
12
00
11
09
00
68 00
07
95
03
00
10
01
00
55 00
13
01 00
03
07
23
00
78 00
00
00
10 00
65
06
00
56 00
00
91 00
12
00
13
01
82 00
08
25 00
03
56 00
30
12
01
00
77
01
00
00
51 00
01
18 00
18
28
00
21
17 00
27
00
98
19 00
01
25 00
24
10
06
00
14
35 00
Road in Survey No.58
59/2
60/4
57
02
00
35 00
51 [ भाग । खण्ड ३ ( ii ) ]
8015
भारत का ड्राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29.1932
67/1 3) Pombarappattu (Contd)... 210
N
60/3
61/7 A
141
61/1 ٢٠
66/5
66/1
66/2
65/8
65/7
65/5
69/1
69/4
70/2B
72/5
72/3
72/1
72/2
71/6
73/6
73/7
73/1
73/9
73/8
73/2
4
00
61 00
02
11 00
23
61 00
12
95 00
00
10 00
29
60 00
17
10 00
19
79 00
11
83 00
50
10
00
11
43 00
00
24 00
10
88
00
06
71
00
24
01
00
24
22
00
08
44
00
16
69
00
15
69
00
00
23
00
76
05
00
02
02
00
02
73
00
14
87
00
08
River in Survey No.90
91/2
91/1
91/3
91 /4A
91/4B 4) Sembadakurichchi
27
00
04
48
00
07
57
00
01
01
00
00
39
00
00
37
00
Road in Survey No. 1/1
1/2A3
1/5
1/4
1/3
1/9A
1/6
1/7
1/8
8/4
8/3 4322Gl/10-17
05
95
00
32
78
00
09
86
00
16
96
00
00
18
00
00
75
00
04
19
00
06
49
00
08
66
00
00
77
00
04
89 [ Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
8016
2 1
8/2
4) Sembadakurichchi (Contd)
8/1
8/7A
8/6A
8/6B
8/6C
7/3
10/1
10/2
7/5
7/4A
7/4B
7/8
7/12
7/11
7/10A
7/10B
7/10C
15/8
15/7
15/9
15/17
14/6
14/1
14/2
16/6
14/10
14/3
14/4
14/5
14/12B
14/ 12A
16/9
16/11
Road in Survey No.23
24/1
25/3
25/4
25/6
25/10
25/9
5
4
3
60
05
00
74
03
00
65
04
00
21
03
00
93
03
00
19
03
00
08 00
02
08
04
00
68
02
00
86
01
00
56
02
00
01
04
00
02
06
00
84 00
02
01
09
00
48
00
00
46
01
00
13 00
03
10
03
00
64
05
00
84
00
00
97
07
00
97
03
00
70
02
00
43
03
00
10
00
00
78
00
00
00
02
00
34
02
00
95
01
00
30
00
00
39
03
00
59
01
00
36
07
00
88
01
00
35
05
00
03
02
00
34
04
00
25
05
00
96
01
00
06
04
00 8017
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2 1
25/12 4) Sembadakurichchi ( Contd )
25/11
25/14
25/13
25/17
25/16
25/15
25/19
25/20
25/18
26/17
52/ 2A
52/1
52/5
52/4
52/9
52/8
52/7B
52/13
52/14
52/12
52/11
52/ 10B
52/ 10C
51/1
48/6
48/11
48/10
48/13
48/14A
48/ 15A
48/ 15B
48/ 14B
48/16
48/20
48/19
60/ 12C2
61/5A
61/4
61/3
61/2
4
5 3
83 00
05
00
01
31
00
00
57
06
00
15
01
37 00
00
03
16 00
01
69
20
00
00
00
00
10
05
63 00
00
00
10
02
26 00
00
04
72 00
00
91 00
05
28
00
28 00
00
08
57 00
00
10 00
00
87
00
00
16 00
06
64
07
25 00
55 00
00
00
01
49
26
00
01 00
19
02
07
17 00
00
00
30
03 00
02
00
54
01
00
01
04 00
86
00
00
01
43 00
06
11
00
01
26 00
10
71 00
17
47 00
02
93
07
00
58
12
00
16
42
10
00 8018
[ Part I See 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 KARTIKA 29, 1932
5
4
00
05
41
61/1
4) Sembadakurichchi ( Contd)
44
00
00
67/14
08
60
00
62
04
14
00
66/5
06
00
00
00
11
00
66/10
00
84
00
66/11
66
00
18
Nala in Survey No.63
[F. No. L-14014/84/2010-GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 12 नवम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 2882:- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाडा-नैल्लोर -चैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई- टयूटीकोरिन 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 उपात्वद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः, अंव , भारत सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोपणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की पतियां साधारण जनता को उपलव्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जीने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री वी . वेंकटसुव्वु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , ग्लिोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, न . 89 , डॉ . राधाकृष्णन सलाई , छठवीं मंजिल, मैलापुर , चैन्नई - 600004 , तमिलनाडु गज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा!
17
A7:19
vi
i 80194 | भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत को राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 291 1932
अनुसूची
( ?) 00
60
गज्य: तमिलनाडु तालुक शंकरापुरम
जिला:विल्लुपुग्म
00
गाँव का नाम
सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन से
आर- ओ- यू- अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल on
एयर
हेक्टेयर
सिएयर 00
2
1
3
5
4
$2188
00
07
40
00
9/6ए
1 ) पेरियाकोल्लियुर
00
22
28
00
9/ 6वी
01188
00 06
73
10/1सी
00
00 03
92
10/1 डी
10
00
93
04
10/15
00
40
00
03
78
10/2
00
23
14
00
9/1
90
00 16
37
10/4
00
31
10
11/1 सी
00
00
74
11/1 वी
00
00
13
54
11/1 डी
00
04
51
11/12 ए1
00
06
32
00
11/14वी
00
22
00
04
01 00
03
00 06
40
23/1वी
00
00
00
03
71
23/5
18
20
00
03
19
23/4
00
00
95
00
23/3
8188
00
08
98
23/6
288
00
03
66
23/9
00
$108
18
00
03
23/10
91
00
10
89
23/8
٤٥
00
00
10
24/5
30
24/4
00 06
04 00
SUC
00
03
24/3
01 00
03
21
00 07
55 00
20
00
37
79
recte
09
00
16
19/2
21 30
00
01
25
19/1
00
00
30
00
62/1वी
00
00 06
30
63/1
160
00
18
00
39 60 CU
13
16
00
21
63/ 2वी
00
105110
26
00
57
63/ 2ए
109,00
00 08
75
63/ 3ए
00
20
10
63/3वी
22
20
00
सर्वे न . 63/5 में नाला
8020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
63/4
1 ) पेरियाकोल्लियुर (निरंतर)
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | 3
4
5 00
06
23 00
02
76
65/11ए
00 20
28
65/12
00
00
10
65/11वी
00
21
55
65/10
65/9
00
00
10
83 00
25
66/8वी
15
00
59
66/8सी
00
05
27
66/10
60 00 06
66/11
00
05
36
66/9
00
03
29
सर्वे न . 83 में नाला
00 06
03
84/2
00
04
77
84/1 ए
00
05
86
84/3ए
07
24 00
84/1वी
00
01
57
84/3वी
00
10
83
84/9सी
00
21
54
84/9वी
00 08
27
सर्वे न . 86/1 में रास्ता
00 02
57
86/6
06
96 00
86/3ए
00
23
87
86/2
00
07
88/4
95 00
17
18
88/6
88/5
78 00 06
14
00
16
89/2
04
90 00
सर्वे न . 89/1 में नाला
00
03
03
93/5वी
00 30
53
93/6
36
34 00
91/2
91/1
00
02
88 00
77
04
91/3ए
00
11
83
91/3वी1
30
00
01
91/3वी2
00
17
00
102/3सी
32 00
13
102/4वी
00
14
72
102/8
00
06
72
102/11
00
22
32
102/10
30
00
50
103/6ए
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
103/6वी 1 ) पेरियाकोल्लियुर (निरंतर)
103/6सी
111/3
111/2
111/ 5वी
111/ 5ए
111/1 वी
129/1
111/ 6 ए6
111/ 6वी 6
111/ 6वी 7
130/1
131/1एफ
131/1 ई
130/2
145/2
145/3ए
145/3वी
145/5
145/4
150/ 1 ए
150/1जे
150/1के
150/1 एल
150/ 2वी
149/7
149/8ए
149/8वी
147/ 1 ए
147/1 वी
147/3
147/4
147/ 2एफ
76/1 वी1 2) अरियालुर
76/1 ए
76/2
76/5
76/3
78/3वी
78/ 3ए
78/ 2वी
8021
4
5 3
00
70
03
45
00
50
01
00
15
10
15 00
00
95
18
19
00
36
00
15 00
07
24
00
06
28 00
07
00
93 00
11
89 00
00
29
82 00
24
13
78 00
00
39
27
00
17
99 00
03
61 00 20
08 00
06
43
97 00
15
07
00
92
05
00
48 00
05
28
06
31 00
00
22
17
63 00
15
00
31
69
60 00
06
64 00
00
02
00
35 00
04
45
31
02 00
00
53 00
71 00 00
00 46
68 00 02
58
28 00
03
00
29
00
00
04
43 00
47
14
72 00
24 8022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
[ Part II See , 3 ( ii ) ] 1
2
4
3
5
78/ 2ए
10310
58 (2) अरियालुर (निरंतर)
00
79/4
27
98
79/3
00
82
1113
60
79/2
00
09
90 100
39
80/7
00
03
80/4
00
85 CO
12
00
07
00
80/1
84 10
09
Mest
00
80/2
24
76
00
30
80/3
21 19 00
23
00
01
81/2
39 00
82
00 08
17 00 00
83/2
00
19
13014
54 SH
83/3
00
14
60 C
83/1
00
13
21
49 TS
00
20
83/8
00
05
87
13013
00
19215
00
02
55
61/1आर 3
3) वरघुर
20
00
00
01
23
61/1आर 2
50
424
00
61/1आर
04
52 30 03
00
00
10
61/1 एस 1
00
61/1 एस 2
00 02
86 GO
٢٥
61/1 टी 1
00
01
22 00
02
00
61/1 टी 2
07
93 20
00
120112
00
61/11
01
67 31
120/16N
00
61/143
04
79
1001
33
00
61/2ए
04
57 00
14011
00
61/ 2वी
04
71 00
00
61/2सी
02
28 89
00
00
01
99
61/ 2डी
00
09
61/2
00
04
17 05 00
NTA!
00 04
69
61/ 2एफ
40
00
00
61/145
01
43 12
AITA
00
61/1 एन
81
90 00
00
तपा ٢١٢٢
6.1/1ओ
00 .
02 .
0.4 00
60
00
00 60
90 00
42/4
00
05
32 00
1915
00
05
67
42/3वी
SO
00
42/5
00
03
21
2013
00
42/6
00
03
24 110
3/2
4) टिम्मन्नंदल
00
26
05
3/3
00
28
96
IST
59
07
सर्वे न . 44 में नार्ला
00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29, 1932
1
2
30/4
4) टिम्मन्नंदल (निरंतर)
30/5
30/6
30/7
30/11
30/12
30/13
30/14
30/15
31
28/4वी
28/5वी
28/6वी
28/8
28/11 ए
28/11वी
28/12वी
35/5
28/14वी
35/6
27/15
27/4
27/5
27/6
27/14
36/2
26
37/1
37/2
39
12/6
5 ) किडंगुडैयाम्बटु
12/1
12/2
12/3
12/4
15/2
15/1
15/3
15/4
15/5
16/1 ए
4322GI/10-18
8023 3
4
5 00
00
76 00
06
94 00 05
07 00
01
40 00 00
16 00 02
47 00
03
25 00
03
34 00
00
61 00
38
32 00
01
08 00
03
51 00 02
53 00
07
35 00 02
77 00
04
65 00
05
85 00
01
18 00 04
65 00 02
02 00 02
96 00 08
40 00 00
27 00
13
68 00
66
11
00
01
49 00
07
20 00
12
30 00 09
09 00
12
74 00 02
77 00
14
26 00
11
74 00 05
42 00
05
58 00 02
11 00
06
67 00 06
16 00 06
57 00
05
63 00
17
96 [Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29, 1932
8024
2 1
5) किडंगुडैयाम्बटु (निरंतर)
22
5
4
3
85
04 00
46 06
00
27
01
00
19/1 ए
59
04
00
21/ 2वी
48
04
00
21/ 2सी
02
09 00
21/ 2डी
42
02
00
21/2 ई
27
02
00
21/ 2जी
51
07
00
21/ 2एच
50
02
00
21/2के
66
04
00
21/2एल
94
02
00
21/ 2जे
38
06
00
21/3 ई
78
05
00
21/4
03
46 00
21/5
44
03
00
21/6
21/7
75
03
00
65
02
00
21/9
67
01
00
21 / 8 वी
17
04
00
21/10 वी
10
05
00
21/12
44
04
00
21/11ए
50
03
00
21/11 सी
24
03
00
21/11वी
38/3
07
02
00
51
18
00
38/2
32
00
00
38/1 ए
00
99 00
38/1वी
38/5
44
06
00
78
05
00
38/6
38/7
38/8
90 00 04
42
00
00
70
11
00
37/10
81
05
00
37/12
59
01
00
37/14
21
02
00
37/15
46
00
00
37/13
44/1
35
07
00
19
07
00
44/2
44/3
63
07
00
90
05
00
44/4वी
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
2 1
44/4ए
5 ) किडंगुडैयाम्बदु (निरंतर)
43/1वी
43/ 2ए
43/ 2वी
43/3
43/7वी
43/7ए
43/7सी
43/ 6ए
43/ 6वी
43/ 6सी
43/10ए
43/ 6डी
49
84/1
6) रामाराजापुरम
सर्वे न . 85/2 में नाला
85/1 वी
85/1 ए
85/1 डी
86/4
86/10
86/5
86/6
86/ 2सी
सर्वे न . 87 में रास्ता
98/5
89/1 ए
98/6
98/4वी 2
89/3ए
98/2
98/8
97/ 6ए
97/6वी
97/5
97/3
97/7ए
97/4ए
97/ 2ए
सर्वे न . 97/1 वी में रास्ता
सर्वे न . 96 में नाला
8025 3
4
5
02
28 00
01
00
83 00
65
02
07
02
00
02
51 00
00 00
59 00
01
97 00
10
69 00
00
19 00
50
01
00
03
96
05
00
79 00
06
39 00
00
71 00
00
59
04
72 00
00
29
95 00
00
85 00
00
11
00
10 00
10
36 00
00
00
25
72 00
17
00
06
42
02
00
91 00
04
15 00
04
36 00
10
65 00
02
19 00 00
48 00
17
49 00 00
54 00
05
38 00
00
89 00
14
25
70 00
00
00
19
05
00
05
12
00
02
20
70 00
01
00 02
80 8026
[Part 11 Sec. 3 ( ii) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
93/9
6) रामाराजापुरम (निरंतर)
93/3
4
5 3
10
00
00
24
18
00
00 01
88
93/2
93/4
93/7
93/1
94
26
33 00
31 00
00
35
15
00
37
88 00
52 00
12
सर्वे न . 1/1 में नाला
7) मंजापुतुरू
2/14
2/21
2/17
00
02
73
82 00
01
00
16
24
21 00 02
2/15ए
16
01
00
2/18
05
44 00
2/16वी
02
57 00
2/16ए
00
19 00
2/15वी
2/20
3
4/3
6/1
21
00
78
03
11 00
00
51 00
36
15
00
06
03
00
6/2सी
13 00
17
6/ 2वी
03
59 00
6/4वी
6/4ए
6/5
21
07
00
95 00 05
01
00
27
5/3वी 2
61
01
00
5/4जी
00
83 00
5/4एफ
5/6
5/4जे
00
94 00
01 00
05
99 00 04
5/4आई
01
87 00
5/4एच
5/45
5/5
7
9/6
9/7
9/3ए
00
10
00
23
37 00
40
02
00
11 00 15
00
17
28
18 00 00
03
11 00
9/3वी
9/8
32 00 06
29 00 03
9/3सी
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
9/9
7 ) मंजापुतुरू (निरंतर)
9/4ए
9/4वी
9/4मी
9/5
10/2
10/1
10/4
10/5
11/3
11/ 1 ए
11/1 वी
11/1सी
11/2
83
134/10
134/9
134/7
134/11 वी
134/12 वी
134/11 ए
134/12ए
135/7ए
135/7वी
135/7सी
135/8
135/6
135/4
135/ 5ए
135/5वी
136/1
136/2
137/1
137/4
137/3
137/8
137/ 5ए
137/ 5वी
137/6
137/7
138/1
8027
4
3
5 00
00
10 00
64
08
00
03
98
03
00
79 00
13
11
00
26 00
00
59
29
00 06
72 00
01
02 00
01
22 00
03
03
02
00
77 00
01
17 00
01
60 00
83
13
00
06
46
00
00
24 00
06
17 00
44
17
00
00
74 00
01
78 00
16
8.9 00
03
02
32 00
06
00
03
13 00
00
67
26 00
13
00 00
10
05
00
46 00
11
68 00
16
15
14
00
29 00
05
82 26
00
55
70 00
03
00
12
18 00
00
17 04
00
71 00
17
67 00
00
10 00 01
20 8028
[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
2 1
139/1
7) मंजापुतुरू (निरंतर)
138/4
4
5 3
02
77 00
40
03
00
32
14
00
139/2वी
87 00 23
139/3
00 00
26
139/4
00
20
94
139/5
140
141
96
32
00
11
84 00
00
31 00
142/ 2ए
20
63 00
142/2वी
78 00 09
142/ 2सी
02
29 00
142/ 6एफ
00
10 00
142/5
00
16
99
36/1ए
8) मुरारबडु
86 00
01
36/3ए
79 00
01
36/3वी
00
96
01
36/3सी
36/2
28
10
00
05
00
72
36/3डी
22 00
00
36/35
05
84 00
36/4ए2
03
27
00
36/4वी
00
02
21
36/4सी
28
03
00
सर्वे न . 36/1 वी में रास्ता
55
02
00
39/3वी
27
41 00
39/3ए 2
00
01
68
39/3ए1
39/5
39/6
41/8
21
00
15 00
75
14
04
14 00
00
46
02
41/4ए
41/9
03
83 00
62 00
01
41/10ए
05
27 00
41/4वी
05
44 00
41/10वी
17 00
04
41/11 ए
02
00
61
41/11वी
41/12
41/7
81 00
06
62 00 06
48 00 09
44/10
08
69 00
44/11
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
44/12 8 ) मुरारबडु (निरंतर)
44/13बी
44/15ए
44/15वी
44/15सी
44/17
44/8वी
46/5
46/4
सर्वे न . 46/7 में रास्ता
47/20
46/17वी
47/6
46/18
47/7
47/13ए
46/20
47/13वी
56/6
55/2
55/4
55/ 6ए
55/ 5ए
55/5वी
55/7
55/ 8वी
62
67/5वी
67/3
67/4
67/ 7सी
67/ 8सी
67/10वी
67/13ए
72/1
72/2
67/17
69/1
69/7
69/9
69/2
8029
4
5 3
87
09
00
71
08
00
12
00
25
92 00
05
05
77 00
02
50 00
02
93 00
07
00
13 00
04
15
26
03
00
36 00
04
00
17
11
02
00
59 00
33
32 00
01
41 00
00
37
35 00
18
65 00
00
00
93
27
61 00
05
14 00
12
10 00 00
60 00
07
00
51
09
22
11
00
00
10
19 02
76 00
27 00
06
00
01
40
47 00
00
00
01
43 00
01
11
65 01
00
01
00
13 08
92 00
00 00
55
10 00
00
44 00
04
47 05
00
06
42 00
00 00
03 8030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
[ Part II --Sec . 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
5
2
1
36
00
05
69/8
8) मुरारबडु (निरंतर)
00
01
81
69/6
39
00
10
69/5सी
12
00
85
69/5डी
92
18
00
70/1वी
83
07
00
90
12
40
00
92/3
53
00 07
92/2
[फा सं. एल. - 14014/84/2010- जी.पी. ]
स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 12th November , 2010
S. O. 2882.-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 - Tuticorin 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 this 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 V.Venkatasubbu , Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, No. 89, Dr. RadhaKrishnan Salai , 6th Floor , Mylapore , Chennai - 600004 , Tamil Nadu State .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
8031
Schedule
Taluk : Sankarapuram
State: Tamil Nadu
District: Villupuram
Village
Survey No./Sub-Division No.
1
2
9/6A 1) Periyakolliyur
9/6B
10/ 1C
10/ 1D
10/ 1E
10/2
9/1
10/4
11 / 1C
11/ 1B
11/ 1D
11 / 12A1
11/14B
22
23/1B
23/5
23/4
23/3
23/6
23/9
23/10
23/8
24/5
24/4
24/3
21
20
19/2
19/1
62/ 1B
63/1
18
63/2B
63/2A
63/3A
63/3B Area to be acquired for RoU
Are
Hec
C-Are 3
4
5 00
40
07
00
22
28 00
06
73 00
92
03
00
04
93 00
03
78 00
23
14 00
16
37 00
31
10 00
00
74 00
13
54 00
04
51 00
06
32 00
04
01
00
06
40 00
03
71
00
03
19 00
00
95 00
08
98 00
03
66 00
03
91
00
89
10
00
00
10
00
06
04
00
03
01
00
07
55
00
37
79
00
21
16
00
25
01
00
00
30
00
06
30
00
00
39
00
16
21
00
26
57
08
00
75
00
20
10
00
22
Nala in Survey No.63/ 5
4322GI/10-19
20 [Part II--Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 8032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
3
4
5
2
1
00
63/4
06
23 1 ) Periyakolliyur (Contd)
76
02
00
65/11A
00
20
28
65/12
00
00
10
65/11B
21
55
00
65/10
00
00
10
65/9
83
25
00
66/8B
59
15
00
66/8C
00
05
27
66/10
60
06
00
66/11
36
66/9
00
05
29
00
03
Nala in Survey No.83
03
00
06
84/2
00
04
77
84/ 1A
05
86
84/3A
00
00
84/ 1B
07
24
01
00
57
84/3B
10
00
83
84/9C
21
00
54
84/9B
27
08
00
Road in Survey No.86/ 1
02
86/6
00
57
96
06
00
86/3A
86/2
00
23
87
95
00
07
88/4
18
88/6
00
17
78
06
88/5
00
16
14
89/2
00
00
90
04
Nala in Survey No.89/ 1
03
00
03
93/5B
00
30
53
93/6
36
91/2
00
34
00
02
88
91/1
04
77
91/3A
00
83
00
91/3B1
11
01
91/3B2
00
30
00
17
00
102/3C
32
00
13
102/4B
00
14
72
102/8
06
72
00
102/11
32
00
22
102/10
30
00
50
103/6A [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1 ) Periyakolliyur ( Contd)
103/6B
103/6C
111/3
111/2
111/5B
111 /5A
111/ 1B
129/1
111 /6A6
111/6B6
111/ 6B7
130/1
131 / IF
131 / 1E
130/2
145/2
145/ 3A
145/3B
145/5
145/4
150/ 1A
150/ 1J
150/ 1K
150/ 1L
150/ 2B
149/7
149/8A
149/8B
147/ 1A
147/ 1B
147/3
147/4
147/2F
76/ 1B1 2) Ariyalur
76/ 1A
76/2
76/5
76/3
78/3B
78/3A
78 /2B
8033 3
4
5 00
70
03
00
45
50 00
01
15 00
15
10
00
95
18
00
19
36 00
00
15 00
24
07
06
00
28 00
07
93 00
11
89 00
00
29 00
24
82 00
13
78 00
27
39 00
17
99 00
03
61 00
20
08 00
06
43 00
15
97 00
07
92 00
05
48 00
05
28 00
06
31 00
22
17 00
15
63 00
69
31
00
06
60 00
00
64 00
02
35
45 00
04
00
31
02 00
00
53 00
00
71
00
46
68 00
02
58
00
03
28
00
00
29 00
04
43
00
14
47
00
24
72 8034
[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
78/2A 2) Ariyalur (Contd)
79/4
79/3
79/2
80/7
80/4
80/1
80/2
80/3
81/2
82
83/2
83/3
83/1
83/8
61/ 1R3 3) Varagur
61/ 1R2
61/ 1R4
61/ 1S1
61/ 1S2
61/ IT1
61/ 1T2
61/ IU1
5
4
3
00
58 00
27
98 00
82 00
09
06
09 00
39 00
00
85 00
03
84 00
07
24
76 00
00
30
21
39 00
01
00
08
17
54 00
19
14 00
09
49
21
00
05
87 00
00
02
55 00
23
01
52 00
04
00
00
10
02
86 00
22 00
01
00
07
93 00
67
01
04
79
61/ 1U3
61/2A
61/2B
61/2C
61/2D
61/2E
61/2F
61/ 1U5
61/ IN
61/10
60
42/4
42/3B
42/5
42/6
3/2
4) Timmanandal
3/3
00
00
04
57 00
04
71
02
28 00
99 00
01
04
00
17
04
69 00
00
01
43
81 00
06
00
04
02
06 00
09
00
05
32
67 00
05
00
03
21 00
24
03
05 00
26
96 00
28
07 00
59
Nala in Survey No.44
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 4) Timmanandal ( Contd)
30,4
30/5
30/6
30/7
30/11
30/12
30/13
30/14
30/15
31
28/4B
28 / 5B
28 /6B
28/8
28 / 11A
28/ 11B
28 / 12B
35/5
28/ 14B
35/6
27/15
27/4
27/5
27/6
27/14
36/2
26
37/1
37/2
39
12/6
5 ) Kidangudaiyambattu
12/1
12/2
12/3
12/4
15/2
15/1
15/3
15/4
15/5
16/ 1A
8035 3
4
5 00
00
76 00
06
94 00
05
07 00
01
40 00
00
16 00
02
47 00
03
25 00
34
03
00
00
61 00
38
32 00
01
08 00
03
51 00
02
53 00
07
35 00
02
77 00
04
65 00
05
85 00
01
18 00
04
65 00
02
02 00
02
96 00
08
40 00
00
27 00
13
68 00
11
66 00
01
49 00
07
20 00
12
30 00
09
09 00
12
74 00
02
77 00
14
26 00
11
74 00
05
42 00
05
58 00
02
11
00
06
67 00
06
16 00
06
57 00
05
63 00
17
96 8036
[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
2 1
5) Kidangudaiyambattu (Contd)
22
19/1A
21/2B
21/2C
21/2D
21 /2E
21/2G
21 /2H
21 /2K
21 /2L
21 /2J
21 /3E
21/4
21/5
21/6
21/7
21/9
21/8B
21/ 10B
21/12
21 / 11A
21/ 11C
21 / 11B
38/3
38/2
38/ 1A
38/ 1B
38/5
38/6
38/7
38/8
37/10
37/12
37/14
37/15
37/13
44/1
44/2
44/3
44/4B
5 3
4
04
85
00
46
06
00
01
27 00
59 00
04
48 00
04
09
02
00
02
42 00
27
02
00
07
51 00
50 00
02
66
04
00
94
02
00
38
06
00
05
78 00
46
03
00
44
03
00
75
03
00
02
65 00
67
01
00
17
04
00
10
05
00
44 00
04
50 00
03
24
03
00
07
02
00
18
51 00
32 00
00
99
00
00
44 00
06
78
05
00
00
04
90
42
00
00
11
70 00
81 00
05
01
59 00
21
02
00
46
00
00
07
35 00
07
00
19
63
07
00
90 00
05 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 5) Kidangudaiyambattu ( Contd )
44/4A
43/ 1B
43/2A
43/2B
43/3
43/7B
43/7A
43/7C
43 /6A
43/6B
43/6C
43/ 10A
43/6D
49
84/1
6) Ramarajapuram
8037 3
4
5 00
02
28 00
01
83 00
02
65 00
02
07
02
00
51 00
00
59 00
01
97 00
10
69
00
00
19 00
50
01
00
96
03
05
00
79 00
06
39 00
00
71 00
00
59 00
04
72
Nala in Survey No.85/ 2
85/ 1B
85/1A
85/ 1D
86/4
86/10
86/5
86/6
86/2C 00
29
95 00
00
85 00
00
11
00
00
10 00
10
86 00
25
00
00
17
72 00
06
42 00
02
91
Road in Survey No.87
98/5
89/ 1A
98/6
98/4B2
89/3A
98/2
98/8
97/6A
97/6B
97/5
97/3
97/7A
97/4A
97 /2A
00
15
04
00
04
36 00
10
65 00
02
19 00
00
48 00
17
49 00
00
54 00
05
38 00
00
89 00
25
14
00
00
70 05
00
19 00
12
05
00
02
20
00
01
70
Road in Survey No.97 / IB
00
02
80
Nala in Survey No.96
8038
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2010 /KARTIKΑ 29 , 1932
2 1
93/9
6) Ramarajapuram ( Contd)
93/3
93/2
93/4
93/7
93/1
94
Nala in Survey No.1 / 1 7) Manjaputhuru
2/14
2/21
2/17
2/ 15A
2/18
2/16B
2/16A
2/15B
2/20
3
4/3
6/1
6/2C
6/2B
6/4B
6/4A
6/5
5/3B2
5/4G
5/4F
5/6
5/4J
5/41
5/4H
5/4E
5/5
7
9/6
9/7
9/3A
9/3B
9/8
9/3C
4
5 3
00
10 00
00
18
24
88 00
01
33
26
00
00
31 00
00
15
35
37
00
88
12
52 00
00
02
73 00
01
82
24 00
16
21 00
02
00
01
16
44
05
00
00
02
57
00
19 00
00
21
78 00
03
11
00
00
51
36
15
00
03
00
06 00
17
13
59 00
03
00
21
07
95
05
00
27 00
01
61 00
01
83 00
00
94 00
00
00
05
01
04
00
99
01
87 00
10 00
00
37 00
23
40 00
02
15
00
11 00
17
28
00
18 00
00
03
11
32 00
06
29
03
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
9/9
7) Manjaputhuru ( Contd)
9/4A
9/4B
9/4C
9/5
10/2
10/1
10/4
10/5
11/3
11/ 1A
11/ 1B
11 / IC
11/2
83
134/10
134/9
134/7
134/ 11B
134/ 12B
134/11A
134/ 12A
135/7A
135/7B
135/7C
135/8
135/6
135/4
135 /5A
135/5B
136/1
136/2
137/1
137/4
137/3
137/8
137/5A
137/ 5B
137/6
137/7
138/1 4322GI /10-20
8039 3
5
4
00
00
10 00
08
64 00
03
98 00
03
79 00
11
13 00
00
26 00
29
59 00
06
72 00
01
02 00
ΟΙ
22 00
03
03 00
02
77 00
01
17 00
60
01
00
13
83 00
06
46 00
00
24 00
06
17 00
17
44
00
00
74 00
01
78 00
16
89 00
03
02 00
06
32
03
00
13 00
00
67 00
13
26 00
00
10 00
05
46 00
11
68 00
16
15 00
14
29 00
05
82 00
26
55 00
70
03
00
12
18 00
00
17 00
04
71
00
67
17
00
00
10 00
01
20 [ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2010/KARTIKΑ 29 , 1932
8040
2 1
139/1 7) Manjaputhuru ( Contd)
138/4
139/2B
139/3
139/4
139/5
140
141
142/2A
142/2B
142/2C
142/6F
142/5
36/1A 8) Murarbadu
36/3A
36/3B
36/3C
36/2
36/3D
36/3E
36/4A2
36/4B
36/4C
Road in Survey No.36/ 1B
39/3B
39/3A2
39/3A1
39/5
39/6
41/8
41/4A
41/9
41/10A
41/4B
41/10B
41 / 11A
41/ 11B
41/12
41/7
44/10
44/11
5
4
3
77 00
02
40 00
03
32
14
00
87
23
00
00
26
00
94
20
00
96
32
00
84
11
00
31
00
00
63
20
00
78
09
00
29
02
00
10
00
00
99
16
00
86
01
00
79
01
00
96
(01
00
28
10
00
72
05
00
22
00
00
84
05
00
03 00
27
21
02 00
28 00
03
55
02
00
41
27
00
68
01
00
15
21
00
14
75 00
14
04
00
46
02
00
83
03
00
62
01
00
27
05
00
44
05
00
17
04
00
61
02
00
81
06
00
62
06
00
48
09
00
69
08
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 / कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 8) Murarbadu ( Contd )
44/12
44/13B
44/ 15A
44/ 15B
44/ 15C
44/17
44/8B
46/5
46/4
8041 3
4
5
09
87 00
00
08
71 00
12
25 00
05
92 00
05
77 00
02
50 00
02
93
07
00
13 00
04
15 00
03
26
Road in Survey No.46/7
47/20
46/17B
47/6
46/18
47/7
47 / 13A
46/20
47/13B
56/6
55/2
55/4
55/ 6A
55 / 5A
55/ 5B
55/7
55/ 8A
62
67 /5A
67/3
67/4
67 / 7C
67/8C
67/10B
67/ 13A
72/1
72/2
67/17
69/1
69/7
69/9
69/2
00
04
36 00
11
17 00
02
59 00
33
32 00
01
41 00
00
37 00
35
18
00
65
00
27
00
93
05
00
61 00
12
14 00
00
10 00
07
60 00
09
51 00
22 00
10
19 00
02
76 00
06
27 00
01
40 00
00
47 00
01
43 00
01
00
65
01
00
01
13 00
92
08
00
00
55 00
00
10 00
04
44 00
05
47 00
06
42 00
03
00 [ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | 8042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
4
5
3
2
1
36
00
05
69/8
8) Murarbadu( Contd)
81
(01
00
69/6
00
10
39
69/5C
85
00
12
69/5D
92
00
18
70/1B
83
00
07
90
12
00
40
92/3
53
00
07
92/2
[F. No. L - 14014/ 84/2010 -GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 2883.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स ग्लिाएंस इण्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र पदेश में पूर्वी तट पर काकीनाडा ग्थिन अपतटीय गैस प्रसंग्करण टर्मिनल मे देश के विभिन्न हिम्यों में ग्थिन उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैगर्म ग्लिोजिमटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा विजयवाडा- नेल्लोर चेन्नई पाइपलाइन विछाई जानी चाहिए :
और, भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसकं भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने का प्रग्नाव है और जो इस अधिसूचना में 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 उप- धारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोपणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुमूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है, उम तारीख मे जिमको उक्त अधिनियम की धाग 3 की उप-धाग ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं. इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एम .ए . गफ्फार, मक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैमर्म ग्लिोजिमटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड. नं . 59-1-18/3, मैग्मि ग्टेला कॉलेज के सामने की गंड में, बम रूट नं . 5 , गमचन्द्रा नगर , विजयवाडा -520008 , कृण्णा जिला, आन्ध्रप्रदेश गज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज मकेगा । भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कातिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
8043
अनुसूची
राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश
जिला कृष्णा
मंडल / तेहसिल / तालुक मुदीनेपल्लि
सर्वे सं. / सब डिविजन सं .
गाँव का नाम
2 1
379/1 1) गुरजा
379/2
371
368
372
367/2
366
365/3
365/2
364
363
362/1
365/1
359/1
358
206/ 2डी
206/ 2ई
206/ 2एफ
206/ 2जी
206/3
206/4
193
207
249/1
251
252/1
252/2
248/2
247/ 2वी
247/ 2 ए
245/1
245/2
244
264
263
288/4
288/3 आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेतफल
हेक्टेयर
सि एयर
एयर
4
3
5
17
01
00
07
41 00
41
66 00
24
09
00
36
13
00
18
00
80
36
29
00
74 00
02
00
08
37
70 00
07
75 00 00
75 00
52
02
01 00
10
88 00
01
35 00
63 00
01
40
04
00
53 00 09
45
10
00
62
13
00
30 00
04
00
00
80 00
04
13
66 00
30
00
26
27
00 36
80
13
05
00
03
70 00
71
04 00
07
29 00
47
06
00
01
55 00
70 00
11
76
05
00
10 00 00
22
00
00
00
08
39 8044
Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
1
2 3
4
5 00
13
48
288/2
1) गुरजा (निरंतर)
00
32
18
288/1
00 09
78
286/14
00
00
18
286/13
287
00
22
05 00
11
81
285/1
21
38 00
285/3
00
12
19
285/2
02
80 00
284/1
00
18
93
284/3
00
30
40
284/2
राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश
जिला:कृण्णा
मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक पामारू
902
1) पामारू
903
00
00
81
07
21 00
00 00
10
904/4वी
00
03
94
904/4मी
00
05
75
904/45
00
13
96
904/5
00
25
26
904/ 6मी
906
905
00 00
98 00
32
18
20
00
06
907/1 मी
00
46 00
907/1 डी
00
03
04
907/1 वी
892
891
00
38
06
00
06
73 00
22
55
890/5ए
00
15
50
890/ 5वी
00
02
74
890/5डी
00
03
06
890/5सी
30 00
07
890/1ची
00
05
98
890/4
00 00
89
890/3
00 00
58
886/1ड्डी
00
03
57
886/1 मी
00
19
76
886/1वी
06
99 00
886/1ए
00
00
29
886/2वी
00 09
53
886/2ए
26
67 00
884/1वी
00
86
09
867/4
00
04
31
867/5ए
00
02
64
867/5वी
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
867/6 1) पामारू (निरंतर)
876
867/3
867/2
866
859
860/6
870
858/1
858/3
858/ 2ए
858/ 2वी
856/ 2मी
856/ 2वी
856/ 2ए
855/3
854/1 मी
854/ 1 डी
854/2
845
811
844
835/1
835/2
834/1
834/3
834/4
834/5
834/6
826/1
826/4सी
834/7
826/4वी
836
592
570
569/11
569/12
572/3
573/1 वी
573/ 2वी
573/3
8045 3
4
5 00
01
02 00
09
31 00
08
12 00
17
48 00
00
85 00
12
48 00
00
37 00
30
30 00
01
02 00
04
81 00
05
77 00
21
84 00
00
32 00
15
38 00
05
80 00
23
77 00
12
20 00
10
97 00
00
39 00
32
82 00
01
02 00
04
28 00
46
16
00
20
88 00
00
10 00 00
89 00
19
70 00
05
74 00 02
76 00
01
53 00
16
90 00
00
59 01
00
60 12
00
53 00
11
23 00 46
68 18
00
08 00
01
92 07
00
58 00
16
11 00
16
21 00
13
72 [ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
8046
2 1
5 4
3
31 00
00
558/2
1) पामारू (निरंतर)
82
13
00
558/1
58 03
00
558/3
19 00 05
574/6
00
10 00
558/4
08 22
00
557/1वी
12 07
00
557/2
13
88 00
557/3
93 28
00
556/1
08
01
00
556/2
408
62
13
00
17
80 00
409/5
06
10
00
409/4
22 02
00
409/2
10
00
00
409/1
12
64 00
410/1ए
06
01
00
410/1वी
62
15
00
410/2
87 00
00
410/3
85
12
00
411/4
92 00 06
411/3वी
1/3ए
411/2
412
43
07
00
53
14
00
20
11
00
43
00
00
429/1
420
44
06
00
79
34
00
430/4
68
00
00
430/2
428/1
62
02
00
36
08
00
430/3
06
09
00
432/3
48
08
00
432/4वी
28
09
00
433/ 1 सी
49
09
00
433/3
46
39
00
439/1
438
49
00
00
55
13
00
439/ 2वी
57
01
00
439/2ए
10
00
00
444/1 ए
92
05
00
445/2
01
09
00
445/1 वी
61
09
00
445/1 ए
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
437/5 1) पामारू (निरंतर)
437/6
437/4
437/3
437/2
436/4वी मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक मोव्वा
जिला:कृष्णा
4
1 ) पेडसनगल्लु
3
6
9
12
16
15
48
53
58
54
55
57
56
64
69
67
70
71
72
73
74
75
79
80
81
83
207
206
210
211
217
222
221
223
227
4322GI /10-21
8047 3
4
5 00
33
01
00 06
34
07
00
63
05
00
10 00
16
33 00 05
89 राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश
00
04
90 00
00
30 01
06
60 00
05
90 00
77
30
32
00
40 00
15
90 00
03
80 00 42
40 00
05
80 00
17
30 00
23
80 00
05
90 00 30
50 00
13
80 00
13
50 00
59
10 00
00
10 00
03
20 00
26
90 00
78
80 00
34
50 00
04
40 00
60
09
00
03
20 00 59
10 00 05
80 00
21
50 00 45
00 00
24
50 00
17
20 00
07
80 00 12
40 00
21
50 00
04
10
34
00
60 8048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
[Part II Sec . 3 (ii) ]
5
4
2
3
1
40
00 19
225
1 ) पेडसनगल्लु (निरंतर)
24
60
00
226
19
80
00
228
15
80
00
230
11
60
00
231
राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश
जिला:कृण्णा
मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:पमिडीमुक्कला
90
05 34
नदी दो गाँव के वीच में
1) कृष्णा नदी
00
75
00
नदी और गाजुल्लंका गाँव सीमा के बीच में
[फा सं. एल.-14014/74/2010- जी.पी.] स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 12th November , 2010
S. O. 2883.- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from on- shore gas processing terminal at Kakinada on East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country , Vijayawada - Nellore- Chennai pipeline should be laid by M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited;
And , whereas , it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;
Now , therefore , in exercise of powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , Government of India hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri M.A. Gaffar , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, House No. 59-1-18 /3 , Opp. Road to Maries Stella college , Bus route No. 5 , Ramachandra Nagar , Vijayawada 520 008 , Krishna District , Andhra Pradesh State.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
8049
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
Schedule
District : Krishna Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Mudinepalli
Village
Survey No./Sub-Division No.
2 1
1) Guraza
379/1
379/2
371
368
372
367/2
366
365/3
365/2
364
363
362/1
365/1
359/1
358
206/ 2D
206/ 2E
206/ 2F
206/ 2G
206/3
206/4
193
207
249/1
251
252/1
252/2
248/2
247/ 2B
247/ 2A
245/1
245/2
244
264
263
288/4
288/3 State : Andhra Pradesh
Area to be acquired for RoU
C-Are Hec
Are
4
5
3
01
17
00
41
00
07
66
41
00
09
00
24
00
13
36
80
00
18
29
00
36
74
02
00
00
37
08
00
07
70
00
00
75
00
52
75
00
02
01
00
10
88
00
01
35
00
01
63
40
04
00
09
00
53
00
10
45
00
13
62
00
04
30
00
00
80
00
13
04
30
66
00
27
00
26
00
36
80
00
05
13
00
03
70
00
71
04
07
00
29
47
00
06
55
00
01
00
11
70
76
00
05
00
00
10
00
22
00
00
39
08 8050
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
2 1
288/2 1) Guraza ( Contd)
288/1
286/14
286/13
287
285/1
285/3
285/2
284/1
284/3
284/2
District : Krishna Mandal/ Tehsil /Taluk: Pamarru
902
1) Pamarru
903
904/4B
904/4C
904/4E
904/5
904/6C
906
905
907/ 1C
907/ 1D
907/ 1B
892
891
890/5A
890/5B
890/ 5D
890/5C
890/1B
890/4
890/3
886/ 1D
886/ 1C
886/ 1B
886/ 1A
886/2B
886/2A
884/ 1B
867/4
867/ 5A
867/ 5B 4
5
3
00
13
48
00
32
18
09
00
78
00
00
18
05
22
00
00
81
11
21
38
00
19
12
00
80
02
00
93
18
00
30
00
40
State: Andhra Pradesh 00
81
00
07
21
00
10
00
00
94
00
03
00
05
75
96
00
13
26
00
25
00
00
98
32
00
18
20
06
00
00
46
00
04
00
03
00
06
38
06
73
00
00
22
55
15
50
00
74
00
02
00
03
06
30
00
07
05
98
00
89
00
00
00
00
58
00
57
03
00
19
76
06
99
00
00
29
00
00
09
53
67
26
00
00
09
86
00
04
31
64
00
02 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1 ) Pamarru ( Contd)
867/6
876
867/3
867/2
866
859
860/6
870
858/1
858/3
858 / 2A
858/ 2B
856/ 2C
856/ 2B
856 / 2A
855/3
854/ 1C
854 / 1D
854/2
845
811
844
835/1
835/2
834/1
834/3
834/4
834/5
834/6
826/1
826/4C
834/7
826/ 4B
836
592
570
569/ 1A1
569 / 1A2
572/3
573 / 1B
573/ 2B
573/3
8051 3
4
5
00
01
02
00
09
31
00
08
12
00
17
48
00
00
85
00
12
48
00
00
37
00
30
30
00
01
02
00
04
81
00
05
77
00
21
84
00
00
32
00
15
38
00
05
80
00
23
77
00
12
20
00
10
97
00
00
39
00
32
82
00
01
02
00
04
28
00
16
46
00
20
88
00
00
10
00
00
89
00
19
70
00
05
74
00
02
76
00
01
53
00
16
90
00
00
59
00
01
60
00
12
53
00
11
23
00
46
68
00
18
08
00
92
01
00
07
58
00
16
11
00
16
21
00
13
72 Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
8052
2 1
558/2 1) Pamarru ( Contd)
558/1
558/3
574/6
558/4
557/ 1B
557/2
557/3
556/1
556/2
408
409/5
409/4
409/2
409/1
410/ 1A
410/ 1B
410/2
410/3
411/4
411/3B
411 /3A
411/2
412
429/1
420
430/4
430/2
428/1
430/3
432/3
432/4B
433/ 1C
433/3
439/1
438
439/2B
439/2A
444/1A
445/2
445/ 1B
445/ 1A
437/5
437: 6
437/4
437/3
437/2
436/4B
5
4
3
31
00
00
82
13
00
58
03
00
19
05
00
10
00
00
00
22
08
12
07
00
88
00
13
93
00
28
01
08
00
62
13
00
80
17
00
06
10
00
02
22
00
10
00
00
12
6.4
00
01
(06
00
62
15
00
87
00
00
85
12
00
06
92 00
07
43
00
14
53 00
20
11
00
43
00
00
44 00
06
79
34
00
68
00
00
62
02
00
36 00
08
06
09
00
48
08
00
28
(09
00
49 00
09
46 00
39
49
00
00
55 00
13
57 00
01
00
10 00
05
92 00
01 00
09
61 00
09
00
33
01
00
06
34
63
07
00
05
10 00
33 00
16
89 00
05 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2
District : Krishna Mandal/ Tehsil / Taluk : Movva
4
1) Pedasanagallu
3
6
9
12
16
15
48
53
58
54
55
57
56
64
69
67
70
71
72
73
74
75
79
80
81
83
207
206
210
211
217
222
221
223
227
225
226
228
230
231
Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Pamidimukkala
District : Krishna 1 ) Krishna River
8053 3
4
5 State: Andhra Pradesh 00
04
90
00
00
30
01
06
60
00
05
90
00
77
30
00
32
40
00
15
90
00
03
80
00
42
40
00
05
80
00
17
30
00
80
23
00
05
90
00
30
50
00
80
13
00
13
50
00
59
10
00
00
10
00
03
20
00
26
90
00
78
80
00
34
50
00
04
40
00
60
09
00
03
20
00
59
10
00
05
80
00
21
50
00
45
00
00
24
50
00
17
20
00
07
80
00
40
12
00
21
50
00
04
10
00
34
60
00
19
40
00
24
60
00
19
80
00
15
80
00
11
60
State: Andhra Pradesh 05
90
34
River between village boundaries
00
75
00
Between River and Gazullanka Village
[ F. No. L - 14014 / 74 /2010 - GP ] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy .
8054
Sec . 3 (ii ) |
Part II
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29 , 1932
नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 2884. भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएंस इण्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर काकीनाडा स्थित अपतटीय गैस प्रसंस्करण टर्मिनल में देश के विभिन्न हिग्यों में ग्थित उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए, मैगर्म रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा विजयवाडा- नेल्लोर- चेन्नई पाइपलाइन विछाई जानी चाहिए :
और , भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपावद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए:
अतः, अव, भारत सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोपणा करती है:
कोई व्यक्ति. जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धाग 3 की उप- धाग ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीम दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एम .ए . गफ्फार , मक्षम प्राधिकारी, मैमर्म ग्लिोजिगटिक्म इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, नं . 59-1-18/3, मैरिय स्टेला कॉलेज के सामने की गेड में, वम रूट नं . 5 , गमचन्द्रा नगर, विजयवाडा -520008 , कृष्णा जिला, आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची गज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश
जिला:प्रकाशम
मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक चीगला
सर्वे सं . / सब डिविजन सं .
गाँव का नाम
2 1
107
1 ) वाडा
105/2
105/1
108/1
108/2
109
110
111
112
113
114/1
114/2
114/3
115/1
115/2
116/1
116/2
123
124
आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेतफल
हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर
5
4
3
97
19
00
69 00 06
30
00
00
59
17
00
57
07
00
61
13
00
16
15
00
70
15
00
93
12
00
71
12
00
49
08
00
75
04
00
51
07
00
04
13
00
11
07
00
83
11
00
75
08
00
19
09
00
84
08
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
1
2 1)
125
वाडा (निरंतर)
126
147
146
151
152
154
155
162
168/1
197
141/4
141/2
141/1
140/3
140/2
140/1
198/4
198/2
198/1
198/3
196
195
200
8055 3
4
5 00 09
52 00
17
59 00
18
97 00
17
70 00
18
94 00
17
03 00
18
75 00
17
13 00
36
76 00
03
49 00
17
19 00 05
02 00
08
17 00 09
35 00
14
96 00
11
91 00
10
92 00
17
24 00
04
61 00
12
06 00
01
30 00 22
02 00
13
90 00
13
13
206/2
205
204/4
204/3
204/2
204/1
203
202
201/2
224/4
224/3
224/5
247
245/2
245/1
244/7
244/6
244/5वी
244/4वी
244/4ए
244/3
244/1
4322Gl /10-22
00
25
74 00
16
54 00 07
27 00
08
58 00
08
20 00
07
50 00
33
87 00
21
99 00 06
01 00
04
53 00
00
33 00
24
81 00 16
76 00
16
44 00
18
38 00
34
68 00
11
36 00
21
59 00
04
72 00
10
38 00 29
38 00
56
45 [फा सं. एल.-14014/74/2010-जी.पी. ] स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव [Part 11 Sec . 3 ( ii) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKΑ 29. 1932
8056
NewDelhi , the 12th November , 2010
S. O. 2884.- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from on - shore gas processing terminal at Kakinada on East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country , Vijayawada- Nellore- Chennai pipeline should be laid by M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited;
And, whereas , it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , Government of India hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri M.A. Gaffar , Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , House No. 59-1-18/3 , Opp, Roadto Maries Stella college , Bus route No. 5 , Ramachandra Nagar , Vijayawada 520 008 , Krishna District , Andhra Pradesh State .
Schedule
State: Andhra Pradesh
District: Prakasam
Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Chirala
Area to be acquired for ROU
Survey No./Sub-Division No.
Village
C-Are
Are
Hec
5
4
3
2
1
97
19
00
107
1) Vada
69
06
00
105/2
30
00
00
105/1
59
17
00
108/1
57
07
00
108/2
61
13
00
109
15
16
00
110
70
15
00
111
93
12
00
112
71
12
00
113
49
08
00
114/1
04
75
00
114/2
51
07
00
114/3
04
13
00
115/1
11
07
00
115/2
83
11
00
116/1
75
08
00
116/2
19
09
00
123
84
08
00
124
52
09
00
125
59
17
00
126
97
18
00
147 भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
146
1 ) Vada ( Contd)
151
152
154
155
162
168/1
197
141/4
141/2
141/1
140/3
140/2
140/1
198/4
198/2
198/1
198/3
196
195
200
206/2
205
204/4
204/3
204/2
204/1
203
202
201/2
224/4
224/3
224/5
247
245/2
245/1
244/7
244/6
244/ 5B
244/4B
244/4A
244/3
244/1
8057
4
5 3
70
17
00
94 00
18
17
03 00
75 00
18
13
17
00
76 00
36
49
03
00
19
17
00
02 00
05
17
08
00
35 00
09
96
14
00
00
91
11
92
10
00
24 00
17
04
61 00
06
12
00
30
01
00
02
22
00
90
13
00
13
13
00
74
25
00
54
16
00
27
07
00
08
58 00
20
08
00
50 00
07
87
33
00
99
21
00
01
06
00
53
04
00
33
00
00
81
24
00
76 00
16
44
16
00
38
18
00
68
34
00
36
11
00
59
21
00
72
04
00
38
10
00
29
38 00
45
56
00
[ F. No. L - 14014/ 74/2010 -GP ] SNEH P. MADAN, Under Secy.
8058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2885.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एबीएस मेरिन सर्विसिज प्रा.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल -31011 / 2 / 2007 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2010
S.O. 2885.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No.42/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of M/ s . ABS Marine Services Pvt . Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-10-2010 .
[ No. L - 31011 /2 /2007 - IR ( B - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , MUMBAI JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR , Presiding Officer - in charge
Reference No. CGIT - 1 / 42 of 2007
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ABS Marine Services Pvt . Ltd.
AND
Their Workman
APPEARANCES :
: Absent
For the Management
For the workman
: Absent
State
: Maharashtra Mumbai , dated the 28th day of September , 2010
AWARD
1. 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
[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] ofLabour , New Delhi Order No. L - 31011 /2/2007-1R( B - II ) dtd . 5-9-2007 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are asfollows:
"Whether the action of the management of M / s . ABS Marine Services Pvt . Ltd. , Mumbai by terminating the services of Mr. Ramchandra Tatkare without conducting domestic enquiry w.e.f. 19-9-2005 is justified ? If not , what relief the workman Shri Ramchandra Tatkare is entitled to ? " 2. None is present on behalf of either of the parties . This date has been fixed for disposal of the present reference in view of the application filed earlier for such disposal on the basis of the Memorandum of Settlement.
3. Notice was issued to the workman concerned and the acknowledgement card has been received back after due service of the notice , even then , the workman has not appeared . It is presumed that the workman is not interested any more to proceed with the present reference in view of the Memorandum of Settlement and also in view of the application filed to that effect for final disposal of the present reference .
4. Since the workman concerned did not respond to the notice served upon him to represent at the time of passing order , I do not think that the present reference should be pursued any more and it may be disposed of in absence of the parties in view of the situation prevailing .
5. I have gone through the application filed on 27-1-2009 and it contains signature of the First Party and also of the signature of the workman concerned , the signature of Mr. Thankachan , as Advocate for the First Party . Since the signature of the workman concerned namely Mr. Ramachandra Tatkare has been identified by anAdvocate with signature but the name of the said learned Advocate has not been written . However , since the said application bears the signature of the respective parties and also the learned Advocate representing them . I have got no hesitation to accept the said application for passing an order of disposal of the said reference .
6. In view of the application dtd . 27-1-2009 , it appears that since the settlement , no Industrial Dispute is prevailing and so the present reference is finally disposed of for non- prosecution.
7. Award passed accordingly .
JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 200100
का. आ. 2886.-आद्योगिक 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-!, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 137/2000 ) को [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/258/99- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2010 S.O. 2886. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.137/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court- 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-10-2010 .
[No. L- 12012/258/99 - IR (B - II ) ] D. S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case I.D. No. 137/2000
Shri Devinder Pal Singh S/ o Shri J. Singh , Nai Basti Near ITI Chowk , Budhlada Distt . Mansa ( Punjab )
8059
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
parties were primarily heard on the issue of fariness of enquiry. The issue on fairness of enquiry was decided by thisTribunal vide order dated 10-08-2010 . Vide order dated 10-08-2010 the enquiry was held to be fair , proper and in accordance with the rules of principle of natural justice . On decision making of the enquiry officer and on quantum of punishment both of the parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . The workman declined to adduce any evidence on perversity, if any, in decision making of the enquiry officer and of the disciplinary authority in awarding punishment . Accordingly , the evidence of the parties was closed. Parties were heard at length along with their learned counsels . File was reserved for the award.
...Applicant
Versus
Punjab National Bank , The General Manager , PNB , Regional Office- 1 , Sector - 17 - B , Chandigarh
...Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman : Shri Yogesh Kumar Aneja
Shri N.K. Zakhmi
For the Management . :
AWARD
Passed on 27-9-2010
The Government of India vide Notification No. L- 12012/ 258 / 99 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 31-01-2000 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , (the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial di pute for adjudication to this Tribunal : -
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in awarding the punishment of dismissal from services to Shri Devinder Pal Singh S / o Shri Joginder Singh is legal and just? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?"
After receiving the reference , parties were informed . Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The Entire enquiry file which includes the enquiry proceedings , enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are on record. I have perused the entire materials on record . The main issue before this Tribunal is whether the enquiry officer has committed any error while holding the charge proved against the workman . The charge was relating to the stealing a draft book, preparing a draft of Rs . 75,000 and get the draft cash in the fictitious account opened by the workman in the name of Mohinder Singh Sandhu S / o Gurdial Singh Sandhu . The workman replied the charge- sheet and admitted the charge before the enquiry officer . He prayed for lesser punishment on the pretext that monetary loss incurredby bank has been compensated by depositing Rs . 75,000 by the workman . In spite of it , the disciplinary authority ordered for appointment of enquiry officer for fair and full fledged enquiry . The enquiry was conducted . The witness of the bank was cross - examined . Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority proving the charge against the workman . The disciplinary authority after affording him the opportunity of being heard on tentative punishment awarded the punishment of his dismissal from the services . The workman preferred an appeal which was dismissed . Thereafter , the industrial dispute was raised by the workman and on account of failure of conciliation report , thisreference .
After hearing the parties and perusing the entire materials on record, I am of the view that enquiry officer hasrightly held the charge well proved against the workman and disciplinary authority has rightly awarded the punishment of dismissal of the workman from the services . I have come to the conclusion on the following reasons :-
( 1 ) That the workamn admitted the charges voluntarily before the enquiry officer . There is no iota of evidence adduced/ filed by the workman to prove that his admission was not voluntary . During the personal hearing given by the Tribunal on the issue of fariness of enquiry, the workman has stated that he has admitted the charges [PART 11 -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 8060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/49/2005- आई आर( बी-11 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी on the assurance of leaders of the union for lesser punishment . It means it was an assurance of the lesser punishment given by the leaders of the union and not by any officer of the management ofthe bank. Irrespective of the fact that workman before enquiry officer has admitted the charges , enquiry was conducted. The proceedings of the enquiry also proved the misconduct of the workman beyond any shadow of doubt .
New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2010 (2) The workman has not only admitted before the enquiry officer but has admitted before the disciplinary authority regarding his misconduct .
S.O. 2887. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.46/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman , which wasreceived bythe Central Government on 15-10-2010 .
(3) After the punishment of dismissal from the services , the workman filed an appeal and while availing the opportunity of personal hearing afforded by the appellate authority he again admitted the charges . Thus , before all the three authorities namely enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority the workman has admitted the charges voluntarily.
[No. L - 12012/49/2005 -IR ( B - 11 ) | D. S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer Asstated earlier, there is not iota of evidene to doubt on the voluntarily nature of the admission . At the cost of the repetition apart from the admission of the workman before all the three authorities as mentioned above, independent witness have also proved the charges beyond shadow of doubt . Thus , there was no perversity in decision making of the enquiry officer holding the charges well proved against the workman .
ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR PRESENT N.K. PUROHIT, PRESIDING OFFICER I.D. 46/06
Reference No. L - 12012/49/2005-1R ( B - 11 ) dated 16-06-2006
Nandlal Saini S/ o Shri Sualal Saini R/o Through Hanuman Sahai Saini NBC Hatwara Road , Plot No. 479 , Jaipur
V/s
The Asstt . General Manager , Bank ofBaroda, Regional Office . Anand Bhawan , 4th floor , S.C. Road, Jaipur. AWARD
30-8-2010
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause ( d ) of sub - section 1 & 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudiction which runs as under :
It isthe case of stealing of draft book , fabricate the draft and depositing the draft in the account opened in the name of some other person . This was a criminal offence committed by the workman and it was leniency of the management that no criminal action was initiated against the workman . The statement of the workman that no loss was caused to the bank as he has deposited entire amount cannot help the workman because the management is institution carrying of business of finance . It is only place where the financial transactions and regulation of money takes place every day. By such type of fraudulent activities ofthe workman , the confidence of the bank in workman is lost and it is not safe for the institution like bank to continue with any person of such mental temperament . Accordingly, the punishment of dismissal from the services awarded by the management of the bank was proportionate to the committed misconduct. The workman is not entitled for any relief. The industrial dispute and reference is accordingly answered . Let Central Government be approached for publication of award, and thereafter , file be consigned to record room .
G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर , 2010
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda , Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Nand Lal Saini w.e.f. 1st April , 2004 is justified? Ifnot , what reliefthe applicant is entitledto?"
2. Pursuantto the receipt of the reference , the registered notices were issued to both the parties . It appears from the record that the representative for both the parties का. आ . 2887.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
appeared on 7-12-2009 and claim statement was filed on 22-1-2010 . The representative on behalf of the bank sought adjournment for filing reply to the claim statement on 6-5-2010 & 16-6-2010 . Therefore , the case was adjourned for filing the same on next date i.e. 12-8-2010 but on that date none appeared on behalf of the parties . Instead of passing any order on the same date the case was adjourned for proper orders , but again none appeared on behalf of the parties on the next date i.e. 23-8-2010 . Under such circumstances case was reserved for award .
3. In reference under adjudication the question under consideration is whether the alleged action of the management of the bank in termination of the workman is justified . In this regard initial burden was on the workman to prove that he had continuously worked for not less than 240 days in the stipulated period and his termination was in violation of the provisions u/ s 25 ( F) & 25 ( G ) of the Act . But the workman has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his averments in his claim statement .
4. Resultantly, there is no material on record except the claim statement to adjudicate the matter under consideration on merits . It appears that the workman is not willing to contest the case further . Thus under these circumstances " No Claim Award " is passed in this matter .
5. Award as above .
N.K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2888.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/129/2000 - आई आर ( बी -11 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2010
S.O. 2888. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.17 / 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court- 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-10-2010 .
[ No. L - 12012/ 129 /2000 - IR ( B - 11 ) ] D. S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
8061
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 ,
CHANDIGARH
Case I.D. No- . 17/2001
Shri Mohinder Singh , S / o Shri Sadhu Singh C / o General Secy. , BOI Employees Association , Bank Square , Sector- 17-B, Chandigarh
...Applicant
Versus
The Zonal Manager , Bank of India , Zonal Office181-182 , Sector - 17 - C , Chandigarh .
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
:
For the Workman
Workman in person
Shri Rajan Lohan For the Management :
AWARD
Passed on : 27-9-2010
The Government of India vide Notification No. L- 12012 / 129 /2000 - IR( B - II ) , dated 29-12-2000 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , (the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : -
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India (North - Western Zone , Chandigarh ) in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service without notice to Shir Mohinder Singh S / o Shri Sadhu Singh , Ex- Subordinate Staff of Ambala City Branch with effect from 06-08-1997 is just and legal ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to? "
After receiving the reference parties were informed . Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . On perusal of the pleadings of the parties , the main dispute for adjudication before this Tribunal is whether there was any perversity in decision making of the enquiry officer holding the charge proved against the workman ? Secondly , whether the disciplinary authority has rightly awarded the punishment of dismissal of workman from the services ? The charge sheet was issued to the workman for his unauthorized absent for more than 30 days . The enquiry was conducted as per rules . Vide order dated 25-02-2010 , enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer has held to be fair , proper , reasonable and according to the principle of natural justice . Vide said order dated 25-02-2010 parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence on decision making of the enquiry 8062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
officer and disciplinary authority during the departmental proceedings .
The workman filed his affidavit . One more person Shri Rajpal Singh filed his affidavit in support of the workman . Both of the witnesses were cross - examined by learned counsel for the management . Management was also afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence but in spite of affording number of opportunities no evidence was filed/adduce . Accordingly, vide order dated 19-05-2010 the evidence of the management on both of the above mentioned issues was closed . Both of the parties were heard at length and the file was reserved for award .
During the cross -examination the workman has admitted that he was absent for more than 30 days for which he was issued the charge sheet. The reason for absence , narrated in his evidence , is his ailment . No document regarding his ailment , diagnosis and treatment have been filed by the workman . During the cross- examination , the workman has also stated on oath that he was caught by ghost. WW2 , Shri Rajpal Singh has also stated on oath in open Court that he knows the workman and he was ill . But he has shown his ignorance about nature of ailment and treatment given to him . Later on , he has adduced that he was treated by a Doctor at Burail . The charge was regarding unauthorized absenm More than 30 days which the workman has admitted before this Tribunal . Thus there is no perversity in decision making of the enquiry officer holding the charge of unauthorized absent for more than 30 days well proved against the workman.
The disciplinary authority after affording the opportunity of being heard has awarded the punishment of his dismissal from the services . The core issue left for adjudication is whether the punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to the committed misconduct . While awarding the punishment of dismissal from the services , the disciplinary authority has also mentioned the previous charges and the punishments awarded to the workman . The workman has challenged it, by stating that punishment on the charge on unauthorized absent cannot be guided by the previous misconducts . For previous misconducts the workman has been punished separately. Thus , the question arise whether administrative conscious ofthe disciplinary authority can be guided by the previous misconducts , charges , and punishments of the workman whileawarding the punishment for subsequent misconduct. The answer to this is in my view is positive . It is admitted that prior to the charge sheet and punishment in question the workman was charge sheeted twice . Both of the charges were of similar nature . On first occasion he was awarded the lesser punishment . But on second and subsequent misconduct of the similar nature the disciplinary authority
PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] awarded the punishment of the dismissal of the workman from the services . The appellate authoriy review the decision of the disciplinary authority and punishment of dismissal was substituted with the lesser punishment . The workman again absented . For his absence once again he wasgiven the charge sheet and the charge was well proved . The disciplinary authority after conducted the lawful department proceedings awarded the punishment of his dismissal from the services . Under the circumstances ,where the previous charges against the workman were of the similar nature and the workman was habitual unauthorized absentee from the services , the administrative conscious ofthe disciplinary authority can be guided by the previous misconducts and the punishments awarded to the workman.
Thus , the disciplinary authority has rightly stated that previously minor punishment were awarded in similar nature of misconducts . The workman has not corrected himselfand shows the same habitual indiscipline by making unauthorized absent . Administration inaction and laxity which resulted indiscipline in any organization should not be tolerated . The person who is guilty of administrative inaction and laxity should be dealt with in proportionate to the committed misconduct . As stated earlier , on previous two occasions minor punishment was awarded but indiscipline , misbehaviour and misconduct of the workman continued. Accordingly, the punishment of dismissal from the services , considering the facts and circumstances of the case , was proportionate punishment to the committed misconduct and the management has rightly show the way out to the workman from the department . Accordingly there is no force in the contention of the workman . The reference is accordingly answered . Let Central Government he approached for publication of award, and thereafter, file be consigned to record room .
G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर, 2010
का.आ. 2889.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 221/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06 10 2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/91/2001 आई आर ( बी 11 ) | डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2010 S.O. 2889. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.221 / [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
8063 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
2002) of the Central Government Industrial TribunalLabour Court- 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06-10-2010.
[ No. L - 12012/ 91 /2001 - IR (B- II ) ]
D. S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case I.D. No- . 221/2002
Shri Krishan Kumar , S/ o Shri Jai Narain Sharma , Village & Post- Naultha, Panipat, Haryana
...Applicant
Versus
as temporary peon without affording him the opportunity to work. The reference in question is also of the same nature . The candidature of Shri Arjun is also involved in reference . So vide order dated 17-12-2008 the management was directed to place entire records relating to Shri Arjun .No record was filed by the management . It is admitted by the workman that he only worked for 90 days and had not completed 240days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination. His only contention is that after his termination one Shri Arjun Singh was engaged at his place and he was not afforded the opportunity to work. The Industrial Disputes Act protects the right of every causal worker against illegal termination . If the termination ofany daily waged worker's necessary, meaning thereby, if the services of any daily waged worker is no more required and he had completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination , one month notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation is mandatory as regulated by the Industrial DisputesAct . On the other hand , if after the termination of services of any workman , similar nature of work is available with the management priority shall be given to the retrenchee .
The Senior Branch Manager, Central Bank of India , G.T. Road , Panipat , Haryana
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the Workman :
Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj
Shri A.K. Batra
For the Management:
AWARD
Passed on : 27-9-2010
Government of India vide notification no . L - 12012/ 91 / 2001 - IR(B - II ) , dated 24-10-2002 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , (the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-
"Whether the claim of Shri Krishan Kumar S / o Shri Jai Narain Sharma that his services were illegally terminated by the management of Central Bank of India w.e.f. 02-05-2000 and that Shri Arjun was engaged as a Peon in his place in violation of Section 25 - H of the ID Act , 1947 is justified and legal ? If so, what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to ? "
After receiving the reference. parties were informed.
In written statement management has agreed the appointment of workman as daily waged worker for the period workman has alleged . In para no . 6 of the claim statement is relating to the appointment of Arjun after the termination of the services of the workman . The management has only stated that bank has its own rules and regulations for the public appointment . It is not denied that Arjun was not engaged as daily waged worker after the termination of the services of the workman . In cross- examination ofthe witness of the management , it is admitted by the workman that Shri Arjun Singh has worked up to July 2000. The record of after July 2000 has been not obtained from the branch concern . This evidence was recorded on 13-07-2010 . Vide order dated 17-12-2008 , the details ofArjun were ordered to be filed by the management . Accordingly, for want of records relatingto Shri Arjun evidence was deferred . The witness Shri A.K. Batra again appeared on 10-08-2010 and without providing the relevant record he has stated that Arjun was engaged after 2000. He worked upto August 2000. In evidence dated 13-07-2010 he has deposed on oath that Arjun had worked up to July 2000 , whereas , in evidence recorded on oath on 10-08-2010 he has deposed that Arjun was engaged upto August 2000. Thereafter , no workman was engaged and work was discharged by the permanent staff. Due to absence of the staff Arjun was engaged . Thereafter, the management has stated that Arjun was engaged when the permanent employees was on leave . Thus , it is admitted and proved that after the termination of services of workman Shri Krishan Kumar the same nature of work was taken by one Arjun Singh. It is violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and on such violation the Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The case of the workman in nut shell is that he was engaged as temporary peon by the management of the bank on 21-12-1999 and he worked up to 01-05-2000 . His name was removed from the muster rolls from 20-04-2000 but he had worked up to 01-05-2000 . His services were terminated without notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation . After the termination of his services one Shri Arjun was appointed
4322Gl /10-23 [PART 11---SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
8064
And
Their Workman
reinstatement of the workman on the same position on which he was working prior to his termination is the only. remedy.
APPEARANCES :
Mrs. Geeta Raju , Adv.
For the Management :
: Workman present
For the Workman
Maharashtra
:
State
Mumbai , dáted the 27th day of September , 2010
AWARD
1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d ) of sub section 1 ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( The Act for short ) vide Government of India , Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi Order No. L- 12011 / 17 /2007 - IR ( B - II) dt . 17-8-2007. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:
The management has contended that Arjun has worked only for few months , likewise , management has further contended that workman had also worked less then 90 days . It is immaterial how many days workman or one Shri Arjun had worked . Even the work was available for a day it was mandate of law to provide the same to Shri Krishan Kumar and not to any other person . This right of Shri Krishan Kumar was violated and this act of the management is against the provisions of the Act . Accordingly, the management is directed to reinstate the workman on the same position on which he was previously working before his termination. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case he will not be entitled for the back wages . The industrial dispute is accordingly answered. Let Central Government be approached for publication of award and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
GK . SHARMA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर, 2010
"Whether the action of the management ofM/s . Can FinHomes Ltd. in not regularising the leave and not paying the wages from 14-03-2006 to Mrs. Cynthia Pereira is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for ? "
2. The workman , Mrs. Cynthia Pereira is personally present and filed an application with prayer for final disposal ofthis matterby permitting her to withdraw the dispute. She had also filed another application with the same prayer earlier on December 1, 2009.
का.आ. 2890.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार, मैसर्स केन फिन होमस लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय ।, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[फा. सं. एल-12011/17/2007- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2010
3. Mrs. Cynthia Pereira is personally heard and she expressed that she is representing her own case and she is not being represented by any workman Union and she also expressed that since she has no grievance at present against the Management and since there is no Industrial Dispute at present , she does not want to proceed with this matter any more and wanted to withdraw the present dispute.
S.O. 2890. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 48/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court- 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the management of M/s . Can Fin Homes Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-10-2010 .
[F. No. L- 12011/ 17 /2007 - IR ( B - 11 ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
4. Mrs. Geeta, learned Advocate for the Management submitted that since the workman herself volunteered to endthe dispute by withdrawing her claim , the Management has got no objection against her prayer. in such circumstances , since the approach of Mrs. Pereira is voluntary as it appears , the prayer sought for final disposal ofthe dispute is ordered treating the present reference having no Industrial Dispute at present . Let the Award be passed accordingly.
ANNEXURE
JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 अक्तूबर , 2011 ) BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI
JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR Presiding Officer- in charge
REFERENCE No. CGIT- 1 /48 of 2007
का. आ. 2891.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरियंटल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय । नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Can Fin Homes Ltd.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
35/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल -12011/ 18/ 2010 - आई आर ( बो- II ) ] डी. एस . एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2010
S.O. 2891. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 35/ 2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2010.
[ No. L- 12011 / 18 /2010 - IR ( B - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
1.D. No. 35/2010
The General Secretary, All India Bank Staff Association , 33-34 , Bank Enclave , Ring Road , Rajouri Garden , New Delhi - 110037 .
8065
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
incident , on 22-11-2005 , Shri K.L. Khurana deposited a Cheque No. 017963 dated 17-11-2005 drawn for a sum of Rupees two lacs in his account No. SB - A/ c 13246 maintained at the said branch . Cheque was not credited to his account . The said cashier- cum- clerk stole that cheque and encashed it at the counter of Rajinder Nagar branch of the bank on 23-11-2005 by forging signatures of Shri K.L. Khurana . For these misconducts a charge - sheet was served on him. An enquiry was conducted and punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefit was awarded to him , vide order dated 18-1-2008 . He assailed that order and filed a claim statement before the Conciliation Officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal , vide order No. L - 12011 / 18 /2010 - IR ( B - II ) , New Delhi , dated 22-7-2010 with following terms:
"Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce in terminating the services of Shri Anuj Kumar , Ex- cashier- cum- clerk , Fatehpuri , Chandni Chowk Branch , New Delhi , w.e.f. 18-1-2008 , isjust fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workman isentitled ?"
Vide order of reference , the appropriate Government commanded that the General Secretary, All India Bank Staff Association , who was espousing the cause of the claimant before the authorities , to file claim statement within 15 days from receipt of the order of reference . Despite the command, so given by the appropriate Government , claim statement was not filed .
Workman
Versus
The Assistant General Manager ( Personnel ) , Oriental Bank of Cemmerce , HQ Harsha Bhawan , E Block , Connaught Place , New Delhi .
3. A notice was sent to the General Secretary, All India Bank Staff Association , 33-34 , Bank Enclave , Ring Road , Rajouri Garden , New Delhi , by registered post on 9-8-2010 calling upon him to file claim statement . Despite service ofthat notice , no claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimant . Another notice was sent to the General Secretary by registered post on 24-8-2010 to file claim statement . Despite service of the said notice , claim statement was not filed on behalf of the claimant .
...Management
AWARD
A clerk - cum- cashier posted at Fatehpuri Branch , Oriental Bank of Commerce , conspired with his associate , namely, Netrapal to commit theft in that branch of the bank. On 15th of April , 2006 , he called his associate in the bank during evening hours and made him to conceal his presence in cash cabin . He went inside the toilet and hide himself. However , his presence was noticed there by a lady , who brought that fact to the knowldge of Shri Ashok Kumar , a daily wager employee of the bank . By the time Ashok Kumar went in his search , he concealed himself in meter room, from where he was brought out and premises of the bank were locked . After sometime , he asked the watchman to open the bank premises . When bank premises were opened , he brought out his associate Netrapal . Those facts were brought to the notice of the authorities . Besides that 4. In reference order the claimant is to be served through General Secretary, All India Bank Stall Association , 33-34, Ring Road , Rajouri Garden , New Delhi . Except that address no other address is available , on which steps may be taken to command the claimant to file his claim statement . Under these circumstances this Tribunal cannot take any other steps for service of the claimant , calling upon him to file claim statement .
5. On 3rd of September , 2010 , Shir J.N. Kapoor , General Secretary , All India Bank Staff Association , appeared before this Tribunal in a case . He was informed that the case was listed for 6-9-2010 for filing of the claim statement . Tie conceded that service of the notice was effected upon him . However , he presented that the claimant has taken away his file from him and his present whereabouts are not known to him . Therefore , it is evident 8066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
that the claimant and his union were aware about the reference and date of hearing before this Tribunal . Despite opportunities accorded to them , no claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimant.
6. The bank filed its response , alongwith the documents , to the reference made by the appropriate Government . It has been projected therein that a charge- sheet was served upon the claimant and an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry conducted by the bank was fair and in consonance with the priniciples of natural justice . Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits to the claimant , vide its order dated 18-1-2008 . It has been projected that the claimant is not entitled to any relief.
7. On perusal of record it came to light that Anuj Kumar was serving as Clerk- cum-Cashier at Fatehpuri Branch of the bank . He used to commute to the said branch ofthe bank from Khurja . He conspired with Netrapal to commit theft in the bank . In furtherance to the conspiracy so entered , he called Netra Pal to the branch in evening hours on 15th of April , 2006. Anuj Kumar hid him insider cash cabin . Shri H.S. Virdhi and D.K. Batra were doing closing work and sitting late in the bank that day. Around 5.45 PM the claimant hid himself in the toilet . One lady went to toilet and found it bolted. She kept on standing in the passage outside the door of toilet . When she was noted byAshok Kumar, she informed him that someone was inside the toilet. Ashok Kumar went inside and reported that none was there . The lady went inside and came out immediately and asserted that someone was there in next room to the toilet . Ashok Kumar went in the next room (meter room) and found Anuj Kumar sitting inside. It was dark there , Anuj Kuamar came outside and sat on sofa. When Ashok Kumar enquired as to why he was hiding himself in the meter room , he replied that he will let him know after wards . Shri Anuj Kumar was sweating at that time. Shri Batra and Vijay came down stairs and bank premises were closed . Anuj Kumar kept standing outside the bank premises . Shri Vijay enquired as to why he was standing outside . On that enquiry he told that he has missed his train . When Shri H.S. Virdhi and Mr. D.K. Batra went away Anuj Kumar told Ashok Kumar that his friend was inside , who was to be brought out . Shri Ramesh Chand , A.T.M. Guard opened the branch. Anuj Kumar went inside and brought Netra Pal alongwih him . Netra Pal was having a polyythene bag with him . These facts were brought to notice authorities and on 21-4-2006 Anuj Kumar confessed hisguilt before the Chief Manager .
8. On 22-1-2005 Shri K.L. Khurana , S.B. A/ c No. 13246 holder, deposited a cheque No. 017963 dated 17-11-05 , drawn for a sum of rupees two lacs on Rajinder Nagar branch of the bank, at Fatehpuri branch . The said cheque was not credited to his account . Anuj Kumar stole that cheque , went to Rajinder Nagar branch on 23-11-05 and encashed it be forging signatures of Shri K.L. Khurana . Thus he cheated
PART II SEC.3 ( ii ) | Shri Khurana as well as bank authorities to the tune of rupees two lacs .
9. For misconducts referred above , a charge sheet was served on Anuj Kumar. Shri S.V. Taneja was appointed as E.O. and B.B. Wadhwa as Presenting Officer. Enquiry Officer served a notice on the claimant to appear before him , to answer the charges . The claimant opted not to appear before the Enquiry Officer, who conducted proceedings exparte . He submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, who awarded punishment of removal from service on the claimant .
10. When the workman did not opted to avail opportunity then subsequently he connot challenge the enquiry which was continued in his absence , claiming it to be violative of principles of natural jusitce . When the workman intentionally refused to participate in the enquiry he cannot complain that his dismissal is against principles of natural justice. Lawto this effect was laid in Sadul TextilesMills Limited [ 1957 ( 1 ) LJ 5721 , Bagchi ( P.N. ) & Co. Private Limited [ 1959 ( 1 ) LLJ 605 ] , Muir Mills Company Limited (24 FJR123 ), Major U.R. Bhatt | 1962 ( 1 ) 1.1.J 656 ] . Ghansham Dass Srivastava [ 1968 ( 2 ) LLJ 246 ) and Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ 171 .
11. Normally in a judical proceedings a party is notto be heard who absents himself from the hearing and if the quasi judicial authority holds proceedings exparte in such a case , then it will not amount to misconduct on his part . Law to this effect was laid in S. Govinda Menon ( 1973 ( 2 ) LLJ 369] . In view ofthese proposition of law, it is crystal clear that the Enquiry Officer is not guilty of violating the principles of natural justice . The Disciplinary Authority tried to seek an explanation of the workman but he could not succeed , since the workman had decided not to respond to the communications sent by the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer . Under these circumstances it was beyond the competence of the authority to accord an opportunity of being heard to the workman.
12. There is other fact of the coin . Claimant was called upon by the Enquiry Officer to appear before him on 14-11-07. He opted not to appear before the Enquiry Officer . Enquiry Officer proceeded with the matter and recorded witnesses ofthe bank. Confession made by him on 21-4-06 was proved before the Enquiry Officer. These facts led the Enquiry Officer to conclude that charges against the claimant stood proved , on face of confession which was exhibited as Ex. M-1. When claimant admitted charges levelled against him and made an unconditional and unqualified confession then nothing was to be done by way of an enquiry and it connot be argued that proceedings of the departmantal enquiry should have been continued notwithstanding such admission or confession . When a worker, called for enquiry. admits charges and his union representative is also present who does st dispute that fact , then the cannot later on complain to say that there was no enquiry against him.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
8067 भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29. 1932
When there is an admission of guilt , in an unconditional and unqualified manner , conduct of an enquiry would be empty formality. Law to this effect was laid in J.L. Toppo (AIR 1963 Patna 177 ) , Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd. [ 1967 ( II ) LLJ 715 ] , Central Bank of India Ltd. [ 1967 ( II ) LLJ 739 ] and Rabindra Mohan ( AIR 1961 Tripura 1).
words , the industrial adjudicator could not interfere with the punishment as is was not required to consider propriety or adequacy of punishment or whether it was excessive or too severe . Apex Court , in this connection , had , however , laid down in Benga ! Bhatdee Coal Company 1963 ( 1 ) LLJ 2911 that where order of punishment was shokingly disproportionate with the act of the misconduct which no reasonable employer would impose in like circumstances . that itself would lead to the inference of victimization or unfair labour practice which would vitiate order of dismissal or discharge . But by enacting the provisions of Section 11 - A of the Act , the Legislature has transferred the discretion of the employer in imposing punishment , to the industrial adjudicator. It is now the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of misconduct . in cases of discharge or dismissal . If the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified in any circumstances on the facts of a case , it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment anddirect reinstatement with back wages , but it has also the power to imposed certain conditions as it may deem fit and also to give relief to the workman , including award of lesser punishment in lieu of disharge or dismissal .
13. When admission made by an employee shows that he had committed misconduct then question of violation of principles of natural justice cannot have any relevance . If a misconduct is admitted then this is ante- thesis to violation of principles of natural justice or victimization . If the workman admits his guilt before the Enquiry Officer , there is no obligation on the management to lead evidence on merits because that would be empty formality and in such cases there can not be violation of principles of natural justice . An explanation needbe called from an employee and enquiry necessitated only when a charge is denied and the employee wants to put up a defence in support of his case . In case of admission of guiltby the employee , formality of enquiry stands obviated . Law to this effect was laid in Boisanabi Tea Estate ( 1989 Lab . I.C. 557 ) , Food Corporation of India [ 1983 ( 3 ) S.L.R. 116 ] , T.K. Singh ( 1969 S.L.R.18 ) , and Ram Subhash Ojha (AIR 1967 Cal . 81 ) .
14. When findings are based on admission of guilt by delinquent employee then though technically it is true that the witnesses cited by the management or employee were not examined by the Enquiry Officer but this under such circumstances , would not cause any prejudice to him and non - examination of defence witnesses cannot be said to have invalidated the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Once an opportunity to show cause is given to an employee the employer is exonerated of its duty of giving reasonable opportunity to the employee concerned. But if the employee does not avail opportunity for showing cause and throws himself at the mercy of the Disciplinary Authority or tender an unqualified apology then he is not entitled to any relief on the ground that the enquiry was in violation of the principles of natural justice . In domestic enquiries principles of criminal jurisprudence , requiring absolute proof of guilt cannot be imported . Reference can be made to the precedent in Bhagati Singh ( AIR 1966 Pat . 205) . Hindustan Aircraft Ltd. [ 1969 ( 2) LLJ 45 ) and John (AIR 1965 S.C. 163 ) . In view of these facts it is concluded that the enquiry was fair and proper.
16. It is established law that imposing punishment for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing authority to decide and normally it should not be interferred with by the Industrial Tribunal . The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment . But where the punishment is shokingly disproportionate . regard being had to the particular conduct and past record . or is such as no reasonable employer would ever in these make circumstance , the Tribunal may treat the imposition of such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair labour practice . Law to this effect was laidby the Apex Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Labour [ 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 462 ] . Likewise in Management of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry [ 1971 ( II ) LL.J 630 ] the Apex Court ruled that the employer made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trivial matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be unwarranted . In Ram Kishan | 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ 982 | the delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using abusive language against a superior officer. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case , the Apex Court held that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputedto the delinquent . It was ruled therein , " when abusive language is used by anybody against a superior , it mustbe understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive language . No straight - jacket formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the 15. Are there any justification for punishment of dismissal ? Right of an employer to inflict punishment of discharge or dismissal is not unfattered . The punishment imposed must be commensurative with gravity of the misconduct , proved against the delinquent workman . Prior to enactment of Section 11 - A of the Act , it was not open to the industrial adjudicator to very the order of punishment on finding that the order of dismissal was too severe and was not commensurative with act of misconduct . In other [ PART 1 ] --SEC . 3 ( ii) | 8068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . NOVEMBER 20, 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service . Each case has to be considered on its own facts. "
dismissal was not justified . This satisfaction of the Tribunal isobjective satisfaction and not subjective one . It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to various circumstances like nature of delinquency omittedby the workman , his past conduct , impact of delinquency on employer's business , besides length of service rendered by him. Furthermore , the Tribunal has to consider whether thedecision taken by the employer is just or not . Only after taking into consideration these aspects , the Tribunal can upset the punishment imposed by the employer. The quantum ofpunishment cannot be interfered with without recordeing specific findings on points referred above . No indulgence is to be granted to a person , who is guilty of gave misconduct like cheating , fraud , misappropriation of employers fund, theft of public property etc. A reference cannot be made to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa [1995 ( 1 ) LLJ 960 ] .
17. In B.M. Patil [ 1996 ( II ) LLJ 536] , Justice Mohan Kumar of Karnatka High Court observed that in exercise of discretion , the disciplinary authority should not act like a robot and justice should be moulded with humanism and understanding . It was assess each case on its own merit and each set of fact should be decided with reference to the evidence recording the allegation , which should be basisof the decision . The past conduct of the worker may be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity to commit the misconduct and to assess the qunatum of punishment to be imposed . In that case a conductor ofthe bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss of 50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets . It was held that the punishment was too harsh and disproportionate to the act of misconduct.
20. Whether punishment awarded to the claimant does not commensurate with the misconduct ? For an answer , facts are to be scanned again . Anuj Kumar conspired to commit theft with Netra Pal in the bank premises .He called Netra Pal in bank premises on 15-4-06 and concealed him in cash cabin . He also concealed himself in meter room . His presence was noted by Ashok Kumar, who brought the claimant out . When bank was closed at that time claimant disclosed that Netra Pal was inside the bank premises . After opening bank premises Netra Pal was brought out . These facts highlight that the claimant conspired to commit theft in the bank premises and took steps in furtherence of that consipiracy. All these facts are suggestive that the claimant took steps to cause damage to the bank's property.
21. On 22-11-05 the claimant stole cheque No. 017963, deposited by Shri K.L. Khurana in his account in S.B. A/ c 1436. He took that cheque to Rajinder Nagar branch and forged signatures of Shri Khurana and received payment of rupees two lacs . Thus it is evident that the claimant committed forgery and cheated the bank as well as Khurana of a sum of rupess two lacs . Act of forgery and cheating are also grave . If an employee commits such serious misconduct bank looses confidence in him . Bank cannot be asked to have faith in such employee . He connot be permitted to remain in service . Therefore , punishment of removal from service , awarded to the claimant cannot be termed as shockingly disproportionate to his misconduct.
18. After insertion of Section 11 - A of the Act , the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with the Tribunal , who has to see whether punishment imposed by the employer is commensurative with the gravity of the act of misconduct . If it comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment is not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any other relief, including the award of lesser punishment , in lieu of discharge or dismisssal , as the circumstance of the case may warrant . Referene can be made to a precedent in Sanatak Singh ( 1984 Lab . I.C. 817 ). The discretion to award punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal can interfere ony when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the decree ofthe guilt of workman . Reference can be made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar [ 1994 ( II ) LLJ 332) . Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now jurisdiction and power of substituting its own measure of punishment in place of the managerial wisdom , once it is satisfied that the order of discharge of dismissal is not justified . On facts and in the circumstances of a case , Section 11A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers to the Industrial Tribunal , first is virtually the power of appeal against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer in his report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence and the conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost importance, is the power of reappraasal of quantum of punishment .
22. In view of the facts detailed above , it is found thataction of the bank in awarding punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits to Anuj Kumar vide its order dated 18-1-08 is held to be just , fair and legal . The claimant is not entitled to any relief in that regard . An award is accordingly passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated: 17-9-2010
19. Power to set aside order of discharge or dismissal and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is not untramaled power. This power has to be exercised only when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2892.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स प्रदीप कोक इन्डस्ट्रीज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक आधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/1992 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -20012 /196/1991- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2010
S.O. 2892. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 8 / 1992) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Pradeep Coke Industries and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2010 .
[No. L - 20012/ 196/ 1991 - IR (C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 AT DHANBAD Presiding Officer: H. M. SINGH ,
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) ofthe 1. D. Act , 1947
REFERENCE No. 8 of 1992
Parites : Employers in relation to the management of Pradeep Coke Industries and their workmen
APPEARANCES :
None
:
Onbehalf ofthe Workman
None
:
On behalf of the Employers
State : Jharkhand
8069 of S / Shri Prabhunath Pandey, Bijoy Ram and Bhim Paswan w.e.f. 10-3-91 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman are entitled ? "
2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the concerned workmen it has been stated that the concerned workmennamely S/Shri Parbhunath Pandey , Bijoy Ram and Bhim Paswan has been working as permanent workmen of Pradeep Coke Industry since long with unblemished record of service . It has been alleged that the management have scanty respect for the settled law of the land the management appointed the workmen beyond imagination of the commonman . The concerned workmen tried to mobilise the workmen against the anti - labour and exploitation of the management which annoyed them to the extent of permination of service of the concerned workmen in violation of the mandatory provisions of law. The concerned workmen have put in more than 240 days attendance in each clendar year . The management terminated the services of the concerned workmen in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation ofSection 25 - F of the 1. D. Act, 1947. Seeing no other alternative the union of the concerned workmen raised in industrial dispute before the ALC ( C ) Dhanbad which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . It has been prayed on behalf of the concerned workmen to pass an Award in favour of the workmen directing the management to reinstate them in service with full back wages .
3. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of the management it has been stated by them that the present reference is not legally maintainable . The management is running a snail scale industry and is nor running any mine , therefore the present reference is beyond the jurisdiction ofthe Hon'ble Tribunal .
Industry : Coke
Dated , Dhanbad , the 16th July , 2010
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of its powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) ( d ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 20012/ 196 / 1991 - IR ( Coal - I ) ,dt . the Nil .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M / s . Pradeep Coke Industries in terminaing the services 4. The management have further stated that Shri Prabhunath Pandey was not a workman of the management . He was not engaged by the management in any capacity . He is a union leader and goes to the factory along with his supporters to create disturbances in the factory from time to time . As he is not a workman the question of terminating him from his service did not arise . With regard to the concerned workman Bhim Paswan it has been stated that he was working as Temporary Trammer from 15-4-90 and left his employment on 27-11-90 at his own volition without any information to the management . He was not able to perform his duties properly and left employment at his own accord. Shri Bijoy Ram was engaged as Trollyman on 1-4-90 and worked upto 15-2-91 . As he was contracted with Leprosy other workmen were not willing to work with him . So he was advised to get himself medically treated and to join again after recovery from illness . Thereafter he did not report for duty . Therefore , the allegation of the concerned workmen that they have 8070
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
beenterminated from service is false baseless and without any merit. Accordingly prayer has been made to pass an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workmen .
evidence . Onus lies upon them to prove that they have completed 240 days and management have terminated their services . I have gone through the materials on record and I have failed to find out any merit in the claim of the concerned workmen . Accordingly the following Award is rendered:
5. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of each other'swritten statement .
"Since the concerned workman Prabhunath Pandey was not the worker of the management , the question of his termination does not arise . The other two concerned workman Bhim Paswan and Bijoy Ram have left their job of their own sweetwill so the question of their termination never arise . " 6. It appears from the record that management side in order to substantiate their claim has produced one Shri Khudiram Dutta who has been examined as MW - 1 . He has proved documents marked as Ext . M - 1 to M- 1 /4 . No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the workman to substantiate their claim .
H. M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर, 2010 7. In this case at the stage of hearing argument none ofparties have turned up for placing their argument . Now let me consider the case on besis of materials on record .
का.आ. 2893. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार फैडरल बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , एरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 72/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल-12012/75/1998- आईआर ( बी । ) | रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2010
S.O. 2893. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award I. D. ( Ref. No.72/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Federal Bank Ltd. and the General Secretary, Federal Bank Staff Union , Alwaye, received by the Central Government on 20-10-2010 .
[ No. 1.- 12012/75/ 1998-1R ( 13-1 ) | RAMESH SINGH . Desk Officer ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT , ERNAKULAM Present: Shri P. L. NORBERT, B.A. , LL.B , Presiding Otlicer (Tuesday the 28th day of October, 2008 /6th Karthika 1930 ) 1. D. 72/2006 (I. D.47/1998 of Labour Court , Ernakulam )
:
Union
The General Secretary. Federal Bank StaffUnion , Champion Building . Bank Junction , Alwaye .
By Adv. Sri . II . B. Shenoy.
Management :
8. Ithas been contended on behalf of the concerned workmen in their written statement that they has been working as permanent workmen of the management. They have put in continuous service and they have put in more than240 days ofattendance . The management terminated the services of the concerned workmen in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act . , 1947. Management on the other hand submitted that Shri Prabhunath Pandey was not a workman of the management and the other concerned workmen namely Shri Bhim Paswan and Shri Bijcy Ram left the services ofmanagement of their own choice . In this context the evidence of MW - I is very impotant . In course of his evidence in examination - in chief he has stated "the workman Prabhunath Pandey never workd in the Coke industry and two other workmen have worked for less than 1 year in our Coke Industry . Workman Prabhunath Pandey used to sit in the place outside the plant and was working as leader. Workman Bhim Paswan worked from 15-4-90 to 17-11-90 as Trollyman . He was a temporary workman . He was not physically fit work in Coke Bhatta and he left job of his own . Workman Bijoy Ram worked from 1-4-90 to 25-2-91 . He was suffering from leprosy and other workers protested out of fear. We asked to get treatment of the disease and after being fit to produce medical certificate and rejoin the work . Thereafter he never turned up with medical certificate for work . " This statement of the management witness shows that Prabhunath Pandey was not the worker of the management and two other workmen namely Bhim Paswan left the job of his own as he was not medically fit and Bijoy Ram , other workmen was suffering from leprosy and the management directed him to get medically treated and after recovery to rejoin the work with medical fitness certificate . But he never turned up and have not completed 240 days in any calendar year. Nothing has come out from the cross - examination of MW- 1 which may help the case of the concerned workmen.
The Chairman , Federal Bank Limited , HeadOffice , Alwayc- 683 101 By Adv. M/ s . B. S. Krishnan Associates .
9. It appears from the record that the workmanside inspite of getting ample opportunities did not adduce any 8071
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii )]
This case coming up for final hearing on 20-10-2008 , this Tribunal- cum- Labour Court on 28-10-2008 passed the following.
AWARD
This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of 1.D. Act . The reference is :
"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Federal Bank Ltd. in dismissing the services of workman Sri.C.C. Dinesh , Clerk w.e.f. 30-04-1997 for the allged charge of absenting without leave , is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" .
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: -- Sri . C. C. Dinesh was a Clerk of Girinagar branch of Federal Bank. He was charge sheeted by two charge sheets dated 6-11-1993 and 22-11-1993 . The allegation in both charge sheets is that he remained absent without leave and in view of earlier three punishments for minor misconduct the present unauthorised absence is a gross misconduct of habitually remaining absent without leave . As per the first charge sheet it was alleged that he remained absent from 16-09-1993 to 23-09-1993 ( 8 days ) and resumed duty on 24-09-1993, but applied for leave only on 18-10-1993 .As per the 2nd charge sheet he is said to have remained absent without applying from 15-11-1993 onwards . He applied for leave only on 18-11-1993 for a few days on sick ground . Two enquiries were conducted and he was found guilty of habitual absence without complying with leave rules . In view of the earlier three punishments for the same misconduct by imposing censure twice and stoppage of increment for 6 months without cumulative effect, he was dismissed from service treating it as a major misconduct .
3. The contention of the union is that the charges are vague . The charge sheets are silent about the witnesses to be examined and documents to be relied on by the management . The vital documents sought for by the worker were not produced by the management. Defence witness was not allowed to be examined by the Enquiry Officer. Thedisciplinary authority did not properly assess the evidence and analyse the findings of enquiry officer in the proper perspective . At any rate the punishment is bad and excessive . The management has not passed any order on the leave applications submitted by the worker. Hence the charge cannot stand . The worker is entitled to be reinstated with back wages and other benefits .
4. According to the management the worker was in the habit of absenting . He used to apply for leave only after resuming duty. Management had arranged for medical examination of the worker and it was found in the examination that he was not suffering from any illness warranting rest . In spite of repeated advise he made no improvement in his habit . Disciplinary action was taken three times previously for unauthorised absence andthree times minor punishments were imposed. Hence an enquiry 4322GI/10-24
was ordered when similar misconduct was repeated . The worker fully participated in the enquiry. He was defended by a union executive member . Based on evidence on the record the enquiry officer found the workman guilty of habitual absence and non compliance with leave rules . A copy ofthe Enquiry Report was given to him . He was heard regarding findings by the disciplinary authority . He was also given notice of proposed punishment and he was heard. Considering the past conduct of the workman and hisirresponsible attitude the punishment of dismissal was imposed. The workman had no case during enquiry that the charges were vague. On the contrary the charges were specificsand he was aware of the charges . Sufficient opportunity was given to the worker to defend the charges and adduce defence evidence . Hence he is not entitled for reinstatement or any other relief.
5. In view of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration:
1. Are the findings sustainable ?
2. Is the punishment legal and proper ?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of MWI and documentary evidence of Exts . M1 and M2 on the side of the management and no evidence on the side of the union.
6. Points 1 and 2 : in respect of the 2 charge sheets dated 06-11-1993 and 22-11-1993 alleging habitual absence two enquiries were conducted and two enquiry reports were submitted by two different Enquiry Officers . In both enquiries the worker was found guilty of habitual absence . The disciplinary authority passed a common order of dismissal from service without notice . At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the union did not press for a finding regarding merits of the enquiry but only questioned the propriety of treating the misconduct as a gross misconduct falling within Clause 19.5 ( 1) of First Bipartite Settlement. According to the learned counsel for the union a charge under Clause 19.5 ( f) will not lie as the worker was punished twice with censure and once with stoppage of increment only . Clause 19.5 ( f) reads :-
"habitual doing of any act which amounts to " minor misconduct " as defined below, " habitual " meaning a course of action taken or persisted in notwithstanding that at least on three previous occasions censure or warnings have been administered or an adverse remark has been entered against him; "
7. The learned counsel for the management would submit that the above clause takes in any minor punishment made mention in Clause 19.8 and imposed three times on previous occ sions for minor misconduct . When a minor misconduct is committed on a fourth occasion , it amon's to a major misconduct . The submission does not amper : to be correct . Clause 19.5 ( f) refers to
punishments i.e. censure , warning and ad remark and 8072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
not all punishments mentioned in Clause 19.8. If the intention was to include all minor punishments , there was no need to specifically refer to three of the minor punishments alone in 19.5 (f) . Stoppage of increment is excluded from Clause 19.5 (f) . The reason could be that the stoppage of increment itself is a deterrent punishment as there is monetary loss . Whereas warning, censure or advise remark are not sufficiently deterrent punishments . The workman was punished twice with censure and one with stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect . The last punishment of stoppage of increment cannot be said to be a minor misconduct falling within Clause 19.5 (f) to make it ' habitual ' . Therefore the worker cannot be charged for gross misconduct under Clause 19.5 ( f) . But there is no illegality in holding an enquiry even though the misconduct is minor. However the punishment of dismissal from service cannot stand as the misconduct is only a minor misconduct . No doubt the worker has been remaining absent on and of and it is bound to affect the smooth functioning ofthe bank . But the management can proceed only legally for disciplinary action . The service of the employee cannot be dispensed with somehow . The management can impose only one of the minor punishments , maximum ofwhich is stoppage of increment for a period of six months . Naturally the punishment of dismissal from service is unsustainable .
In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in dismissing the workman Sri . C.C. Dinesh from service is illegal and unjustified and the punishment ofdismissal is reduced to stoppage of incrment for a period ofsix months without cumulative effect as per Clause 19.8 C of First Bipartite Settlement . The management is directed to re - instate the workman in service with continuity ofservice and back wages from 30-04-1997 and all other statutory benefits within one month after the award becomes enforceable .
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette .
Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 28th day ofOctober , 2008 .
P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer
Appendix
Nil
Witness for the Union
Witness for the Management
06-06-2008
[ PART II SEC. 3 ( ii )| एयरलाइन्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , गुजरात अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1437/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-11012/53/2004 आई आर( सी 1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2010
S.O. 2894. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 1437/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / labour Court, Gujarat Ahmedabadas shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Indian Airlines Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2010 .
No. L- 11012/53 /2004 - IR( C - 1 ] D. S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Oflicer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURTAT AHMEDABAD PRESENT
BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer, Ahmedabad Reference (C.GI.T.A) No. 1437/2004 Manager,
... First Party Indian Air Lines Ltd. , University Road Fatehganj , Baroda
&Their Workman
Office Suprintendent ,
... Second Party Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat , Shram Shakti P. B. No. 77 , GP.O. , Opp . Prabhat Press , Mirzapur Road, Ahmedabad- 380001
APPEARANCES :
Forthe Employer
: Shri Girish Prajapati (Advocates)
K.P.Poly
MWI
Nil.
Exhibit for the Union
Exhibits for the Management
M1 & M2
Enquiry Files .
नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2894.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स इन्डियन For the Workman
: Shri S. G. Vagela Representative
Ahmedabad dated 4th October , 2010
(Ref. C.GI.TA. No. 1437/04 ) AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employmentby its Order No. 1.- 11012/ 53 /2004 /IR ( C -1 ) dated [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
23/08/2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
" Whether the demand of the Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat for reinstatement/ regularization of ( 1 ) S/ Shri Santosh D Chalke (2 ) Iqbalhusain S. Gohil ( 3 ) Bhailalbhai D. Rathod ( 4 ) Rajakbhai Y. Shaik ( 5 ) Kanubhai D. Parmar ( 6 ) Devidas N. Dhabhade ( 7) Sanjay Kumar D. Patanbadia ( 8) Wasimbhai A. Shaikh ( 9 ) Bharatbhai D. Patil ( 10 ) Jasubhai K. Rathod is justified ? What relief are the concerned workmen entitled and from what date ?
2. The parties were issues a notice to file statement of claim by this tribunal , which were not filed by the parties . The second party has submitted an authority to represent the second party By Ex. 5 the second Party submitted an application to withdraw the reference and it was stated that second party is satisfied and he does not want to adjudicate the matter and prayed to allow the second party to withdraw the matter Looking to the facts of Ex . 5 this Tribunal has allowed to withdraw the reference . Hence I hereby passed the following order :
ORDER
Application Ex . 5 is hereby allowed . The second party is allowed to withdraw the reference . The reference is hereby disposed off No order as to cost .
Date : 4-10-2010
Ahmedabad
B. K. SINHA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 22 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2895.-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 -2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -2/ 31 ऑफ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12011 / 245/2000- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd October , 2010
S.O. 2895. 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/ 31 of 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court - 2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 08-10-2010.
[No. L - 12011 /245/2000 - IR ( B - II ) ] D. S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
8073
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . 2 , MUMBAI
PRESENT
A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT -2 /31 of 2001 Employers in Relation to the Management of Syndicate Bank
The Deputy Gen. Manager , Syndicate Bank , Zonal Office , Maker Tower ' E ' 2nd Floor, Plot No. 85 , Cuffe Parade , Colaba, Mumbai -400 005 V/ s . ... First Party Their Workmen The President, Syndicate Bank Employees Union , through Workman Mr. Vinod Kumar Amin , 1 -A , Palm View, Plot No. 8 , Amritvan - 1 , Near Ciba , Goregaon ( East ) , Mumbai -400 063
Second Party APPEARANCES :
For the Employer :
Mr. S. V. Alva , Advocate .
For the Workman :
Mr. R. D. Bhat , Advocate
Date of reserving the Award: 30-08-2009 Dateof passing the Award : 07-09-2010 AWARD PART - 11
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No. 1-12011 / 245/ 2000 - IR ( B - II ) dated 12-2-2000 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
" Whether the action of Syndicate Bank by dismissing Shri Vinod Kumar from the services of the Bank is justified and proper ? If not then what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
2. Workman Vinod Kumar Amin was engaged as Clerk in the management Syndicate Bank in the year 1977 . Vide Claim Statement ( Exhibit - 6 ) workman pleaded that he was an active union member and that due to union activities . bank had grudge against him. It is averred that workman whileworking as Clerk - cum - Typist in Khar Branch though he had put 22 years unblemished service , he was issued [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2010/KARTIKA 29, 1932
3074
that considering the proved grave charges he was dismissed by the order dated 25-9-1999 which was endorsed by the Appellate Authority . It is averred in detail that workman carried on the business in the name of Amigo Industries who were the constituent of Jogeshwari Branch Mumbai and that on 3-5-1993 the said partnership firm opened a Current Account No. 948 with Jogeshwari Branch and availed certain credit facilities with the said branch since 1994 and that liabilities aggregating to Rs. 58 lacs had caused to the books of the bank without adequate securities to fall back upon . It is averred one ofthe partners Mr. Kalmadi who is the brother oftheworkman , had furnished address of Goregaon (East ) which is the address of the firm and also residence of the workman and that when the firm approached the bank for sanction of credit facilities workman approached the bank for getting the credit facilities sanctioned and invested in the business of the said firm and also involved himself in the maintenance of the books , purchase etc. which circumstances indicate that the workman floated the said firm with his brother which was against the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement .It is pleaded Mr. Acharya conducted fair inquiry with the assistance of the Presenting Officer Mr. Prasad and Defence Representative Mr. Kini .It is contended Inquiry Officer with detailed reasons appreciating the evidence recorded the findings , and therefore, the inquiry does not vitiate consequently cannot be interfered by this Tribunal . Bank , therefore prayed to dismiss the claim of the workman .
4. By rejoinder ( Exhibit 12 ) workman reiterated the recitals in the Claim Statement denying the averments in the Written Statement .
cha sheet dated 23-7-1998 alleging that he had floated the im M/ s . Amigo Industries with one of his brothers as partners only to circumvent the provision that he cannot be partner and was financially involved in the affairs ofthe firm while in service of the bank thereby committed grave misconduct attracting clause 19.5 of the Bi - partite Settlement . It is averred that because of differences in partners the manufacturing process of the firm was stopped and that though he had not taken any interest in the bsiness ofthe firm , he was alleged to have involved in the i ...ess , which he had replied on 8-9-1998 . However not satisfied with the reply the bank initiated domestic inquiry against him through the Inquiry Officer Mr. Acharya. It is contended that the domestic inquiry conducted against him was in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and fair play and that findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse . It is contended , Mr. Acharya who was Manager (IR- Cell) was active office -bearer of Syndicate Bank Officers Association holding the position as Zonal Council Member and that workman being an active union member of the Award Staff, was biased against him, therefore , he had requested the Disciplinary Authority to change the Inquiry Officer Mr. Acharya , however , management turned down his request and thereby prejudice had caused to him . It is further contended that the bank though did not examine the witnesses the Inquiry Officer relied on the documents in connection with those witnesses as if, contents therein were gospel truth . It is pleaded that with undue haste inquiry was completed and that the findings of the Inquiry Officer holding him guilty based on the evidence and the documents led befo: him , consequently, findings are perverse . It is averred that inquiry as a whole vitiates , however , despite hat the Disciplinary Authority based on the report dated 8-7-1999 dismissed the workman by the or der dated 25-9-1999 . It is contended workman had assailed the said dismissal before the Appellate Authority, however, his appeal was turned down on 6-12-1999 . It is contended since the inquiry vitiates the management's action of dismissing the workman is unjustified, and therefore , workman be reinstated in servi with full back wages . are
5. On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed atExhibit 15. Out of them Issues of fairness of inquiry and perversity of findings were taken as a preliminary issues and in that context workman Amin filed affidavit (Exhibit 16) in lieu of Examination - in- chief and closed oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit 20 ) . In rebuttal , Mr. Acharya Chief Manager filed affidavit ( Exhibit 21 ) and the Management Bank closed evidence vide purshis ( Exhibit 22) . Said Issues were decided by my Ld . Predecessor by passing Part 1 Award on 28th May, 2003 holding enquiry was not fair and proper as well as finding perverse .
6. Thereafter evidence was led by both to justify the action of termination . After recording the evidence led by both this Tribunal by Part 11 Award dated 3-9-2009 observed action taken by the Management is not just and observed to quash and set aside and directed Bank to reinstate the concerned workman with benefits of back wages and continuity of service .
7. Thereafter Bank challenged the said order by filing WritPetition No. 1271 of 2010. While disposing off the said 3. Management Bank resisted the claim ofworkman by filing Written Statement (Exhibit - 11 ) contending that workman while working at Nana Chowk Branch carried out business in the name of M/ s . Amigo Industries , and therefore , he was charged vide charge- sheet dated 23-7-1998 for engaging in trade or business outside the scope of his duties under clause 19.5 (a ) ofthe Bipartite Settlement and that inquiry was conducted on the charges . It is averred that Inquiry Officer giving sufficient opportunity, by the report dated 8-7-1999 held the workman guilty and 8075 भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
Issue Nos . 3 & 4 :
WritPetition Hon'ble High Court passed the following order:
"( i ) the impugned order dated 30th September , 2009 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , Mumbai ( CGIT- 2 ) in Reference No. CGIT- 2/ 31 of 2001 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the CGIT- 2 for fresh hearing and orders ;
( ii ) the CGIT- 2 shall after hearing the parties afresh but without allowing the parties to lead any further evidence , dispose of the Reference No. CGIT - 2/ 31 of 2001 on or before 13th September , 2010;
(iii) No adjournment/ s shall be sought on behalf of the Petitioner or the Respondents before the CGIT- 2;
( iv) The parties shall appear before the CGIT- 2 with a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Personal Assistant of this Court on 25th August , 2010 at 11.00 a.m. and obtain necessary directions;
(v) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs .
8. So as per these directions to this Tribunal is concerned said direct to dispose off the reference on or before 13-9-2010 without allowing parties to lead any further evidence . Besides said order reveals that it did not touch the order passed by my Ld . Predecessor which was passed in Part I Award dated 20-5-2003 in which my predecessor observed enquiry was not fair and proper and finding perverse .
9. So now before me is the point of remaining Issue i.e. point of Issues which is concerned with the action taken by the Management in dismissing the concerned workman and to decide whether it is justified and proper and what relief require to be given to the concerned workman . Those Issues are at Serial No. 3 and 4 of Exhibit 15 which I reproduce as follows and answer against them.
FINDINGS
ISSUES
No
3. Whether the action of Syndicate Bank by dismissing Shri Vinod Kumar from the services of the Bank is justified and proper ?
4. What relief Mr. Vinod Kumar is entitled to ?
Asper order Passed below.
10. As observed by Hon'ble High Court parties arc not permitted to lead any evidence . I heard arguments of both on the point of action taken on workman i.e. punishment given to the workman of dismissal . While arguments were going on the Ld . Advocate for the Bank submitted that enquiry was fair and proper and finding were not perverse . On that Ld . Advocate for the workman submitted that , the observations of this Tribunal regarding fairness of enquiry and perversity of the finding as observed in Part I Award dated 20-5-2003 are not disturbed . Even according to me though the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court , more precisely , regarding para - 1 of the order has not disturbed which is on the point of enquiry and perversity ofthe finding and it appears that , the finding given by this Tribunal on fairness of enquiry and perversity of the finding of the enquiry officer are maintained which implics that , enquiry was not fair and proper and findings were perverse . On that the I.d. Advocate for the Bank submit that , there was amble evidence before the Enquiry Officer to hold the concerned workman guilty of the charge of misconduct i.e. charge of indulging in trade or business outside the scope of his duties which fall under clause 19.5 ( a ) of Bipatrite Settlement . He submit that , number of witnesses were examined by the Bank before the Enquiry Officer, number ofdocuments were verified by him and after going through that the Enquiry Officer observed concerned workman guilty of the charge of misconduct and observed he committed said act which is gross misconduct by indulging himself in the business of the firm which is nothing but engaging in trade or business outside the scope of duties and itis an act which is as per Clause 19.5 ( a ) of the Bipartite Settlement . Whereas Ld . Advocate for the workman submit that, enquiry was not fair and proper and enquiry finding were perverse . Said observations were maintained by Hon'ble High Court and are not disturbed anywhere . Evidence led by the Management i.e. Bank does not prove that , concerned workman engaged himself in trade or business outside the scope of his duties and has committed misconduct as alleged which falls under Clause 19.5 ( a ) of Biptriate Settlement. He submit that , charge of engaging in trade or business of the firm are not proved by the Bank . No evidence of any type was before the Enquiry Officer . Even Enquiry Officer did not consider the investigating report of witness Satish Kamath who is examined at Exhibit 33 by the Bank . Even he admit that , his report was not submitted before the Enquiry officer and was not considered by the Enquiry officer while holding concerned workman guilty of the charge of misconduct . Evensaid witness admit that , he did not offer witnesses for cross examination which he examined in the investigation. EvenEnquiry officer is not examined in this case before PARI B SIC Stol 8076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29 , 1932
..
thisTribunal nor his report is submitted for perusal . Bank closed evidence by filing closing purshis at Exhibit 45. According to him nothing is there to hold the concerned workman guilty of the charge of misconduct and it lead to presume that , he was engaged in business which was outside his duties . He also submit that, he is unemployed and he is entitled for reinstatement with benefit of back wages and continuity of service . The Ld . Advocate for the Bank submit that , the concerned workman is not entitled for reinstatement nor back wages since action taken by the Bank is just and proper and does not require any interference.
to the Jogeshwari branch again alleged that , the records pertaining to M/ s . Amigo Industries is in the custody of the 2nd Party Workman . He also referred in the affidave that, in the investigation letter dated 24-5-1996 written by 2nd Party to R.S. Singh was recovered along with the letter dated 6-11-1996 of M/ s . Parag Textiles addressed to 2nd Party workman. He also states that , in the investigations , he noticed, copies of Order Book of Nana Chowk which shows residential address of the concerned workman and financial statement of M/ s . Amigo Industries . He also stats that on verifying the financial statement of M's . Amige Industries as on 30-9-1995 and 31-3-1996 name of the concerned workman was included as unsecured creditor of the firm. He further states that , in the investigation he noted that , letter dated 3-2-1997 was written by R.S. Singh addressed to the Manager of Jogeshwari Branch alleging that, 2nd Party is responsible for the non - functioning of M/s. Amigo Industries . He further states that , in the investigation he recorded statement of 2nd Party, Vinod Kumar Kalmadi and he also recorded statement of R.S Singh. He further states in the affidavit that, in the investigation he recovered letter dated 28-11-1997 ofM Parag Textiles which indicates that, 2nd Party was involved inthe firm of M/ s . Amigo Industries .. He also states about letter dated 2-12-1997 of M / s . I.M.A. Builders which indicates that , they had negotiations with 2nd Party workman with regard to supply of the machineries to Ms Amigo Industries he found that , the said Builder was shielding the concerned workman . He also referred to letter dated 12-9-1994 and perused the contents of it which facilitated M/s . Amigo Industries for various credit facilities and on that he contends that, the concerned workman is guilty of the charge of misconduct holding him guilty of the misconduct in engaging himself in the trade or business activities which are outside the scope of his duties and it falls under Clause 19.5 of Bipatriate Settlement and thereb committed misconduct . In the cross this witness states that , he is conversant with the distance . He admit it is 70 Kms. is the distance from Bombay Central to Tarapur . He states that , Western Railway is the only facility to reach thatdestination. He states that, Parag Industry is situated atBadlapur which is on the Central Railway . He states that it has same distance from Bombay Central . He states that . Railway is the only facility to reach the destination He states that , Parag Industry is situated at Badlapur which is on the Central Railway . He states that, both Industries an at same distance from Bombay Central . He admit that , 2nd Party was working at Nana Chowk Branch of Bank during that time and was residing at Goregaon. He states that . said distance can be traveled by Central Railway only 1te states that, during September / October, 1997 he received instructions from Vigilance Branch to enquire abonn involvement of 2nd Party in the business of Amire 11. In that respect if we peruse the evidence which is on record we find that, the Enquiry Officer is not examined in this case . It is to be noted that , Investigating Officer who conducted investigation in respect of the involvement of the concerned workman in availing credit facility extended toM /s . Amigo Industries from Jogeshwari Branch of the Bank is examined at Exhibit 33 who states in the affidavit that , during the course of the investigation he seized certain documents from Jogeshwari Branch , copies of which were produced in the enquiry . He further states that , he found that Saving Bank Account No.5009 was opened in the name of Shri Ganesh Gupta which was introduced by the 2nd Party workman , having residential address of 2nd Party workman . Said affidavit further says thatanother Account No.5010 was opened in the name of Premnath Kalmadi which was also introduced by the 2nd Party workman and the address of his was given the residential address of the 2nd Party. He also states that , investigation revealed that , transaction in Saving Bank Account No.5009 of Ganesh Gupta has been transferredto Current Account of M/ s . Amigo Industries . He further states that , in the investigation he found that , the S.B. Account No.5010 of Premnath Kalmadi of which amount was transferred to Current Account of M/ s . Amigo Industries on various occasions in various accounts . He states in the affidavit that , at the initial stage , he revealed opening of Current Account of M/ s . Amigo Industries at Jogeshwari Branch of which Premnath Kalmadi and Rajesh Singh were the partners . He further states in the said affidavit that, in the investigations he recovered documents regarding various transactions of Account No. 5/96 of Jogeshwari Branch and noted various transaction in Account No. 5/96 of M/ s . Amigo Industries at Bank's Jogeshwari Branch and noted that , that , Mr. R. B. Singh, one of the Partner of M/ s . Amigo Industries , has written a letter addressed to the Manager of Bank's Jogeshwari Branch . He further states in the said that , Mr. R.B. Singh one of the partners of M / s . Amigo Industries who had written a letter addressed to the Manager of the Jogeshwari Branch . He further states in the said affidavit that , said Partner R.S. Singh in the letter dated 18-11-1996 addressed [ भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
8077 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 / कार्तिक 29 , 1932
Industries . He further states that , directions were given to him to find out where there is involvement of 2nd Party in the business of M / s . Amigo Industries . He states that, he visited Nana Chowk Branch during October , 1997 and recorded statement of the concerned workman , gone through his Saving Bank Account as well as his Staff card ofthat particular period . He states that , he has also gone through the leave account of the concerned workman and found that , he was sanctioned permitted leave . He states that, if one has to visit Tarapur or Badlapur it will take whole day from Nana Chowk and for that one has to take leave . He states that , he has no evidence to prove that , 2nd Party has taken frequent leave . He admit that , there was no instructions not to introduce any relatives in the Saving Bank Account . He admit that , there is nothing wrong in introducing Ganesh Gupta and Premnath Kalmadi to open their Saving Bank Account with the Bank. He also admit that , he has no evidence to show that , 2nd Party workman was operating those accounts . He admit that , Amigo Industries is a partnership firm consisting of Premnath Kalmadi and Mr. R.S. Singh who are the partners of the said firm . He states that , the said partnership firm was started in1993 and stopped in 1996. He admits that, Ganesh Gupta and Premanth Kalmadi are the brothers of 2nd Party. He admitthat , in Exhibit M - 10 which is at page 117 of Exhibit 10 in which 2nd Party workman has stated that , he cannot explain the accounts . He admit that , page 118 of Exhibit 11 was available with Jogeshwari Branch . He admit that , he did not enquire as to how the Jogeshwari Branch got it . He states that , other partner ofAmigo Industries is R.A. Singh who gave address of Parag Industry . He further states that , he met R.A. Singh in October , 1997. However , at that time he states that , he did not enquire with him as to how R.A. Singh received Exhibit M - 11 . He admit that , there was dispute between him and the 2 partners . He admit that, he was not aware of the complaint filed by Premnath Kalmadi against R.S. Singh . When question was put to him , whether he has original of Exhibit M - 11 to which he replied that, " he did not remember ' . He admit that , signature in Exh.M - 11 is not legible . He admits that , he considered M - 11 as a authentic document in the investigation and gave finding on the basis of said . He admits that , he has not considered the possibility of fabrication of document by R.S. Singh . He states that , he cannot give opinion regarding signature of Exh.M - 11 and Exh.18 whether both are similar or otherwise . He states that , he has not made any observations regarding Exhibit M - 18 and 11. He states that , on the basis of Exhibit 18 he reported that , Mr. Vinod Kumar i.e. 2nd Party is concerned and involved in the affairs of Amigo Industries . He states that , he had discussions with signatories of Exhibit M - 18 . However , he admits that , he has not recorded statement of anybody on that point . He admits that , except Exh . M - 18 no other evidence like visiting
cards or letter heads of the Parag Industry were collected to show that , Parag Textiles exists . When question was put whether he enquired with Mr. Shekhar or Shetty about writing of Exhibit M - 18 on which he replied , he do not remember . He states that , he talked with Jageja about Exhibit M- 18 . He states that , he had not recorded statements of signatories of Exhibit M - 20 . He admit that , he has no evidence to show that , he talked with signatories of Exh . M- 20. He states that , one Kamlakar T. Kadam is signatory ofM - 20 . He states that , he has not enquired with Kamlakar as to why he wrote said letter to Chief Vigilance Officer who sanctioned loan to Amigo Industries . Even he admit that, he did not try to find out the officer , who granted loan to Amigo Industries . He admit that , there is no bar or restriction to the employees of Syndicate Bank to invest money with relatives or friends . He admit that , his report was not taken in the enquiry proceedings . Then Management examined one more witness Rajendra S. Singh , the other Director of Amigo Industries at Exhibit 36 who states regarding formation of M/ s . Amigo Industries , involvement of 2nd Party workman and correspondence made in that connection . In the cross this witness of the Management states that Partnership Deed is in writing of Amigo Industries between him and Premnath Kalmadi . He states that , 2nd Party workman , ismaintaining accounts . However , he admits that , he has no evidence on that point . He admits that , he know Ganesh Kalmadi who is brother of Vinod Kumar i.c. 2nd Party workman . He states that , Ganesh Kalmadi was introduced by Vinod Kalmadi as his nominee in his absence . He admit that , Ganesh Kalmadi was looking after the business and was taking decisions in the absence of Vinod Kalmadi . He admit that , factory is situated at Tarapur which is called Boisar Area . He admit that , he was visiting factory every Saturday and was staying there till Thursdays evening . He states that , 2nd Party workman was visiting factory on number of occasions and was staying there for whole day . He states that , 2nd Party, workman , was supervising the work of the factory whenever he visited . He admit that . there is no writing to show that , 2nd Party workman , visited Factory and supervised the work at any point of time . When question was put to the said witness by Advocate of the 2nd Party, whether 2nd Party workman , was taking leave while attending factory on which he says " God knows " . He admit that , he is aware of Power of Attorney given to Ganesh Kalmadi . He admits that , Exhibit 10 is the copy of hisletter and admit signature below it . He admit that , entire loan taken from Bank for factory was not paid . He states that , Bank took action about the recovery of the amount . He admits that , he has not paid his liability. Lastly Management examined another Partner Divakar Karkeria at Exhibit 43 who speaks about his acquaintance with 2nd [PART 11 -SEC . 3 ( ii ) | 8078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
party, workman, and role played by 2nd Party in making investment in Amigo Industries and functioning of it. In the cross this witness states that , he is 20% partner of M/s. Amigo Industries . He states that , he has taken loan from the Bank and invested it with Amigo Industries .He states that, he became partner of Amigo Industries in 1988 . He states that, before he became partner of M/ s . Amigo Industries it was not functioning . He states that , there was only structure of M/s . Amigo Industries at that time. He states that, it is not true that factory was closed in 1996 and thereafter he became partner in 1998. On that Management i.e.Bank closed evidence by filing closing purshis at Exhibit 45.
certain credits were obtained by the from Jogeshwari Branch of the Syndicate Bank from 1994 which went upto Rs. 58 lakhs and the said amount is struck to books without adequate securities . It is also alleged that, partner of the firm Premnath Kalmadi is brother of 2nd Party concerned workman and other partner of the firm are known to 2nd Party workman . Charge is that , they approached the Bank at Khar Branch by furnishing address of the residence of 2nd Party concerned workman in which 2nd Party concerned workman was residing .It is alleged that, firm approached the Bank Branch for sanction of credit facility and it is alleged that , 2nd Party also approached the Branch for getting credit facility to M /s . Amigo Industries . It is also alleged that, 2nd Party, concerned workman , invested inbusinessof M/ s . Amigo Industries . It is also alleged that, 2nd Party was maintaining the account books . preparing orders and purchase of material for factory. It is also alleged that , he was purchasing machineries for M/s . Amigo Industries and had made efforts to sale machinery of the firm . On the basis of the said it is alleged by the Bank that , by said, he committed act of gross misconduct which fall within the meaning of Clause 19.5 of theBipatriate Settlement and therefore , Bank charged him with engaging in trade or business outside the scope of hisduties which fall under Clause 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement .
15. So the charge leveled against the concerned workman by charge sheet dated 23-7-1998 is of engaging in trade or business outside the scope of duties by writing accounts , giving orders for purchase and trying to dispose off the machinery of M/ s . Amigo Industries .
12. 2nd Party workman, in response to the evidence led by Bank to justify its action of termination , filed his affidavitat Exhibit 48 where he states that , he worked with the Bank as a Clerk. He states that , he was not visiting Amigo Industries and was not concerned with its activities . In the cros , he states that , he was Committee Member of the Syndicate Bank Employees Union . He admit signatures from pages 71 to 74 of Fixhibit 10. He admit that, M/s . Amigo Industries was having account in Syndicate Bank at Jogeshwari . He admit that , address of M's . Amigo Industries is of his residence. He states that , Saroja V. Amin is his wife. He admitthat , she has invested amount in M/s . Amigo Industries . He states that , M/ s . Amigo Industry was engaged in business of chemicals . He admit that , Mr. Premnath Kalmadi and Ganesh Gupta are his brothers and were residing with him at Bombay address . He states that , he did not work with any Company after termination . He admit that, he did not apply with Bank for his employment . He denies that , he was dismissed since he was engaged in conducting affairs of M / s . Amigo Industries . His case is that, he was terminated on a number of allegations , including his association with Union and officers Association . Then he examined his brother Ganesh Kalmadi at Exhibit 51 who is Director of M/s . Amigo Industires and closed evidence by filing closing purshis atExhibit 52.
16. The evidence referred above nowhere shows that, 2nd Party is concerned either remotely with the day to day activities of M/ s . Amigo Industries . Even it does not reveal that , he is handling the day to day activities of the Amigo Industries or controlling the activities of M/s. Amigo Industries by any means . Even evidence remotely does not connect 2nd Party with the activities of M/s.Amigo Industries . It is fact that , his brothers Premnath Kalmadi and Ganesh Gupta are engaged in activities of Ms. Amigo Industries with other partner R.A. Singh. It is stated that, 2nd Party workman, deny that , he was looking after the activities of M/ s . Amigo Industries and was visiting the factory to control its activities .
13. Heard both after remand of the Reference . Besides oral arguments , workmen filed gist of Arguments at Exhibit 64 and list of rulings at Exhibit 61 and Management filed Synopsis of arguments along with list of rulings at Exhibit 62 .
17. Now, we have to see whether there is iota of evidence with the Bank to show that . 2nd Party is concerned with the activities of M/ s . Amigo Industries or was having control over it ? For that , Bank has led evidence of Satish Kamath at Exhibit 33 who made investigations and submitted report . However, this Kamath admit that, his report was neither considered by the Enquiry Officer nor it 14. Now we have to see, what the charge was levelled against the concerned workman ? Charge leveled against the concerned workman was he involved in the activities of M/ s . Amigo Industries which is a partnership firm of which brothers of 2nd Party viz . Premnath Kalmadi and Ganesh Gupta are the partners . Charge is that, Account of the said firm is with the Jogeshwari Branch of the Bank and [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8079 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
is part of the enquiry proceedings . Even said Satish Kamath admit that, he has not examined any witness and offered those witness for cross to 2nd Party, concerned workman , before relying on the evidence of which he came across during the investigation and even this Kamath is unable to explain how he recovered documents from Jogeshwari Branch and how Jogeshwari Branch received those . Even he is unable to depose about signature on various documents like Exhibits 18 and 11 and even unable to state who is author of those and who is signatory of said documents . Even he admit that , he has no evidence to show that Parag Industries exists to which M/s . Amigo Industries was supplying colour to Parag Textiles . Even he unable to connect 2nd Party with the activities of Amigo Industries . He admit that , he simply rely on Exhibit M- 18 andthat is the only evidence with him . He admit that , except M - 18 he has no other evidence to show that , 2nd Party is connected with the activities of M/ s . Amigo Industries and Parag Industries . Even he admit that , he has not compared the writing of M 18 and M - 11 and admits that, he has not bothered to compare/verify signatures of M - 18 and M - 11 and even he admit that , he has not considered thepossibility of signing Exh . M - 11 and M - 18 by different persons .
he was a Clerk . Besides only Witness of the Bank also admit that, there is no wrong in introducing relatives with the Bank and helping them to have their Saving Bank Account with the Bank . Even witness of the Bank admits that, there is no bar in investing the amount by the employce ofthe Bank with other business . This witness specifically admitthat, there is no restriction from the Bank to introduce any relative in the Saving Bank Account . Even he admits that, there is nothing wrong in introducing Ganesh Kalmadi and Premnath Kalmadi to open their Saving Bank account . Headmits that , he has no evidence to show that , 2nd Party wasoperating 2 Saving Bank Accounts . He admits that , he did not come across leave taken by 2nd Partyto visit M/s . Amigo Industries which is at a remote place . He admit that, 2nd Party has taken permitted leave . Ile admits that , there was no evidence to show that , 2nd Party was visiting M/ s . Amigo Industries which is at Tarapur . He admits that, ifone has to visit that place one has require to take leave . He admit that , 2nd Party workman has not taken more than permitted leave. Even he did not collect any evidence regarding visit of the concerned workman to M/ s. Amigo Industries . Even no evidence is lead to show that , 2nd Party took part in particular transaction of M / s . Amigo Industries and his decision was followedby M/ s . Amigo Industries .
18. Here it is to be noted that , original of M - 11 and M - 18 is not produced before this Tribunal upto this stage and even I made inquiry with the Advocate for the Bank, and asked him to produce original to verify it but till this moment no efforts are made by the Advocate for the Bank to produce the original to ascertain the reality of Exhibits M- 11 and M - 18 and signatures of M - 11 and M - 18 . Besides the Xerox copy available with this Tribunal are produced by the 2nd Party with Exhibit 10. In this matter it is pertinent to note that, except documents listed in Exhibit 13 which consist of 3 pages , no other documents are produced by the Bank . Against that , 2nd Party produced documents with list at Exhibit 10 which consists Xerox copies . On perusal of those one will find that , most of the pages of Exhibit10 are not legible and readable more precisely from page 116 onwards of Exhibit 10. Even while arguments were advanced.by both , after remand of the matter, and in view of the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1371 of2010 , no any documents are produced by the Bank though I asked the Bank to produce the originals . In fact it was duty of the Bank to produce the original of enquiry and other documents . In fact onus is on the Bank to justify its action of termination and to show that, 2nd Party is concerned with and he did all those activities which were outside the scope of his duties .
20. Besides possibility pointed out by the 2nd Party'sAdvocate that , false allegation or false complaint might have been made by R.A. Singh who is another partner ofM/s . Amigo Industries cannot be ruled out since complaints were written to Chief Vigilance Officer and not to the Branch or Head Office . Besides author of the complain Kadam was not examined by Investigation offered nor by Enquiry Officer and offer to cross to 2nd Party. Even statement of witnesses were not recorded by the Investigating Officer and evidence was not recorded by him and offered for cross to the 2nd Party workman , while submitting his report . And above all , report of the Investigating Officer was not placed in the enquiry and was not consideredby Enquiry officer. Before us is the evidence of Investigating Officer only. Here it is to be noted that , Enquiry Officer was not examined and no other evidence is produced by the Bank except evidence of Investigating Officer which evidence was not considered in the enquiry. The evidence led by Management is of R.A. Singh against whom 2nd Party , concerned workman succeeded in showing enmity and succeed in proving all the allegations as false which were inade R.A. Singh , other partner ofthe firm who was not happy with the activities of M/ s . Amigo Industries . The even evidence of another partner Divakar Karkeria , who is examined does not throw any light to show that , 2nd Party workman , was writing accounts and taking part in the decisions of M's . Amigo 19. Besides it is admitted fact that, 2nd Party worked only at the level of Clerk . It is not that , he was officer of the Bank. One has to consider his position that,
4322GI /10-25 [PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29 , 1932
8080
Industries . Charge levelled of writing books of accounts , taking part in the decisions of M/ s . Amigo Industries and charge of purchasing the articles and of selling the material to others are concerned , are not proved atall .
21. In this scenario if we consider the evidence led by Management and the stand taken by the 2nd Party, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be concluded that, 2nd Party workman was engaged in trade or business outside the scope of his duties . As stated above there is no evidence of any type on record produced by the Management to show that, he ever visited M/ s . Amigo Industries , supervised its work and took part in taking decisions in running M/ s . Amigo Industries , much less no evidence of any type is led by Management to show that, he was responsible for taking decision regarding functioning ofM/ s . Amigo Industries or deciding its policy and its future . Apart from that , as alleged by the Management that , he took part in writing accounts , took part in the day to day activities of running M /s . Ambigo Industries and was responsible for deciding policies of it is concerned , nothing is produced and no type of any evidence is led on that point to prove that , he was part of the decision making authority or remotely concerned with the activities of M/ s . Amigo Industries . Simply because his two brothers viz . Ganesh Gupta and Premnath Kalmadi were the Directors of M/ s . Amigo Industries and only because they were staying with him or his address was utilized by them as address of the Directors of M / s . Amigo Industries , it cannot be said that , he indulged in running said M /s . Amigo Industries or he did the activities which were outside the scope of his duties . Nothing is shown by the Bank that , the role played by the 2nd Party is against the policy of the Bank . Even witness examined by the Bank admit that , there is nothing wrong in introducing the brother to open Saving Banks Account and nothing is wrong in investing the amount by his relatives . In my considered view, for the reason that , he is relative of Directors of M/ s . Amigo Industries he cannot be held responsible and cannot be presumed for that as he is guilty of the misconduct as alleged by the Bank .
Hon'ble High Court , in which my predecessor observed enquiry not fair and proper and finding perverse . Here evidence which is discussed above is not evidence which shows that 2nd Party involved in the running of M/s. Amigo Industries and it is his act out of scope of his duties and justify the action of the Management as expected. Even he referred to citation publish in 2002 (3 ) LLN 206 where our Hon'ble High Court while decidingthe case of Gope Laxmichand Badlani vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce , New Delhi and Ors . observed that , in the domestic enquiry without offering witnesses for cross andwithout obtaining the comments of the charge- sheeted employee, on the document , said evidence cannot be read as an evidence . According to 2nd Party's Advocate . Investigating Officer blindly relied on the documents which he came across in the investigation and said investigation report is not considered by the Enquiry Officer. Said Investing Officer did not offer witnesses for cross which he examined in his investigation and did not offer the documents to 2nd Party for comments on which he relied to conclude that , the 2nd Party workman , is guilty of the charge of misconduct . Besides in the above judgment it is also observed that , strict law of evidence may not applyto domestic enquiry. It is an elementary principle that , no such document can be relied upon against a party without giving him an opportunity of cross examining the author of the document which were referred in the report . He also placed reliance on the citation published in 2009 II LLJ ( SC ) page 21 where Apex Court while deciding case of Roopsingh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors . observed , where inference drawn by Enquiry Officer is not supported by evidence , in that case , order of Disciplinary & Appellate Authority need not be maintained and require to set aside with directions to reinstate the employee with benefits of full back wages and continuity of service . Lastly he referred to citation published in ( 2010 ) 3 SCC p . 192 in case of Ilariajan Inder Singh vs .. Punjab state Warehousing Corporation where it is observed that, when termination is challenged on validity and legality in which Labour Court observed termination unlawful , Hon'ble High Court , observed that . in that case relief of back wages and continuity of service isa must.
23. Against that , Advocate for the ist Party referred to citations published in 1969 111.1.J page 755 where Apex Court while deciding the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors vs. Its Workers and Ors .. observed that , misconduct falling under several of heads ofmisconduct may involve no direct loss or damage to the employer, but would render the functioning of the establishment impossible or extremely hazardous . It is also observed that , one may also envisage several acts of misconduct not directly involving the establishment in any 22. Number of citations are referred by the Advocate for the 2nd Party, more precisely citation published in 1999 (1 ) 1.1LN page 7, while deciding the case of Ms. Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr. , it is observed by Apex Court that , when enquiry being not as per the principles of natural justice and in that case remedy open to the Management is to justify its action of leading fresh. evidence . According to 2nd Party's Advocate no fresh evidence is ledby the Management to justify its action . As stated above , at the beginning of the judgment, Part 1 of the Award passed by this Tribunal is not disturbed by the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
loss , but which are destructive of discipline and cannot be tolerated . No one can comment on that observation , since it is expected from the worker who is working with the employer who has to take care of the business of the employer and he is expected to be loyal with employer and his business . It cannot be done by employee which is hazardous to the business of the Management which is causing loss to it cannot be tolerated . Here nothing is shown by the Management how 2nd Party did act which is injurious to the business of the Bank and to justify its action and able to prove in what manner role played by the 2nd Party workman affects on its business . At the most loan taken by M/ s . Amigo Industries which is of 58 lakhs or so which is struck up may be cause but can be recovered by taking appropriate remedy in that connection . Even it is case on record that, recovery suit is filed by the Bank and it is pending and as said proceeding is independent proceeding where 2nd Party is not Party to the said proceedings as it is admitted by the Management . In my considered view for that , 2nd Party workman , cannot be held responsible and ruling produced by 1st Party published in 1969 II LLJ page 755 of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors vs. Its Workers and Ors . does not heip Ist Party in that way . He also referred to citation published in 1998 I CLR page 1093 of Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India vs Vishwa Mohan , citation published in 2006 ICLR page 39 ( SC ) of Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. & Anr . vs. Udai Narain Pandey and citation published in 2009 II CLR page 723 of Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors . vs. Bishamber Das Dogra about which no quarrel can be raised as these are right at their places . However, those cannot be applied here as the facts in this case are different than the facts in those above referred cases .
24. So if we consider all this coupled with the case made out by both , Ist Party fail to establish that 2nd Party involved in the activities of M / s . Amigo Industries and did act which is outside scope of his duties . I am of the view that , action of termination taken by the Bank is not just and it require to set aside with directions to reinstate 2nd Party.
25. Now question is of back wages . When 2nd Party succeeds in showing that , he is not concerned withactivities of M/ s . Amigo Industries and action taken by the Bank is not legal and proper , then we have to presume that , 2nd Party is in the employment . Here we have to presume that , he is getting salary with benefits . Ist Party failed to prove that , Bank has reason to terininate 2nd Party and termination is just and proper . On the contrary ground on which Bank terminated his services on the charge of misconduct or engaging
8081
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
himself in business which was outside the scope of his duties is concerned , is not proved , by the Management . Hence , action taken by the Bank is require to be treated as not just and proper .
26. When action is not proper , then 2nd Party must get wages or salary till he legally entitled to work with the Bank . Much capital is made by the Bank that , 2nd Party is in the gainful employment but nothing is provedby Ist Party to show that he is in the employment . In my considered view , in the above circumstances one cannot accept that , employee should beg for his survival and prove that he is beggar or he is totally dependent on others . It is to be noted that , his two brothers were once upon a time . Directors of the Company. It is to be noted that . 2nd Party ishaving his house at Bombay . It is to be noted that , his two brothers are there and if they are taking care of the 2nd Party, concerned workman , and if 2nd Party is not begging for his survival , it cannot be said , he is not entitled to back wages.
27. Besides , one has to consider it is not his fault for which he is out of job and for which he did not work for the Bank . On the contrary it is the Bank who compelled him to remain away from his job , duties and deprive to get his wages or salary which he might have got as if he is in the employment of the Bank . Here it is act of the Bank which compelled him to stay away from his job and was deprived about the salary which he might have got if at all he would have been in the employment of the Bank . So according to me , 2nd Party is entitled to full back wages . Since it is fault of the Bank which unnecessary held 2nd Party guilty of the charge of misconduct treating him that , he is engaged in other activities which were outside the scope of his duties , I conclude that , the 2nd Party is entitled for full back wages and continuity of service . Hence , the order :
ORDER
( a) Reference is allowed;
(b) Termination effect on 2nd Party Dated 25-9-1999 is quashed and Set aside ;
(c) 1st Party Bank is directed to reinstate 2nd Party Vinod Kumar Amin on his post with benefits of back wages and continuity of service from 25-9-1999 ;
(d) In the circumstance of the case there will be no order as to its costs
Mumbai ,
7th September , 2010
A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer 8082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29 , 1932
नई दिल्ली , 25 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2896.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार साऊथ सेन्ट्रल जोन कल्चरल सेन्टर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख् सीपीआईटी/एनजीपी/84/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42011/45/2006- आईआर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th October , 2010
S. O. 2896. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No CGIT/ NGP/84/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Central Zone Cultural Centre and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2010 .
[No. L -42011 /45 /2006 - IR ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/ NGP / 84/2006
Date: 12-10-2010 Petitioner /Party No. 1 :
Smt . Sandhya Tai Wd/ o Late
Narayan Tembhurn ,
R/o Surendragarh , Near Seminary Hills , Mount Everest School , Nagpur- 6
Versus
Respondent/Party No. 2:
The Director,
South Central Zone Cultural Centre (SCZCC) , Opposite ofMLA Hostel , CivilLines , Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated 12th October, 2010 )
Inexercise 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 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central
[PART 11 SEC. 3 (ii ) | Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the managementment of South Central Zone Cultural Centre ( SCZCC ) and their workmen foradjudication as per letter No. 1. -42011 /45/2006 - IR ( DU ) dated 31-10-2006, with the following schedule:-
" Whether the action of the management of South Central Zone Cultural Centre Nagpur in deny- ing appointment on compassionate grounds to Shri Chandrakiran , Son of Late Narayan Tembhurne is legat and justified ? If not , to what relief the dependant of the deceased workman is entitled to and from which date ? " 2. Being noticed , Smt . Sandhya , wife of deceased Narayan Tembhurne and the management filed the statement of claim and written statement respectively.
3. The case of the claimant is that her husband . late Narayan was working in the Office of the Director. SCZCC as a permanent driver and while he was in such employment, he died on 7-7-2002 and the initial appointment ofher husband , as a driver , was on 28-11-87 and the appointment was made in accordance with the procedure of selection and before the death of her husband , her husband had already served for a period of 14 years . 7 months and 9 days and after the death of her husband , she applied for compassionate appointment of her son, Chandrakiran Narayan Tembhurne in the prescribed form and she was informed by the management of their inability in giving compassionate appointment to Chandrakiran due to non - availability of vacancy even though there was vacancy due to the death of her husband. The further case of the claimant is that her husband was the sole breadwinner ofthe family and after his death , her six family members are dependant on her , so after refusal of the management , she raised the dispute before the appropriate authority. The claimant has prayed to issue suitable order to the management to consider the compassionate appointment of her son , Chandrakiran in place of her deceased husband .
4. The management in its written statement has admitted that Narayan was working as a driver with them but he was not a permanent driver but he was working on a contract basis for a specific period. The management has also admitted that the claimant had applied for compassionate appointment but as Narayan was not appointed on a regular basis , his dependants are not entitled for compassionate appointment and the family of the deceased Narayan is not distress , which is another criteria for getting the benefit of compassionate appointment and compassionate appointment is a matter ofpolicy and not a matter of right .
5. The claimant , Smt . Sandhyarani examined herself in support of her claims , whereas one Smt . Rajlaxmi Shah, Deputy Director (Administration ) was examined on behalf ofthe management .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6. At the time of argument , the stands taken by the parties in their statement of claim and written statement respectively were reiterated . Further , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that it is clear from the cross - examination of the claimant and in the application filed by her for compassionate appointment , wherein , she had mentioned of her having an asset of Rs . 3,00,967 and she received about Rs . 2,50,000 from LIC , group saving linked insurance scheme , EPF and DCR and she is also getting a sum of Rs . 500 per month as family pension and she has a house and her eldest son is serving in the Army and as such , it cannot be said that the family of deceased Narayan is in distress and there by entitled for compassionate appointment as provided in the rules in this regard and in view of grant of family pension and that compassionate appointment , is not a matter of right , the claimant is not entitled for any relief. In support of such contention , the learned advocate for the management palced reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in 2006 ( 6 ) AMR - 85 ( Smt . Mumtaz Yunus Yalani V / s State of Maharashtra & others ) .
In the said decision , the Hon'ble Court have held that: -
"Constitution of India . Art . 226 , 14 -Compassionate appointment - Not a matter of right- Wife of deceased employee receiving Rs . 1,100 per month as family pension Rejection of application by son for compassionate appointment , cannot be found fault with .
The employment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right , but it is in the form of facility provided to the surviving members of the family of the deceased employer to tide over the sudden crisis on account of the death of breadwinner while considering such claim , the concerned authorities or public institution have to take into consideration the financial status of the family and have to as certain , whether there are sources available to the family for their livelihood members in the family and the income of the family would obviously included even family pension" .
5. At this juncture , I think it apropos to quote the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in the decisions reported in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vi's State of Haryana and others ( 1994 ) -4 Supreme Court Cases 138 , General Manager ( D & PB ) and others V / s Kunit Tiwari and another , ( 200 ) 7 Supreme Court Cases- 271 , Punjab National Bank V/ s Asvini Kumar Tajena , 2004 ( 7 ) Supreme Court Cases 265 State of J & K and others V / s Sajad Ahmed Mir ( 2006 ) 5 Supreme Court Cases , about which reference has been made by the Hon'ble Bombay Court in the decision referred above .
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/ s State of Haryana & others ( supra ) have held that:
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
8083 "The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and it is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for the post held by the deceased member ofsuch family.
The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of levelihood and . the authority concerned , with such a situation has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and only on satisfaction that but for the provision of employment , the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job to be offered to the eligible member of the family.
right " . Considerationfor such employment is not a vested 7. In the decision reported in ( 2004 ) 7 Supreme Court cases - 271 ( supra ) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:
" An appointmentby way of compassionate appointment is an exception carved out of the general rule for appointment on the basis of open invitation of application and merit . This exception has to be restored to in case of pecuniary where the dependants of an employee are left without any means of livelihood and that unless some source of livelihood is provided , the family would not be able to make both ends meet . "
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in ( 2006 ) 5 Supreme Court cases - 766 ( supra ) have held that:
"Normally an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other . Considerating the mandate of Art . 14 of the constitution , an appointment to the public office should only on the basis of competitive merits . This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand , such as death of sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back . Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner , the family survived and substantial period is over, the cannot be necessity to say " goodbye " to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution , "
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in 2004 ( 7 ) Supreme Court Cases 2005 ( supra ) have held that :-
" One thing which needs to be considered in such case in the retired benefits which are to be taken into consideration while dealing with prayer for compassionate appointment ".
10. With the touch stone of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Courts in the decisions 8084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
mentioned above , the facts and circumstances of the present case at hand are to be considered .
First of all , I think it proper to take up the submission made by the learned abvocate for the management that deceased Narayan was appointed on contract basis for a specific period and he was not a permanent employee of SCZCC and such , his family members are not entitled for compassionate employment , as such facility can only be extended to employees appointed on regular basis under the rules applicable to SCZ.CC. However, I find no force in the contention that Narayan was appointed on contract basis for a specific period . No document has been filed by the management in support of such contention. No reliance can be placed on the oral evidence of the managment witness in that respeci , in absence of any document to such appointment and in view of the number ofdocuments filed by the claimant which showbeyond doubt that deceased Narayan was a regular employee of SCZCC . Hence , it is held that Narayan was a regular employee.
11. The next contention which requires for consideration is as to whether the family of deceased Narayan is in distress due to the death of Narayan and compassionate appointment of Chandrakiran , the second son of the claimant is necessary, so as to tide over the sudden crisis on account of the death of the breadwinner .
In this regard, it is necessary to mention the documents Ext . W - 9 and Ext . W- 22 , which are filed bythe claimant. In Ext. W - 9 , the claimant has mentioned that her eldest son , Anil Narayan Tembhurne is working in the Army. In Ext . W- 22 , the claimant has mentioned about her family having a residential house in column III ( c ) and having total assets of Rs . 3,00.967.30P.
In her cross - examination before this Tribunal , the claimant has admitted that there is a house in her name , the value ofwhich is Rs . 1,00,000 to Rs . 1,50,000 and her eldest son is serving in Army and he had joined Army during the lifetime of her husband and her son , Chandrakiran is working as a labourer . She has also admitted to have received Rs . 25,000 and Rs . 15,000 from L.I.C. , Rs: 42,000 under the group saving linked insurance scheme. Rs . 74,000 as E.P.F. , Rs.49,967.00 towards D.C.R. Gratuity. She has further admitted that her daughter is already married.
From the admitted facts as mentioned above , it is abundantly clear that the financial status of the family is stable and there are two earning family members , the eldest son of the claimant in Army and the second son working as a labourer and the claimant is also getting family pension of Rs . 500 per month and as such , the family members of deceased Narayan is not entitled to compassionate appointment . Hence it is ordered:
PART II SEC . 3 ( 1 )
ORDER
The action of the management of South Central Zone Cultural Centre . Nagpur in denying appointment on compassionate grounds to shri Chandrakiran , son of late Narayan Tembhurne is legal and justified and the dependant of the deceased workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND. Presiding Ollicer नई दिल्ली , 26 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2897-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , कंन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एल.सी./आर/171 /95 एवं 212-96) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -12012/84/94- आईआर ( बी ।। ) । डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास गद , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th October . 2010
S.O. 2897 - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No CGIT LC/ R/ 171 /95 & CGIT /LC/ R/ 212/96 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court . Jabalpur. now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2010 .
[No. L -12012 8-494 - IR ( 13-10 D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO . CGIT/LC/ R/ 171 / 95 & CGIT/LC / R/ 212/ 96
Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan
Workman Union Shri Ramesh Singh Sangar, C/o Shri Gajraj Singh Tomar , VillageSihoniya. Distt. Morena ( MP)
Versus
Management General Manager , Central Bank of India . R.O. Nirma Bhawan , Near L.G. Office , Gwalior [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
AWARD
Passed on this 8th day of October , 2010 1.The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 12012/ 84/ 94 - IR ( B - II ) dated 25-9-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal : -
"Whether the action of the Manageemant Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Singh Sangar , Ex - Peon w.e.f. 14-10-93 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief is the concerned workmen entitled to ?"
2. Both the references are taken up together as both are between the same parties and the point of references are on the same question and the order of reference is also same .
3. The case of the workmen , in short is that the workmen was appointed on daily wages by verbal order on the post of peon in the Branch of the Central Bank of India Nayagaon on 1-9-89 and was terminated on 16-10-93 without any notice . He had worked 240 days in each calendar years specially in the year before termination from service . He was not paid retrenchment compensation under the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short I.D. Act , 1947 ) . It is alleged that he was paid wages through vouchers on different names . When the Central Govt . refused to refer the dispute , the workman filed Writ Petition No. 1431/94 before the Hon'ble High Court, Gwalior Bench and thereafter the dispute is referred by the Ministry . It is submitted that termination from service be declared illegal and back wages be paid .
4. The management contested the reference by filing Written Statement in the case . The case of the management , interalia , is that the workman was engaged on daily wages on exigency by the Branch Manager . He was engaged on daily wages as follows -
1. From 30-08-89 to 31-10-89
2. From 01-10-89 to 29-11-90
3. From 01-01-92 to 29-02-92
4. From 01-01-93 to 28-02-93
5. From 01-10-93 to 09-10-93 and on 14-10-93 It is denied that he worked 240 days in any calendar year. It is also denied that he was paid on any different names . It is stated that there is no violation of any of the provision of I.D. Act , 1947. It is submitted that he is not entitled to any relief
5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties , the following issues are framed: -
8085
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
( 1 ) Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of the workman w.e.f. 14-10-93 is legal and justified ?
( II ) What relief the workman is entitled for ?
6. Issue No. 1
The workman has not filed even a single document to establish that he worked 240 days in a calendar specially 12 months before the date of reference . He is simply examined as a witness . He has simply filed representation petition dated 18-10-93 which is marked as Exhibit W/ 1to show that he represented the managment to engage him in the service . Another document which is letter of the management is filed which is marked as Exhibit W/ 2 . This letter shows that the managment had offered him a job of part time safai karamchari and directed him to file required paper as had been directed . This document does not show thathe worked continuously from 1-9-89 to 16-10-93 . The workman Shri Ramesh Singh Sangar has admitted this fact that he was daily wages worker . When he did not work , he was not paid on that date but he got the wages of the days , he worked . He has further stated that he cannot say as to on what basis he had stated that he worked 240 days . He has stated that he had not complied of the direction of the management as in Exhibit W/ 2 . his evidence does not establish that he worked 240 days preceding the date with reference . Moreover he had himself not complied the direction of the management by which the offer of empolyment was made .
7. On the other hand , the management has also adduced one witness in the case . Shri A. K. Arora appears to be Manager of the Central Bank of India posted at Regional Office , Gwalior . He has supported in his evidence that paper No. 9/3 was issued to the workman . The said paper is marked as Exhibit W/ 2 by which the offer was made to the workman . It is clear that he had not accepted the offer himself . His evidence further shows that he had not completed 240 days in any calendar year and specially 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference . It is evident that there is no violation of any of the provision of the 1. D. Act 1947. Thus the action of the management appears to be legal and justified. This issue is decided in favour of the management .
8. Issue No. II -
On the basis of discussion made above . I find that the workmen is not entitledd to any relief . Accordingly the reference is answered .
9. In the result , the award is passed without any order to costs .
10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer 8086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIKA 29 , 1932
नई दिल्ली , 26 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2898.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर/ 234/87 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को22-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -12012/110/87 - डी. II (A) आईआर ( बी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th October , 2010
S.O. 2898. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No CGIT/ LC/R/ 234/ 87 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to management of Central Bank of India , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2010.
[No. L- 12012/ 110/ 87 - D.II ( A) IR ( B - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO . CGIT/LC/ R/234/87
Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan
Shri Tarachand Raikwar,
S/o Shri Ramdayal Raikwar, Nehru Ward,
Gotegaon,
PART 1 SEC. 30 ofdismissal of Shri Tarachand Raikwar S o Shri Ramdayal Raikwar, Peon with effect from 24-3-84 is justified ? If not to what relief is the concerned workmen is entitled """ 2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman , Shri Tarachand Raikwar was appointed as a peon w.e.f. 13-3-72 after passing written test and interview. The antecedent and police verification was also done . He is said to have been chargesheeted on 7-10-1982 for impersonation that he was Foolchand Raikwar and had secured appointment fraudulently on false transfer certificate by adopting unfair means as Tarachand Raikwar . he submitted his reply but after departmental enquiry, he was dismissed vide order dated 23-3-1984 . The delinquent workman preferred appeal which was rejected vide order dated 18-5-1984 . The dismissal order is illegal and bad in law . The Transfer Certificate was verified at the time of appointment and there was no reason to make preliminary enquiry after ten years of service . The report of the preliminary enquiry and the documents based for dismissal order were not supplied to the workman . The misconduct as had been alleged was not covered in the Shastry Award and Desai Award. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse and the defence of the workman was not considered while holding him guilty of misconduct . It is submitted that the order of termination be held unjustified and the workman be reinstated with full back wages .
Workman /Union
Distt. Narsinghpur ( MP)
Versus
...Management
Regional Manager, Central Bank of India , Gorakhpur , Jabalpur ( MP)
AWARD
Passed on this Ist day of October 2010 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 12012/ 110/87 - D.II (A) IR (B - II ) dated 9-11-87 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -
"Whether the action of the Management Central Bank of India Jabalpur in termination the services by way 3. The management appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement , the case of the management , interalia , is that the workman is Foolchand Raikwar s / o Bhaiyalal Raikwar. He had fraudulently got the employment in the Bank after impersonating himself as Tarachand Raikwar S / o Ram Dayal Raikwar. Tarachand Raikwar was found on enquiry that he was working in Ordnance factory . Itarsi . He was accordingly suspended on 31-7-81 and a departmental proceeding was initiated after serving a chargesheet on him . He was given full opportunity to defend himself but after enquiry he was found guilty of misconduct in securing employment by fraud . The Disciplinary Authority after considering the enquiry report . passed the order of dismissal dated 23-3-84 . he had been supplied with the particulars of chargesheet .It is submitted that the action of the management is justified and is not entitled to any relief.
4. On the basis ofthe pleadings of following issues areformulated: -
(1) Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is valid and legal ?
(II ) Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse ?
( III ) Whether the quantum of punishment was just and proper ?
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
5. Issue No. I
Issue No. I was taken up as preliminary issue . The then Tribunal passed the order dated 17-1-1996 that the departmental enquiry is held just , proper and legal . This issue is already answered earlier.
6. Issue No. II
It ispertinent to say that no fresh evidence is adduced in the reference by either of the parties . The point for consideration is as to whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer was perverse . The original copy of the departmental proceeding is filed by the management . On perusal of the departmental proceeding, it is clear that the witness No. 1 Mr. Tarachand Raikwar S/ o Shri Ramdayal Raikwar was examined . He was the real Tarachand Raikwar to whom the delinquent workman had impersonated for securing employment . He has stated that he is working in the Ordnance Factory, Itarsi . He had produced the original Transfter Certificate of the school . The delinquent workman had used the photocopy of the Transfer Certificate . He had been cross -examined by the Defence Representative . Hisevidence clearly shows that the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer was not perverse . Another witness is Shri Chhotelal Raikwar. He was peon in the Central Bank of India, Bhopal . His name and address was mentioned in the application of the delinquent workman as a refree . In his evidence he had denied to recognise the delinquent workman . He has been cross-examined by the Defence representative but there is nothing to disbelieve his evidence . Thus it is clear that Original School Transfer Certificate was produced by the real Tarachand Raikwar and the witnesses had supported the case of the management in the departmental proceeding . I find that there are sufficient evidence adduced in the departmental proceeding and therefore the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse . This issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman .
7. Issue No. III
Onthe basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the employment secured by the delinquent workman was illegal and the punishment imposed on the workman is just and proper. The action of the management is, there- fore , just and legal . The reference is accordingly answered .
8. In the result , the award is passed without any order to costs .
9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2899. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक 4322GI /10-26
8087
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ र्तिक 29 , 1932
ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 197/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -12012/ 86/2002- आईआर ( बी- II ) | डी. एस. एस. श्री निवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th October , 2010
S.O. 2899. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No 197/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government. on 11-10-2010.
[No. L - 12012/86/ 2002 - IR ( B - II ) | D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT - I , CHANDIGARH .
Case No. 1. D. No. 197/2002
Shri Varinder Kumar C/ o Shri T. C. Sharma . 25 Sant Nagar.. CivilLines , Ludhiana - 141001 .
Applicants
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India , Regional Office , Ghumar Mandi , Ludhiana- 141001 . Respondents APPEARANCES For the workman : For the Management: Shri T. C. Sharma . Shri N. K. Zakhmi .
AWARD
Passed on 24-9-2010 Camp Ludhiana Central Government vide notification No. L - 12012 86/2002 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 6th of September . 2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication: - Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in awarding the punishment of dismissal from service of Shri Varinder Kumar clerk w.e.f. 30-10-2000 is just and legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?" 8088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
Case is taken up for recording the evidence of the workman . Workman despite knowledge is not present for his evidence . No reasonable explanation on behalf of the workman has been given for his absence . The reference is already eight years old . It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference . In view of the above the present reference is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed . File be consigned .
Chandigarh . 24-9-2010
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 26 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2900.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय- II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 603/2 के5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012 / 180/ 2002 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्री निवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th October, 2010
S.O. 2900.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 603 /2K5 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court- II , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2010 .
[No. L - 12012/ 180 / 2002 - IR ( B - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH ,
PRESENT : Sri A. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer .
Case No. 1. D. 603 / 2K5
Registered on 23-06-2005
Sh . Ram Prasad , 1129 , Sector 33 - C , Chandigarh - 160047 .
[ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] APPEARANCES
Forthe Workman :
Shri O. P. Batra & Sumit Batra AR
Shri G. S. Sathi , Advocate For the Management :
AWARD
Passed on 15 Oct. 2010
The Central Government vide notification No. 1.- 12012 / 180 / 2002 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 24-2-2003 by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub - section ( 1 ) Clause ( d ) and sub- section 2 ( A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ram Prasad , Ex - Peon ( Daily Wage Basis ) w.e.f. 15-01-2002 with any notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation is just and legal ? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ?"
As per claim statement of workman he had joined the bank on 23-11-1995 as Peon . His services were terminated orally without any notice and compensation on 15-01-2002 . though he completed five years service and prior to his termination had put in more than 240 days service continuously in the bank . Persons junior to him have been retained in the service . He has claimed the regularization of his services , back wages and alflowances and monetary compensation.
The claim was contested by the management . It was stated that the workman was employed temporarily on daily wages without following the recruitment procedure . He was not appointed agaisnt any permanent vacancy and by competent authority, which is the Zonal - lead in the case of Peons . He is not entitled to be retained even in the employment of the bank . There is no permanent vacancy and no requirement of Peons at present . As per settlement between the management bank and the majority union . only the casual and temporary employees may be absorbed in the employment of the bank subject to availability of vacancies and still there are employees of this category waiting in the line . It was denied that the workman put in a continuous service and is entitle to the protection of Section 25F and 25G of the Act . On the pleadings of the parties , the following points arise for consideration :
....Applicants
Versus
The Zonal Manager , Punjab and Sind Bank , Zonal Office, Sector 17 - B , Chandigarh - 160017
Respondents
( i) Whether the workman is entitled to protection ofSection 25F and 25G of the Act; and whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 15-01-2002 without any notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation is just and proper?
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
( ii ) To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?
Workman has tendered his affidavit in evidence , while on behalf of management Jagjit Singh Puri , Senior Manager has tendered his affidavit in evidence . The workman has also filed the copies of bank vouchers ( Annexure D - 1 to D- 96) , statement of his Savings Bank Account No. 14725 (Annexure E - 1 to E - 90 ) and General charges statement , whereby the bank debited his salary for onward payment to him (Annexure F - 1 to F - 110 ) . The documents have been admitted in evidence as Ex . W - 2 to Ex . W - 222 . On the application of the workman the management also produced certified copies of the vouchers and the entries in the 1.edger .
Parties have submitted written arguments . I went through written arguments of the parties and the evidence on record . My findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-
Point No. 1
From the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rattan Singh Vs. Union of India & another 1998 SCC ( L & S ) 170 it is clear that the protection of Section 25F of the Act is a available to a daily wager also . In the said case the appellant had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since he was a workman , he was entitled to the protection of 25F of the Act and the said protection could not be denied to him on the ground that he was a daily rated worker .
Forthe entitlement of Section 25F of the Act it is to be seen whether the workman has been in continuous service for not less than one year under the management ? As per dictionary clause in section 25B if the workman during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days , he will be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year . It is important to note that after the evidence of the parties , particularly after the workman tendered in his evidence , the Bank vouchers , Savings Bank Account Statement and General Charges statement Ex . W - 2 to W - 222 , the management in its written arguments did not press the plea that the workman did not put 240 days continuous service in the 12 calendar months preceding to his termination . The arguments of management are confined only to the relief available to the workman . It is therefore , established / admitted position that the workman had completed 240 days continuous service during 12 calendar months preceding to his termination . Admittedly his services were terminated without any notice and without payment of compensation under Section 25F of the Act , while he was entitled to that Obviously , the termination of his services without any notice and paying retrenchment compensation is in violation of Section 25F of the Act and such termination of service is not just and legal .
8089 The workman has alleged that while terminating his services , employee junior to him were retained , but a general statement in this regard has been made and no specific instances have been given . The management witness in his cross - examination has stated that he has no knowledge that any person junior to the workman was retained . Therefore , the workman has failed to prove that provisions ofSection 25G of the Act were violated while terminating his services . However , there was a violation of Section 25F of the Act as has been held above and the termination of the services of the workman in violation of the said provision is not just and legal . Point No. 1 isdecided accordingly, in favour of the workman .
Point No. 2
The workman has claimed the regularization of his services with back wages and compensation . The case of the management is that workman had not been appointed by the competent authority and as per recruitment rules . he is not entitled to reinstatement even . Along with his written arguments the counsel for the management has filed a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 15885 of 2007 wherein an award of Rs . 40,000 by way of compensation instead of reinstatement of back wages of the Tribunal was not interfered with by the Hon'ble High Court .
The workman during cross - examination has admitted that he has not applied for the appointment in the bank and there was no public advertisement for the post . He was not given an appointment letter either and he was used to be paid for the number of days he worked in the bank either fortnightly or monthly. From his statement the stand of the management that the workman was not appointed as per recruitment rules stands vindicated . There is nothing to show that the workman was appointed by a competent authority, which according to management is the Zonal head . I do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the workman that because provisions of Section 25F were not complied with , the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service . As was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Secretary state of Karnataka & Others Versus Uma Devi & Others ( 2006 ) 4 SCC - 1 .
" On a survey ofjudgments of the Supreme Court on the point , the predominant view is seen to be that appointments made without following the due process or the rules for appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and that the court cannot direct their absorption or regularization or re- engagement or making them permanent . " In state of Uttranchal & another Versus Prantiya Sinchai Avam Bandh Yojana Sharmik Mahaparishad 2007 (6 ) R.A.J. 68 , The Hon'ble Supreme Court held: -- 8090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
( i) The completion of 240 days ' work does not confer the right of regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act .
( ii ) No regularization is permissible in exercise of executive powers of the Government under Article 162 thereof in contravention of the rules .
( iii) It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the service .
( iv ) Only because a person had been working for more than 240 days , he does not derive any legal right to be regularized in service .
(v ) There was no question of any automatic regualrization .
From the above it is clear that the workamn cannot be reinstated since his appointment was not according to rules . However, since his services were terminated without mplying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act , ay be awarded compensation . He has about six years ' ice with the management to his credit . I think a compensation of Rs . 60,000 ( Rupees Sixty thousands only) would be just and proper in his case . The reference is answered in favour of the workman , but instead of allowing the relief of regularization of his services or back wages and allowances , he is awarded Rs . 60,000 ( Rupees Sixty thousands only ) by way of compensation . The management is directed to pay the said compensation to the workman within a month of receiving the copy of the award . Let two copies of the award be sent to the Central Government after due compliance .
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 26 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2901.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल क के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 03/ 2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2010 कां प्राप्त हुआ था।
[ सं. एल -12011/73/2007- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवासराव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th October , 2010
S.O. 2901. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 03/2009) of the Contral Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2010.
[No. L - 12011 / 73 / 2007 - IR ( B - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Oflicer ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT , LUCKNOW PRESENT : Dr. Manju Nigam, Presiding Officer I. D. No. 03/2009 Ref No. L - 12011 / 73 /2007 - IR ( B - II ) dated 17-02-2009 BETWEEN
The Secretary, Punjab National Bank Workers Union ( U.P. ) , 128 / F / 75 , Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur (Espousing case of Shri Mustaq Ahmad ) AND
The Senior Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank , Regional Office , Devkali Road, Faizabad.
AWARD 15-102010
1. By Order No. L - 12011 / 73 / 2007 - IR ( B - 11 ) , dated 17-02-2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour , New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by Clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this Industrial Dispute between the Secretary, Punjab National Bank Workers Union ( U.P. 128 / F / 75 ) , Kidwai Nagar , Kanpur ( Espousing case of Shri Mustaq Ahmad) and the Senior Regional Manager , Punjab National Bank , regional Office , Devkali Road , Faizabad for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is :
" Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in not making payment of cashier Allowance to Shri Mustaq Ahmad on the plea that only one allowance of higer post is admissible is legal and justified ? what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "
AND
" Whether the workman has been entrusted with certain duties requiring greater risk and responsibility which are meant to be performed by an officer of the bank as per bank's procature ? If yes what relief the workman is entitled to ? " भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
3. The order of reference was endorsed to the Secretary, Punjab National Bank Workers Union ( U.P. ) , 128 / F/ 75 , Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur with direction to the party raising the dispute to filed the statement of claim along with relevant documents , list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under Rule 10 (B ) of the Industrial Disputes (Central ), Rules , 1957.
8091 illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail . In the instant case the burden was on the workman's union to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in not making payment of cashier allowance to the workman is illegal and unjustified as well it was the union to prove that the workman has been entrusted with certain duties requiring greater risk and responsibility which are meant to be preformed by an Officer of the bank as per bank's precedure. The workman's union has not filed its statement ofclaim.
7. In the above circumstances , it appears that the workman's union does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of which it has raised present industrial dispute : therefore , the present reference order is decided as ifthere is no grievance left with the workman . Resultantly no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly .
8. Award as above .
Lucknow
05-10-2010
4. The reference order was registered in the Tribunal on 25-02-2009 and registered notices were issued to the parties with direction to the workman's union to file its statement of claim on 13-03-2009 ; along with relevant documents , list of reliance and witnesses with an advance copy to the opposite party . On 04-03-2009 , the envelop containing notice to the opposite party was received back in the office with an endorsement that ' likhit pate se yah karyalaya band ho kar alag chala gaya hai atah sahi pate ke liye vaapas hai ' . However , none appeared on behalf ofthe parties on the date fixed i.e. 13-03-2009 . When none appeared from parties on following dates i.e. 17-04-2009 and 22-05-2009 , it was directed on 22-05-2009 to issue notice to the workman's union with direction to file statement of claim as well as to provide correct address of the management . Again none appeared on behalf of the parties on the dates fixed i.e. on 24-07-2009 , 18-09- 2009, 23-10-2009 , 11-12-2009 , 05-02-2010 . On 18-03-2010, one Shri P. K. Tiwari appeared for the opposite party without any formal authority and 30-04-2010 was fixed as next date of hearing . On 30-04-2010 another notice by speed post was issued to the workman to file its statement of claim on 04-06-2010 . None appeared from the parties on 04-06-2010 and 13-07-2010 . Shri P. K. Tiwari again appeared on 13-08-2010 on behalf of the opposite party and stated that on the next date he will file his authority and certain documents on behalf of the Bank ; and accordingly , 26-08-2010 was fixed . The parties remained absent on following dates 26-08-2010 and 03-09-2010 . Eventoday i.e. on 05-10-2010 the workman's union has not bothered to put up its appearance on to file its statement of claim ; whereas Shri P. K. Tiwari appeared on behalf of the opposite party and filed its authority (M- 10).
5. Shri Tiwari appearing for the management ofthe Bank stated that it was for the workman's union to come forward with its case and since he has not turned up and has not filed any statement of claim before this Trubunal , therefore his claim does not sustain .
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order , the burden lies upon him to prove Dr. MANJU NIGAM . Presiding Oflicer नई दिल्ली , 26 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2902.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 145/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/51/2003- आईआर ( बी II ) | डी. एस. एस . श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th October , 2010
S.O. 2902.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 145 / 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , No. 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Central and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2010 .
[No. 1-12012 /51 /2003-1R ( B - II ) | D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 8092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- I , CHANDIGARH .
Case I. D. No. 145/03
Shri Nek Lal , S / o Shri Sukh Ram , H. No. 5558, Sector - 55 , Chandigarh .
PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] workman has prayed for declaring his termination order illegal and void being against the provisions of the Act and for subsequent order reinstating his services with all the consequential benefits .
....Applicant
Versus
The Zonal Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank , Zonal Office , Sector - 17 - B , Chandigarh - 160017 .
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the Workman
: Shri Krishan Lal .
Shri A. P. S. Guliani .
For the Management :
AWARD
Passed on 13-10-2010
Government of India vide notification No. L - 12012/ 51 / 2003 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 24-06-2003 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ( the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : -
" Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Nek Lal S/ o Shri Sukh Ram , Ex- Peon ( Daily Wage Basis ) w.e.f. 15-03-2002 without any notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation is just and legal ? If not , what relief the concerned workman isentitled to and from which date ? "
After receiving the reference , parties were informed . Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The case of the workman in nut shell is that he has worked in differentofficesof Punjab & Sind Bank w.e.f. 18-06-1998 to 14-03-2002 . His services were terminated without notice or one month wage in lieu of notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation . The workman has completed 240 days of work in every calendar year including in the year preceding to the date of his termination . His termination from the services is illegal and void being against the provisions of the Act . It is further contended by the workman that fresh persons were appointed after the termination of his services without providing him the opportunity to work . This is also violative of provisions of Section 25H of the Act . On the basis of the above , the The management appeared and contested the claim of the workman by filing written statement . Preliminary technical objection was raised by the management that workman was employed on purely temporary basis and was not recruited as per the procedure of the bank for the post of peon against the permanent vacancy . He was not entitled for the protection of the provisions of the Act because a daily waged worker / temporary employee has no right to post . It is not denied by the management that workman has completed 240 days of work in every calendar year including in the year preceding to the date of his termination . It is also not denied that no notice , one month wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman before terminating his services .
Bothof the parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Evidence of the workman Shri Nek L.al was recorded on 18-11-2009 in open Court on oath.
The management was also afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence but in spite of several opportunities afforded by this Tribunal the witness of the management could not ensure the presence and evidence not recorded and closed accordingly .
Both of the parties were hear at length along with their learned counsels . On perusal of the materials on record , it is evidently clear that workman has prayed for an order of reinstatement with consequential benefits on two grounds.
(1) He has completed 240 days of work in every calendar year with the management of respondent bank including the year preceding to the date of his termination and his services were terminated without any notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and without payment of lawful terminal dues , and
(2) Fresh persons were appointed after the termination of his services without affording him the opportunity to work .
Onboth of these issues , the management has taken a technical preliminary objection that workman was not appointed as per the procedure laid down in the rules for Class- IV employees for the appointment against permanent vacancy. On the above technical objection , the management has contended that workman is not entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 25H and Gef the Industrial Disputes Act as alleged . It is settled law of 8093 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record , I am of the view that workman has failed to prove appointment / engagement of any fresh persons after the termination of his services .
service jurisprudence that once workman has engaged by the management in the position of the workman defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and he has substantially worked with the management , the legality of his initial appointment shall not barred the protection of provisions of Section 25G and H of the Act . Meaning thereby , without giving trouble to the mental conscious regarding the initial appointment of the workman , if the workman has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination , he is very well protected under umbrella of provisions of Section 25 H and G of the Industrial Disputes Act . Moreover , the issue of appointment against the substantial vacancy as per the procedure laid down in the rules is altogether different then the issue of protection of illegal termination of the workman who has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination. These are two classes of the employees and service conditions of each class are different . One class is the employees regularly appointed against the substantial post as per the rules of the department and the second class is a person who qualifies to the definition of the workman other than the employees appointed permanently as per rules , enshrined in the Industrial Disputes Act and has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination . These two classes of employee arc on different footing and as stated earlier once it is proved before this Tribunal that workman has completed 240 days ofwork in the preceding year from the date of his termination the legality of his initial appointment has not to be considered by the Tribunal .
Admittedly, workman has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination . No notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman before terminating his services . This makes the termination of the workman illegal and void being against the provisions of the Act .
As stated earlier that on acount of violation of Section 25F of the Act , the termination of the workman was bad , illegal and void abinitio . The documents filed by the workman also proved his contention . Whenever the termination of the workman has been declared to be bad , illegal and void abinitio being against the provisions of Section 25F of the Act . There are two possible remedies available to the workman . The violation or right of the workman can be remedied by an order of his reinstatement into the services with or without consequential benefits . The second remedy may be a reasonable compensation . It is further the settled principle of service jurisprudence that priority should be given for reinstatement of the workman . The protection of right to work is protected in the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 contains the very important right relatingto the life and personal liberty of a man . Right from the establishment of the Hon'ble the Apex Court to the present era of constitutionl juriprudence , Hon'ble the Apex Court has emphasized very liberally on the fundamental right of life and personal liberty . Under this right it is inherent that every citizen has a right to lead dignified life . Leading the dignified life by a workman who is amongst the socio- economically weaker section of the Indian democracy and polity means the protection of work. Accordingly, 1 am of the view that reinstatement of workman with full back wages on the same position on which he was working prior to his termination is the only remedy . My above view finds favour with the information given by learned counsel for the management that some cases of the similar nature have been settled by the management before different Judicial Forums and services of the those workmen have been reinstated . The adamancy of the management for not settling the case has been mentioned in the order dated 20-09-2010 . The act of the managment as per order dated 20-09-2010 is against the litigation policy adopted by the Central Government recently .
Accordingly, the management of respondent bank is directed to reinstate the services of the workman with all the consequential benefits within one month from the date of publication of award . The reference is accordingly, answered. Let Central Government be approached for publication of award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.
G. K. SIIARMA , Presiding Officer The workman has also challenged the legality of his termination order on the ground that fresh persons were appointed without providing him the opportunity to work . It is also the settled law of service jurisprudence that once the service of a daily waged worker are no more required and his services are terminated as per the provisions of the Act , his relations to the organization does not comes to an end . It also creates the vested right of the workman that if services of any worker relating to the similar nature of work are required , priority shall be given to the retrenches . But in this case workman has failed to prove the engagement of any fresh persons after the termination of his services . It is the pleadings in the garlanding words without proof . Thus , after considering 8094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
नई दिल्ली , 26 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2903.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ओवरसीज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/117/2006 आई आर( बी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th October, 2010
S.O. 2903. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.36/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court- 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2010 .
[ No. L - 12012 / 117 /2006 - IR ( B - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANDNDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case I.D. No. 36/2007
Shri Aslam S / o Shri Jagga R/ o Village & PO Baddowal , Tehsil & Distt . Ludhiana
[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] "Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in dismissing the services of Shri Aslam Ex - Messenger w.e.f. 26-02-2006 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled for ? "
After receiving the reference parties were informed. Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The case of the workman in nut shell is that he was appointed by the management of the bank on the post of messenger boy and thereafter , was designated as Daftri w.e.f. 04-07- 1996. He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 26-03-2005 illegally on account of some irregularities committed by him in the premises of the bank . No charge was proved against him but on the basis of wrong enquiry report he was dismissed from the services . No proper opportunity of being heard was given to him . The evidence recorded by the enquiry officer was not sufficient to prove the charge .
The management appeared and opposed the statement of claim by filing written statement . It is contended by the management that the charge levelled against the workman was well proved by independent witnesses and disciplinary authority on the basis of the enquiry report has rightly dismissed the workman from the services .
Onperusal of the meterials on record it is evidently clear that workman was charge sheeted as follows : - 1. On 03-12-2003 , he submitted requisition letter forging the signature of Mrs. Parminder Kaur , SB Account holder of No. 21148 and fraudulently obtained a cheque book containing cheque leaves No.476581 to 476600. In order to conceal the cheque book receive by him , he had stealthily removed the pages No. 83 to 84 of the cheque book issued register relating to delivery of the cheque book for SB No. 21148 .
...Applicant
Versus
The Chief Manager , Indian Overseas Bank , Regional Office SCO No. 11 , Madhya Marg , Sector- 7- C , Chandigarh.- 160019
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
: Shri Chander Kumar Jha For the Workman
Shri R.K. Chopra
For the Management :
AWARD
Passed on 13-10-2010
Government of India vide Notification No. L - 12012 / 117 / 2006 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 05-06-2007 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , ( the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
2. He had also stealthily removed and destroyed the original specimen signature sheet relating to SB A/ c No. 21148 of Mrs. Parminder Kaur from the SB specimen signature folder and pasted in its place another specimen signature sheet containing signature purportedly that on the account holder . The signature pasted by him was not verified and authenticated by any official of the branch. The signature appearing in the specimen signature sheet was found to be forged .
3. Utilizing the above cheque book fraudulently obtained by him , he had in collusion with the person known to him , got four cheques presented by two persons known to him forging the signature of the account holder and fraudulently withdrawn Rs . 1,63,000 in the SB A/ c No. 21148 ofMrs. Parminder Kaur .
4. He also removed the photo of Mrs. Parminder Kaur from the S.B. A/ c opening form to facilitate passing of the above cheques . He wilfully caused misconduct within the meaning of the clause 5 ( d ) of the Memorandum of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Settlement dated 10-04-2002 between the Bank and its workmen. The above acts are also prejudicial to the interest of the Bank within the meaning of gross misconduct as defined in clause 5 ( i ) of the aforsaid settlement .
Onthe issue of fairness of enquiry both of the parties were heard at length and issue of fairness of enquiry was decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 16-05-2010 . In the said order dated 16-06-2010 the enquiry was held to be proper and fair and the parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence on perversity in decision making, if any , by the enquiry officer and on quantum of punishment. It is evidently clear, vide order dated 05-07- 2010 that both of the parties preferred not to aduce any evidence even on perversity of decision making , if any, by the enquiry officer and on quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. It was stated by learned counsel for the workman that evidence recorded by the enquiry officer is sufficient to prove the perversity of the enquiryofficer.
Both of the parties were heard again at length on the issue mentioned above . I have also perused the complete enquiry file. As more as evidence of five witnesses were recorded by enquiry officer. The officer who conducted the preliminary enquiry was also cross- examined. In his preliminary enquiry report it is specifically mentioned that the workman has admitted before the enquiry officer conducted the preliminary enquiry regarding his involvement in illegally withdrawn the funds from the account of Smt. Parminder Kaur. Not a single question was asked by workman in the cross - examination of the enquiry officer conducted the preliminary enquiry. It means the statement of the enquiry officer conducted the preliminary enquiry is unrebutted . On going through the entire statement given by the enquiry officer , I am of the view that the statement is trust worthy and reliable . Moreover, the other witnesses who were the employees of the bank have also proved that Shri Aslam was seen with Daljeet Singh who has fraudulently withdrawn the amount from the account of Smt . Parminder Kaur. The handwriting of Shri Aslam was also proved by the handwriting expert in evidence adduced before the enquiry officer . Thus , on all the charges namely withdrawn of the amount , misplacing the authenticated specimen signature sheet and pasting the fabricated signature sheet , the involvement of the workman is well proved . No doubt , there has been no direct evidence before the enquiry officer but the circumstances which were proved by the witnesses of the bank clearly established the involvement of the workman in the fraudulent activity. Moreover, the opportunity was there to the workman being an integral part of the office of the bank working in the branch in question .
Thus , the cumulative effect of evidence adduced before the enquiry officer is that active involvement of workman in the fraudulent activities was established by the circumstantial evidence . Accordingly, there was no 4322GI/10-27
8095
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
perversity in decision making of the enquiry officer proving all the charges against the workman . Considering the nature ofcharge and misconduct and the punishment awarded to the workman. I am also of the view that it was proportionate to the commmitted misconduct . The workman is accordingly not entitled for any relief. Let Central Government be approached for publication of award , and thereafter file be consigned to record room. It is once again stated that order dated 16-06-2010 passed by this Tribunal on preliminary issue of fairness of enquiry shall be part ofthe this award . The office is directed to enclose the copy of the said order while sending the award for publication to the Central Governinent .
GK . SHARMA , Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 36/2007 Annexure- l
Order dated : 16-6-2010
This file is placed before me for order on fairness of enquiry. I have heard the workman in person and learned counsel for both of the parties . Entire enquiry file has also been filed by the management . I have also gone through the entire materials on record including the enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority. While hearing the workman in person by Tribunal , the workman has conceaded the following facts: -
(1) That he was working as Daftri in the Office with the management in the branch in question
(2) He was issued a charge sheet .
(3) 11e answered the charge sheet after understanding the nature of charges .
(4) An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct a departmental enquiry.
(5) He has appeared before the enquiry officer .
(6)All the copies of the documents which were filed by the management were provided to him.
(7) He was not given the permission of cross- examination of any witness adduced by the management .
(8) The enquiry officer and other oflicers were talking in English during departmental proceedings and he was unable to understand the language .
(9) He was afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence in defence .
(10) Copy of the enquiry report was not provided to him . He has received the show cause notice .
Thereafter, I have also heard learned counsel for the parties. The main contentions on the fairness of the enquiry of the workman are that he was not conversant with the English language so he cannot understand the nature of enquiry conducted against him, opportunity for cross- 8096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
examination of the witness of management was not given , he was not afforded the opportunity to adduce the evidence in defence and he was not provided with the copy of the enquiry report . I have gone through the entire materials on record . From proceedings of enquiry, it has come to the notice ofthis Tribunal that on 29-07-2005 and 30-07-2005 workman was permitted to engage his defence representative . The defence representative was engaged and the same was allowed by the enquiry officer to proceeded with in the enquiry according to law. The above proceedings also proved that one Shri S. K. Gattar was appointed as a translator to translate the entire proceedings before the enquiry officer in the language known to the workman . The language of the workman was Punjabi and Shri S. K. Gattar was very well versed in Punjabi & English languages . The proceedings of the enquiry contains the certificate by the enquiry officer that Shri S. K. Gattar , as translator has translated the sentences from English to Punjabi to enable to the workman to understand the nature of enquiry. On perusal of the entire materials on record it is also evident that every possible opportunity for cross- examination was afforded to the defence representative . Every witness was cross - examined . The opportunity for adducing evidence in defence was also given. Letter dated 06-12-05 also proved that on a plea raised by the workman before the disciplinary authority about non - supplying the copy of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority has supplied the copy of the enquiry report afresh before moving further for awarding the punishment.
Thus , I am of the view that a fair and proper enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and there has been no violation of any rules of principle of natural justice .
This finding is regarding the fairness and reasonableness of enquiry. Meaning thereby , whether the procedure for conducting the enquiry was adopted by the enquiry officer or not ? While deciding the issue on fairness of enquiry, the Tribunal has also to visualize whether there is any violation of any rules of principle of natural justice . This Tribunal has not to go beyond this while deciding this issue of fairness of enquiry .
It is also important to mention that while deciding the issue on fairness of enquiry, this Tribunal is not legally bound to record the oral evidence of the parties . If in the opinion of the Tribunal , the issue of fairness of enquiry can be adjudicated and decided on the basis of the documents supplied by the parties , it is not mandatory to record the oral evidence . This Tribunal is of the view that complete file of the proceedings is on record which is sufficient to disposed off the issue on fairness of enquiry . Accordingly , this issue is decided .
There is a difference in conducting the enquiry in a fair and proper manner in compliance of the principle of natural justice and the decision making of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority . There may be cases
[ PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) | where the enquiry might have been conducted in a very fair and proper manner but the decision making of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority may suffers with any perversity . The perversity may be for non- evaluating the evidence properly or evaluating the evidence which has not placed before the enquiry officer . No doubt . this Tribunal cannot act as the appellate authority of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority , but a limited scope is left regarding the perversity and illegality in decision making . Before giving any finding on perversity and illegality on account of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, if any, it is mandatory to afford the opportunity for adducing evidence to both of the parties . Thus , while holding that an enquiry was fairly and properly conducted in pursuance of the principle of natural justice . this Tribunal is affording the opportunity for adducing evidence to both of the parties on following two issues :
(1 ) On perversity in dicision making , if any, of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority .
(2 ) Quantum of punishment .
Both of the parties are directed to adduce their evidence on both of the issues mentioned above on 05-07-2010 positively. Parties be inforned .
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 26 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2904, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/ एल सी/आर/ 149 /97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22 10- 2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-17012/23/96- आई आर ( बी 11 ) | डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th October , 2010
S.O. 2904. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. CGIT LC/ R/ 149/ 97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-10-2010 .
[ No. L - 17012/ 23 / 96 - IR ( B - 1 ] ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 / कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT /LC / R/ 149/ 97
Presiding Officer: Shri MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Shri Rajendra Singh Solanki ,
Workman/Union 42, Block Colony, Nai Aawadi , Mandsour , Madhya Pradesh
Versus
Sr. Divisional Manager ,
Life Insurance Corporation of India ,
DivisionalOffice ,
...Management Jeewan Prakash , 19 , M. G. Road, Indore
AWARD
Passed on this 4th day of October , 2010 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Nitification No. L - 17012 / 23 /96 - IR ( B - II ) dated 26-5-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India in terminating the services of Shri Rajendra Singh Solanki w.c.f. 14-6-94 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled ? " 2. The workman appeared on 19-11-2001 in person butdid not file statement of claim . Lastly the then Tribunal proceeded exparte against the workman on 7-2-2007 .
3. The management also appeared through his lawyer but did not file any Written Statement . Lastly the management also became absent in the reference .
4. It is evident that the workman does not want to raise any Industrial Dispute or he has no case to contest with the management though sufficient time was granted . Thus the reference is answered.
5. In the result , no dispute award is passed wothout any costs .
6. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employment as per rules .
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अक्तूबर, 2010
का.आ. 2905. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच . अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय । , चंडीगढ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 169/2003 ) को पकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ मं. एल 12012/ 123/2003- आई आर( बी- II ) | डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी
8097 New Delhi , the 26th October , 2010
S.O. 2905. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 194 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.169 / 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 22-10-2010.
[ No. L - 12012 / 123 / 2003 - IR ( B - II ) | D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRSIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIATRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1, CHANDIGARH
Case ID No.169 /2003
Sh . Sudesh Kumar S / o Sh . Amar Nath , R / o NJ - 42 ; Mohalla Malkan , Jalandhar City , Punjab
Applicant
Versus
Dy. Genl . Manager , Canara Bank , Circle Office , Sector - 34 , Plot No. 1 , Chandigarh - 160017 .
Respondent
APPEARANCES
: Shri B. N. Schgal For the workman
Shri N. K. Zakhmi
:
For the management
AWARD
Passed on 12-10-2010
Government of India vide Notification No. L - 12012 / 123 / 2003 - IR ( B - 11 ) dated 16-09-2003 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , ( the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of Dy . General Manager , Canara Bank.Chandigarh in dismissing Shri Sudesh Kumar S'o Shri Amar Nath . Ex Special Asstt . from services w.e.f. 7-6-2003 is just and legal ? If not , what relief the Workman is entitled to ed from which date ? "
The case of the workman in nut shell is that while working as Special Assistant Canara Bank at Maihiran Gate , Jalanddhar branch , his wife Smt . Komal Devgan has issued a cheque favouring Mis . Triputi Capital Service Ltd. for Rs . 10000 bearing Cheque No. 976321 dated 18-2-1999 from saving bank account No. 6777 maintained at the same Canara Bank Branch . His wife was short of funds . He contacted Smt . Davinder Kaur working with him in the same branch on 22-2-1999 and she consented to extend the financial help for a short period and permitted him to transfer an amount of Rs . 10,000 from her OD account to the account of his wife on 23-2-1999 , the day.
8098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKA 29 , 1932
cheque favouring M/ s . Triputi Capital Service was presented. As Smt . Davinder Kaur was on leave on that day her written authorization could not be taken . Necessary debitand credit slips were acted upon on due authorization from Shri K.K. Bhalla , the then Manager for transferring the said amount and the amount was debited by Mr. Pardeep Malhotra concerned clerk in the book of the accounts . From 22-2-1999 , Smt . Davinder Kaur was on leave and on 27-2-1999 , workman transferred the amount of Rs . 10,000 from his wife's account to the OD account of Simt .Davinder Kaur. On 27-2-1999 , Smt . Davinder Kaur was requested to put her signature on the reverse of voucher dated 23-2-1999 , but she refused on account of being the member of rival union . Smt . Davinder Kaur lodged a complaint on 9-3-1999 against the workman for which he was issued a charge sheet dated 18-1-2000 . After departmental enquiry desciplinary authority awarded the punishment dismissing the workman from services . Appeal preferred by the workman was also dismissed .
The management appeared and filed the written statement . It was denied by the workman that any consent was taken from Smt. Davinder Kaur for withdrawing Rs . 10.000 from her OD account . Enquiry was fairly and properly conducted and as per the contention of the management punishment awarded to him was/ is proportionate to the committed misconduct . Both of the parties were heard on fairness of enquiry on 19-11-2009 . Enquiry was held to be proper and fair and in accordance withthe principle of natural justice vide order dated 19-11- 2009. Both of the parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidenced on perversity of decision making and on quantum of punishment . Evidence of the parties was recorded. Complete enquiry file has been filed by the management.
I have heard the parties at length .
The main issues for adjudication before this Tribunal are as follows:
1. Whether enquiry officer has rightly held all the charges well proved against the workman ?
2. Whether the act of workman constitutes any misconduct , if yes , the nature of misconduct?
3.Whether the punishment awarded to the workrman is disproportionate ?
4.Relief
Firstly I am taking issues Nos . 1,2 and 3 for adjudication . All these issues are related to each other . Discussion on one issue shall other. According , all these issues are hereby answered simultaneously. On perusal of material on record , it is evidently clear that the workman was charge sheeted for the following three counts:
The charge sheet given to the workman is as follows: "Whereas , there are prima facie grounds for believing that you have committed misconduct the particulars whereof are given below, this Charge sheet has been drawn up againt you and you are hereby required to submit to us within fifteen days
11
[ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | of the receipt of this charge sheet a statement in writing setting forth your defence , if any, and showing cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you . "
CHARGE
You are presently working as a Special Assistant at our Canara Bank , MH Gate , Jalandhar since 18-5-98 .
Smt . Davinder Kaur ( 53491 ) , clerk is maintaining an DD Account with our MH Gate Jalandhar Branch . On 23-2-99 , you prepared/ authorized a debit slip for Rs . 10,000 for debiting the DD Account of Smt . Davinder Kaur unauthorisedly. The above said proceeds of Rs . 10,000 were credited to the SB Account No. 6777, standing in the name of your wife , Smt . Komal Devgun and the relative creditslip was also prepared by you . The above said amount ofRs. 10,000 was got transferred by you unauthorisedly to the SB Account No. 6777, standing in the name of your wife Smt . Komal Devgun , to facilitate the passing of the cheque bearing no . 976321 dated 18-2-99 issued by her favouring M / s. Triputi Capital Services ( Pvt . ) Ltd. The above said amount of Rs . 10,000 was transferred back to DD Account of Smt . Davinder Kaur on 27-2-99 .
Smt. Davinder Kaur ( 53491 ) . Clerk was on leave on 23- 2-99 and her on account had been got debited by you for transferring Rs . 10,000 to the SB Account of your wife unauthorisedly and without her consent/ permission . An investigation conducted into the matter has confirmed the above.
An explanation was called for from you for your above said actsby our Staff Section ( W) , Circle Office , Chandigarh vide their letter no . CHSW 2935 EP 99 MAN dated 16-4-99 and the reply submitted by you was found neither covincing nor satisfactory.
By your above acts you have misused your official position and tempered the records of the Bank by preparing/ authorizing the debit/ credit slips to transfer the amount from the DD Account of Smt . Davinder Kaur to the SB Account of your wife fraudulently.
By your above acts you have failed to discharge your duties with utmost intergrity, honesty and thus committed a Gross Misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation 2A( i ) of Canara Bank Service Code. By your above action , you have willfully caused damage/ attempted to cause damage to the property of the Customers/Bank and committed a Gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI . Regulation 3 (j ) of Canara Bank Service Code .
Your above acts being prejudicial to the interests of the Bank , you have committed a Gross Misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI . Regulation 3 ( m ) of Canara Bank Service Code .
18 Jan. 2000 CircleOffice, Chandigarh
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
Onplain reading of the charge sheet it is clear that the workman was charge sheeted under Regulation 3 ( i ) , 3 (j ) and 3 ( m) of chapter XI , Canara Bank Service Code . Regulation 3 ( i ) is relating to gross negligence i.e. to say negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss . Regulation 3 (j ) is relating to willful damage or attempt to damage the property of the bank or any of its customer , whereas , Regulation 3 ( m ) is relating to doing any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the bank . It is hereby made clear that all the three charges have been made against the workman for his single act of withdrawing Rs . 10,000 from the OD account of his colleague employee. Before discussing the nature of act committed by the workman and the charges levelled against him , it is important to mention the purpose of disciplinary action against the workman . Chapter XI of the Canara Bank Service Code , relating to disciplinary action opens with the purpose of disciplinary action . Clause 1 and 2 of Chapter XI reads as under :
"( 1 ) Disciplinary action means imposing on an employee punishment as hereinafter provided with a view to punish or correct any misconduct on his part . Such action is said to be taken when an order imposing punishment is passed and the punishment imposed shall take effect on the date of the order unless the order specifies a different date for the purpose .
(2) Pointing out or correcting any mistake in the work done by or in the conduct of any employee , tendering to any employee , whether orally or in writing any advice or admonition , requiring any employee whether orally or in writing to explain any work done by him or any conduct on his part , or warning an employee that if he does not correct himself disciplinry action may have to be take against him , or such or similar action is not disciplinary action . " The plain reading of clause I and II of chapter XI of the Code makes it clear that the purpose of disciplinary action primarily is to correct a workman . The punishment is awarded when the act of the workman which costitutes the misconduct is beyond correction or even after opportunity to correct, the workman fails to correct himself.
The terms misconduct has also been defined by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt . of NCT of Delhi , 2007 (4 ) SLR 243. In para 8 of the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha , relying upon several judicial pronouncement of Indian Courts and Abroad , the definition of misconduct has been mentioned as under:
"Code of conduct as set out in the conduct rules clearly indicates the conduct expected from a member of the service . It would follow that the conduct which is blameworthy for the Govt . servant in the context rules out to be misconduct if a servant conducts himself in a very inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service , it is misconduct . "
8099
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
In para 8 itself, Hon'ble the Apex Court , regarding the definition of misconduct relying upon the Stroud Judicial dictionary has also held as under :-
"Misconduct means , misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence , errors of judgments or innoccent mistakes , do not constitute such misconduct " .
Now the duty of this Tribunal is to see whether the enquiry officer has considered the issue that the acts doneby the workman were done with ill motive or it was an act of negligence or error in judgment .
There is no dispute on the issue that the workman has withdrawn an amount of Rs . 10,000 from the account of his colleague official and credited the same to the account ofhis wife for the purpose of clearance of her cheque. It is also admitted that Rs . 10,000 were further credited to the OD account of colleague official on 27-2-1999 . The dispute is whether the colleague employee has permitted the workman to do so ? The enquiry officer has held that there was no permission . Entire act of withdrawing the amount from OD account of Smt . Davinder Kaur and credited the same to the account of Smt . Komal , the wife of the workman was under the authority of the Manager concerned . The Manager concerned has permitted to debit and credited the amount .
All the employees irrespective of their cadre in the particular branch are like the member of a family. They individually and jointly discharge the functions entrusted to the branch . There is a fiduciary relationship between the employees of the branch concerned . This fiduciary relationship creates a trust between the members of the branch . This fiduciary relationship , trust and confidence is refiected from the act of the workman for debiting Rs . 10,000 from the account of another member of branch and Act of the Manager permitting to debit and credit Rs . 10,000 as head of the family . While dealing any matter of any misconduct such fiduciary relationship has to be kept in mind. Without disputing the issue whether Smt . Davinder Kaur has permitted the workman or not , it is clear that the workman has acted on the basis of trust and confidence stated earlier . There is no iota of evidence to show the ill intention of the workman for illegally and unauthorized withdrawing the amount of Rs . 10,000 and crediting the same to the account of his wife . It was a bonafide act supported by the Head of the family, the Manager of the branch . There is not a single sentence in evidence of any of the management's witness and in entire enquiry report that there was some ill motive and criminal intention of the workman behind the act .
The departmental proceedings run on the basis of justice , enquiry and good conscious . The purpose being it , for me , is to give colour to the provisions of chapter XI regarding disciplinary action . The disciplinary actions are initiated to correct the workman and thereafter to punish him proportionately. The terms justice , equity and good conscious , barred the enquiry officer and the disciplinary 8100
[PART 11 ---SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
ofConduct of the Bank . In Chapter XI , Regulation I and II itisspecifically reflected .
authority to act in hipo technical manner. These terms requires the sensitization of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority to reach to the conclusion for all the reasons for which the act said to be misconduct was committed. The enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have acted in hipo technical manner statically without any sensitization on the nature and cause of the act said to be misconduct . They have not given any thought to the inter- see trust and confidence between the members of the branch .
Moreover, there are certain clashes in the family. The clash is reflected on the way of making complaint by Smt. Davinder Kaur. She has stated that she orally complained to the manager on 27th and 28th of Feb. 1999 , but the manager stated that he receive the oral complaint on 27th only and forwarded the same orally to the head office . There is no reason to wait up to 9th of next month for making the complaint . The complaint is after thought and instigated one. The above inference is clear from the cumulative evaluation of evidence adduced by both of the parties before the enquiry officer and before this Tribunal . Accordingly, issue No. 1 , 2 and 3 are disposed off with a direction that no doubt the enquiry was conducted as per rules mentioned in Code of Conduct, but judgment of the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority suffered with perversity in decision making . The enquiry officer and disciplinary authority have not perused the fact that while working in the branch every employee irrespective of their cadreworks hard unitedly as a family and in case of any problem with any member of the branch , the assistance by other is integral to such trust and confidence . The enquiry officer has reached to the conclusion technically without considering that he has to conduct the proceeding on enquity, justice and good conscious .
Accordingly, the act of workman for which the enquiry was conducted does not constitute any misconduct . Moreover , the workman was charge- sheeted under rules 3 ( i ) , 3 (j ) and 3 ( m) of Chapter XI of the Code of Conduct, Rule 3 ( i) is relating to gross negligence , to say negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss . Serious loss for the purpose of 3 ( i ) means the financial loss . The other types of losses are mentioned in other clauses of regulation 3 of Chapter X1 . No financial loss has been caused to the bank or any customer of the bank or even to the colleague employee . Like wise charge under rule 3 (j ) is relating to willful damage or attempt to caused damage to the property of the bank or any of its customer . Registers and ledgers of the bank account are the property ofthe bank and customers . The term willfully includes the term ill motive which is not present in the present reference . Lastly, the workman was also charged under rules 3 ( m ) of the Code which is relating to doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank . For the reasons mentioned in the body of this award the act of the workman may be termed as violative of trust and confidence which is inherent between the colleague employees of the branch , but it can not be said to be act prejudicial to the interest of the bank .
Thus , for the reasons mentioned in the body of the award the enquiry officer has wrongly held all the charges proved against the workman. In fact the workman has not committed any misconduct . One more fact has been brought to the notice of this Tribunal . The workman was prized for hisexcellent banking work in the branch . Apart from this Smt. Davinder Kaur has refused to give any consent for withdrawing the amount from her OD account. But this fact came to her notice on 27-2-1999 and she filed a complaint on 9-3-1999 . She had stated that she orally complained to the manager of the branch on 27-2-1999. She has also stated in her statement before the enquiry officer thatshe also complained orally on 28-2-1999 but the manager of the branch has stated that she has informed him orally on 27-2-1999 only. In her evidence before the enquiry officer she has stated that from 28-2-1999 to 9-3-1999 she was thinking over the further steps to be taken in this matter . The statement of Smt . Davinder Kaur was recorded prior to the statement of manager concerned . A question was asked by the defense representative that what was the reflection of the manager when Smt . Davinder Kaur complained to him on 28-2-1999 ? This question was not permitted to be asked reasons know to the enquiry officer . Thereafter, the statement of manager was recorded and the manager has in very specific terms mentioned that she made a complaint only on 27-2-1999 and not on 28-2-1999. Meaning thereby, Smt . Davinder Kaur was telling lie that she also made a complaint to the branch manager on 28-2-1999. The branch manager concerned was also guilty of approving the transaction without verifying the fact of permission given by said Davinder Kaur. The statement given by the branch manager that she made a complaint on 27-2-1999 is the outcome of that mistake which the manager has committed . At the cost of repetition, it is mentioned the workman and the manager both have acted under a trust and confidence of presumed consent of Smt . Davinder Kaur which is integral in behaviour of the members of the branch . No ill will or ill intention has been proved against the workman. Thus , it may be an error in judgment or act of negligence or inocent mistake for sanction /presumed sanction to help a colleague of the branch in the case of need and/or emergency. The workman has proved the emergency that for clearance of a cheque of Rs . 10,000 were required. Such type of acts , every colleague will do in ordinary course of nature . As stated earlier that all the members of the branch works as the member of the family under the trust and confidence and in case of emergency inter - see help is integral part of this trust . Certainly, it was a error ofjudgment and innocent mistake committed by the workman which can not said to be a misconduct. Enquiry officer and disciplinary authority have overlooked this issue . This is also the intention of Chapter XI of the Code भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
act of the workman , there is no complaint against the act and conduct of the workman during his 24 years service in the bank .
Thus , the part of the enquiry report holding the charges well proved against the workman , punishment awarded to him by the disciplinary authority and order of appellate authority dismissing his apeal are hereby quashed . The management is directed to reinstate the services ofthe workman with all consequential benefits within one month from the date of publication of the award . The reference is accordingly answered . Central Government be informed for publication of the award , and thereafter , file be consigned.
Chandigarh , Dated 12-10-2010
GK . SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2906.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑल इंडिया रेडियों के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42011 / 13/2009- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th October , 2010
S.O. 2906. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 28 / 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No.1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of All India Radio and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-10- 2010.
[No. L-42011 / 13 /2009 - IR ( DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , KARARDOQMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 28/2009
Shri Rajinder Singh through General Secretary, Delhi Labour Union , Aggrawal Bhavan , GT. Karnal Road, Tis Hazari , Delhi - 110054 .
8101
AWARD
Rajinder Singh approached this Tribunal with a claim for reinstatement of his service with All India Radio and Doordarshan ( hereinafter referred to as the management ) . when the appropriate Government had referred a dispute for adjudication vide order No. L - 42012 / 59 97 dated 13-5-98 . He agitated that he joined services with the management as a beldar on 3-04-84 . His services were terminated with on 8-03-96 in an arbitrary and illegal manner . Despite opportunity the management failed to file written statement . Rajinder Singh tendered his affidavit as evidence, which was appreciated and reliedby this Tribunal . His claim was granted , vide award dated 7-07-2000 and the Tribunal commanded that he was entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages . The award , so passed , was unsuccessfully assailed by the management before the single judge as well as Division Bench of High Court of Delhi . Ultimately the management was constrained to reinstate services of Rajinder Singh , in pursuance of missives given in the award . After reinstatement , he raised a demand for regularization ofhisservices . His demand was espoused by Delhi Labour Union (in short the Union ) , who filed a claim before the Conciliation Officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed, appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal , vide order No. L - 42011 / 13 / 2009 - IR ( DU ) dated 29-05-2009 , with following terms:
"Whether the demand of Delhi Labour Union for regularization of services of Shri Rajinder Singh by the management of All India Radio , C.E. ( N.Ζ. ) , Jamnagar House , is legal and justified ? If yes , what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
...Workman
Versus
The Director,
All India Radio ( Akashwani & Doordarshan ) , C.E. (N.Z. ) Jamnagar House ,
New Delhi - 110001 .
...Management
2. Claim statement was filed by the Union pleading that Rajinder Singh joined service of the management as beldar on 03-04-84 . He was treated as a muster roll employee and paid minimum wages revised from time to time . His counter -parts ,doing identical work and treated regular employees , were being paid salary in proper pay scales , besides allowances . His services were terminated on 08-03-96 without assigning any valid reason . He raised an industrial dispute , which was referred for adjudication to this Tribunal . Award dated 07-07-2000 was passed declaring that he was entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages . The management assailed that award and lost before the single judge as well as Division Bench of High Court of Delhi . When award became final , he was allowed to join his duties by the management in 19-4-2005 . He is entitled to be made permanent employee of the management . Non regularization of his service is illegal , unjust , malafide and amounts to unfair labour practice . The job , against which he is working is of permanent and regular in nature . Regular employees are getting wages higher than him. He gets status of a regular employee on completion of 90 days of continuous service , as provided in model standing orders framed under 8102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 / KARTIKΑ 29 , 1932
Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders ) Act , 1946. Action ofthe management in not treating him regular and paying him less wages then regular employees of his category amounts to discrimination . His juniors have been regularized in service . It has been claimed that the management may be directed to regularize his servicess w.e.f. 03-04-84 and difference of salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work may be accorded to him.
3. Claim was demurred pleading that at no point of time the claimant was engaged by the management . There had been no employer and employee relationship between the claimant and the management . He approached this Tribunal in first round of litigation in 1998 and an award was passed in his favour on 07-07-2000 . The said award was unsuccessfully assailed before single judge and Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi . When award became final , management had to engage the claimant in terms of directions contained in the award . It has been projected that mere completion of 240 days in service nowhere ripes into a claim for regularization in Government service . He is not entitled for regularization of his services or any other relief claimed by him . His claim statement , being devoid of merits , maybe dismissed .
4. Rajinder Singh tendered his affidavit as evidence , besides some documents . He was cross examined at length on behalf of the management . He also examined Shri Surender Bhardwaj ( WW2 ) in support of his case . Shri S. A. Tripathi ( MW1 ) tendered his affdavit as evidence on behalf of the management . He was cross examined at length on behalf of the claimant . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .
5. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Mohd. Farrukh authorised representative advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant . Shri S. M. Arif authorised representative , raised his submissions on behalf of the management . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:
6. Shri S. A. Tripathi swears in his affidavit that at no point of time the claimant was engaged by the management for the job alleged to have been performed by him. There had been no employer and employee relationship between the claimant and the management . However claimant earlier approached this Tribunal when industrial dispute No. 137 of98 was referred to it for adjudication by the appropriate Government . The said dispute was answered in favour of the claimant vide Award dated 07-07-2000 , placing reliance on his uncontroverted affidavit . The award was unsuccessfully assailed before the single judge and the Division Bench of Delhi High Court . When management failed to assail the award , claimant was taken on duly under forced circumstances . He projects that in terms of the directions given by this Tribunal in its award , the claimant was engaged as a casual labour .
7. Whether the management can be permitted to re- agitate the issues which were adjudicated by this Tribunal
PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) | vide its award dated 07-07-2000 ? For an answer , the Tribunal has to consider as to whether principles of res - judicata can be invoked . It is well settled that entire Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 ( in short the Code ) is not applicable to an industrial adjudication , yet principles of res - judicata laid down under Section 11 of the Code are applicable whereever possible . In Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd. [ 1974 ( 1 ) LLJ 499 ] the Apex Court observed:
" This is so since multiplicity of litigation , agitation and re - agitation of the same dispute at issue between the same employer and his employees will not be conducive to industrial peace which is principle object of all labour legislation bearing on indutstrial adjudication but in holding that the principles of res- judicata is applicable to a particular case , operating consideration is whether a matter in dispute in a subsequent case had earlier been directly and substantially in issue between the same parties and the same has been heard and fully decided by the Tribunal . The earlier question of issue mustbe relevant and germain in determining question of res- judicata in subsequent proceedings . The real character of the controversy between the parties is the determining factor and in complex and manifold one relation between the labour and capital giving rise to diverse kind of ruptures of varying nuances no cast iron rule can be laid down . Some distinction ofwhatever shade of magnitude may have to be borne inmind in compliance of the principles of res- judicata in industrial adjudication in contravention to civil proceedings . "
8. In Hindustan Liver 1.td. ( 1984 Lab . I.C. 276 ) the Apex Court laid that " though this is highly technical concept of civil justice may be kept in precise confind limits in the field of industrial adjudication which must as far as possible be kept free from such technicalities which thwart resolution of industrial disputes , it can safely be said that principle analogous to res - judicata can be availed of to scuttle any attempt at raising industrial disputes repeatedly in defiance of operative settlements and awards . " 9. In Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. | 1975 ( 11 ) J 373 ] the Apex Court upheld the validity of the application ofprinciples of res -judicata to an issue raised in subsequent proceedings under Section 33 ( C ) ( 2 ) of the Act which had already been decided by a competent labour court in that regard in earlier industrial dispute . In Bombay Gas Company Ltd. [ 1975 ( 11 ) LLJ 345 ] the Apex Court had gone to the extent of even applying principles of constructive res- judicata. Justice Alagiriswami , speaking for the court observed:
" The doctrine of res - judicata is a wholesome one which is applicable not merely to matters covered by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure but to all litigations . It proceeds on the principle that there should be no unnecessary litigation and whatever भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii )]
claims and defences are open to parties should all be put forward at the same time , provided no confusion is likely to arise by so putting forward all such claims . " 10. In Mumbai Kamgar Sabha [ 1976 ( II ) LLJ 186 ] , commenting on the above case , justice Krishna lyer observed that , " it is clear law, so long as the above ruling stands , that industrial litigation is no exception to the general principle underlying the doctrine of res -judicata. " The court entertained a doubt about , " the extension of the sophisticated doctrine of constructive res -judicata to industrial law which is governed by special methodology of conciliation , adjudication and considerations of peaceful industrial relations , where collective bargaining and pragmatic justice claim precedence over formalised rules ofdecision based on individual contests , specific causes of action and findings on particular issues " , but Bombay Gas Company Ltd. case (supra ) was distinguished on the basis of the observations in that case that " If the workers are dis - satisfied with any of the items in respect of which their claim has been rejected , it is open to them to raise a fresh dispute" . This observation was interpreted to mean that " if a fresh dispute had been raised , after terminating a prior award, no bar of res -judicata could have been urged " . For the purpose of attracting principles of res -judicata , the issue in the two proceedings must be common . The real charactor of controversy between the parties is the determining factor. An award relating to termination of services of a workman , after being given the effect to , does not impose any continuing obligation on the workman or the employer. The award , therefore , becomes final and shall not ceases to be operative after lapse of one year. It cannot be terminated by a notice under sub section (6 ) of Section of 19 of the Act . Thatdispute cannot be referred to adjudication subsequently. The principles of res -judicata , as enunciated in Burn & Company Ltd. [ 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ 226 ] would apply to such a case with full force.
11. As detailed above , Shri S. A. Tripathi agitates that the claimant was not engaged by the management at any point oftime for the job alleged to have been performed by him . There was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. They further agitate that the claimant approached this Tribunal with an industrial dispute being 1.D. No 137 of 1998 , whichdispute was adjudicated, vide award dated 07-07-2000 . The award was unsuccessfully assailed before the single judge and Division Bench of the High Court and as such the management was constrained to take the claimant on duty under forced circumstances . Therefore , out ofthose facts , it is emerging that the management is re - agitating the issue tothe effect that the claimant was not engaged by it for the job alleged to have been performed by him . Award Ex . WW 1/2, proved by the claimant , when scanned bring it to light that an issue was referred for adjudication as to whether action of the management in terminating the services of Rajinder Singh w.e.f. 08-03-96 was just . fair 4322Gl/10- 28
8103 and legal , ifnot to what relief claimant was entitled to . For adjudication of those issues , claimant projected that hejoined services under the management w.e.f. 03-04-84 as beldar. He was paid wages less then minimum wages revised from time to time . His services were terminated w.e.f. 08-03-96 . Therefore , it is obvious that the claimant raised issues of his engagement by the management as a beldar on 03-04-84 and termination of his services in an illegal manner on 8-3-96 . These issues were answered in favour of the claimant and he was ordered to be reinstated in services of the management with continuity and full back wages , vide award referred above . Consequently it is evident that the issues which the witnesses want to raise now, were agitated before this Tribunal in first round of litigation , which was lost by the management . Award Ex . WW1 /2 has become final . The management cannot be permitted to re - agitate those issues by way of application of principles of res -judicata . Therefore , the evidence of Shri S. A.Tripathi on above facts are discarded and management is not permitted to reopen those very issues which were adjudicated by this Tribunal vide award Ex . WW1/2.
12. Claimant deposes that at present he is working in the office of Shri K. L. Yadav, Director, which office is located in Jamnagar House , New Delhi . He was transferred there in the year 2005. Prior to that he was working in Division D - 6 , Mall Road, New Delhi , since 1984. Deputy Director is incharge of that division. There was no contractor there at that time . When his services were dispensed with , he raised an industrial dispute claiming reinstatement of service . He further stated that 20-22 persons of his category are working in Jamnagar House , New Delhi , out of whom 7 or 8 are junior to him . All seniors ofhis category are regular employees . In 1996 his services were terminated . At the time of working in a project at Khanpur and Kingsway Camp his working hours were six days a week. Ile denied that he never worked for 240 days in any calendar year prior to 1996. He stated that his juniors namely, Gajadhar, Arun , Rohtas etc. have been regularized . However no evidence was brought to light to establish that he fell in the same bracket , in which above named persons were placed. Shri S.A.Tripathi concedes.during the course of his cross examination that job performed by the claimant is of perennial in nature. However, confidential documents / files are not placed in his hands . No regular employee is working in the category in which claimant is working. Group D employees are there , who were appointed in permanent capacity.
13. Canvassing facts Shri Farrukh argued that the claimant has been working with the management since 1984, who is under an obligation to regularize his services . He projects that the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) imposes an obligation on the management not to keep an employce as temporary or to continue him as such for years with an object to deprive him status and privilege of 8104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
permanent employee . He agitates that entry 10 to Fifth schedule of the Act makes such an effort of the management unfair labour practice " , which has been prohibited and made penal on the strength of Section 25 - T and 25 - U of the Actrespectively . Since there is an obligation on the management to make an employee regular and permanent which obligation has not been performed qua the claimant , he is entitled for an ward in that regard . Shri Arif agitates that since no permanent post is available with the management , this Tribunal cannot order creation of a new post and then to order management to regularise services of the claimant .
14. To appreciate rival submissions on the issue , it would be expedient to ascertain as to whether the claimant entered service of the management in consonance with recruitment rules . Award Ex . WW1/2 would throw light on that issue . The Tribunal details therein that the claimant projects to have joined services of the management on 03-04-84 as beldar . He was being treated as muster roll worker . He was paid wages mush less than the minimum wages.revised from time to time . He was drawing wages @Rs . 1200 PM , while his counter- parts , doing identical works and treated as regular employees , were paid salaries in pay scale of Rs . 750-940 , with usual allowances . The Tribunal further details that the claimant asserted that he was performing job of a regular and permanent nature. The facts so detailed were re - affirmed by the claimant in his affidavit , filed as evidence . Therefore , it is evident that the claimant joined job as a labour on muster roll . He was treated as a casual employee . He nowhere asserts that he was engaged in consonance with recruitment rules , on a regular post . Recruitment of the claimant was on casual basis , for which he was paid a fixed wages of Rs . 1200 PM . No case was projected that at the time of his engagement vacancies were advertised for public at large , he made an application in response to that advertisement , interviewed was held , and thereafter he was selected on the post of a labour . No case was projected that reservation policy was followed . Consequently it is emerging out of award Ex. WW 1/2 that engagement of the claimant was not against any regular or permanent post and that too in consonance with recruitment rules .
15. Whether the Government can engage an employee for casual jobs ? Answers has been provided by Ο.Μ. No. 49014/ 2/ 86 - Estt . ( C) dated 7th of June , 1988 issued by Department of Personnel and Training , Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions , Government of India , New Delhi . In that office memorandum policy regarding engagement of casual workers was revised by the Government , in view of the judgment handed down by the Apex Court in Surender Singh's case [ 1986 ( 1 ) SCC 632) . The said office memorandum projects that persons on daily wages should not be recruited for work of regular nature . Recruitment of daily wager may be made only for
[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] work which is of casual or intermittent nature or for work which is not of full time nature , for which regular post cannot be created . In the matter of regularization of a casual worker instructions issued by Department of Personnel and Training would be taken into account . While considering such regularization , a casual worker may be given relaxation in upper age limit only if at the time of initial recruitment , he had not crossed upper age limit for the relevant post . The memorandum went on to provide thatall eligible casual workers should be adjusted against regular post to the extent such regular posts are justified. The rest of casual workers , whose retention is absolutely necessary should be paid emoluments in accordance with the guidelines . The remaining casual workers should be discharged from service . Therefore , it is evident that the casual workers , who had not crossed upper age limit at the time of his initial engagement can be absorbed in post , if a vacancy exists for him . When there is absolute necessity to retain a casual worker, for whom no regular post exists , he is to be paid in accordance with the guidelines contained in the office memorandum , while others are to be discharged . Therfore , right of the Government to engage a casual worker in exigencies has been recognized by the aforsaid office memorandum .
16. Whether a casual worker have a claim for regularization / absorption in job ? Such proposition came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Uma Devi [ 2006 ( 4 ) S.C.C. 1 ) , wherein claim of casual workers for regularization or absorption was declined . It is expedient to reproduce the law laid by the Apex Court , which is extracted thus :
"Thus , it is clear that adherences to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since rule of law is the core of our Constitution , a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Articles 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution . Therefore.considering a scheme for public employment , this court while laying down the law, has necessary to hold that unless appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition amongst qualified persons , the same would not confer any right on the appointce . If it is a contractual appointment , the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract , if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis , the same would come to an end when it is discontinued . Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment . It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment , he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made 8105 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up , is not ( sic ) one that would enable the jettisoning of the precedure established by law for public employment and would have to fall when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equility of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution . "
permanent , merely on the strength of such continuance , ifthe original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules . It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment , do not acquire any right ....... "
17. In P. Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others [ 2006 ( 7 ) SCC 488 ] the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's Case ( Supra ) with approval . It also relied the decision in a Uma Rani [ 2004 ( 7 ) SCC112 ] and ruled that no regularization is permissible in exercise of statutory powers conferred in Article 162 of the Constitution , if the appointment 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 ofa temporary employee (whether called a casual , ad - hoc or daily reted employee ) or payment of regular salaries to them.
18. The Apex Court had to consider those very propositioning in Daya Nand and Others ( 2008 ( 10 ) S.C.C. 1 ] wherein the above proposition was reaffirmed . The court rules as follows:
" 68 The above noted judgments and orders encouraged the political set - up and bureaucracy to violate the soul of Aritcles 14 and 16 as also the provisions contained in the Employment Exchanger (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies ) Act , 1959 with impunity and the spoils system which prevailed in the United States of America in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries got a firm foothold in this country. Thousands of persons were employed / engaged throughout the length and breadth of the country by backdoor methods . Those who could pull strings in the power corridors at the higher and lower levels managed to get the cake of public employment by trampling over the rights of other eligible and more meritorious persons registered with the employment exchanges . A huge illegal employment market developed in different parts of the country and rampant corruption afflicted the whole system. This was recognized by the Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees ' Union v. Delhi Admn . in the following words ( SCCpp . 111- 12, page 23 ) .
"23. Apart from the fact that the petitioners cannot be directed to be regularized for the reasons given above , we may take note of the permicious consequences to which the direction for regularization of workman on the only ground that they have put in work for 240 or more days , has been leading. Although there is an Employment Exchange "45. While directing that appointments , temporary or casual , be regularized or made permanent , the courts are swaged by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature , is not aware of the nature of his employment . He accepts the employment with open eyes . It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain - not at arm's length - since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets . But on that ground alone , it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporary or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so , itwill be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power , that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee . A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible , given the exigencies of administration and if imposed , would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily , contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them . After all , innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment . It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it.In other words , even while accepting the employment , the person concerned knows the nature of his employment . It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term . The claim acquired by him in the post which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established , for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State . The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post , it will not be just to discontinue him , even though he 8106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
Actwhich requires recruitment on the basis of registration in the Employment Exchange, it has become a common practice to ignore the Employment Exchange and the persons registered in the Employment Exchanges , and to employ and get employed directly those who are either not registered with the Employment Exchange or who though registered are lower in the long waiting list in the employment register. The courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The employment is given first for temporary periods with technical breaks to circumvent the relevant rules , and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularization knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularized . A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the Employment Exchanges for years . Not all those who gain such backdoor entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs . Though already employed elsewhere , theyjoin jobs for better and secured prospects . That is why most ofthe cases which come to the courts are of employment in government departments , public undertakings or agencies . Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavyburden of the surplus labour. The other equally injurious effect of indiscriminate regularisation has been that many of the agencies have stopped undertaking casual or temporary works though they are urgent and essential for fear that if those who are employed on such works are required to be continued for 240 or more days they have to be absorbed as regular employees although the works are time- bound and there is no need of the workinan beyond the completion of the works undertaken . The public interests are thus jeopardized on both courts . " 19. In subsequent sections of the judgment , the court declined the request for absorption of casual employees . It ruled thus .
"116. In our opinion , any direction by the court for absorption of all company -paid staff would be detrimental to public interest in more than one ways . Firstly, it will compel the Government to abandon the policy decision of reducing the direct recruitment to various services . Secondly , this will be virtual abrogation of the statutory rules which envisage appointment to different cadres by direct recruitment . " 20. At the cost of repetition , it is said that the claimant was engaged on casual basis as a labour. Rules of recruitment were not followed . Procedure established for making regular appointment was not adhered to when claimant was engaged on casual basis . It has also not been shown that the claimant has not crossed upper - age limit at the time when he was initially engaged on casual basis .
[ PART II SEC . ( i ) | Therefore , absorption of the claimant would amountto degradation of established procedure for making regular appointment to available posts . Under these circumstances , Ido not find it to be a case where the management should be commanded to absorb the claimant on the post on which he isworking since long ."
21. Shri Farrukh projects that the Apex Court had no occasion to consider provisions of the Act . in the precedents referred above . He agitates that this Tribunal exercises a larger jurisdiction in the matter of industrial adjudication than the constitutional courts . Accordingto him , this Tribunal should command the managementto absorb the claimant on the post , so that unfair labour practice adopted by the former may discontinue . Admittedly employing a workman as badli , casual or temporay and to continue him as such for years , with the object of depriving him of the status and privilege of permanent workman amounts to unfair labour practice . To term act of the management as an unfair labour practice , following ingredients are to be satisfied :
(1 ) to employ a workman as badli , casual , or temporary. and
(2) to continue him as such for years .
(3) such continuance , should be with an object of depriving him the status and privilege of permanent workman .
22. Whether continuance of the claimant as casual employee for years is with an object of depriving hun status and privilege of a permanent workman ? For an answer it is incombent upon the claimant to show that there were vacancies available with the management and despite availability of vacancies he has been continued as such for years and that too with a view to deprive him status and privilege of a permanent employee . Unfortunately the claimant failed to discharge onus resting on him . A feeble attempt was made on his behalfto show that one post of farash and three post of security gurards are lying vacant with the management . Neither the claimant works as a farash nor as a security guard . A farash perforas duties of sweeping and analogous menial jobs , while a security guard performs watch and ward duties . A casual labour performs sundry casual jobs . Therefore , it cannot be said that a post of casual labour is lying vacant with the management and with a view to deprive the claimant status and privilege of a permanent employee , he has been contiuned as an casual employee for years together. Consequently the claimant has not been able to establish that an unfair labour practice was being adopted and the management was under an obligation to purge the mischief. Therefore, on facts claimant has not been able to substantiate a case to argue that unfair labour practice was being committed by the management .
23. Undoubtedly this Tribunal bas power to adjudicate industrial dispute and in that process it has a right to consider whether a workman was employed as badli , casual or temporary and continued as such for years 8107 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
( भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
the matter at this juncture . Reasons for the same are traceable in office memorandum No. 49014 / 2/ 86 - Estt . ( C ) dated 7th June , 1988 , It has been provided therein that when nature of work entrusted to casual workers and regular employees is the same , the casual workers may be paid @ 180th of the pay at the minumum of the relevant pay scale plus D.A. for the work of 8 hours day . Shri S. A. Tripathi concedes that job performed by the workman is of perennial in nature . Confidential documents files are not placed in his hand . Except that he is performing all functions , performed and entrused to a regular employee . Therefore , it is evident that the claimant performs jobs , which are performed by reugular employee of his cotegory. The claimant swears in his affidavit that he is being paid lesser remuneration than regular employees of his category . Therefore , the Tribunal had to embark upon social and economic justice to reach ultimate decision of industrial adjudication .
26. Social justice is not based on contractual relations and not to be enforced on priciples of contract of service . It is something outside these principles and is invoked to do justice without a contract to back it . commanded the Apex Court in Rashtrya Mazdoor Sangh [1960 ( II ) L.L.J. 263 ] . In Ahmedabad Mfg . and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. [ 1972 ( II ) LLJ165 ] Justice Dua speaking for the Supreme Court , observed:
with a view to deprive him status and privilege of a permanent workman . While adjudicating so , this Tribunal may command the management to stop unfair labour practice and accord status and privilege of a permanent employee to the workman who was engaged as badli , casual or temporary and contiuned as such for years together. While making such an adjudication , the Tribunal cannot be oblivious to the proposition that engagement of such an employe was in consonance with the recruitment rules or violative of the policy of recruitment in Government job . It has also to take into account as to whether the casual workman was satisfying legitimate criteria for recruitment to the post when he was initially engaged for it . In case workman does not come up to the expectation provided in the recruitment rules and entered in the job through back- door in that situation this Tribunal may refuse to accord status and privilege of permanent employee to such a workman. Therefore , contention advanced by Shri Farrukh that this Tribunal had adjudicatory powers under the Act would not put the claimant to a better padestal than one wherehe is placed . Industrial adjudicator would not give a go by to the policy of recruitment of government job to answer a dispute in favour of a claimant who is beneficiary of fraudulent system of employment or a back- door appointee . An industrial adjudicator will not compel the public authorities to act in violations of provisions of constitution , other statutes and recruitment rules formulated under Article 309 of the Constitution . Therefore , it is concluded that contention advanced by Shri Farrukh would not bring any accolade for the claimant.
"Thisconcept of social justice has a comprehensive sweep and it is neither pedantic nor one - sided but is founded on socio - economic equality. It demands a realistic and pragmatic approach for resolving the controversy between capital and labour by weighing it on an even scale with the consciousness that industrial operations in modern times have become complex and complicated and for the efficient and successful functioning of an industry various amenities for those working in it are demand as essential for a peaceful and healthy atmosphere " .
24. There is other fact of coin . The claimant has not been able to show that a vacancy was in existence with the management for regularization of his service . When there does not exist a post , against which the claimant can be regularized/ absorbed , this Tribunal would not enter into an exercise of commanding the Government to create a postfor him . Creation of post involves financial implication. Itis the administrative function of the Government to create a post and Courts / Tribunal are to exercise restraints in commanding the Government for creation of a post , to absorb a casual employee against it . Even otherwise for commanding the Government for creation of a post , the Tribunal had to consider long duration of work , extent to which it is available , number of permanent workman employed to discharge such jobs , financial viability of the institution in which the post is to be created and expediency of creation of such a post . None of these factors exist in the controversy under reference . Therefore , this Tribunal cannot proceed to command the Government to create a post for absorption of the claimant against it . All these circumstances make it clear that the demand raised by the union for regularization of the services of the claimant w.e.f. 03-04-84 is neither legal nor justified .
27. An industrial adjudicator cannot and should not ignore claims of social justice . It has to resolve confilicting claims of employer and employees by finding not one sided buta fair and just solution . Reference can be made to the precedent in Indian Oxygen Ltd. 1969 ( 1 ) LL.J 235 ) . Therefore , with a view to do social justice this Tribunal has to command the management to grant wages to the claimant in pursuance ofthe aforsaid office memorandum . His wages should be at the rate of 1 / 30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance , applicable to a regular employee of his category for 8 hours a day, since the date of his reinstatement in service in pursuance ofthe award Ex .. WW1 / 2 . His difference of wages shali be paid within a period of three months from the date when the award becomes operative . An award is accordingly passed.
R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated: 30-9-2010
25. Though demand of the union for regularization of the service of the claimant is found not to be justified , yet there are certain factors which persuade me not to leave 8108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
नई दिल्ली , 27 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2907.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.बी.एम.बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न . 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 280 / 2K5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-23012/ 14/1994- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th October , 2010
S.O. 2907. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.280 / 2K5 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BBMB and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-10-2010 .
[ No. L - 23012/ 14/ 1994 - IR ( C - II ) ] D. S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT - II , CHANDIGARH Present : Sri A.K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer
Case No. 1.D. 280 / 2K5
Registered on 26-06-1995
President Bhakra Nangal Mazdoor Sangh Nangal Township District Ropar ( Punjab) Applicant
Versus
Respondent The Chairman Bhakra Beas Management Board , Sector 19 , Madhya Marg , Chandigarh
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Shri R.K.S. Parmar , AR.
For the management : Law Officer of BBMB
AWARD
Passed on 08 October, 2010
Central Goverment vide notification No.L - 23012/ 14/ 94 - IR - C - II dated 19-06-95 , by exercising its powers under section 10 sub - section ( 1 ) Clause ( d ) and sub - section 2 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred the following Industrial Disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal : -
"Whether the action of the managment of Bhakra Beas Management Board , Nangal Township not to give the same scales of pay and designation to
[PART 11 -- SEC . 3 ( ii) | Chargeman/ Asstt. Foreman in regular cadre in civil , wing is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the concern workman are entitled and from what date ? " Bhakra Nangal Mazdoor Sangh ( hereinafter called asMazdoor Sangh ) has raised an industrial dispute stating that Bhakra Beas Management Board ( in short B.Β.Μ.Β. ) has three categories of charge - men viz . I Work charge Charge - man ; 2 Regular Charge - man and 3 Charge- man . The Charge-men of Electrical , Mechanical and Civil Wings are to be treated at par and they were enjoying the same Pay scales , but the management of Bhakra Beas Management Board arbitarily and without any reason accorded better pay scales to the charge- men in Electrical and Mechanical trades by ignoring the charge - men employed in Civil wing and Irrigation wing vide letter No. 469 / R & R / 130 / 86 / CM / R- 4 dated 23-06-92 . The management has no justification to ignore the charge - men employed in the civil and irrigation wing . The Mazdoor Sangh has claimed pay scales of Rs . 1800-3200 with effect from 1-1-1986 to all the charge- men and also a designation of Foreman to them .
The claim was contested by the management . In reply it was stated that there are different sets of service rules and conditions for work - charge and regular employees of BBMB . The work- charge staff employees are covered by the BBMB Certified Standing Orders , whereas the regular employees are covered by Punjab CSR and BBMB service regulations . The BBMB has revised pay scales on the pattern of P.S.E.B. with effect from 1-1-1986 in the irrigation wing for 8 categories of employees mentioned in the reply. According to the P.S.E.B. Circular adopted by the BBMB all the posts of charge-men / Assistant Foreman (Mechanical /Electrical ) existing in Powerhouse and Grid Stations except posts of charge- men/ Assistant Foremen for the Civil work of Power wing have been re - designated as Foreman . This circular is not applicable to the employees working in the Irrigation wing . The benefit to work- charge employees cannot be given at par with the regular employees .
It will be seen that in the claim statement the Mazdoor Sangh has claimed the same pay scales for all the charge- menwhether employed in civil or any other trades and also the designation of Foreman for them . But the reference has been made about the charge-men/ Assistant Foreman in regular cadre in civil wing only . The case of other categories of charge - men and employed in other sings are out of the purview of the reference . The Tribunal has to address itself to the following points only :
(i ) Whether the action of the managment of BBMB Nangal Township not to give the same scale of pay and designation to charge- men / Assistant Foremen in regular cadre in Civil Wing is legal and justified?
( ii) To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from what date ?
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
On behalf of Mazdoor Sangh affidavits of Manoj Kumar Bhalla and Kashmiri Lal have been tendered . While on behalf of managment M.K. Dhir , Director Dam Safety, BBMB has tendered his affidavit . I have heard the AR and the Law Officer of the management and have gone through the material on record. My findings are as follows :-
Point No. 1
TheMazdoor Sangh's witness Manoj Kumar Bhalla had joined the BBMB as charge - man Grade - II and is presently working as Foreman in Mechanical trade . The other witness Kashmiri Lal had joined the BBMB as charge- men Special Grade II . He is a retired employee and he was working in Electrical Trade . Both the witnesses have deposed that in all the pay Scales there is no difference in the pay scale of Charge - men holding the post of Civil work orElectrical or Mechanical work but the BBMB arbitarily ignored the charge - men employed on the civil work and allowed the pay scale of Rs . 1800-3200 w.e.f. 1-1-1986 to the charge - men employed in Mechanical and Electrical side and charge - men in all the three categories had been enjoying the same pay scales from the very inception of the BBMB .
The Management witness M.K. Dheer in his affidavit however, has stated that accordingto P.S.E.B. Circular adopted by the BBMB all the posts of Charge- man / AFM (Mechanical and Electrical ) existing in Powerhouses and its Substations except those of civil work were redesignated as Foreman . It is also significant that he has stated in his affidavit that the risk factor while discharging the duties in Powerhouses and Grid Sub Stations is much more as compared to civil work . In this regard it is also imporatant to mention that workman's witness Manoj Kumar during cross -examination has admitted that the workmen working in the electrical , civil and mechanical wings have different natures of jobs and also that the working conditions of temorary and regular employees are different .
In the claim statement it has been stated that all the three categories of Charge- man were getting the same Pay scale earlier but there is no evidene to show that at any point of time the three categories of the Charge - man were getting the same pay scale . In the claim statement , there is a reference of Circular letter No. 2455-59 /B - 28 / 14/ 28 dated 22-02-74 but that has not been brought on record . Another document referred in the Claim statement is the Office Order No. 469 / R & R/ 130 / 86 ( 11 ) / CM / R/ R - 4 dated 23-06-92 which has been filed by the managment . It is paper no . 50 of the record . Through this order the Charge- man/Assistant Foreman of Mechanical / Electrical wing in the Powerhouses and Grid Services Stations have been re - designated as Foreman . Charge - man and Assistant Foreman sanctioned for the civil work of Power wing have been excepted . Another letter referred in the claim statement is letter No. 18117 / 18212 /PD / 130 / 86 / R -4 dated 24-05-89 is paper No. 73 on the record and it is on the subject of revision of pay
8109 scales of PSEB and adoption thereof for the employees working in the BBMB.
The question is that whether the action of the management in not giving the same scale of pay to charge - man /Assistant Foreman in regular cadre in civil wing as was made available to charge- men of electrical and mechanical wing can be held illegal and unjustified by this Tribunal ? In this regard case law cited by the Law Officer of the management is important . In State of Haryana & Others Vs Charanjit Singh & Others 2005 LAB . I.C. 4322 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value . The prinicple of equal pay for equal work has no mechanical application in every case . The Hon'ble court further held that a mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service . The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different . It is not just a comparison of physical activity . The application of the principle of ' equal pay for equal work ' requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job . The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job . It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work . There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility . Functions may be the same but the responsibilities made a different . Thus , normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determinedby the expert body . It was also held in this case that in any event the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal . Thus , before any directions can be issued by a court , the court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof.
Here in the case the Mazdoor Sangh has neither averred nor proved that with regard to all the three categories of Charge- man all the things are equal and further that at any point of time they were getting the same pay scales . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the above case that normally the applicability of the principle for equal pay for equal work' must be left to and determined by an expert body . The BBMB is an expert body to evaluate and determine the pay scales to be given to the various categories of workman . There is no ground for holding the decision of the management in denying equal pay to the Charge- man/Assistant Foreman in civil wing as illegal and unjustified in view of the admission of claimants ' witness Manoj Kumar that workmen working in the electrical , civil and mechanical wings have different nature of jobs and the statement of managment witness M. K. Dhir is that the risk factor while discharging the duties in Power House 8110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 20 , 2010 /KARTIΚΑ 29 , 1932
and Grid Sub- stations is much more as compared to civil work.
The similar position is with regard to the designation , for designation of Foreman also it must have been averred and proved that functions and responsibilities of the Charge-man in civil wing are the same as are ofthe Charge- man of mechanical and electrical wing who have been re- designated as Foreman. In absence thereof, the action of the management cannot be questioned .
On the basis of the above going discussions , it is held that in the present case, the action of the management of BBMB in not giving the same scale of pay and designation to Charge - man/Assistant Foreman in regular cadrein civilwing is not illegal and unjustified. Point no. I is decided against the Mazdoor Sangh .
PointNo. 2
From what has been held above , it is clear that the Mazdoor Sangh or the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief. Referene is answered against the Mazdoor Sangh . Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action .
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 27 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2908.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी.बी.एम.बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. । , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 969/2K5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-23012/ 5/1996- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th October, 2010
S.O. 2908. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 969/ 2K5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- 1.abour Court, No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BBMB and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-10-2010.
[ No. L- 23012/5/ 1996 - IR (C - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , 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. 969 /2K5
Registered on 12-08-1997
[PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) Shri Gulzar Singh S / o Sh . Gokal Chand , C/ o R.K. Singh Parmar, Secretary, Punjab INTUC, 35 - G Nangal Township. District Ropar (Punjab ) . ...Applicant
Versus
The Resident Engineer, Ganguwal , Kotła Power House Division , BBMB Ganguwal District Ropar (Punjab )
Respondent APPEARANCES :
For the workman Shri R.K.S. Parmar, AR .
Law Officer ofBBMB For the management
AWARD
Passed on 12 Oct. , 2010
The Central Goverment vide notification No.1-23012 5/96- IR ( C - II ) dated 24-07-97 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub- section ( 1 ) Clause ( d ) and sub - section 2 ( A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 hereinafter referred to asAct has referred the following Industrial Disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal: -
"Whether the action of the management of BBMB . in not reemploying the retrenched workman Sh . Gulzar Singh (who was retrenched in 1980 ) , 1993 when fresh recruitments were made in the establishment is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman entitled and from which date ?"
The dispute raised in the claim statemem about the termination of the services without paying the retrenchment compensation and without notice and also the retention of the juniors like Sohan Singh S /o Mast Ram to workman in service is not a subject matter of the reference . The pleadings of the parties with regard to these pleas are therefore , not relevant for the purpose of reference . For the purpose of the reference only this much of the claim statement is relevant that the workman was retrenched w.e.f. 3-4-1980 and after the termination of the workman , the management had been recruiting workmen on daily wages and work - charge basis in his category and also on regular basis but the workman was not given a chance for employment as per provisions of Section 2511 of the Act and the management had recruited about 1200 fresh hands in August 1993. He has claimed his reinstatement reemployment from the date of his termination.
In its reply the management has admitted the retrenchement of the workman on 3-4-1980 . With regardto the employment of fresh hands it has been stated that only theB.C.B. ( Bhakra Construction Board ) retrenchees were employed in August 1993 in the BBMB as per orders. instructions of Additional Secretarty, BBMB , Chandigarh that the services of work- charged and contingent paid employee of the BCB will be taken in BBMB in the same capacity of work- charged establishment contingent paid as fresh appointees . It was categorically denied that any भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/कार्तिक 29 , 1932
{ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii )]
fresh hand was recruited in BBMB during that period . It was also stated that since the workman was an employee of the BBMB and not of the BCB , so he could not be considered at par with the retrenchees of BCB .
From the pleadings of the parties and for the purpose of deciding the question under reference , the following points arise for consideration: -
(i ) Whether any fresh recruitment was made by the management after the termination of the workman inAugust 1993 ?
( ii ) Whether the action of the management of BBMB innot reemploying the workman in August 1993 is legal and justified?
(iii) To what relief is the workman entitled and from which date ? In support of his claim the workman has tendered his affidavit , while on behalf of management Engineer , J.D. , Sharma has tendered his affidavit . I have considered the material available on record and have heard the AR of the workman and the Law Officer of the management . My findings on the above mentioned points are as follows:-
Point No. 1
The workman in his affidavit has reiterated that the management had been recruiting workman on daily wages and on work- charge basis in his category and also on regular basis after his termination and about 1200 workmen were recruited as fresh hands in August 1993. The workman has not given the specific instances of the recruitment of the workmen on daily wages , work-charge and regular basis . In the absence of any specific instance the statement of the management witness in his affidavit that no fresh employee was engaged is acceptable. Management witness in his cross - examination however, has admitted that the management had engaged the retrenchees ' workman of BCB in terms of the order of the Central Government . The copy ofthe order is available on record . It is Ex. MW- 1/6 , Memo No. 25158-59 /R & R/ 1108 / 88 / A/ BCB /R - 1 dated 03-08-1993 on the subject of absorption of retrenchees work- charge and contingent paid employees of BCB in BBMB is its enclosure . It is clear from the enclosure that the BBMB decided that the surplus work- charge and contingent paid employees of BCB will be taken in BBMB in the same capacity ofwork - charge establishment/contingent paid as fresh appointees on initial pay after their retrenchment from BCB . A list of retrenchees ' work- charge and contingent paid employees of BCB was sent along with the memo for issuing them offer of appointment . The Memo also provided that the post of work - cahrge employee may be deemed to have been created to the extent as given in the enclosed list . The Memo aslo says that to avoid any additional financial burden on BBMB consequent upon the placement of the services of the surplus work - charge employees the 4322GI/10-29
8111 existing vacancies and resultant vacancies in future in the sanctioned strength of regular staff under normal and special should not be filled up . From the management evidence , it is clear that the said about 1200 workmen were not the fresh recruits , but they were the retrenchees of the BCB and had been employed in BBMB . With regard to them it cannot be said that management made any fresh recruitment . The management witness in his cross- examination has very categorically stated that after 3-04-1980 the management did not recruit any workman in the category in which the claimant - werkman had worked . Itis , therefore, held that the management did not make any fresh recruitment in August 1993. Point No. I is decided in favour of the management .
Point No. 2
The management's case is that since the claimant- workman was not a retrenchee of the BCB hence , he could notbe considered for reemployment . Management witness during his cross - examination has also stated that since therewas no work available therefore , the claimant - workman was not given option of work after his termination . No evidence was led by the claimant- workman to rebut this position. Hence , management cannot be held liable for re- employing the claimant - workman . Point No.2 is answered against the workman .
Point No. 3
From the above going discussions it is clear that the management in fact did not make any fresh recruitment in 1993. It simply absorbed the retrenchees of BCB and further the action of the management of BBMB in not reemploying the claimant- workman in 1993 is legal and justified . Workman is not entitled to any relief. Reference is therefore, answered against the workman . Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action .
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 27 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2909.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसूर मिनरल लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बैंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-29012/ 88/2002- आई आर( एम ) | डी.एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th October , 2010
S.O. 2909. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.18- 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- 8112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
PARE I SEC.3 ( ii) [ Labour Court , Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-10-2010 .
[ No. L - 29012/ 88 /2002 - IR ( M ) ]
D. S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
" SHRAM SADAN "
III MAIN , III CROSS , II PHASE , TUMKUR ROAD , YESHWANTHPUR, BANGLORE - 560022
Dated : 15th September 2010
Present : Shri S.N. Navalgund , Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 18/2003
II Party
IParty
Shri Ramegowda
S/ o Late Muthegowda
C/ o Shri Kodandaram , No. 6/2 B, Yellappa Street ,
The Managing Director , MysoreMinerals Limited No. 39 , M.G. Road, Banglore- 56000 !
Chikkamavalli , Banglore- 560004
AWARD
he was suffering from fever and severe pain in the abdomen and immediately after recovery from ill health when he went to report for duty during first week of September 1998 with medical fitness certificate , to his surprise he was served with order of dismissal dated 21-08-1998 . It is further asserted that he had not intentionally or deliberately absented from duties and that he had got sufficient leave to his credit and the Second Party without issuing any charge sheet or holding any enquiry passed the impugned order of dismissal dated 21-08-1998 and he was unaware of framing any charge sheet or holding departmental enquiry for his unauthorized absence , since he has not been served with any charge sheet or notice of enquiry as such the impugned order of dismissal is unjust , illegal and contrary to law and not sustainable in the eye of law . He has further asserted that he had put in more than 10 years continuous and unblemished service as such the punishment of dismissal is too severe and disproportionate to the alleged gravity of the misconduct of remaining unauthorized absent . Hence this tribunal by exercising the powers conferred under section || A of the ID Act grant an appropriate relief to him . He has further asserted though he was served with dismissal order dated 21-08-1998 during the first week of September 1998 when he went to report for duty, due to financial difficulties and other reasons though he had a very good on merits could not challenge the same before the proper forum for a peiod of four years and in the year 2002 he initiated conciliation proceedings which ended in failure resulting in this reference . Thus he claimed to set aside his dismissal order and to direct the second party to reinstate him with further direction to give continuity of service and all other consequential benefits with back wages .
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) has referred this dispute vide order No. L - 29012 / 88 / 2002 dated 01-04-2003 for adjudication on the following Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the managment of Mysore Minerals Ltd. in dismissing Shri Ramegowda w.e.f. 21st August 1998 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
2. Pursuant to the notices issued by this tribunal , the first party and the second party entered their appearances through their respective advocates and filed claim statement and counter statement respectively.
3. The first party in his claim statement asserted that he was appointed as a casual Labourer by the second Party in the year 1988 and thereafter his services came to be confirmed as a Mazdoor and while he was working at Puradoddi Granite Quarry of the second party, on account ofill helath w.e.f. 18-04-1998 he could not report for duty and submitting an application for leave on medical ground on 18-04-1998 , he left to his village Yedamaranahalli in Kanakapura Taluk since there was no one to look after him atthe place of work and started taking there treatment as outpatient from general hospital at Kanakapura and that
4. The Law Officer of the Second party who filed the Counter Statement on 20-12-2003 contended that the first party was appointed as a Mazdoor on 01-01-1988 and while he was discharging his duties at Puradoddi Granite Quarry on 18-04-1998 submitted one day leave application on the ground of sickness and even thereafter he did not turn up and remained unauthorisedly absent as such a memo was sent to him on 09-05-1998 directing him to report for duty and as he did not respond to the said memo , two more memos were sent to him on 19-05-1988 and 04-06-1998 directing to report for duty and to furnish explanation for remaining unauthorized absent and as he did not report inspite of those three memos , on 30-06-1998 an order was passed to hold the Domestic Enquiry appointing Shri B. Krishnappa , Sr. Manager ( P ) as Enquiry Officer and as the first party inspite of issue of notice by the Enquiry Officer to appear before him to face the enquiry did not attend, the enquiry officer palced him ex - parte submitted his report holding him guilty of the charges of long unauthorized absence . He further contended the third memo and the enquiry notice were sent to the first party through RPAD and same were returned back with the postal endorsement that the addressee is not in station as such a final notice was published in the local newspaper on 22-07-1998 and the first party did not repond to that 8113 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20, 2010/ कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
the counsel for the first party. Since the Second Party closed its side on merits by examining Shri Anand Kumar as MW2 , the first party was called upon to adduce his evidence and he rest contended by filling his affidavit in lieu of his evidence dated 20-12-2007 without producing any documents and tendered himself for cross - examination by the second party counsel .
publication as well . Therefore , as per the standing orders ofthe company the first party was dismissed from service w.e.f. 18-04-1998 , the date from which he remained unauthorisedly absent. It is further contended that the first party having raised the dispute after a lapse of four years from the date of his dismissal order on that count also he is not entitle for any relief. Thus he has justified and supported the action of the management dismissing the first party from service for his unauthorized absence .
6. With the above oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the parties , I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing for both the parties and carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the sides .
7. On appreciation of the claim statement . Counter Statement and oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the parties referred to by me above , I have arrived atthe conclusion that the action of the management/ second party in dismissing the workman / first party is justified for the following reasons .
Reasons
8. Since there is no dispute the first party was appointed as a Mazdoor in the Second Party management from 01-01-1988 and while he was working at Puradoddi Granite Quarry on 18-04-1998 he submitted leave application on the ground of illness for one day and proceeded on leave but thereafter did not report to duty till the first week of September 1998 on which date he claims to have went to report for duty with medical certificate and came to be served with dismissal order dated 21-08-1998 . Since it is not the case of the first party that subsequent to giving leave application one day on 18-04-1998 he forwarded any other application seeking leave , the burden heavily lies on him to substantiate that he was suffering from such a serojus illness for a period more than 5 months either to report to duty or to submit an application for extending his leave on medical ground . The first party failed to place on record any documentary evidence to substantiate that he was suffering from fever and severe abdomen pain for such a long period disabling him to report to duty or even to send an application through post to the management seeking extension of leave . The first party who has stated in the claim statement that on 18-04-1998 he submitted leave application for a day on account of his ill health and left to his native place and started taking treatment in General hospital , Kanakapura and went to report for duty in the first week of September 1998 with medical certificate , in his affidavit filed on 20-12-2007 in lieu of his evidence on merits states that he went to report for duty during the first week of December , 1998 with medical certificate and on that day he was served with order of dismissal dated 21-08-1998 . Thus from his affidavit it could be said that from 19- ( 0-1- 1998 till first week of December , 1998 he did not even care to send a leave application or request letter seeking extension of leave after filing one day leave application for 18-4-1998 which suggest that he had no mind to continue 5. Having regard to the assertion of the first party that he was not served with the charge sheet or any enquiry notice formulating a Preliminary issue as to whether the DE conducted against the first party by the second party is fair and proper ? after receiving the evidence of an Assistant Manager by name Mr. Govindappa K.V. as MW1 for the management and marking carbon copy of memo purported to have been issued by the Manager , Purdodi Granite Quarry dated 09-05-1998 to the first party to report to duty ; carbon copy of the second memo purpoted to have been issued to the first party dated 19-5-1998 to report for duty on or before 02-06-1998 with his explanation for remaining absent ; Carbon copy of the memo purpoted to have been issued to the first party on 04-06-1998 directing him to report for duty on or before 18-06-1998 with his explanation for absenteesim ; undelivered registered post addressed to the first party to his village address returned with the shara that he is not residing there and it is learnt that he is residing at Kanakapura ' ; undelivered registered post addressed to the first party to his village address returned with a shara that ' he was not available in the village for service ' ; Baluseeme , Kannada Evening Daily published from Chennapatanam dated 22-07-1998 wherein , the publication regarding absenteeism of 3 workers including the first party and notice of enquiry date being 30-06-1998 regarding first party has been published ; the letter of intimation by the enquiry officer on 30-6-1998 the first party/ charge sheeted employee having not appeared before him to face enquiry ; the letter addressed by the Manager , Purdoddi Granite Quarrydated 10-8-1998 to the Chief Administrative Officer of head office of the Second Party management regarding details of the absenteeism of the first party and two others workers ; order dated 21-08-1998 dismissing the first party from serviec w.e.f. 18-04-1998 for his unauthroized absence as Ex. Mi to M8 respectively also recorded the evidence of first party as WWI and after hearing the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing for both the parties by order dated 09-04-2007 answered the preliminary issue in the negative holding thatthe Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party as not fair and proper and called upon both the parties to lead evidence on merits Thereafter on behalt of the second party / management affidavit of one U.K. Anand Kumar S / o Kalegowda , Assistant Office Superintendent , Mysore Minerals Ltd. was filed (which is marked as MW2 ) tendered him for cross examination by 8114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
[ PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 27 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2910. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. लिमिटेड नाजिरा आसाम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय गौहाटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 01/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30011 /35/2009 आई आर( एम ) | डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th October , 2010
S.O. 2910. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 01 2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/lLabour Court Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONGC Ltd Nazira Assam and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-10-2010 .
[ No. 1-30011/ 35 /2009 - IR ( M ) | D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present : Sri D.K. Deb Roy, M.A. , L.L.B .. Presiding Officer . CGIT- cum- Labour Court , Guwahati .
Ref . Case No. 01 of 2010 Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute between: - The Management of Assam Asset , ONGC , Nazira, Assam .
Versus
Workman represented by the General Secretary , ONGC Karmachary Surakhya Samittee , Nazira .
APPEAREANCES :
For the Workman : Sri P.K. Konwar , Advocate . Sri Runu Kumar Barua , Advocate .
hisjob with the second party management . Apart from this fact his omission to take any action after the service ofthe dismissal order as claimed by him in the first week of December, 1998 for a period of four years further indicates that he had no mind to continue his job with the Second Party and after lapse of4 years with some ulterior motive of getting benefits, he has raised the dispute and managed to get this reference for adjudication . Though the first party did not get exhibite any medical evidence in his evidence, a certificate dated 18-04-1998 and OPD slip dated 18-4-1998 without specification of hospital produced by his counsel withmemo dated 20-12-2007 is available on record . In the certificate which is dated 18-07-1998 it is stated that Shri Ramegowda ( first party ) aged about 38 years S / o Muthegowda , Yedamaranahalli , Kanakapura was his case for Infective Hepatitis from 18-04-1998 and advised bed rest and treatment . It is not specified how many days bed rest he was advised . Since this certificate is said to have been issued on 18-07-1998 , if the first party had made an attempt to report to duty at least within a week from that date with medical certificate his absence for that period could have been said to be bona fide . As already adverted to by me above , the OPD slip produced with a certificate is only for 18-04-1998 and there is no indication that the first party having appeared before the doctor of that hospital on any subsequent dates . Therefore , even taking into account the un exhibited medical evidence produced by the first party counsel , I am of the opinion that the first party is notjustified in remaining absent from 19-4-1998 till the first week of December , 1998 on which date he claims to have went to report to duty and came to be served with the dismissal order dated 21-08-1998 . Under the circumstances though the Domestic Enquiry held at the instance of second party management against the first party has been held as not fair and proper, on the material placed on record by both the parties on merits , I am of the opinion that there is no justification for long absenteeism of the first party from 19-04-1998 till first week of December 1998 on which date he claims to have gone to report to the duty. Therefore , in my opinion the action of the management in dismissing Shri Ramegowda ( the first party) by order dated 21-08-1998 w.e.f. 18-04-1998 is justified and the first party is not entitle for any relief. In the result , I pass the following Award :
AWARD
For the management Sri G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate , Sri N. Anix Singh , Advocate .
Date ofAward : 29-09-2010
AWARD
The action of the management in dismissing Shri Ramegowda by order dated 21-08-1998 w.e.f. 18-04- 1998 ( which appears to have been wrongly mentioned in the reference schedule as w.e.f. 21-08-1998 ) is justified and the first party workman is not entitle for any relief. No costs .
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 15th September, 2010. )
1. The present reference is arising out of the Government Notification vide Memo No. L - 3001135/2009- IR( M) Dated: 16-02-2010 , in exercise of the powers confertred by clause ( d ) of Sub - section ( 1) and Sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), for adjudication of the dispute as described in the Schedule below.
S. N. NAVAL GUND , Presiding Officer भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 20 , 2010 / कार्तिक 29 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd. , Assam Asset , Nazira in transferring Sri Bhubaneswar Chutia , General Secretary of a registered trade union from Nazira to Silchar and for not considering to cancel the transfer order is justified? To what relief Shri Chutia is entitled ? " 2. On receipt of the reference notice was duly served upon the parties fixing 12-5-2010 for filing W.S. by the parties . The Management ONGC submitted W.S. on that day with a copy to the Union . Case was fixed on 14-6-2010 for filing W.S. by the Union . On that day the learned Counsel for the management submitted Hajira . Learned Counsel for the workman filed a petition praying for time for W.S. Petition was allowed fixing 16-7-2010 for filing W.S. by the workman . On 16-7-2010 , none appeared for the Management. Neither the workman nor his Advocate was found present on that day also and no W.S. was filed by the workman and again date was fixed on 23-8-2010 for filing W.S. by the workman and was ordered that no further adjournment will be entertained . On 23-8-2010 , the Learned Counsel for the Management remained present. Neither the workman nor his Advocate was present on that day also . The case was adjourned re - fixing 29-9-2010 for filing W.S. On that day also the learned counsel for the Management appeared . Neither the workman nor his Advocate remained present on that day. There was a specific order that if no W.S. is filed on that day i.e. on 29- 9-2010, the matter will be heard and decide ex - parte . The senior counsel Mr. G.N. Sahewalla assisted by Mr. N. Anix Singh emphatically submitted that the workman has not submitted his W.S. even after several adjournments and as such , it appears that the workman is not interested to proceed with the proceeding and prayed that no relief award can be passed.
3.Here I feel it convenient to re - capitulate the brief facts of the case of the management . The Management ( in short ONGC ) submitted written statement alleging inter alia that the present dispute does not come within the ambit of Section 2 ( k ) of the I.D. Act rather it is an individual dispute . According to the Management the workman Bhubaneswar Chutia was appointed as Helper , Grade - III in the ONGC vide order dated 10-9-1982 and was posted at ONGC , Nazira . As per conditions of the appointment , the concerned workman was liable to serve in any part of India or World . The concerned workman joined in the Management on 14-9-1982 , accepting all the terms and conditions. The Management formulated job rotation and transfer policy and the policy is applicable to all the employees including the present workman . The workman Bhubaneswar Chutia was the Office Bearer of a registered Union which was not recognized by the Management , ONGC . Therefore , he is not entitled to claim any relaxation against his transfer under the transfer policy . It is further alleged by the management that Sri Bhubaneswar Chutia
8115 remained posted at ONGC , Nazira/ Sibsagar for last 27 years and for the administrative convenience he was transferred to Silchar in Assam on 19-8-2009 without any protest . It is alleged , workman was promoted to the post of Dy. Head Worker ( Technical ) and he joined on 28-9-2006 giving undertaking that he shall proceed on transfer anywhere . The learned counsel for the management submitted that the workman has been transferred to Silchar after 27 years that too within the State of Assam . The transfer order has been made as per conditions of service and it is not a mala fide transfer. The learned counsel for the management has drawn my attention to the fact that workman failed to submit hisW.S. in spite of so many adjournments which clearly shows that he is not interested to proceed with the proceeding. I find force in the submission .
It is also seen from the record that initially the learned counsel for the workman appeared before the court and contested the proceeding but subsequently he also remained absent .
4.Having considered the entire gamut of the situation and having heard the learned counsel for the management I hold that " no relief award " can be granted , since the workman he has not contested the proceeding nor submitted W.S.
5. In the result , prepare " no relief Award " and sent the same to the Government as per procedure .
Givenunder may hand and seal of this Court on this 29th day of September , 2010 at Guwahati .
D. K. DEB ROY , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 27 अक्तूबर , 2010
का.आ. 2911.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओम सिंह राजावत पुत्र श्री कल्यान सिंह खान मालिक सकतपुरा कोटा राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/06 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल-29012/ 32/2005 आई आर ( एम ) | डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th October , 2010
S.O. 2911. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industriai Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 035/06 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court . Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Om Singh Rajawat S / o Sh . Kalyan Singh Mine Owner Sakatpura Kota ( Rajasthan ) and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-10-2010 .
No. 1. - 2901232 / 2005 - IR ( M ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASARAO , Desk Oflicer 8116
PART 1 SEC.Su THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/ KARTIKA 29 , 1932
--
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Present: N. K. Purohit , Presiding Officer
1.D. 35/06
Reference No. L- 29012/32 /2005 - IR( M ) dated 1-03-2006 Kuka
S/ o Sh . Mana,
Through Joint General Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha , Bengali Colony Cantt. , Kota (Rajasthan)
V/ s.
Sh. Om Singh Rajawat S/ o Sh . Kalyan Singh , MineOwner, Sakatpura , Kota(Rajasthan).
AWARD
30-9-2010
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause ( d) of sub- section 1 & 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication which runs as under : ---
"क्या श्री कूका पुत्र श्री माना ने श्री औम सिंह राजावत पुत्र श्री कल्याण सिंह खान ठेकेदार सकतपुरा जिला कोटा के अधीन ग्राम राजपुरा, जिला बून्दी , में स्थित खदान पर दिनांक 01-01-1997 से 30-09-2004 तक कार्य किया था? यदि हां तो अप्रार्थी द्वारा श्री कूका पुत्र श्री माना को मजदूरी का कितना भुगतान करना शेष है ? तथा प्रार्थी किस अनुतोष तथा राहत का हकदार है? "
2. Pursuant to the receipt of reference order , the registered notices were issued to both the parties . Claim Statement on behalf of the workman was filed on 6-1-10 and reply to the claim was filed on 17-2-10 . Upon perusal of the record it appears that on 30-4-10 the applicant sought time for filing rejoinder & documents , but on next date an application was filed by Shri Surender Singh , advocate stating therein that the counsel for the workman would not be able to appear before the Tribunal due to some urgent work . Thus , next date i.e. 9-8-10 was fixed for submitting rejoinder & documents , but none appeared on behalf of the both sides on the said date . Therefore , case was listed on 28-9-10 & 30-9-10 for appropriate orders but on the said dates also none appeared for both the sides .
3. In present reference , the question under consideration is whether the workman Sh. Kuka had worked under contractor Sh . Om Singh Rajawat at mines village Rajpura District Bundi for the period 1-1-97 to 30-9-2004 and what amount is payable to the workman as wages ?
4. Initial burden was on the workman to prove the averments made by him in the claim statement but he has neither appeared nor filed any document in support of his claim. It appears that the workman is not willing to contest the case further.
5. Under these circumstances there is no material on record to adjudicate the reference on its merits . Therefore "No Claim Award " is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly .
6. Award as above .
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अक्तूबर , 2010
का. आ. 2912.-औद्योगिक विवाद अििनयम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 165/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30011/62/2001 आई आर( एम) । डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th October , 2010
S.O. 2912. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 165 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-10-2010 .
[ No. 1.-3001162: 2001 - IR ( M ) D. S. S. SRINIVASARAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/ 165/2001
Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan
General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Adhinasth Bank Karamchari Sangh . Roxy Pul , Kampoo Road, Gwalior ... Workman Union
Versus
Dy.Manager ,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , Aviation (Oper) Maharajapur, Airport, Gwalior.
...Management [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
AWARD
Passed on this 5th day of October , 2010 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 30011 / 62 /2001 - IR( M ) dated 13-11- 2001 has refeered the follwing dispute for adjudication by thistribunal : -
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in imposing the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in grade and basic pay of Shri Chhotelal Dhukariya S / o Shri Durjan Das is justified . If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
2. The case of the Union/ workman in short is that the workman was appointed as General Operator in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 23-1-1989 and posted at Gwalior Aviation Station . He was served with a chargesheet for committing theft of corporation's property. The departmental enquiry was conducted and thereafter he was awarded punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the grade and his basic pay of Rs . 1436 was reduced to Rs . 1286 i.e. the minimum stage in Grade I vide order dated 3-4-95. The punishment order was not for specific period for which the penalty would be operative as required under Rule 11 of CCS ( CCA ) Rules and Fundamental Rule 29 ( 1 ) . The workman is said to have suffered monetary loss and would adversly affecting his pension , Gratuity etc. He preferred appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director on 26-12-98 for his redressal but the appeal was rejected . The workman is said to have been awarded punishment under clause 29 ( 1 ) ( e ) of the certified standing orders but amendments made by the Central Government in rules and Model Standing Orders shall prevail over the certified standing orders . The Central Government had amended Rule 11 af CCS ( CCA ) Rules wherein specfic period was to be mentioned for which the penalty should be operative . The workman approached before the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 203/99 wherein the application was returned to agitate before the proper court . On the above grounds , it is submitted that the management be directed to restore the reduce stages of pay w.e.f. 1-7-95 with back wages .
3. The management also appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement . The case of the management , inter alia , is that the instant dispute is raised after fives years and is at a very belated stage . The workman has not raised any ground about illegality of the enquiry proceeding except that the punishment imposed on him is for unlimited period and should be restricted to three years . It is stated that there is no illegality of infirmity with the punishment order dated 3-4-95 imposed upon him reducing the basic salary to minimum in grade in view of the provision ofclause 29 ( 1 ) ( e ) of the certified standing orders applicable to the management corporation . There is no time limit for such punishment and therefore the punishment awarded to the workman was justified in view of the charges proved against him. The workmen of the corporation are not civil
8117
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 20. 2010 /कार्तिक 29 , 1932
servants of the Union or of any State and the provision of Central Civil Services ( CCA ) Rules are not applicable to the workmen of the corporation . Fundamental Rules have no relevancy with the instant case . The provision of clause 10 ( 1 ) of the Bipartite Settlement is the promotional policy . It is not related for awarding any punishment . It is stated that for considering next promotion , usual 5 years as per the promotion policy plus additional three years as per the promotion policy plus additional three years due to punishment i.c. 8 years ( 5 + 3 years ) is to be calculated . On the above ground , the workman is not entitled to any relief and the action of the management is justified .
4. On the pleadings of both the parties the follwoing issues are formulated--
1. Whether the action of the management in imposing the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in grade to the workman is justified ?
II . To what relif the workman is entitled ?
5. Issue No. I
Before discussing on the issue , it is relevant to say that the Union /workman has not challenged the illegality of the departmental proceeding conducted by the management against the workman in his pleading or in his evidence . Thus it is deemed to be valid and legal .
6. The only point raised by the Union workman is that the punishment passed on the workman of reduction to a lower stage in grade and basic pay reduced from Rs . 1436 to Rs . 1286 i.e. the minimum stage in grade 1 vide order dated 3-4-1995 is not justified and it is not in accordance with the fundamental rules of the Central Government . It is stated that clause 29 ( 1 ) ( c) ofthe Certified Standing Orders is in consistent or repugnant with provision of Rule IR - 29 ( i ) of the fundamental rules . The fundamental rules are Model Standing Orders and are applicable on the workman . Since the punishment is not for specific period and therefore is unjustified .
7. Now the important question is as to whether the certified standing orders is applicable or CCS ( CCA ) Rules and Fundamental Rule are applicable to the workman . The Union /workınan has filed a copy of the certified standing orders which is admitted by the managment . It is marked as ExhibitW/ 5 . It shows that Certified Standing Orders is applicable in respect of all establishment , in Western Region of Marketing Division of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Clause - Iruns as follows : --
"These standing orders shall come into operation as per provisions of Section 7 of the Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders ) Act . 1946 and shall apply to all the workmen employed in all the establishments in the Western Region of Marketing Division of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. " The standing order was certified on 14-10-91 by Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Bombay and further amended and certified on 23-11-93 by Dy . Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Bombay . The said certified 8118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 20 , 2010/KARTIKA 29 , 1932
standing orders come into effect from 30-11-93 . Thus it is clear that the certified standing orders shall apply to all the workmen employed in the Western Region of the Corporation including this workman.
8.Another question arises that the CCS ( CCA ) Rules and Fundamental Rules are also applicable to the workman. The learned counsel for the management argued that the said rules are not applicable to this workman , since he was not an employee of Central Govt . Section 13 - B of the Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders ) Act , 1946 runs as follows-
"Act not to apply to certain industrial establishments.- Nothing in this Act shall applyto an industrial establishment in so far as the workmen employed therein are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules , Civil Services(Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules , CivilServices(Temporary Services ) Rules , Revised Leave Rules , Civil Service Regulations , Civilians in Defence Service (classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette , apply. "
Thus it is clear from Section 13 - B of the Industrial employment (Standing Orders ) Act . 1946 that it exempts from operation ofthe Act to workmen employed in industrial establishments to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules , Civil Services ( Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules , Civil Services (Temporary Service ) Rules, Civil Service Regulations , Civilians in Defence Service ( classification , control and Appeal ) Rules , or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations provided that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette , are made applicable . In the instant case , the Union /workman has not filed any notification to show that in the said establishment ofthe corporation the above said rules are applicable . Thus it is evident that CCS( CCA) Rules and Fundamental Rules are not applicable to the workman in absence of any notification.
9. The punishment order dated 3-4-95 and the letter of the management dated 11-3-99 which are marked as ExhibitW /I and W /4 respectively show that the workman was awarded punishment under clause 29 ( 1 )( e ) of the Certified Standing Orders and misplace to lower stage of the Grade . Clause 29 ( 1 ) ( e) of standing orders shows that there is no time limit for the punishment.
10. The learned counsel for the Union submits that clause 10 ( i ) ofthe memorandum ofsettlement ( on promotion policy) between the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and workmen (Marketing) shows that the reduction in lower stages in the same grade is maximum to be limited to three years only. The said memorandum is also an admitted document which is marked as Exhibit M/2 . It is urged that
PART II SHE S the punishment without specified period is unjustified in view of the settlement .
11. The learned counsel for the management submits that it is a settlement on promotional policy that promotion shall not be considered on account of punishment maximum to three years plus general policy of five years and therefore he had been accordingly promoted on 1-2-2002 after eight years . The letter of promotion is marked as l: xhibit W 9.1 also find that it is a promotional policy and it is of no effect with regard to punishment on misconduct.
12. The workman Chhotelal Dhubkariya is examined in the case . He has stated that he had not filed any appeal in the department against the punishment . The management has also adduced oral evidence . Shri Parvesh Kumar Jain is Station Manager at Gwalior Aviation Fuelling Station . He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that the punishment was of permanent nature . Clause 29( 1 ( e) of the Certified Standing orders also corroborated this fact that no time limit is prescribed . There is nothing in his evidence to disbelieve this witness . Considering the discussion made above , it is clear that Certified Standing Orders is applicable to the workman and the action of the management is justified . This issue is accordingly answered .
13. Issue No. II
On the basis of the discussion made above , the workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference is accordingly answered .
costs . 14. In the result , the award is passed without any 15. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .
MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2913.- राष्ट्रपति, न्यायाधीश श्री गौरी शंकर मर्राफ , को 1-11-2010 ( पूर्वाहन ) से केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक न्यायाधिकरण सह- श्रम न्यायालय संख्या । , मुंबई , के पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में 30-6-2013 तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, नियुक्त करती हैं ।
[ सं. ए-11016/6/2008- सीएलएस -11 ] पी. के. ताम्रकर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th November, 2010 S.O. 2913. The President is pleased to appoint Justice Shri Gauri Shanker Sarraf as Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No.1 , Mumbai w.e.f. 1-11-2010 ( F.N. ) for a period upto 30-6-2013 or until further orders , which is earlier.
[No. A- 11016/6 /2008 -CLS- 11 ] P. K. TAMRAKAR , Under Secy .
Printed by the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.