रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
T 15
25
REGD . NO . D. L. ( N) 04/ 0007/2003-05 भारतका राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
सं. 50]
No.
WEEKLY
नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर 5 दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 , शनिवार/अग्रहायण 14-अग्रहायण 20 , 1932 50 ] NEW DELHI , DECEMBER 5- DECEMBER 11 , 2010 , SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 14- AGRAHAYANA 20, 1932 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II-खण्ड 3-उप- खण्ड ( ii ) PART II-Section 3-Sub- section ( ii )
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय ( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 3 दिसम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2991.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य सरकार, गृह ( एससीए ) विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. जीओएमएस सं. 109 दिनांक 7 मई , 2010 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से श्री वी. सूर्यनारायण , अधिशासी अभियंता , आंध्र प्रदेश मत्स्यविभाग , हैदराबाद और ईएसआईसी , नई दिल्ली के अन्य अज्ञात अधिकारियों और आंध्र प्रदेश मत्स्य विभाग के विरुद्ध पी. ई. 01/2010- सीबीआई हैदराबाद दिनांक 16-2-2010 तक परिसिमित अपराधों का तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित पी.ई. के संबंध में प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों अथवा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किया गया अन्य कोई अपराध या अपराधों या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष 4575 GI/ 2010
पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य के संबंध में करती है।
[सं. 228 /51 /2010 - ए वी डी- II ]
आर. के. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 3rd December , 2010
S.O. 2991.-.In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 of1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh , Home ( SC.A ) Department vide Notification G.O.Ms. No. 109 dated 7th May, 2010 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State ofAndhra Pradesh for investigation of the offences confining to PE . 01 /2010 - CBI -Hyd .
(8537) [PAR: Gi ) ] 8538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण मुम्बई , 19 अक्तूबर, 2010 dated 16-02-2010 against Sri V. Suryanarayana , working as Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Fisheries Department , Hyderabad and others unknown officers of ESIC , New Delhi and Andhra Pradesh Fisheries Department and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to the above mentioned P.E. and any other offence or offences committed during the course of same transaction or arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228 / 51 /2010 - AVD - II ] R. K. GUPTA , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2993.-आदेश सं. 6 ( ए) एडी ( एटी) / 40 दिनांक 20 सितम्बर, 2006 के अधिक्रमण में तथा वित्त अधिनियम 1984 (वर्ष 1984 की सं. 21 ) द्वारा संशोधित आयकर अधिनियम 1961 (वर्ष 1961 की सं. 43 ) की धारा 252 की उप - धारा ( 5 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए अध्यक्ष , आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, एतद्वारा अधोलिखित अनुसूची के कॉलम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण के विभिन्न क्षेत्रों के वरिष्ठ उपाध्यक्ष/ उपाध्यक्षगण को, उक्त सूची के कॉलम ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यायपीठों का संदर्भ में, कॉलम ( 4 ) में विनिर्दिष्ठ शक्तियों एवं कायों का प्रत्यायोजन करते हैं : -
अनुसूची
पीठ( ठें)
क्षेत्र
क्रमांक
प्रदन क्तियों का प्रत्योजन
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
1. अध्यक्ष द्वारा
मुम्बई पीठें
I. मुम्बई पीठें , मुम्बई ।.
न्यायपाठों का
2. पुणे
II . मुम्बई क्षेत्र
गठन न
3. नागपुर पीठ
किए जाने की
4. पणजी पीठ
स्थितिमें
5. बिलासपुर पीठ
क्षेत्राधिकार के
6. दिल्ली पीठें
का.आ. 2992.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य सरकार , गृह ( एस.सी.ए. ) विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. जी.ओ.एम.एस. सं. 490 दिनांक 10 दिसम्बर, 2009 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से जेडी मेटला पुलिस स्टेशन आपराधिक विश्वास भंग तथा धोखाधड़ी के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 (1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 408 और 420 के अंतर्गत दर्ज अपराध सं. 748/2009 का तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों के संबंध में और उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य पर करती है ।
III. दिल्ली क्षेत्र
अतर्गत आने
7. आगरा पीठ
[सं. 228 / 12 /2010 - ए वी डी- II ]
वाली न्यायपीठों
४. कोलकाता पीठें
IV. कोलकाता क्षेत्र
आर. के. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव
का गठन।
9. पटना पीठ
11. किमी न्यायपीठ New Delhi , the 6th December , 2010
10. कटक पीठ
में मत्स्य के
11. गुवाहाटी पीठ
रूप में बैठना।
12. रांची पीठ
१७. अपन क्षेत्रा-
13. चैन्नई पीठें
V. चैन्नई क्षेत्र
धिकार के
14. अहमदाबाद पीठें
VI . अहमदाबाद क्षेत्र
अंतर्गत आने
15. इंदौर पीठ
वाला किसी
16. राजकोट पीठ
न्यायपीठ से
17. चण्डीगढ़ पीठें
VIL. चण्डीगढ़ क्षेत्र
अन्य न्यायपीठ
18. अमृतसर पीठ
को कोई
19. जयपुर पीठें
अपाल या
20. जोधपुर पीठ
21. बेंगलौर पीठें
VIII. बेंगलौर क्षेत्र
22. कोचीन पीठ
23. हैदराबाद पीठें
IX. हैदराबाद क्षेत्र
अधन क्षेत्रा- S.O. 2992.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi SpecialPolice Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government ofAndhra Pradesh , Home ( SC.A) Department vide Notification GO.Ms. No. 490 dated 10th December , 2009 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole ofthe State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation of Crime No. 748/2009 under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860 ) registered at Police Station Jeedimetla relating to criminal breach of trust, cheating and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence/offences committed in course ofthe same transaction or arising out of the same facts .
24. विशाखापट्टनम पीठ IV.
धिकार में
25. लखनऊ पीठें
X. लखनऊ क्षेत्र
पीठों
26. इलाहाबाद पीठ [No. 228 / 12/ 2010 - AVD - II ] R. K. GUPTA , Under Secy .
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
| भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(4)
(3)
( 1) (2)
27. जबलपुर पीठ
का पर्यवेक्षण, नियंत्रण एवं निरीक्षण करना । 2. वरिष्ठ उपाध्यक्ष /उपाध्यक्षगण द्वारा उपर्युक्त शक्तियों एवं कार्यों का प्रयोग/निर्वहन , अध्यक्ष , आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण के सामान्य अधीक्षण एवं नियंत्रण के अधीन किया जाएगा ।
[सं. VI ( ए ) -एडी( एटी ) /2006 ] आर. वी. ईस्वर , अध्यक्ष INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai , the 19th October , 2010
S.O. 2993.- In supersession of Order No.VI (A) - Ad (A )/ 2006 , dated the 20th September, 2006 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (5 ) of Section 252 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961 ) as amended by the Finance Act, 1984 ( No. 21 of 1984 ) , the President , Income Tax Appellate Tribunal , hereby delegates to the Senior Vice - President/Vice Presidents of the various Zones of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal mentioned in Column (2) of the Schedule below , the powers and functions specified in Column (4) in respect ofthe Bench ( es ) specified in column (3 ) thereof, with immediate effect :
SCHEDULE
Benches
S No. Zone
Powers and Functions Delegated
(4)
(3)
( 1) (2)
i. To constitute Benches within I Mumbai Benches , Mumbai
1. Mumbai Benches
the zonal
2. Pune Benches
Mumbai Zone
jurisdiction
3. Nagpur Bench
unless
4. Panaji Bench
constituted
5. Bilaspur Bench
Im Delhi Zone
6. Delhi Benches by the
President .
7. Agra Bench
IV Kkatia Zone
8. Kolkatta Benches
ii. To sit in any
Bench as one of
9. Patna Bench
theMembers
10. Cuttack Bench
11. Guwahati Bench constituting
12. Ranchi Bench the Bench .
13. Chennai Benches ii
" Chennai Zone
. 70 transfer any Vi Ahmedabad Zone 14. Ahmedabad Benches
appeal or application from
one Bench to
15. Indore Bench
another Bench
16. Rajkot Bench
8539
(4)
(3)
(1) (2)
VII Chandigarh Zone
within the Zonal
17. Chandigarh Benches
jurisdiction .
iv. To inspect .
18 Amritsar Bench
supervise and
19. Jaipur Benches
control the
20. Jodhpur Bench
VIII Bangalore Zone 21. Bangalore Benches
functioning of the Bench( es )
22. Cochin Bench within the zonal
jurisdiction IX Hyderabad Zone 23. Hyderabad Benches
24. Vishakhapatnam Bench
25. Lucknow Benches
X Lucknow Zone
26. Allahabad Bench
27. Jabalpur Bench
2. The above mentioned powers and functions shall be exercised by the Senior Vice- President/Vice Presidents subject to the overall general superintendence and Control of the President , Income Tax Appellate Tribunal .
[No. VI ( A ) -Ad . ( AT) /2006 ) R. V. EASWAR . President
वित्त मंत्रालय
( वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , । दिसम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 2994.-बैंककारी विनियामक अधिनियम , 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करत हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर, एतद्वारा , घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 100 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के उप- खण्ड ( i ) के उपबंध भारतीय औद्योगिक विकास बैंक लि. पर लागू नहीं होंगे , जहां तक उनका संबंध श्री आर. एम. मल्ला , अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक द्वारा आई डीबीआई फोर्टिस लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कम्पनी लि. के बोर्ड में शामिल होने से है।
[फा. नं. 13/ 12/ 2010- बी. -1 ] सुमिता डावरा , निदेशक MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services ) New Delhi , the 1st December , 2010 S.O. 2994. In excrcise of the powers conferred I Section 23 ofthe Banking Regulation Act , 1949 ( 10 of 1949 ) , 8540
[ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANΝΑ 20 , 1932
the Government of India on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions of sub - clauses ( i ) of clause ( c) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. in so far as it relates to Shri R.M. Malla , Chairman and Managing Directorjoining the Board of IDBI Fortis Life Insurance Company Ltd.
[ F. No. 13 / 12 / 2010- BO - I ] SUMITA DAWRA , Director
(राजस्व विभाग )
( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली , 6 दिसम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2995.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-2011 से इंडियन इन्स्टीट्यूट ऑफ टेक्नालोजी , हैदराबाद , कानडी, आन्ध्र प्रदेश को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्: -
( i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा ;
( ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा ;
( iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से ऐसी खाता- बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ;
(iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की नि प्रस्तुत करेगा । 2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन :
( क ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा ; अथवा
(ख ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा ; अथवा (ग ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त धनराशि का विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा ; अथवा (घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा ; अथवा
( ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।
[अधसूिचना सं. 88 /2010/फा. सं. 203/ 16/2010- ( आ.क.नि.- II) ] अजय गोयल , निदेशक ( आ.क.नि.- II ) (Department of Revenue)
(Central Board of Direct Taxes) New Delhi , the 6th December, 2010
S.O. 2995. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Indian Institute of Technology , Hyderabad , Kandi , Andhra Pradesh has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 ( said Act ) , read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 ( said Rules ) , from Assessment Year 2010-11 onwards in the category of other Institution' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely:-- .
(i ) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research ;
( ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students ;
( iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income - tax or the Director of Income - tax having jurisdiction over the case , [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act;
(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .
2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization :
(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or
(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or (c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub - paragraph ( iv ) of paragraph 1 ; or
(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or
(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and 5E of the said Rules .
[Notification No. 88 /2010/F. No. 203 / 16 /2010 - ITA ( II) ]
AJAY GOYAL , Director (ITA - II) नई दिल्ली , 6 दिसम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 2996.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-2011 से इंडियन अकादमी ऑफ साईन्स , बंगलौर को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्: - ( i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा ;
( ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा ;
(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रहेगा
8541
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप - धारा (2) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से ऐसी खाता- बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ;
(iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा। 2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन :-
( क ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा ; अथवा
( ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा ; अथवा (ग ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त धनराशि का विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा अथवा ( घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा ; अथवा
( ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।
[ अधिसूचना सं. 87 /2010/फा. सं. 203/8 / 2010- ( आ.क.नि.- II ) ] अजय गोयल , निदेशक ( आ.क.नि.- II ) New Delhi , the 6th December , 2010
S.O. 2996. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Indian Academy of Science , Bangalore has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 ( said Act ) , read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 ( said Rules ) , with effect from Assessment Year 2010-11 onwards in the category of other Institution ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely :-
[Per il Sec 30 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAVANA 20, 1932
8542
(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research ;
( ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;
करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार , एतद्वारा श्री जी. के. चोकियाल , कार्यभागव निदेशक , भा.वि.प्रा. को दिनांक 21 अक्तूबर , 2010 ) ז की अवधि अथवा उनकी सेवानिवृत्ति की तारीख तक अथवा अगा आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, 75000-3 प्रतिशत-100000 रुपए क शड्यूल - बी के वेतनमान में सदस्य ( विमान दिक्चालन सेवाएं ) रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[सं. एवी-24011/06/2009 एएआई
सैय्यद इमरान अहमद , अवर अचिव MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION (AAl Section)
New Delhi , the 8th November , 2010 ( ii) The approved organization shali maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2 ) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountani to the Commissioner of Income - tax or the Director of Income - tax having jurisdiction over the cas , e, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act;
S.O. 2997. -In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act , 1994 (No. 55 of 1994) , the Central Government hereby appoint Shri G. K. Chaukiyal , Executive Director , AAI as Memba (Operations ) , Airports Authority of India in Schedule ' B ' scale of pay of Rs.75000-3% -100000 with effect from forenoon of 21st October , 2010 for a period of five years on till the date of his superamuation or until further orders . whichever is the earliest .
(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations receiveri and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .
[ No. AV- 24011 / 06/2009 - AA SYED IMRAN AHMED , Under Sex.
2. The Central Government shan withdraw the approval if the approved organization : --
सूक्ष्म, लघु और मध्यम उद्यम मंत्राल नई दिल्ली , 2 दिसम्बर, 2010 ( a) fails to maintain separate bo ... s of accounts referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or
( ii) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or
का.आ. 2998 केंद्रीय सरकार 10 के उप निश्म प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के (4 ) के अनुसरण में, सूक्ष्म , लघु और मध्यम उद्यम मंत्रालय नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कायालय जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अ कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दों का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , क एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :
(iii) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub - paragraph ( iv ) of paragraph 1 ; or
1. राज्य कार्यालय , खादी और ग्रामोद्योग आयोग , हैदरावा [ सं. ई . 12016/1 /2005- हिं शेष कुमार पुलिपाका , संयुक्त राय (iv) ceases to carry on its research activmes or its research activities are not found to be genuine ; or ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and 5E of the said Rules .
[Notification No. 87/2010/F . No. 203 / 6 / 2010- ( ITA - II) ] AJAY GOYAL , Dinator ( ITA - II )
MINISTRY OF MICRO , SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES New Delhi , the 2nd December , 2010 नागर विमानन मंत्रालय (एएआई अनुभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 8 नवम्बर , 2010
S.O. 2998 .--In pursuanceof sub - rule ( 4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976, the Conaal Government hereby notifies the following office , under the control of the Ministry of Micro , Small & Medium Enterprises , whose more than 80 % staff has acquired working knowledge in Hindi:
का.आ. 2997, भारतीय विमानपत्तन अधिलम 1994 ( 1944 का सं. 55 ) के अनुच्छेद 3 द्वारा प्रदक्ष शक्तियों का प्रयोग 8543 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1. State Office , Khadi and Village Industries Commission , Hyderabad .
[No. E - 12016/01 /2005 -Hindi ]
the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SESH KUMAR PULIPAKA , Jt . Secy .
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
No. & year of the amendment
Sl . No. and Title of the No. standard (s )
( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
Date from which the amendment shall have effect ( भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ) नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2010
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
30 Sept. 2010
Amendment no . 3 , June , 2010 का. आ. 2999.- 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 अधिसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किए गए हैं :
1 IS 1417 : 1999- Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery, Artefacts Fineness and Marking Specification (third revision)
संशोधित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
27Aug. 2010
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
Amendment no . 2 , June 2010
4
3
2
2. IS 2113 : 2002 - Assaying Silver in Silver and SilverAlloys - Methods (second revision)
1
30 सितम्बर , 2010
1. आई एस 1417 : 1999- संशोधन संख्या 3 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, जून , 2010 आभूषण /शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्ट (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)
Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref: MTD 10 / T- 1 , 21 ]
27 अगस्त, 2010
संशोधन संख्या 2 जून , 2010
P. GHOSH , Sc . ' F ' & Head ( Met Engg . ) नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2010 2. आई एस 2113: 2002- चाँदी एवं चाँदी की मिश्रधातुओं में चाँदी की परख- पद्धतियाँ ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
का.आ. 3000.- 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 अधिसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया / किए गए हैं :
इस संशोधन की प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयोः अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पुणे तथा तिरुवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं।
संशोधन भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि [ संदर्भः एमटीडी 10 /टी -1 , 21 ] पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी )
(2)
(1)
(4)
(3) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
संशोधन संख्या (Department of Consumer Affairs )
30 नवम्बर , 2010
नवम्बर , 2010 (BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS) New Delhi , the 16th November , 2010
1. आईएस 6745: 1972 - जिक लेपित लौह एवं इस्पात 5 , वस्तुओं पर जिंक परत का द्रव्यमान ज्ञात करने की पद्धतियां
S.O. 2999. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule (1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , 8544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYAΝΑ 20 , 1932
इस संशोधन की प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयोः अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पुणे तथा तिरुवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[ संदर्भ: एमटीडी 24/ टी -105 ] पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी ) New Delhi , the 16th November , 2010 S.O. 3000.-In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule here to annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :
[PART 11 - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] SI . No.
No. and Title of the standard ( s )
No. & year of the amendment
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(3)
(2)
(4) (1)
1. IS 6745 : 1972- Amendment no . 30 Nov. 2010
5. November 2010
Methods for determination of mass of zinc coating on zinc coated iron and steel articles
Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards . Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kokata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbat and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal . Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur. Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.
[ Ref : MTD 24/T - 105 ] P. GHOSH , Sc . ' F ' & Head ( Met Engg. )
कोयला मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3001.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसक पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार ने कोयला मंत्रालय द्वारा जारी अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 2637 , तारीख 16 सितम्बर , 2009 जो भारत के राजपत्र में भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) , तारीख 26 सितम्बर , 2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 2067.15 एकड़ ( लगभग ) या 836.8५ हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) है , कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थीः
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में विहित की गई उक्त भूमि के भाग में कोयला अभिप्राप्य है;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, इसमें मंलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 1986.97 एकड़ ( लगभग ) या 804.115 हेक्टयर ( लगभग ) माप की भूमि का अर्जन करने की अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।
टिप्पण 1 : इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. जी एम ( जेए ) / अनंता ईएक्सटीएन/ 2010 209 , नारीश्व 22 अक्तूबर, 2010 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , अंगुल ( उड़ीसा ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , । , कार्डोसल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता के कार्यालय में या महाप्रबंधक ( भूमि / राजस्व और पुनर्वास ) , महानदी कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , पी. ओ. जागृति विहार , बूर्ला , जिला मंबलपूर ( उड़ीगा) के कार्यालय किया जा सकता है।
टिप्पण - 2 : उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है जिसमें निलिखित उपबंध है : अर्जन की बाबत आपत्तियां :
" 8 ( 1 ) कोई भी व्यक्ति जो किसी भूमि में , जिसकी बाबत धारा 7 के अधीन अधिसूचना जारी की गई है , हितबद्ध है , अधिगुन्चना जारी किए जाने से तीस दिन के भीतर सम्पूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का अर्जन किए जाने के बारे में आपत्ति कर सकेगा । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii
स्पष्टीकरण :-
1 .
8545
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
इस धारा के अर्थ के अंतर्गत यह आपत्ति नहीं मानी जाएगी कि कोई व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में कोयला उत्पादन के लिए स्वयं खनन संक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी संक्रियाएं कंन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं करनी चाहिएं ।
2. उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आपत्ति सक्षम प्राधिकारी को लिखित रूप में की जाएगी और सक्षम प्राधिकारी आपत्तिकर्ता को स्वयं सुने जाने , विधि व्यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपत्तियों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जांच , यदि कोई हो , करने के पश्चात् जो वह आवश्यक समझे , वह या तो धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि का या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न टुकड़े या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आपत्तियों पर अपनी सिफारिशों और उसके द्वारा की गई कार्यवाही के अभिलेख सहित विभिन्न रिपोर्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा । 3. इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जायेगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होता , यदि भूमि या किसी ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए जाते ।
टिप्पण 3 : केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता 700 001 कां उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2015, तारीख 10 जुलाई , 1995 द्वारा सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया है ।
अनुसूची
महानदी कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड
अनंता विस्तार परियोजना ( फेज- III )
कोयला खनन ब्लॉक
तालचेर , जिला अंगुल, उड़ीसा
सभी अधिकार :
[ रेखांक संख्या जी एम ( जेए ) /अनंता ईएक्सटीएन/2010/ 209 , तारीख 22 अक्तूबर , 2010 ]
पी.एस.
थाना
टिप्पणी
हेक्टयर
काश्तकारी
भूमि का वर्गीकरण ( एकड़ में )
वन
तहसील जिला नं.
क्रम ग्राम सं.
सरकारी गैर -वन
में
कुल क्षेत्र एकड़ में
भाग
68.608
169.53
8.52
0.00 161.00
1. अल्लाहदनगर तालचेर 82
अंगुल
तालचेर
तालचेर 79
165.14 2. हिलोई
तालचेर अंगुल
122.88 तालचेर 89
अंगुल
तालचेर
3. इकडाल
26.19
अंगुल
तालचेर
तालचेर 84
4. अजातिपुर
18.86
तालचेर अंगुल तालचेर 88
5. बीररामचंद्रपुर
41.73 तालचेर 80
अंगुल
तालचेर
6. कुरिहान
1.84 तालचेर 78
अंगुल 7. कंटापाली
तालचेर
15.35
अंगुल
तालचेर
तालचेर 77
8. दीनबंधुपुर
7.22 तालचेर 90
अंगुल
तालचेर
9. रंगमाटिया
10.25
अंगुल
तालचेर
तालचेर 91
10. रघुनाथपुर
409.46
कुल क्षेत्र
4575 GI /10-2
भाग
305.868
755.80
270.18
320.48
499.81
202.270 पूर्ण 256.92
120.01
73.16
29.607 पूर्ण 38.35
8.62
164.55
145.69
0.00
66.592 पूर्ण
43.590
107.71
38.48
पूर्ण 27.50
भाग
54.367
0.00
134.34
132.50
भाग
18.187
44.94
13.34
16.25
9.142
22.59
पूर्ण 15.37
0.00
भाग
5.884
14.54
4.29
0.00
804,115
1986.97
791.14
786,37 8546
PART !! Nai )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
ग्रामों में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:
( 1 ) अल्लाहदनगर
: 1 ( भाग ) , 4 ( भाग ) , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 और 18
( 2 ) हिलोई
:
1 ( भाग ) , 2 से 1284 तक
( 3) इकडाल
: 1 से 2257 तक
: 1 से 191 तक
(4) अजातिपुर
: 1 से 1121 तक
(5 ) बीररामचंद्रपुर
: 1 से 93 तक
( 6 ) कुरिहान
( 7) कंटापाली
: 14 , 15 , 16 , 21 , 22 , 23 और 24
(8 ) दीनबंधुपुर
: 13 , 15 , 16 से 73 तक और 76
( 9 ) रंगमाटिया
: 1 से 151 तक
( 10 ) रघुनाथपुर
: 91 , 92 , 94 से 104 तक और 105 ( भाग )
सीमा वर्णन :
क - ख : रेखा बिन्दु ' क' से आरंभ होती है जो ग्राम हिलोई , कंटापाली , बारापाली और जोरागाडिया का जंक्शन बिन्द है । रेखा उत्तर - पश्चिम दिशा की ओर ग्राम बारापाली और कंटापाली का सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ बढ़ती है और बिन्दू " मा " पर मिलती है, जो ग्राम कंटापाली के प्लाट संख्या 14 के दक्षिण- पश्चिम कोने पर है ।
ख - ग : रेखा प्लाट संख्या 14 , 15 , 16 की पश्चिमी सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम कंटापाली के प्लाट संख्या 16 की उत्तर - पश्चिम कोने पर स्थित है।
ग - घ : रेखा प्लाट संख्या 16 और 21 की दक्षिणी सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम कंटापाली और दीनबन्धुपुर के सम्मिलित सीमा पर स्थित है।
घ-ङ- च: रेखा प्लाट संख्या 16 और 15 की पश्चिमी सीमा के साथ गुजरती है इसके बाद यह प्लाट संख्या 15 की उत्तरी गीमा और प्लाट संख्या 13 की पश्चिमी सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " ङ " पर मिलती है । उसके बाद यह प्लाट संख्या १३ की पूर्वोत्तर सीमा से होकर गुजरती हुई ग्राम दीपबन्धुपुर और हिलोई की सम्मिलित सीमा के बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है। च- छ : रेखा उत्तर की ओर ग्राम दीनबन्धुपुर और हिलोई की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ बढ़ती है और इसके बाद ग्राम हिलाएं को प्नाट संख्या 1214 की उत्तरी सीमा से होती हुई ग्राम हिलोई की प्लाट संख्या 1 से होकर गुजरती है और विन्दु " छ" मिलती है जो ग्राम हिलोई और इकडाल की मम्मिलित भीगा
छ - ज: रेखा उत्तर की ओर ग्राम हिलोई और इकडाल की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ बढ़ती है , इसके बाद यह ग्राम इक्कण्डाल और सीबरामपुर आर.एफ. की सम्मिलित मीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है और बिन्दु " ज " पर मिलती है। ज - झ : रेखा ग्राम इकडाल और मीयरामपुर आर.एफ. की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ बढ़ती है और बिन्दु " झ " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम इकडाल , हरिहरपुर और मीयरामपुर आर.एफ. का ट्राई जंक्शन बिन्दु है।
झ - ञ : रेखा ग्राम इकडील और रघुनाथपुर की सम्मिलित सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " अ " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम इसदाल और रघुनाथपुर की सम्मिलित मीमा पर है ।
ज - ट : रेखा ग्राम इकडाल और रघुनाथपुर की सम्मिलित सीमा से गुजरती है जो ग्राम इकडाल, रंगमटिया और रघुनाथपुर का ट्राई- जंक्शन बिन्दु है ।
ट - ठ : रेखा ग्राम रंगमटिया और रघुनाथपुर की सम्मिलित सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और दोनों गावों की सम्मिलित मीगा के बिन्द " ठ " पर मिलती है। 8547 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
उन्ड : रेखा ग्राम रघुनाथपुर के प्लाट संख्या 90 की पूर्वोत्तर सीमा, प्लाट संख्या 94,95 की उत्तरी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या 105 की पश्चिमी उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और ग्राम रघुनाथपुर तथा बीररामचंद्रपुर की सम्मिलित सीमा के बिन्दु " ड " पर मिलती है।
उ- ढ : रेखा ग्राम रघुनाथपुर और बीररामचंद्रपुर की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " ढ " पर मिलती है, जो ग्राम रघुनाथपुर , बीररामचंद्रपुर , खन्डुआलबहल और जिलिण्डा के जंक्शन पर स्थित है।
के - रण : रेखा ग्राम खण्डुआलाबहल की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम बीररामचंद्रपुर , खन्डुआलाबहल और हेन्समूल के ट्राई जंक्शन पर स्थित है ।
ग्ण- त - ध : रेखा पश्चिम दिशा की ओर से ग्राम बीररामचंद्रपुर और हेन्समूल की सम्मिलित सीमा की ओर से बढ़ती है और बिन्दु " त " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम इकडाल , बीररामचंद्रपुर और हेन्समूल का ट्राई जंक्शन बिन्दु है । इसके बाद यह ग्राम इकडाल और हेन्समूल की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " थ " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम अजातिपुर , हेन्समूल और इकडाल का ट्राई - जंक्शन बिन्दु है।
थ- द- ध : रेखा दक्षिण की ओर ग्राम अजातिपुर और हेन्समूल के बीच एक सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " द " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम अजातिपुर , हेन्समूल तथा अल्लाहदनगर का ट्राई जंक्शन बिन्दु है । इसके बाद यह ग्राम अल्लाहदनगर और हेन्समूल की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " ध " पर मिलती है जो दोनों ग्रामों की सम्मिलित सीमा पर स्थितहै ।
घन : रेखा पश्चिम की ओर ग्राम अल्लाहदनगर के प्लाट संख्या 18 की दक्षिण- पश्चिम और उत्तरी सीमा के साथ तथा प्लाट संख्या 10 की उत्तरी सीमा के साथ बढ़ती है और बिन्दु " न " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम अल्लाहदनगर के प्लाट संख्या 5 , 18 और 4 का मिलन बिन्दु है ।
न- प - ए - ब: रेखा प्लाट संख्या 4 की पूर्वी सीमा के साथ बढ़ती है और प्लाट संख्या 13 के दक्षिण पश्चिम कोने पर बिन्दु " प " पर मिलती है । इसके बाद प्लाट संख्या 4 और 1 की दक्षिणी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है और ग्राम राकास और अल्लाहदनगर की सम्मिलित सीमा बिन्दु के बिन्दु " फ " पर मिलती है। इसके बाद यह उत्तर की ओर चलती है और बिन्दु " ब " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम अल्लाहदनगर , राकास और ब्रून्दावनपुर का ट्राई - जंक्शन बिन्दु है।
ब - ध : रेखा ग्राम अल्लाहदनगर और ब्रून्दावनपुर की सम्मिलित सीमा के ऊपर से गुजरती है और बिन्दु " भ " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम अल्लाहदनगर , राकास और ब्रून्दावनपुर का ट्राई - जंक्शन बिन्दु है ।
भ - म : रेखा ग्राम हिलोई और बूंदावनपुर की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " म " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम ब्रून्दावनपुर हिलोई और राकास का ट्राई- जंक्शन बिन्दु है ।
म -य : रेखा ग्राम हिलोई और राकास की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " य " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम कुरिहान , हिलाई और राकास का ट्राई- जंक्शन बिन्दु हैं
य-क ।: रेखा ग्राम कुरिहान और राकास की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " क " । पर मिलती है जां ग्राम कुरिहान , राकास और पदमावती का ट्राई - जंक्शन बिन्दु है।
क - ख : रेखा ग्राम पदमावती और कुरिहान की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " ख । " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम नकेईपासी , कुरिहान तथा पदमावती का ट्राई जंक्शन बिन्दु है ।
ख ! -१ ।: रेखा उत्तर दिशा की ओर ग्राम जोरागाडिया या कुरिहान की सम्मिलित सीमा रेखा की ओर बढ़ती है और बिन्दु " ग । " पर मिलती है जो ग्राम कुरिहान , जोरागाडिया और हिलोई का ट्राई जंक्शन बिन्दु है ।
ग : रेखा उत्तर दिशा की ओर ग्राम जोरागाडिया और हिलाई की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ बढ़ती है और बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।
[ फा. सं. 43015/ 17 / 2009 - पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- । ]
एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव 8548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIAECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
PART 11 St.3( in) ]
MINISTRY OF COAL
Delhi , the 8th December , 2010
S.O. 3001.- Whereas by the Notthesion of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal . S.O. number 2637 dated the 16th September 2009 issued under subsection ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 ( 20 of 1957) (истотакттеared to as the said Act ) , published in Part - II , Section 3, sub- section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India dated the 26th September , 2009 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 2067.15 acres ( approximately ) or 836 hectares ( approximately ) of lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification ;
And, whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtamable in a part of said lands prescribed in the Schedule appended to this notification ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the pays conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the seed Act , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intentionto acquire the land measuring 1986.97 acres ( approximately ) or 804115 hectares ( approximately) in all rights as deschel in the Schedule appendul hereto .
office of the Coal Controller , 1. Council House Street , Kolkatta , or at the office of the , General Manager ( Land/ Revenue and Retabohtatrony , Mahanadi Coalfields Limited . P.O. Jagriti Vihar , Barla . District Note 1 : The Plan bearing numbo (JAVAnanta Extn./2010/20 ) , dated the 22nd October 2010 of the area covered by this notifiche may be inspected at the office of the Collector , Angul . (Orissa ) or at the Sambalpur (Orissa ) .
Note 2 : Attention is hereby intheti ... provisions of Section 8 of the said Act , which provide as follows .
Objections to acquisition :
"8 ( 1 ) Any person interestsin the band in respect of which a notification under section 7 has been issued may, within thirty days of these of me notification , object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or any rights on of aver such land.
Explanation :--
( 1 ) It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself destres to undertake mining operatiotis in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should itot be undertakenby the Central Government or by any other person .
(2) Every objection under sub section ( 1 ) shall be made to the competent authority in writing , and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard eather in person or by a legal practitioner and shall , after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry , if any, as he thinks necessary , either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 or of rights in of over sach land , or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of riglits in or over such land , to the Central Government . containing his roommandations on the objections , together with the record of the proceedings held by hin , for the decision of that Government .
(3 ) For the purposes of this seven, a person shall be deemed to be interested in hand who would be entitled to claim an interest in comsensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act ".
Note 3
The Coal Controller . 1. Government as the compe July, 95. cu House Street , Kolkatta - 700011 has been appormed by the Central authority under the Act , vide notification mumber S.O. 2015 dated the Titl भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
8549
SCHEDULE
MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED
Ananta Extension Project ( Phase - III )
Coal Mining Block Talcher , District Angul , Orissa
All RIGHTS :
(Plant number : GM ( JA ) / Ananta Extn./2010/209 , dated the 22nd October , 2010 )
Tahasil Distt .
Remarks
Classification of land ( in Ac . )
Sl . Village
Govt. No.
P.S. No.
Police Station
11011 forest
0.00
Angul
Talcher
Talcher 82
1. Allhadnagar
165.14 Talcher 79
2. Hiloi
Talcher Angul
122.88
Angul
Talcher 89 Talcher
3. Ekdal
26.19 Talcher 84
Angul
Talcher
4. Ajatipur
18.86 Talcher 88
Angul
Talcher
5. Birarama- chandrapur
41.73 6. Kurihan Talcher 80
Angul
Talcher
1.84 Talcher 78 Talcher Angul
7. Kantapali
15.35 Talcher 77
Angul
Talcher
8. Dinaban- dhupur
7.22
Talcher Angul
9. Rangamatia Talcher 90
10.25
Angul
Talcher
Talcher 91
10. Raghunathpur
Total
409.46 Plot numbers to be acquired in villages :-
( 1) Allahadnagar
1 (P) , 4 ( P) , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 and 18
1 (P) , 2 to 1284
(2) Hiloi
1 to 2257
(3) Ekdal
1 to 191
(4) Ajatipur
1 to 1121
(5 ) Biraramachandrapur
1 to 93
(6) Kurihan
14, 15 , 16 , 21 , 22 , 23 and 24 (7) Kantapali
13 , 15 , 16 to 73 and 76 ( 8 ) Dinabandhupur
1 to 151
(9) Rangamatia
91,92,94 to 104 and 105 (P ) ( 10 ) Raghunathpur-
Boundary Description :
inAc .
Total Area in la.
Tenancy
Forest
169.53
Part 8.52
68.608
161.00
Part
755.80 305.868
270.18
320.48
202.270 Full 256.92
120.01
499.81
Full
29.607
73.16
38.35
8.62
66.592 Full
164.55
0.00 145.69
Full
43.590
107.71
27.50 38.48
54.367
134.34
Part 132.50 0.00
18.187 Part 16.25 13.34
44.94
Full
9.142
22.59
0.00 15.37
5.884 Part
14.54
4.29
0.00
804.115
791.14 1986.97
786.37
A- B : Line starts from point A which is the junction point of village Hiloi , Kantapali , Barapali and Joragadia.- The line proceeds towards north- west direction along the common boundary of village Barapali & Kantapali and meet at point B which is the south - west corner point of plot no . 14 of village Kantapali . - B - C : Line passes along the western boundary of plot no . 14, 15, 16 and meet at point Cwhich is the north- west corner point of plot no . 16 of village Kantapali .
C-D: Line passes along the northern boundary ofplot no . 16 and 21 and meet at PointD- which is the common boundary point of village Kantapali and Dinabandhupur .
D- E-F : Line passes along western boundary of plot no . 16 & 15. Then it passes along northern boundary of plot no . 15 and western boundary of plot no . 13 and meet at point E. Then it passes along the north and eastern boundary of plot no . 13 and meet at common boundary of village Dinabandhupur and Hiloi at pointF.
8550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932 [ PART II- Si j F -G . Line proceed towards north along the common boundary of village Dinabandhupur & Hilot and then passes along the north side of plot no . 1214 of village Hiloi and further it passes through ploi no 11 village Hiloi and meet at point G which is the common boundary ofvillage Hilor and Ekdal.
G-H: Line proceed towards north along the common boundary of village Hiloi and Ekdal and then turther t proceed along the common boundary of village Ekdal and Sibarampur R.F and meet at point H. H-1: Lineproceed along the common boundary of village Ekdal and Sibarampur RF and meet at point I which is the tri - junction point of village Ekdal , Hariharpur and Sibarampur RF.
1 - J : Line passes along the common boundary of village Ekdal and Raghunathpur and meet at point Jover the common boundary of village Ekdal and Raghunathpur .
J - K: Line passes along the common boundary of village Ekdal and Raghunathpur which is the tri -junction point of village Ekdal , Rangamatia and Raghunathpur.
K- L: Line passes along the common boundary of village Rangamatia and Raghunathpur and meet at point I on the common boundary of both the village.
L-M: Line passes along the north and eastern boundary of plot no . 91. Northern boundary of plot no , 94, 95, west and northern & eastern boundary of plot no . 105 of village Raghunathpur and meet at point Mor er the common boundary line of village Raghunathpur and Biraramachandrapur .
M - N : Line passes along the common boundary of village Raghunathpur and Biraramachandrapur and meet at pont Nwhich is the junction point of village Raghunathpur , Biraramachandrapur , Khandualbahad and Jilinda .
N - O : Line passes along the common boundary of village Khandualbahal and meet at point O which is the tr junction point for the village Biraramachandrapur, Khandualbahal and Hensmul .
O-P- Q: Line proceed towards west direction over the common boundary of village ' Biraramachandrapur and Hensmul and meet at point P which is the tri - junction point of village Ekdal , Biraramachandrapur and Hensmul . Then it passes along the common boundary between village Ekdal and Hensmul and meet at point Q which is the tri -junction point of village Ajatipur , Hensmul and Ekdal .
Q-R- S: Line proceed towards south along the common boundary line between Ajatipur and Hensmul village and meet at point R which is thetri - junction point of village Ajatipur , Hensmul and Allahadnagar . Then it passes along the common boundary of village Allahadnagar and Hensmul and meet at pomt S over the common boundary of both the villages .
S - T: Line proceed towards west along the south , west & northern boundary of plot no . 18 and northete boundary of plot no . 10 of village Allahadnagar and meet at point T which is meeting point of plot no . 5,18 & 4 of village Allahadnagar .
T-U -V- W: Line passes along the eastern boundary of plot no . 4 and meet at U at the south west corner point of plot no . 13. Then line passes along the southern boundary of plot 4 & 1 and meet at point V over the common boundary point of village Rakas and Allahadnagar . Then it proceeds towards north and meet at pomt W which is the tri - junction point of village Allahadnagar , Rakas and Brundabanpur .
W-X: The line proceed over the common boundary of village Allahadnagar and Brundabanpur and meet itt point X which is the tri -junction point of village Allahadnagar , Brundabanpur and Ajatipur.
X-Y: Line passes along the common boundary of village Hiloi and Brundabanpur and meet at point Y which is thetri -junction point of village Brundabanpur , Hiloi and Rakas .
Y-Z: Line passes along the common boundary point of village Hiloi and Rakas and meet at point I which is the tri -junction point of village Kurihan , Hiioi and Rakas .
Z - AI : Line passes along the common b sundary of village Kurihan & Rakas and meet at point A I which is the tri -junction point of village Kurihan , Rakas and Padmabatipur .
A1 - B1 : Line passes along the common boundary line of village Padmabatipur and Kurihan and meet at pointB1 which is the tri -junction point of village Nakeipasi , Kurihan and Padmabatipur .
B1 - C1 : Line procced towards north direction over the common boundary line of village Joragadia and Kurihan and meet at point C 1 which is the tri -junction point of village Kurihan , Joragadia and Hiloi .
C1 - A: Line further proceed in north direction along the common boundary of village Joragadia and Hiloi and meet at point A.
[ F. No. 43015 / 17/2009 - PRIW - 1 ]
M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.
8551 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3002.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसकं पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी और भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप - खण्ड (ii ) तारीख 24 अप्रैल , 2010 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 1037 तारीख 16 अप्रैल , 2010 द्वारा उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट अवस्थापन में ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकारों के अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का , पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और महाराष्ट्र सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि 79.04 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 195.30 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि और उससे संलग्न अनुसूची में यथा वर्णित ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाने चाहिएं ;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि , अनुसूची में यथा वर्णित 79.04 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 195.30 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते हैं।
इस अधिसूचना के अंत्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या सी -1 ( ई ) / III /जेजेएमआर/ 828-0510 , तारीख 19 मई, 2010 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , चंद्रपुर ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता - 700001 के कार्यालय में या महाप्रबंधक , वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) , कोल एस्टेट , सिविल लाईन्स , नागपुर -440001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।
अनुसूची
ढोरवासा ओपनकास्ट एक्सपेन्शन ब्लॉक
माजरी क्षेत्र
जिला-चंद्रपुर ( महाराष्ट्र )
(रेखांक सं. सी-1 ( ई ) / III /जेजेएमआर/ 828-0510 , तारीख 19 अप्रैल , 2010)
समस्त अधिकार :
' भाग - I'
टिप्पणी
जिला
क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में
तहसील
ग्राम का नाम
क्रम
पटवारी सर्किल संख्या
7
5
6
4
3
2
1
5.12
भद्रावती
30
पिपरी
1 .
चंद्रपुर
भाग भाग
73.66
28
भद्रावती
2.
तेलवासा
चंद्रपुर
कुल क्षेत्र : 78.78 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) समस्त अधिकार.:
' भाग -II '
टिप्पण
क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में
तहसील
जिला
ग्राम का नाम
क्रम सं.
पटवारी सर्किल संख्या 8552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932 [ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 1
2
3
4
7
6
5
1.
तेलवासा
28
0.26
भद्रावती
भाग
चंद्रपुर
कुल क्षेत्र : 0.26 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) +
' भाग - I '
' भाग - I< II ' = कुल
+
78.78
0.26
= 79.04 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 195.30 एकड़ ( लगभग)
'भाग - I '
ग्राम पिपरी में अर्जित किए गए प्लॉट संख्यांक :
277/1 , 277/2 , 278
ग्राम तेलवासा में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्यांक :
34, 35 , 36, 38/1 , 38/2 , 39/1 , 39/2 , 40 , 41 , 42, 43 , 44, 45 , 46, 47, 48 , 49, 50, 82, 83 , 84 , 85/1 , 85/2 , 86/1 , 86/2 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90, 91, 92 , 93 , 94, 95, 96, 97, 149, 150, 151 , 152, 153 , 154, 155 , 156 , 157/ 1,157 / 2 , 158, 159/1 , 159/2 , सड़क ( भाग ) ।
'भाग -II '
ग्राम तेलवासा में अर्जित किए गए प्लॉट संख्यांक :
31, 32 , सड़क ( भाग ) ।
'भाग - I '
सीमा वर्णन :
क - ख : रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा में बिन्दु ' क ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम तेलवासा के प्लाट संख्यांक 40 , 41 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती हुई सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 97 , 96 , 95 , 94 , 93 , 92 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती हुई ग्राम तेलवासा तथा ग्राम पिपरी की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा को पार करती है और ग्राम पिपरी से प्लॉट संख्या 278 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ जाती है और बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है ।
ख - ग : रेखा ग्राम पिपरी से गुजरती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 278 , 277/2 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई ग्राम पिपरी तथा ग्राम तेलवासा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा को पार करती हुई ग्राम तेलवासा में प्लॉट संख्यांक 159/2 , 159/1 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है ।
ग - घ : रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा से गुजरती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 159/1 , 158 , 83 , 82 , 86/1 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई सड़क पार करती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 50 , 49 , 48 ,47 , 34, 35 , 36 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' घ ' पर मिलती है । घ-क : रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा तथा ग्राम ढोरवासा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से तथा ग्राम तेलवासा के प्लॉट संख्यांक 36 , 38/222 , 39/222 , 40 की बाह्य सीमा से गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है ।
'भाग - II '
ङ - च - छ - ड रेखा ग्राम तेलवासा में बिन्दु ' ड. ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम तेलवासा के प्लॉट संख्यांक 32 , 31 की बाह्य सीमा से गुजरती हुई, बिन्दु ' च ' , ' छ ' से गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु ' ड. ' पर मिलती है ।
[ फा.सं. 43015/6 /2009- पी आर आई डब्ल्यू-1 ]
एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव 8553 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , the 8th December, 2010
S.O. 3002.- Whereas , by the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S. O. 1037 . dated the 16th April , 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section - 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) dated the 24th April , 2010 and issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 ( 20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the land and all rights in or over such lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;
And whereas , the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act , has made his report to the Central Government;
And whereas , the Central Government after considering the report of competent authority and after consulting to the Government of Maharashtra , is satisfied that the land measuring 79.04 hectares ( approximately ) or 195.30 acres ( approxi- mately) and all rights in or over such land as described in the Schedule appended hereto , should be acquired.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the land measuring 79.04 hectares ( approximately ) or 195.30 acres ( approximately) and all rights in or over such land as described in the Schedule are hereby acquired .
The plan bearing number C- 1 (E) III /JJMR/ 828-0510 , datod the 19th May, 2010 of the arca covered by this notifica- tion, may be inspected at the office of the Collector , Chandrapur ( Maharashtra ) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street , Kolkata- 700 001 or at the office of the General Manager , Western Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Department ) , Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur - 440001 (Maharashtra) .
SCHEDULE
DHORWASA OPENCAST EXTENSION BLOCK
MAJRI AREA
DISTRICT - CHANDRAPUR ( MAHARASHTRA )
[Plan bearing number : C - 1 (E) III/JJMR/ 828-0510 , dated the 19th May, 2010 ]
ALL RIGHTS:
'PART - I'
Remarks
Area in hectares
District
Tehsil
SI No.
Nameof Village
Patwari Circle number
5.12
30
Bhadrawati
1.
Chandrapur
Pipri
Part Part
73.66
2.
28
Telwasa
Bhadrawati Chandrapur
TOTAL: 78.78 Hectares ( approximately ) ALL RIGHTS:
'PART - II '
Remarks
Area in hectares
Tehsi!
District
SI.
No.
Name of Village
Patwari Circle number
(7)
(6)
(4)
(5)
(2)
(3)
(1)
Part
026
28
Bhadrawati
1. Telwasa
Chandrapur
TOTAL: 0.26 Hectares ( approximately ) 'PART - II'
TOTAL
'PART - I
+
0.26
78.78
79.04 Hectares (approximately)
OR 195.30 Acres ( approximately)
4575 GI/10-3 [PART II SEC. 3 ( 1 ) ] 8554
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
' PART - I '
Plot numbers acquired in village Pipri :
277/ 1,277 / 2,278
Plot numbers acquired in villageTelwasa :
34, 35, 36 , 38/1 , 38/2 , 39/1 , 39/2 , 40 , 41 , 42, 43 , 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 , 49, 50, 82, 83 , 84, 85/1 , 85 / 2,86 / 1 , 86/2 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 149, 150, 151 , 152, 153 , 154 , 155 , 156, 157 / 1,157 / 2 , 158 , 159/1 , 159/2. Road ( Part) .
PART - I'
Plot numbers acquired in village Telwasa:
31, 32 Road ( Part)
'PART - 1 '
Boundary description:
A- B : Line starts from Point ' A' and passes through village Dhorwasa along the outer boundary of plot numbers 40, 41 , crosses road and passes along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 97, 96 , 95 , 94 , 93, 92. 149, 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , crosses common village boundary of villages Telwasa and Pipri and passes through village Pipri along with the outer boundary of plot number 278 and meets as Point B ' .
B-C : Line passes through village Pipri along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 278 , 277/2 , croSICS common village boundary of villages Pipri and Telwasa and passes along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 159/2 , 159/1 and meets at Pount ' C' .
C- D: Line passes through village Telwasa along with the outer boundary of plot mumbers 159/1, 158 , 83 , 82 , 861 , crosses road then passes along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 50 , 49, 48, 47, 34 , 35, 36 and meets atPoint ' D' .
D-A: Line passes along with the common village boundary of villages Telwasa and Dhorwasa along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 36 , 38/222 , 39/222 , 40 and meets at starting Point ' A ' .
' PART - II '
E-F -G- E: Line starts from Point ' E ' and passes through village Telwasa along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 32 , 31 and through Point ' F ' , ' G ' and meets at starting Point ' E ' .
[ F. No. 43015 /6 /2009 - PRIW - 1 ] M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secv.
नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3003.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 की धारा 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार ने कोयला मंत्रालय के द्वारा जारी की गई अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 29 तारीख 15 सितम्बर , 2009 जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 26 सितम्बर, 2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 114.65 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 283.30 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हा गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विहित उक्त भूमि के भाग में कोयला अभिप्राप्त करना है;
अतः , अब, कोन्द्रीय सरकार , कांयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदन्न शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए . इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 110.761 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 273.690 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार के अर्जन करने की . अपने आशय की सूचना देती है। 8555 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
टिप्पण 1 : - इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. सी -1 ( ई ) III /जेजेएनआर/ 824-0410 , तारीख 19 अप्रैल , 2010 को कलक्टर , यवतमाल ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700 001 के कार्यालय में या महाप्रबंधक , वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , ( राजस्व विभाग ) कोल इस्टेट , सिविल लाईन्स , नागपुर -440 001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है।
टिप्पण 2 : - उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है , जिसमें निम्नलिखित उपबंध हैं : - जर्जन की बाबत आपत्तियां :
" 8 ( 1 ) कोई व्यक्ति जो किसी भूमि में जिसकी बाबत धारा 7 के अधीन अधिसूचना निकाली की गई है , हितबद्ध है , अधिसूचना के निकाले जाने से तीस दिन के भीतर सम्पूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का अर्जन किए जाने के बारे में आपत्ति कर सकेगा ।
यष्टीकरण:-
1. इस धारा के अर्थान्त यह आपत्ति नहीं मानी जाएगी , कि कोई व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में कोयला उत्पादन के लिए स्वयं खनन संक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी संक्रियाएं केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं करनी चाहिएं ।
2. उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आपति सक्षम प्राधिकारी को लिखित रूप में की जाएगी और सक्षम प्राधिकारी आपत्तिकर्ता को स्वयं सुने जाने का या विधि व्यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपत्तियों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जांच , यदि कोई हो , करने के पश्चात् जो वह आवश्यक समझता है , वह या तो धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि के या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न टुकड़ों या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आपत्तियों पर अपनी सिफारिशों और उसके द्वारा की गई कार्यवाही के अभिलेख सहित विभिन्न रिपोर्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा ।
3. इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए , वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होता , यदि भूमि या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए जाते । "
टिप्पण 3 : केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता 700 001 को उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 के अधीन अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2519 , तारीख 27 मई , 1983 जो भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) , तारीख 11 जून , 1983 में प्रकाशित की गई थी द्वारा सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया है ।
अनुसूची
घोन्सा सेंट्रल और नार्थ क्वारी ब्लॉक
वणी नार्थ क्षेत्र
जिला- यवतमाल ( महाराष्ट्र)
[ रेखांक सं. सी -1 ( ई ) III /जेजेएनआर/ 824-0410 , तारीख 19 अप्रैल , 2010 ]
सभी अधिकार :
भाग क
पटवारी
जिला
तहसील
टिप्पणियां ग्राम का नाम
क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में
सर्किल संख्या
क्रम सं.
42
यवतमाल 8.30
1.
वणी
भाग कुंभारखनी
कुल: 8.30 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 20.509 एकड़ ( लगभग ) 8556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
पटवारी
ग्राम का नाम
तहसील
क्रम सं
सर्किल संख्या
1.
230
वणी फुलोर
2. घोन्सा
वणी
98
कुल:
ग्राम का नाम
पटवारी
तहसील
क्रम सं.
सर्किल संख्या
1 . घोन्सा
98
वणी 2.
230
वणी फुलोर
कुल:
सभी अधिकार :
+
भाग क
+ भाग - ग
भाग -ख
8.300
+ 28.830
+ 73-631
या
20.509 + 71.239
+ 181-942
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
भाग ख
जिला
टिप्पणियां
क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में
यवतमाल
भाग
25.35
3.48
यवतमाल
भाग
28.83 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 71.239 एकड़ ( लगभग )
भाग ग
जिला क्षेत्रफल टिप्पणियां
हेक्टर में
62.801
यवतमाल
भाग
भाग
यवतमाल 10.83
73.631 हेक्टर ( लवण) या 181,942 गभग)
= कुलक्षेत्र
= 110.761 हेक्टर ( लगभग)
= 273.690 एकड़ ( लगभग )
ग्राम में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट
भाग-क ग्राम कुंभारखानी में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक :
2 ( भाग ) सरकारी ।
भाग ख
ग्राम फुलोर में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक :
2 ( भाग ) , वन भूमि, सरकारी ( नहर ) ।
ग्राम घोसा में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक :
65/1, 65/21
ग्राम फुलोर में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक :
26/1 , 26/ 1-क, 26/ 1 - ख, 26/2, 26/2 -क , 26/3 , 26/4 1 ग्राम घोन्सा में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक :
12/1 , 37/1 , 38/1 , 38/2 , 39 , 40/1 से 40/77 , 41/1 , 41/ 1 - क , 41/2 , 41 /2 - क , 41 /2 -ख, 41/2-1, 41 /2-घ, 41 /2 -ड,, 42/1 , 42/2 , 43 , 46, 47, 48, 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 53/1 , 53/2 , 54 , 55/1 , 55/2 , 56/1 , 56/2 , 56/2-क, 56/2- ख , 61/1 , 61/2, 62, 63/1 , सड़क (भाग) । 8557 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
सीमा वर्णन
भाग क
क - ख - गः रेखा ' क ' , ग्राम कुभारखनी में प्लाट संख्या 2 से आरंभ होती है और बिन्दु " ख " के पास से गुजरती हुई ग्राम कुंभारखनी और ग्राम घोन्सा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है।
ग - घ -क रेखा ग्राम कुंभारखनी और ग्राम घोन्सा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा के साथ - साथ गुजरती है फिर प्लाट संख्या 2 से गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।
भाग - ख
ड. -च रेखा ग्राम बिन्दु " ड. " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम फुलोर तथा ग्राम कुंभारखनी की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ जाती है और ग्राम फुलार तथा प्लाट संख्या 2 की बाहरी सीमा से एक साथ गुजरती है और ग्राम कुभांरखनी , घोन्सा और फुलोर की त्रिसंगीय सीमा पर बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।
च- छ रेखा ग्राम कुंभारखनी तथा घोन्सा और प्लाट संख्या 2 की बाहरी सीमा से एक साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है । छ - ज - झ - ञ रेखा ग्राम घोन्सा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ज " और ' झ " के पास से गुजरती हुई प्लाट संख्यांक 65/2 , 65/1 की बाहरी सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है और ग्राम घोन्सा और फुलोर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु " ञ " पर मिलती है ।
ञ-ट
रेखा ग्राम घोन्सा तथा फुलोर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और प्लाट संख्या 2 की बाहरी सीमा से एक साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ट ' पर मिलती है ।
ट- ४ -ड रेखा ग्राम फुलोर में प्लाट संख्या 2 से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ठ ' के पास से गुजरती हुई ग्राम फुलोर और ग्राम रासा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु " ड " पर मिलती है ।
ड-ड. रेखा ग्राम फुलोर और ग्राम रासा तथा प्लाट संख्या 2 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु " ड. " पर मिलती है ।
भाग - ग
ढ - ण
रेखा बिन्दु " ढ " ग्राम घोन्सा से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम घोन्सा से होकर गुजरती हुई प्लाट संख्यांक 61/2 , 61/1 , 62 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ गुजरती है फिर सड़क के साथ गुजरती है और विदर्भ नदी के किनारे पर बिन्दु-" ण " पर मिलती है । ण -त- थ रेखा विदर्भ नदी के किनारे और प्लाट संख्यांक 63/1 , 46 , 47 , 48 की बाहरी सीमा से लगकर एक साथ गुजरती है फिर बिन्दु " त " के पास से गुजरती हुई फिर से विदर्भ नदी के किनारे और प्लाट संख्यांक 42/2 , 43 , 42/1 , 41 / 2 -ङ , 41 / 2 - घ , 12/1 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " थ " पर मिलती है ।
थ - द - ध - न रेखा ग्राम घोन्सा से बिन्दु " द " और " ध " के पास गुजरती हुई प्लाट संख्यांक 12/1 , 41/1 , 40/29 , 40/28 , 40/27 , 40/26 , 40/25 , 40/24 , 40/1 की बाहरी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है , सड़क पार करती है फिर पुनः प्लाट संख्यांक 38/1 , 37/1 की बाहरी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और ग्राम घोन्सा और ग्राम फुलोर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु " न " पर मिलती है । न-प-फ रेखा ग्राम फुलोर से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु " प " के पास से गुजरती हुई प्लाट संख्यांक 26/1 , 26 / 1 क , 26 / 1 ख , 26/2 , 26/2क 26/3 , 24/4 की बाहरी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और ग्राम घोन्सा और ग्राम फुलोर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु " फ " पर मिलती है ।
फ- ढ़ रेखा ग्राम घोन्सा से होकर प्लाट संख्यांक 56/1 , 56/2 , 56/ 2 क , 56 / 2 ख , 61/1 , 61/2 की बाहरी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु " ढ़ " पर मिलती है ।
[फा. सं. 43015 / 16/2009- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]
एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव 8558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932 [PART II Sec . 30ⅲ ) ]
New Delhi , the 8th December , 2010
S. O. 3003.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S. O. 2639 dated the 15th September , 2009 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) and published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) dated the 26th September , 2009 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prosper! for coal in 114.65 hectares ( approximately ) or 283.30 acres ( approximately ) of the land in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification ;
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of said land prescribed in the schedule appended to this notification;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire all rights in or over the land measuring 110.761 hectares ( approximately) or 273.690 acres ( approximately ) described in Schedule appended hereto .
Note 1 : The plan bearing number C - 1 ( E ) III / JJNR/ 824-0410 dated the 19th April , 2010 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected at the office of the Collector , Yavatmal ( Maharashtra ) or at the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata , Pin - 700001 or at the office of the General Manager , Western Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Department ) , Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur - 440001 ( Maharashtra) .
Note 2 : Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act which provide as follows : - Objections to Acquisition :
" 8( 1 ) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7 has been issued , may . within thirty days of the issue of the notification , object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land .
Explanation: -
(1) It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself destres to undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person .
(2) Every objection under sub - section ( 1 ) shall be made to the competent authority in writing , and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall , after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any , as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 or of rights in or over such land , or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land , to the Central Government , containing his recommendations on the objections , together with the record of the proceedings held by him , for the decision of that Government .
(3) For the purpose of this section , a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act."
Note 3 : The Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata- 700 001 has been appointed by the Central Government as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act , vide notification number S.O. 2519 , dated the 27th May, 1983 , published in Part II , Section 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India , dated the 11th June , 1983 .
SCHEDULE
GHONSA CENTRAL AND NORTH QUARRY BLOCK
WANI NORTH AREA
DISTRICT YAVATMAL ( MAHARASHTRA )
[ Plant bearing number : C - 1 ( E) III/ JJNR / 824-0410 dated the 19th April , 2010 ] 8559 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
ALL RIGHTS :
PART-A
Remarks
Tahsil
District Area in Hectares
Patwari Circle number
SI . No.
Name of Village
Part
8.30
42
Wani
1. Kumbharkhani
Yavatmal
Total : 8.30 Hectares ( approximately ) or 20.509 Acres ( approximately )
PART- B
Remarks
District
Tahsil
Area in Hectares
Sl . No.
Patwari Circle number
Name of Village
Part
Fulor
1.
230
Wani
Yavatmal 25.35
2.
3.48
Wani
Yavatmal
Part
Ghonsa
98
Total : 28.83 Hectares ( approximately ) or 71.239 Acres ( approximately)
PART- C
Remarks
Tahsil
District
Patwari Circle number
Area in Hectares
SI . No.
Nameof Village
62.801
Part
I. Ghonsa
98
Wani
Yavatmal
10.83
Wani
Part
2.
Fulor
230
Yavatmal
Total : 73.631 Hectares ( approximately ) or 181.942 Acres ( approximately )
(ALL Rights):
+ +
PART- B
PART-A
PART- C
=
Total Area
=
+
8.300
28.830
+ 73.631
110.761 Hectares ( approximately)
OR
+
+
71.239
181-942
20,509
273.690 Acres ( approximately)
PLOT ACQUIRED IN VILLAGE
PART-A
1 Plot numbers to be acquired in village Kumbharkhani :
2( P) Government.
PART- B
Plot numbers to be acquired in village Fulor :
2( P) Forest and Government ( Canal) .
Plot numbers to be acquired in village Ghonsa : 65/1 , 65/2 .
8560
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20, 1932
PART-C
Plot numbers to be acquired in village Fulor :
26/1 , 26/ 1 - A, 26/ 1 - B , 26/2 , 26/2 - A, 26/3 , 26/4 .
Plot numbers to be acquired in village Ghonsa :
12/1 , 37/1 , 38/1 , 38/2 , 39 , 40/1 to 40/77 , 41/1 , 41/1 - A, 41/2 , 41 /2 -A , 41 /2 - B , 41 /2 - C , 41 /2 - D , 41 /2 - E , 42/1 , 42/2 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53/1 , 53/2 , 54 , 55/1 , 55/2 , 56/1 , 56/2 , 56/2 - A , 56/2 - B , 61/1 , 61/2 , 62 , 63/1 , Road ( Part) .
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
PART-A
A- B- C : Line starts from Point ' A' through plot number 2 in village Kumbharkhani and passes nearby Point ' B ' and meets at Point ' C ' on common village boundary of villages Kumbharkhani and Ghonsa .
C-D -A : Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Kumbharkhani and Ghonsa , then passes through plot number 2 and meets at starting Point ' A' .
PART - B
E- F: Line starts from Point ' E ' and passes simultaneously along the common boundary of villages Kumbharkhani and Fulor and outer boundary of plot number 2 and meets at Point ' F ' on tri - junction of villages Kumbharkhani , Ghonsa and Fulor.
F-G: Line passes simultaneously along the common boundary of villages Kumbharkhani and Ghonsa and outer boundary of plot number 2 and meets at Point ' G ' .
G-H-I - J : Line passes through village Ghonsa and passes nearby Point ' H ' & ' I ' along the outer boundary of plot numbers 65/2 and 65/1 and meets at Point J on common boundary of villages Ghonsa and Fulor.
J -K: Line passes simultaneously along the common boundary of villages Ghonsa and Fulor and outer boundary of plot number 2 and meets at Point ' K' .
K -L - M: Line passes through plot number 2 in village Fulor and passes nearby Point ' L and meets at Point ' M ' on common boundary of villages Fulor and Rasa .
M-E : Line passes simultaneously along the common boundary of villages Fulor and Rasa and outer boundary of plot number 2 and meets at starting Point ' E ' .
PART-C
N-O : Line starts from Point ' N ' in village Ghonsa and passes through village Ghonsa along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 61/2 , 61/1 , 62 , then passes along the road and meets at Point ' O ' on Bank of Vidarbha River.
O- P - Q : Line passes , simultaneously along the Vidarbha River and outer boundary of plot numbers 63/1 , 46 , 47 , 48 , then passes nearby Point ' P ' and again passes simultaneously along the Vidarbha River and outer boundary of plot numbers 42/2 , 43 , 42/1 , 41 /2 - E , 41 / 2 - D , 12/1 and meets at Point ' Q ' .
Q- R - S- T: Line passes through village Ghonsa and passes nearby Point ' R' & ' S ' along with the outer boundary of plot number 12/1 , 41/1 , 40/29 , 40/28 , 40/27 , 40/26 , 40/25 , 40/24 , 40/1 , crosses road , then again passes along the outer boundary of plot number 38/1 , 37/1 and meets at Point ' T ' on common boundary of villages Ghonsa and Fulor.
T- U - V : Line passes through village Fulor and passes nearby Point ' U' along the outer boundary of plot number 26/1 . 26/ 1A , 26 /1B , 26/2 , 26 /2A, 26/3 , 26/4 and meets at Point ' V' on common boundary of villages Fulor and Ghonsa .
Line passes through village Ghonsa along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 56/1 , 56/2 , 56 / 2A , 56/ 2B , 61/1 , 61/2 and meets at starting Point ' N' . V-N :
[F. No. 43015 / 16/2009 - PRIW - 1 ]
M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.
8561 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली , 3 दिसम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 3004.- 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 बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और, भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः, अब , भारत सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस राजामनिक्कम , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिल्लोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , न . 9डी/ 6डी , रामकृष्नापुरम , पील्लैयार कोवील के सामने , कगूर 639001 , तमिलनाडु राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला:सेलम
राज्य: तमिलनाडु तालुक:आत्तुर
सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं .
गाँव का नाम
आर- ओ -यू- अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर
4
5
3
2
1
00
56
05
सर्वे न . 184/7 में नाला
1 ) अप्पम्पासमुद्रम
03
00 02
सर्वे न . 184/6 में नाला
99
17
00
184/5
57
00
19
184/8
27
00
04
184/9
15
52
00
184/2
87
00
10
184/1
00
02
09
185/1
23
07
00
सर्वे न . 181 में रास्ता
54
00
00
सर्वे न . 178/12 में रास्ता
96
00
02
सर्वे न . 178/13 में रास्ता
31
00
01
सर्वे न . 178/14 में रास्ता
13
00
00
178/6
10
06
00
178/7
04
00 39
178/8
00
75
00
178/9
49
00
00
176/2
4575 GI /10-4 8562
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAΗΑΥΑΝΑ 20 , 1932
1
2 [Part II See Sil 3
4
51 00 07
78
176/6
1) अप्पम्मासमुद्रम (निरंतर)
00
25
85
176/4
00
02
34
175/3
00
28
176/5
174/1
01 00
14
09
174/2
20
79 00
172/2
00 05
43
173/2
00
03
15 00
33
18
173/1 वी
173/4
09
76
02
234/1
00 32
32
10
55 00
173/ 1 ए
00 07
66
सर्वे न . 235 में नाला
00 06
236/6
82
06
00
09
सर्वे न . 236/2 में गस्ता
29
29 00
सर्वे न . 236/5 में रास्ता
00
236/4
19
20 00 46
61
238/1बी
248/2
33
00
47
255/3
00
59
14
00 00
83
255/8
07
19
255/4
00
00
14
63
255/6
00
25
75
255/5
00
98 00
254/3सी
256
03
00
59 00 02
30
254/5
00
95
00
254/3वी
26
00
55
254/4
00 06
19
सर्वे न . 254/5 में रास्ता
29
00
46
सर्वे न . 253 में रास्ता
21
00
56
272/ 3 ए
272/3वी
00 08
44
272/5
00
01
54 00
03
272/4
96
272/8
00
15
65
08
272/7
00
65
272/6
00
04
99 00
274/14
01
44 00
13
62
सर्वे न . 271 में नाला
270
283
00
11
38 00
50
11
35
284/1
00
21 00
286/7
10
00
00
16
286/6
80 00
60
286/5बी
02 | भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
286/5सी 1) अप्पम्मालमुदाम ( निरन्तर)
286/5डी
286/4वी
286/4सी
286/3वी
286/3ए
286/2
286/15
286/1डी
285/ 8सी
285/8वी
285/6ची
285/ 6सी
285/4
285/5 2) रामानायक्कनपालयम
395/9सी
397/1जी
396/ 5वी
397/1 एफ
397/15
397/1सी
397/1ड्डी
397/1 वी
397/1 ए
398/6वी
398/ 6ए
398/5
398/3
398/4
398/7
सर्वे न . 395 में रास्ता
394/4
393/3सी
393/4
393/ 2वी
393/ 2ए
393/1 ए
393/7ए
393/7वी
393/7सी
393/6
392/4वी
392/6
405/ 3एफ
392/5 बी
392/ 5ए
लिप्ता 11 2010 / अग्रहायण २0 1937
8563
3
4
5
39
00 02
00 16
55
12
00
35
99
03
00
09
10
00
16
02
00
62
00 11
75
05
00
05
40
00
27
00 04
07
00
19
03
76
00
07
36
00
08
00 04
46
00 19
23
07
00
00
06
18
66
00 04
15
10
00
03
74
00
56
00 08
01
48
00
02
81
00
25
01
00
64
02
00
03
02
00
24
03
00
10
09
00
31
00
03
71
00 08
25
00
04
76
00 00
10
00
52
00
04
38
96
26
00
00 08
91
98
06
00
41
02
00
11
07
00
69
00
00
10
29
00 25
12
89
00
64
00 00
60
44
00
02
20
00
8565 8564
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAΥΑΝΑ 20 , 1932
1
2
404
2) रामानायक्कनपालयम (निरंतर)
[ Part II Sec . 3 (ii) | 3
4
5
00 00
43 00 12
12
405/1
79 00
01
406/8
00
60
09
406/5
11
00
16
406/4
00 02
01
406/2
00
48
11
406/1
04
00
89
387/3
00
54
11
387/4
10 00 00
387/5
31
04 00
387/1बी
00
32
74
407/2
70 00
00
407/1
जिला नमक्कल तालुक: नमक्कल
1 ) 124. वलायप्पटि
राज्य:तमिलनाडु
03
00
54
10/1बी
00
15
59
10/1सी
00
10 00
10/1डी
14
93 20
10/15
00
07
04
सर्वे न . 7 में रास्ता
23/2
23/3
24/2
24/1
22/1
22/5
22/3
41/3
41/2 00
24
59
15 00 46
38 00 08
00
26
00
00
05
62 00
83
01
00
36
16
27 00
03
00
23
46 00
03
80
12 00. 00
41/1वी
31 00
05
गर्वे न . 40 में नाला
43/4
43/3 00
26
12
22
00
80
01
00
92
सर्वे न . 63 में रास्ता
00
43
03
सर्वे न . 44 में रास्ता
00
12
89
49/1सी
62/2
62/3
50/2
55/3
55/1
58/1
58/2 00
11
24 00
71
33
00
35
43 00 06
54 00
47
44 00 08
54 00 04
91 00
35
04
60/ 1 ए
60/5
58/3
13 00
09
00
07
17 00 14
50
सर्वे न . 59 में नाला
AVI | भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( 11) ]
2 1
4
2 ) पोटिरेडिडपटि
3
457
8
9
10
367
3 ) आन्डाणुम
365
364
सर्वे न . 14/5 में रास्ता 4) अरसानट्टम
14/3
14/4एफ
14/4जी 1
14/4जी 2
14/45
14/4डी
सर्वे न . 27/1 में रास्ता
27/ 2बी
27 / 2 ए
27/ 2 डी
27/ 2सी
28/1
28/2
28/3
28/5
28/4
28/12
30/2
30/12
42/4ए
42/4बी 2
42/5
42/4डी3
42/43
5
4
3
85
37
00
66
11
00
17
72
00
17
27
00
10
00
00
45
09
00
72
39
00
85
37
00
35
30
00
70
05
00
35
04
00
54
04
00
08
03
00
05
03
00
66
03
00
10
00
00
56
07
00
64
11
00
00
12
00
00
05
00
69
14
00
17
06
00
20
05
00
04
12
00
10
00
00
80
11
00
13
37
00
16
39
00
71
01
00
44
07
00
54
15
00
64
04
01
33
00
00
17
00
00
99
16
00
सर्वे न . 4911 में रास्ता
49/ 1 ए 2
49/1बी
50/ 1 ए
50/1 बी
50/2
44
5 ) ओरावन्दुर
45/1सी
45/1सी
45/ 1 ए2
45/ 1 ए1
46/2
54
09
00
54
24
00
15
22
00
35
09
00
22
13
00
57
17
00
70
03
00
05
30
00
97
36
00
12
19
00
41
00
00 8566
[ Part If Sec . Siin THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20. 1932
2 1
5 3
4
00
04
46
सर्वे न . 423 में रास्ता
5) ओरावन्दुर (निरंतर)
31
00
85
424/ 1 ए
00 00
35
424/ 1 वी1
00
93
08
422/5
00
10
422/4
73
422/ 6वी
00
12
422/ 6ए
00
00
42
422/ 6सी
00
63
02
422/ 6डी
00 09
14
422/7
419
00
74
11
00
15
68
418/131
00
09
02
418/153
07
00
57
418/251
00
07
77
418/ 2 एफ
00
09
08
417/2
00
15
51 00
03
58
416/ 6ए
00
416/5
415
414
14
66 00
17
37 00
14
86 00
03
42
413/ 3ए
00
413/15
10
47 00
01
52
413/1डी
00
01
413/3वी
14
413/2
00
12
30
411/4वी
00
06
94 00
18
81
411/4ए
67
411/11
00 00
00
411/12
04
31 00
411/18 ए
02
90 00
04
411/18वी
54 00
00
42
411/13
20
00
11
411/18सी
00
00
411/15
56 00
02
411/17
409
39 00
15
81
408/4
00
25
15
00
408/5
28
16 00
408/ 6वी
08
38 00
78
04
सर्वे न . 658 में रास्ता
29
00
03
466/ 1 ए
भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 200 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
=
2 1
467/ 2ए 5 ) ओरावन्दुर (निरंतर)
467/3
471/5
467/4ए
467/4बी
467/5
471/4
471/3
470
469
474/5
474/6
476/1सी
476/1 बी
476/1 बी
476/ 2ए
476/ 2ए
सर्वे न . 477 में रास्ता
478/1
478/2
489/1
489/2
488/ 2डी
490/1 ए
490/2
513
514/1 ए
517/ 1 डी
516/1 ज
517/ 1 ई
516/1 आड
516/ 2ज
516/1 एच
516/ 2 आड
515
546/1डी
546/3डी
546/ 1 सी 2
546/ 3सी 2
546/ 1 सी 1
546/3 सी 1
8507
5
4
3
86
13
00
12
09 00
01
22
00
07
77 00
60
07
00
11 00 08
59 00 08
27
00
00
76
49 00
17
29
00
29
00
00
03
03
00
83
20
00
40
06
00
39
10
00
10
00
00
14
32
00
02
05
00
64
00
00
94
08
00
33
69 00
71
13
00
76 00 08
12 00
40
20 00 06
34
28
00
00
46
00
58
08
00
03
50 00
05
01
00
65
28
00
47
07
00
10
00
00
43
03
00
04 00
64
38
05
00
66
01
00
33
05
00
30 00 07
34
00
00
30 00
17 8568
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAΥΑΝΑ 20, 1932
1
2
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5 00
09
55
546/3बी
5) ओरावन्दुर (निरंतर )
00
02
35
546/ 3 ए 2
00
03
01
546/ 3 ए1
जिला: नमक्कल
तालुक: रासिपुरम
राज्य: तमिलनाडु
02
717/9
1 ) कारकुडालप्पटि
00
75 00
717/8
16
81 00
32
717/2
81 00
717/3
51
15
00
02
717/5
716
82 00
55
71 00
04
698/2
715
72 00
04
12 00
698/3
02
18
698/1
697
00
11
16 00
25
26 00
21
56
694/3
00
694/1
693
16
25 00 28
63 00
15
687/ 2सी
79 00
01
13
687/ 2बी
00
14
18
687/ 2ए
687/4
00
12
31
687/3
00
11
71
687/1
686
00
41
06 00 00
91
02
00
43
सर्वे न . 684 में रास्ता
685
681
00
47
61
30
00
65 00
05
53
सर्वे न . 673 में रास्ता
672
00
06
34 00
29
266/4
96 00
266/3
01
13 00
266/2
17
31
267/1
00
12
99
267/2
274
00 48
05 00 08
93
268/2
273
269
00 12
42 00 42
37 00 30
24 00
11
51
सर्वे न . 271 में नाला
238
239
00 02
91 00
53
24 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
| भाग । खंण्ड 3 ( 1 )
2
228
1 ) कारकुडालप्पटि (निरंतर)
229
230
209
सर्वे न . 192 में रास्ता
206
193
194
198
199
202
169
170
168
171
167
सर्वे न . 329 में नाला
327
326
333
323
334
335
जिला: तिरूच्चिराप्पल्लि तालुक:तोटियम
203/1 1) मुरूंगय
203/2
203/6
203/5
203/4वी
203/4एं
203/4सी
203/12 ए
203/11 女
203/11 वी
203/11सी
203/11ड्डी
203/13
203/14वी
203/14ए
203/15
203/17
203/10 4575 Gl/10-5
8569
5
4
3
78
53
00
85
15
00
56
69
00
11
42
00
47
55
00
76
01
00
60
07
00
40
70
00
56
21
00
84
39
00
87
30
00
38
78
00
67
00
00
15
41
00
31
00
00
34
48
00
19
10
00
38
47
00
96
20
00
35
31
00
56
22
00
93
35
00
50
28
00
राज्य:तमिलनाडु
07
05
00
31
05
00
17
00
00
95
08
00
54
03
00
10
00
00
21
03
00
83
03
00
57
03
00
75
06
00
83
07
00
24
02
00
47
10
00
17
03
00
72
04
00
91
12
00
85
01
00
00
08
00 8570
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAΗΛΥΑΝΑ 20. 1932
1
2
Part II Sec. Sii ) 3
4
5
203/10
1 ) मुरूंगय (निरंतर)
00
10
89
204/3
00 08
51
204/ 2वी
00
20
87 00
204/4ए
06
56
204/4वी
02
00
40
204/5ए
00
11
27
204/2
00
21
22
204/20
00 00
51 00
04
29
सर्वे न . 205 में रास्ता
212/1 वी
00
04
57
212/ 1ए
00 16
65
2-12/1सी
00
03
43
212/2
00
08
81
212/3वी
00 27
38
212/4
00
12
80
213/1
00 19
44
213/2
00 13
35
213/3
2) किडारम
00
02
68 00
10
21
सर्वे न . 55/4 में रास्ता
55/35
00 00
52 00 06
सर्वे न . 56/6 में रास्ता
19 00
56/3ए
07
53
56/4सी
56/5
00
12
88 00 28
84
56/ 2सी
71/4
71/1
00 02
09 00 09
21 00
16
67
70/ 2सी
11
00
14
70/ 2वी
00
05
45
70/ 2ए
01
00
13
70/3ए
00 08
21
70/3वी
00 00
45 00 00
43
सर्वे न . 72/1 ए में रास्ता
73
00
53
42
72/1डी
00
00
10
74/21
00
12
29
74/2वी
00
04
95
74/ 2ए
74/3
00 05
91 00
11
65
75/1वी
75/ 1 ए
00 01
17 00
07
84 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
75/2
2) किडारम (निरंतर)
75/ 6वी
75/ 6ए
75/7
255/1 सी
256/ 1 ए
256/ 2 ए
257/1
255/ 1 ए
255/ 2वी
255/ 2बी
255/3सी
255/3वी
सर्वे न . 260 में रास्ता
261,1
261/2
264/1
264/2
265/ 1 ए
265/ 2 ए
266/1 ए
266/1 वी
8571
5
4
3
64
10
00
25
00
00
07
79 00
23
95 00
63
00
00
99
09
00
54 00
04
56
00
00
47 00 06
95 00 08
13
26 00
83
13
00
82
01
00
05
00
51
48
15
00
78
15
00
24
15
00
53
13
00
79
11
00
91
26
00
53
15
00
41
23
00
32
04
00
सर्वे न . 247/11 में रास्ता
247/4
247/9
247/10
247/8
267/ 1 ए
70/3सी
133
3 ) उन्नियुर
71/2
71/1
68/ 1 बी 2 ए
68/1 वी 2वी
सर्वे न . 70 में रास्ता
7
6/2
6/3
6/4
5/2
5/3
42
09
00
39
14
00
28
25
00
10
00
00
20
00
00
10
00
00
77
18
00
78
00
00
43
38
00
00
79 00
01
80 00
92
02
00
01
03
00
61
01
00
16
08
00
10
73 00 08
76
17
00 8572
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
Part II See S0 1
2
5
4
3
21
74
00
5/4
3) उन्नियुर (निरंतर )
03
00
00
सर्वे न . 5/5 में नाला
190
21
00 07
00
01
94
188/1ची
00
17
41
188/3ए
[फा सं. एल. 14014-98-2010 जी.पी. ]
स्नेह प्रभा भदान, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi , the 3rd December, 2010
S. O. 3004.- Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in the public interest that for the 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 the Government of India that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed 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 S.Rajamanickam , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , No. 9D/6D Ramakrishnapuram , Opp . Pillayar Kovil , Karur - 639 001 , Tamil Nadu State भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
...
8573
Schedule
Taluk : Attur
District : Salem
Village
Survey No./Sub-Division No.
1
2 1 ) Appammasamudram
State : Tamil Nadu
Area to be acquired for Rou Hec
Are
C-Are
4
5 3
00
05
56
Nala in Survey No. 184/7
00
02
03
Nala in Survey No. 184/6
184/5
184/8
184/9
184/2
184/1
185/1 00
17
99 00
19
57 00
04
27 00
15
52 00
87
10
02
00
09
07
00
23
Road in Survey No. 181
00
00
54
Road in Survey No. 178/12
00
02
96
Road in Survey No.178 / 13
00
01
31
Road in Survey No. 178/14
178/6
178/7
178/8
178/9
176/2
176/6
176/4
175/3
176/5
174/1
174/2
172/2
173/2
173/ 1B
173/4
234/1
173/ 1A 00
00
13
00
06
10 00
39
04 00
00
15
00
00
19 00
07
18 00
25
85 00
02
34 00
28
)1
00
09
14
00
20
79
05
00
43
00
03
75
00
33
18
00
76
02
00
32
32
00
10
55
00
07
66
Nala in Survey No. 235
236/6 00
06
82
06
00
09
Road in Survey No. 236/2
00
29
29
Road in Survey No. 236/5
236/4
238/ B
248/2
255/3 00
19
20
46
00
61
00
33
47
14
00
50 8574
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRATIAYANA 20. 1932
2 1
255/8 1) Appammasamudram ( Contd )
255/4
255/6
255/5
254/3C
256
254/5
254/3B
254/4
Road in Survey No. 254/5
5
4
3
00
83 00
07
00
19
14
63 00
00
25
75 00
00
98
03
59 00
02
30 00
00
95 00
00
55
26
06
19 00
00
46
29
Road in Survey No. 253
00
272/ 3A
272/3B
272/5
272/4
272/8
272/7
272/6
274/14
21
56 00
08
44 00
01
54 00
96
03
65 00
15
00
08
65 00
04
99 00
01
44 00
13
62
Nala in Survey No.271
270
283
284/1
286/7
285/6
286/ 5B
286/5C
286/ 5D
286/4B
286/4C
286/3B
286/3A
286/2
286 / 1E 00
11
38 00
50
11
00
21
35
00
00
10 00
16
80 00
02
60 00
02
39 00
55
16
00
12
3. 00
03
99
09
00
10 00
02
16 00
11
62 00
05
75
286/ ID
285 / 8C
285/8B
285 / 6B
285/ 6C
285/4
285/5 00
05
40 00
04
27 00
07
19 00
76
03
00
07
36 00
04
08 00
19
46 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8575
भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 2) Ramanayakkanpalayam
396/9C
397/1G
396/ 5B
397 / 1F
397 / 1E
397 / 1C
397 / 1D
397/ 1B
397 / 1A
398/6B
398 / 6A
398/5
398/3
398/4
398/7 3
4
5 00
07
23 00
06
18 00
04
66 00
10
15 00
03
74 00
08
56 00
01
48 00
02
81 00
01
25 00
02
64
02
00
03 00
03
24 00
10
09 00
03
31 00
08
71 00
04
25
Road in Survey No. 395
394/4
393 /3C
393/4
393/2B
393 /2A
393 / 1A
393 / 7A
393 / 7B
393 / 7C
393/6
392/4B
392/6
405/ 3F
392/ 5B
392/ 5A
404
405/1
406/8
406/5
406/4
406/2
406/1
387/3
387/4
387/5 00
00
76 00
10
52 00
04
38 00
26
96 00
08
91
00
06
98
02
41
00
00
07
11
00
00
69 00
00
10 00
25
29 00
89
12
00
00
64 00
44
60
00
02
20
00
00
43
00
12
12
00
01
79
00
60
09
00
11
16
00
02
01
00
11
48
00
04
89
00
11
54
00
00
10 8576
Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
[ Part 11
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
387 / 1B 2) Ramanayakkanpalayam ( Contd)
407/2
407/1
District : Namakkal Taluk : Namakkal
10/ 1B 1 ) 124. Valaiyappatti
10/ 1C
10/ 1D
10 / 1E
5
4
3
04 00
31
74 00
32
00
70 00
State : Tamil Nadu
54 00
03
59
15
00
00
00
10
14
93 00
07 00
04
Road in Survey No. 7
23/2
23/3
24/2
24/1
22/1
22/5
22/3
41/3
41/2
41/ 1B
59
24
00
15 00
46
00
08
38
00
26 00
62 00
05
83
01
00
00
36
16
27
03
00
46
23
00
80
03
00
12
00
00
05
00
31
Nala in Survey No. 40
43/4
43/3
12 00
26
00
22
80 00
01
92
Road in Survey No.63
03
43 00
Road in Survey No. 44
49 / 1C
62/2
62/3
50/2
55/3
55/1
58/1
58/2
60/ 1A
60/5
58/3
12
89 00
24 00
11
71 00
33
35
43 00
06
00
54 00
47
44 00
54
08
00
04
91
04 00
35
09
00
13
07
17 00
50
14
00
Nala in Survey No. 59
4
2) Pottireddipatty
3
457
8
9
85
37
00
66 00
11
17
72
00
17 00
27
00
00
10 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 /अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)
2 1
10
2) Pottireddipatty (Contd)
367
3) Andapurain
365
364
8577
4
5 3
45 00
09
72
39
00
85 00
37
35
30
00
70 00
05
Road in Survey No. 14/5
4) Arasanatham
14/3
14/4F
14/4G1
14/4G2
14/4E
14/4D
35 00
04
54 00
04
03
08 00
05
03
00
66
03
00
10 00
00
56
07
00
Road in Survey No.27 / 1
27/2B
27/2A
27/2D
27/2C
28/1
28/2
28/3
28/5
28/4
28/12
30/2
30/12
42/4A
42/4B2
42/5
42/4D3
42/ 4E 00
64
11
00
12
00
00
05
00
69
14
00
06
17 00
20 00
05
04 00
12
10
00
00
80 00
11
37
13 00
16
39
00
71 00
01
44
07
00
15
54 00
64
04
01
33
00
00
17
00
00
99
16
00
Road in Survey No. 49 / 1A1
49/ 1A2
49/1B
50 / 1A
50/ 1B
50/2
44
5) Oravandur
45 / 1C
45/ 1B
45/ 1A2
45/ JA1
46/2 4575 GI /10-6
54 00
09
54
24
00
15 00
22
09
35 00
22
13
00
57
17
00
70 00
03
05 00
30
97 00
36
19
12 00
00
00
41 8578
Part 11 Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
5) Oravandur (Contd)
5 3
4
00
04
46
Road in Survey No. 423
424/ 1A
424/ 1B1
422/5
422/4
422/6B
422/ 6A
422/6C
422/ 6D
422/7
419
85
00
31
00
35
00
08
00
93
00
00
10
73
00
12
00
00
42 00
63
02
00
09
14
74
11
00
00
15
68
09
02
418/1E1
418 / 1E3
418/2E1
418/2F
417/2
416/6A
416/5
415
414
413 /3A
413/ 1E
413/ 1D
413/3B
413/2
411/4B
411 /4A
411/11
411/12
411/ 18A
411/18B
411/13
411/18C
411/15
411/17
409
408/4
408/5
408/6B 00
07
57 00
00
07
77
09
00
08 00
15
51
03
00
58
14
66 00
37 00
17
14
00
86 00
42
03
47 00
10
00
01
52
01
14 00
00
12
30 00
06
94 00
18
81
00
67 00
04
00
31
02
90 00
04
00
54
42 00
00
11
20
00
00
00
56 00
39
02
00
81
15
15
00
25 00
28
16
38 00
08
00
78
04
Road in Survey No. 658
466/ 1A
03 00
29 दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
भारत का राजपत्र
| भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) )
2 1
467/2A 5) Oravandur ( Contd)
467/3
471/5
467/4A
467/4B
467/5
471/4
471/3
470
469
474/5
474/6
476/ 1C
476/ 1B
476/ 1A
476 /2B
476/2A
8579
5 4
3
86
13
00
09
12
00
01
22
00
77
07
00
60
07
00
11
08
00
59
08
00
27
00
00
49
76
00
17 00
29
29
00
00
03
03
00
83
20
00
40
06
00
39
10
00
10
00
00
14
32
00
02
05
00
Road in Survey No. 477
478/1
478/2
489/1
489/2
488/2D
490/ 1A
490/2
513
514/ 1A
517/ 1D
516/ 1J
517 / 1E
516/11
516/2J
516/ 1H
516/21
515
546/ 1D
546/3D
546/ 1C2
546/3C2
546/ IC1
546/3C1
00
64 00
94
08
00
69
33
00
71
13
00
76
08
00
40
12 00
20
06
00
28
34 00
00
46
00
08
58 00
50
03
00
05
01
00
65
28
00
47
07
00
10
00
00
43
03
00
64
04 00
38
05
00
01
66 00
33
05
00
30
07
00
34 00
00
30
17
00 8580
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAΗΛΥΑΝΑ 20 , 1932
1
2 5) Oravandur ( Contd)
546/3B
[Part II Sec . Stin 3
4
5 00
09
55
546/ 3A2
00
02
35
546/3A1
Taluk : Rasipuram
District : Namakkal
717/9 1 ) Karkudalpatti
717/8
717/2
717/3
717/5
716
698/2
715
698/3
698/1
697
694/3
694/1
693
687/20
687/ 2B
687/ 2A
687/4
687/3
687/1
686
00
01
03 State: Tamil Nadu
00
02
75 00
16
81
00
32
8 !
00
15
51
00
02
82
00
55
71
00
04
72
00
04
12
00
02
18
00
11
16
00
25
26
00
21
56
00
16
25
00
28
63
15
79
00
13
00
14
18
00
31
00
11
71
00
41
06
00
00
91
00
02
Road in Survey No. 684
685
681
43
00
47
61
00
30
65
00
05
Road in Survey No. 673
672
266/1
266/3
266/2
267/1
267/2
274
268/2
273
269
53
00
06
34
00
29
96
00
01
13
00
17
31
00
12
49
00
48
05
00
08
93
00
12
42
00
42
37
00
30
24
00
Nala in Survey No. 271
238
239
11
51
00
02
91
00
53
24 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
| भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
228
1) Karkudalpatti ( Contd)
229
230
209
8581
4
5 3
78
53
00
85 00
15
00
69
56 00
42
11
47 00
55
Road in Survey No. 192
206
193
194
198
199
202
169
170
168
171
167
76 00
01
07
60 00
00
70
40 00
21
56 00
39
84 00
30
87 00
78
38
67 00
00
00
41
15
00
00
31
34 00
48
00
10
19
Nala in Survey No. 329
327
326
333
323
334
335
00
47.
38
20
96 00
35 00
31
00
22
56 00
35
93 00
28
50 State: Tamil Nadu
District : Tiruchirappalli
Taluk: Thottiyam
203/1 1) Murungai
203/2
203/6
203/5
203/4B
203 /4A
203 /4C
203 / 12A
203 / 11A
203/ 11B
203 / 11C
203/ 11D
203/13
203 / 14B
203 / 14A
203/15
203/17
203 / 10P
07
05
00
05
00
31
00
00
17
08
00
95 00
03
54
00
10 00
21
03
00
03
00
83
03
00
57 00
06
75 00
07
83
02
00
24 00
10
47
17
03
00
72 00
04
00
12
91
01
85 00
00 00
08 8582
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAΥΑΝΑ 20 , 1932
1
2 1) Murungai ( Contd)
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) 3
4
5
203/100
204/3
204/ 2B
204/4A
204/4B
204/ 5A
204/2C
204/ 2A 00
10
89 00
08
51 00
20
87 00
06
56 00
02
40 00
11
27 00
21
22 00
00
51 00
04
Road in Survey No.205
212/ 1B
212/ 1A
212/ 1C
212/2
212/ 3B
212/4
213/1
213/2
213/3 2) Kidaram
29 00
04
57 00
16
65 00
03
43 00
08
81 00
27
38 00
12
80 00
19
44 00
13
35 00
02
68 00
Road in Survey no . 55/4
55 / 3E
10
21 00
00
52 00
06
Road in Survey No. 56/6
56/ 3A
56/ 4C
56/5
56/2C
71/4
71/1
70/2C
70/ 2B
70/ 2A
70/ 3A
70/3B
19 00
07
53 00
12
88 00
28
84 00
02
09 00
09
21 00
16
67 00
11
14 00
05
45 00
01
13 00
08
21 00
00
45 00
00
43
Road in Survey No. 72 / 1A
73
72/ 1D
74/21
74/2B
74/2A
74/3
75/ 1B
75/ 1A 00
53
42 00
00
10 00
12
29 00
04
95 00
05
91
00
11
65 00
01
17 00
07
84 | भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) |
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 / अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
75/2 2) Kidaram ( Contd)
75/ 6B
75/ 6A
75/7
255 / 1C
256/ 1A
256/ 2A
257/1
255 / 1D
255 /2A
255 / 2B
255 /3C
255 /3B
8583
4
5 3
64
10
00
25
00
00
07
00
79
23
95
00
00
00
63
00
09
99
00
04
54
00
00
56
00
06
47
00
95
08
00
26
13
83
00
13
82
00
01
00
05
51
Road in Survey No. 260
261/1
261/2
264/1
264/2
265 / 1A
265 / 2A
266/ 1A
266/ 1B 00
15
48
00
15
78
00
24
15
00
13
53
00
11
79
26
00
91
53
15
00
23
41
00
00
04
32
Road in Survey No. 247/11
247/4
247/9
247/10
247/8
267/ 1A
70/3C
133
3) Unniyur
71/2
71/1
68/ 1B2A
68/ 1B2B 00
42
09
00
14
39
00
25
28
00
10
00
00
20
00
00
10
00
00
18
77
00
00
78
00
38
43
00
00
79
00
01
80
02
00
92
Road in Survey No. 70
7
6/2
6/3
6/4
5/2
5/3
00
03
01
00
01
61
00
08
16
00
10
00
00
08
73
17
76
00 8584
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
[Part II 1
2
3
4
5 Unniyur ( Contd)
3)
5/4
00
21
74
00
03
00
Nala in survey No. 5/5
190
00
07
21
188 / 1B
00
01
94
188 / 3A
00
17
41
[ F. No. L - 14014/ 93 / 2010 - GP ] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy
नई दिल्ली , 3 दिसम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 3005. - भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पाम 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 उपावद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः, अव , भारत सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और ग्खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में 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, नं . 89 , डॉ . राधाकृष्णन सलाई, छठवीं मंजिल , मैलापुर , चैन्नई 600004 , तमिलनाडु राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
{t भाग - खण्ड 3 (i))
8585
अनुसूची
राज्य: तमिलनाडु
जिला:तिरुवन्नामलाई
तालुक:तिरूवन्नमलाय
सर्वे सं./ सब डिविजन सं
गाँव का नाम
2 1
68/1
1 ) अरूम्पाक्काम
67/3वी
67/5ए
67/4ए1
67/402
67/4वी
67/4सी
67/1
67/2
67/ 6सी
65/2
64/2वी
64/2ए
64/6
64/4
64/5
117/5 খ্রী 2 ) तालय्याम्पल्लम
118/4वी
118/4ए
118/3ए
118/3वी
118/5ए
118/7ए
118/7वी
118/7सी
118/65
118/7डी
118/75
118/7एफ आर- ओ- यू- अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल
सि एयर हेक्टेयर एयर
5
4
3
28
35
00
68
01
00
05
17
00
54
05
00
14
00
00
30
13
00
55
00
00
31
00
00
89
14
00
39
17
00
02
21
00
55
00
00
67
23
00
86
21
00
20
11
00
96
14
00
38
01
00
46
12
00
57
04
00
64
01
00
76
25
00
11
02
00
01
07
00
06
09
00
60
14
00
10
00
00
77
02
00
42
08
00
85
08
00
राज्य तमिलनाडु
जिला वेल्लोर
तालुक:आरकोट
359
1) नेल्लि (मेल )
256
357
355
354
348
349
350
4575 Gl /10-7
07
06
00
23
09
00
65
02
00
72
29
00
97
31
00
59
05
00
1
51
00
35
02
00 8586
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
338
1 ) नेल्लि (मेल) (निरंतर)
334
325
326
329
327
328
305
304
303
302
तालुक लिंजीं
Part II Sec . 3 (ii ) | 3
4
5 00
57
15
38
00
82 00
09
26 00
27
80
00
03
34 00
01
72 00
12
01
53
72 00
00
10
31 00
07
74 00
28
76 राज्य: तमिलनाडु
जिला:विल्लुपुरम
64/1
1 ) कोचामबाडी
03
00
78 00
81
06
63/152
63/4
05
00
05 00
04
95
63/1डी
00
04
11
63/1सी
132
63/3
00
21
16 00
00
10 00
04
76
56/ 2 एफ
10
00
33
56/ 2जी
00
00
10
56/ 2डी
57
00
20
43 00
12
86
131/2
00
38
01
131/1 वी1
00
24
48
131/1 वी 2
00
42
13
131/5
00
00
18
131/6
00
07
48
131/4
131/7
00
39
04
00
07
07
131/14
00
17
00
131/13
00
01
75
131/15
00
06
22
131/16
00
04
74
131/17
00
01
82
131/18
00
00
14
131/19
00
17
66
131/ 1 डी
130
तालुक कल्लक्कुर्गिच्च
00
03
67
जिला विल्नुपुरम
15
1 ) एरूवायपट्टनम
राज्य: तमिलनाडु
00
00
69 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2 1
17
1 ) एरूवायपट्टनम (निरंतर )
16/5
16/1
16/2
16/3
16/4
23/5
23/4
24/5ए
24/6
24/7
24/2
28/2
28/1वी
27/3
75
76/7
76/6
76/4
76/ 5ए
76/9
76/ 5वी
76/11
76/10
79/5
76/13
80/1
79/ 6ए
79/ 6डी
79/6
79/8
81/3
79/7
81/4
81/1
81/5
81/2
81/9
81/10
8587
4
3
5
27
64 00
46
00
00
00 06
11 00
07
02 00
99
05
97 00 02
06
49 00
00
11
03 00
38
08
48 00
16
20
84 0.0
66 00
01
04 00
22
25 00
00
02
24
00
12
08
00
01
53 00
52 00 09
00
05
48
10
00
48
01
17 00
02 00
01
10 00
00
09 00
08
38
03
00
03
62 00
41 00
01
12
11 00
36
04
00
21 00
04
61
06
00
10 00 06
00 00
15
63 00 04
68 00
00
27
21
00
05
39 00
42 00 06
87 00 06 8588
Part II Spe. Sii ) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAJAYANA 20. 1932
2 1
81/8
1 ) एरूवायपट्टनम (निरंतर)
83/8
83/9
4
5 3
20
01
00
03
82 00
95
01
00
00
00
87
83/11
83/7
85/2
85/1
85/3
15
00
87
20
00
19
12
00
00
06 00
18
17 00
03
86/302
68/1
68/2
68 00
00
00
00
89
03
54 00
86/3वी
86/5
86/4
86/6
87/3
87/4
87/5
59 00
10
05
11 00
16 00 02
93 00 04
00
19
93
11
79 00
02
41 00
सर्वे न . 87 में रास्ता
87/7
87/6
188
63 00
16
00
05
70 00
58
44
00
02
09
187/1
13
92 00
187/20
00
04
08
187/ 2 वी
00
06
97
187/3
12
21 00
185/802
186
59 00
24
00
84
05
185/ 8वी
195
79
41
00
00
13
63
192/3
79 00
04
192/2
73 00
15
192/8
00
192/9
09
97
08
00
69
192/10
22
00
19
192/11
00
48
08
मवें न . 191 में रास्ता
00
07
42
206/ 2वी
00
05
48
206/ 2 ए
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 / अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
206/3 1 ) एरूवायपट्टनम (निरंतर )
215/1
207/ 5ए
207/ 5वी
5
4
3
72
12
00
53 00
59
54 00
00
02
54 00
राज्य: तमिलनाडु
जिला:विल्लुपुरम
तालुक शंकरापुरम
1/1
1 ) चेल्लक्कायकुप्पम
1/ 2ए
1/3
1/4
1/9
2/ 2ए 2
2/ 2 ए 1
2/1
2/ 2ए4
12
14
15/4
15/3
15/2
15/1वी
15/ 1 सी
15/ 6सी
15/75
15/10
15/11 ए
15/11 वी
15/11 डी
15/12
15/11सी
20/ 1 ए
21/11सी
21/12
20/1 वी
20/1 सी
20/1 डी
20/15
21/3वी
21/3ए
21/ 5ए
21/5वी
61 00
03
13
97 00
43 00 06
07
49 00
01
33 00
03
07 00
01
48 00
40 00
18
10 00
00
37
39 01
07 00
01
01
00
88
56
01
00
10
00
00
82 00
03
03
88 00
80
03
00
03
69 00
03
15 00
54
00
00
20
01
00
33
02
00
35 00
02
00
01
84
04 00
01
09
05
00
03
04 00
01
10 00
01
28 00
53 00
01
60
03
00
02
77 00
07
06
00
23
01
00
69 00 01 8590
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
1
2
24/1
1 ) चेल्लक्कायकुप्पम (निरंतर )
24/2
[Part II Sec 300 3
4
5 00
02
13 00
01
95
24/ 8डी
24/8
24/3
00
02
07 00
01
85 00
04
80
24/ 8जी
00
00
65
24/ 8एच
00
01
45 00
24/8 आड
01
50
24/8जे
00
00
91 00
24/9ए
03
17 00
24/9वी
02
96 00
24/9मी
03
12
23/5वी
00
02
38 00
23/5डी
05
83
23/5號
00
11
01
23/ 5जी
00
09
72
119/4
2 ) चेट्टीयान्दल (वडा)
00
00
27
119/5
00
02
74 00
137/601
00
14 00
137/ 6 ए 2
09
30
137/ 6वी
00
00
10 00
03
137/7ए
05 00
03
137/7वी
95 00
05
138/ 2वी
50 00
138/ 2ए
00
25 00
138/ 2 सी
04
16
138/ 2डी
00
00
86
138/3वी
00
08
80 00
138/ 3ए
138/1
138/7
138/5
05
91 00
00
52 00
06
29 00
01
29
138/6
138/8
00
02
56 00
06
86
138/10 ए
00
01
28
138/10 वी
138/9
00
01
55 00
04
03 00
05
138/4सी
97
76/4सी
00
08
12 8591 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
4
3
5
00
16
12
76/4डी
2) चेट्टीयान्दल (वडा) (निरंतर)
20
00
07
76/45
196
01
44
60 3) मेलपटु
00
02
50
सर्वे न . 196 में नाला
195
00
37
87
00
03
31
सर्वे न . 196 में नदी
[फा सं. एल. 14014/100/2010 जी.पी. ]
स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 3rd December , 2010
S. O. 3005. 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 .
[Part 1 Sec. 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
8592
Schedule
District : Thiruvannamalai
Taluk: Thiruvannamalai
Survey No./Sub-Division No.
Village
2 1
68/1 1) Arumpakkam
67/3B
67/5A
67/4A1
67/4A2
67/4B
67/4C
67/E1
67 /E2
67/6C
65/2
64/2B
64/2A
64/6
64/4
64/5
117 /5B 2) Talaiyampallam
118/4B
118/4A
118 /3A
118/3B
118 /5A
118 /7A
118/ 7B
118 /7C
118/6E
118/7D
118 / 7E
118 / 7F
District: Vellore
Taluk: Arcot
359 1) Nelli ( Mel )
356
357
355
354
348
349
350 State: Tamil Nadu
Area to be acquired for RoU
C-Are
Are
Hec
5
4
3
28
35
00
68
01
00
05
17
00
54
05
00
14
00
00
30
13
00
55
00
00
31
00
00
89
14
00
39.
17
00
02
21
00
55
00
00
67
23
00
86
21
00
20
11
00
96
14
00
38
01
00
46
12
00
57
04
00
64
01
00
76
25
00
11
02
00
01
07
00
06
09
00
60
14
00
10
00
00
77
02
00
42
08
00
85
08
00
State: Tamil Nadu
07
06
00
23
09
00
65
02
00
72
29
00
97
31
00
59
05
00
71
51
00
35
02
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
2 1 ) Nelli ( Mel ) ( Contd )
338
334
325
326
329
327
328
305
304
303
302
Taluk: Gingee
District: Villupuram 1) Kodambadi
64/1
63/ 1E2
63/4
63/ 1D
63/ 1C
132
63/3
56/2F
56/2G
56/2D
57.
131/2
131/ 1B1
131/ 1B2
131/5
131/6
131/4
131/7
131/14
131/13
131/15
131/16
131/17
131/18
131/19
131 / 1D
130
Taluk : Kallakkurichchi
District : Villupuram
15
1 ) Eruvaypattanam
4575 Gl /10-8
8593 3
4
5 00
57
15 00
82
38
00
09
26 00
80
27 00
03
34 00
72
01
00
12
01
00
53
72
00
10
31
07
00
74 00
76
28
State: Tamil Nadu
00
03
78
00
81
06
00
05
05
00
04
95
00
04
11
21
00
16
00
10
00
00
04
76
00
10
33
00
00
10
00
20
43
00
12
86
00
38
01
00
24
48
00
13
42
00
00
18
00
48
07
00
04
39
00
07
07
00
17
00
00
01
75
00
06
22
00
04
74
00
01
82
00
00
14
00
17
66
00
03
67
State: Tamil Nadu
00
00
69 See Sunt
Part 11
THE GAZETTE OF IENDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
8594
2 1
17
1) Eruvaypattanam ( Contd)
16/5
16/1
16/2
16/3
16/4
23/5
23/4
24/ 5A
24/6
24/7
24/2
28/2
28/ 1B
27/3
75
76/7
76/6
76/4
76/5A
76/9
76/ 5B
76/11
76/10
79/5
76/13
80/1
79/6A
79/6D
79 / 6E
79/8
81/3
79/7
81/4
81/1
81/5
81/2
81/9
81/10 4
3
64
27
00
46
00
00
11
06
00
02
07
00
99
05
00
97
02
00
19
06
00
03
11
00
38
08
00
48
16
00
84
20
00
66
01
00
04
22
00
25
00
00
02
24
00
12
08
00
53
01
00
52
09
00
48
05
00
48
10
00
17
01
00
02
01
00
10
00
00
(09
08
00
38
03
00
62
03
00
41
01
00
11
12
00
36
04
00
21
04
00
61
06
00
10
06
00
15
00
00
63
04
00
68
00
00
27
21
00
39
05
00
42
06
00
87
06
00 भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii) |
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 / अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 1 ) Eruvaypaltanam ( Contd )
81/8
83/8
83/9
83/11
83/7
85/2
85/1
85/3
86/3A2
68/1
68/2
86/3B
86/5
86/4
86/6
87/3
87/4
87/5
8595 3
4
5 00
01
20 00
03
82 00
01
95
00
00
87
00
15
87
00
20
19
00
00
12
00
06
18
00
03
17
00
00
68
00
00
89
00
03
54
00
10
59
00
05
11
00
02
16
00
04
93
00
19
93
00
11
79
00
02
Road in Survey No.87
87/7
87/6
188
187/1
187/ 2A
187 /2B
187/3
185 / 8A2
186
185 / 8B
195
192/3
192/2
192/8
192/9
192/10
192/11
41
00
16
63
00
05
70
00
44
58
00
02
09
00
13
92
00
04
08
00
06
97
00
12
21
00
24
59
00
05
84
00
41
79
00
13
63
00
04
79
00
15
73
00
09
97
00
08
69
00
22
19
00
08
Road in Survey No.191
206/2B
206/2A
48
00
07
42
00
05
48 8596
Sec. Sin
Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRABAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
206/3 1 ) Eruvaypattanam ( Contd )
215/1
207 /5A
207/ 5B
District : Villupuram Taluk : Sankarapuram
1/1
1 ) Chellakkaykuppam
1 / 2A
1/3
1/4
1/9
2/ 2A2
2 / 2A1
2/1
2/ 2A4
12
14
15/4
15/3
15/2
15/ 1B
15/ 1C
15/6C
15 / 7E
15/10
15/ 11A
15/ 11B
15/ 11D
15/12
15/ 11C
20/1A
21 / 11C
21/12
20/ 1B
20/ 1C
20/ 1D
20/ 1E
21/3B
21 /3A
21 /5A
21 /5B
4
3
5
72 00
12
53
59
00
5:1
00
00
02
54 00
State : Tamil Nadu
03
61 00
97 00
13
43
06
00
07
49 00
01
33 00
07
03
00
48
01
00
18
40 00
00
10 00
39
37
01
00
07
01
88
01
00
01
56 00
00
10 00
82
03
00
00
03
88
03
80 00
69 00
03
15 00
03
00
54 00
20 00
01
33 00
02
35
02
00
00
01
84 00
01
04
05
09 00
04 00
03
10 00
01
00
01
28 00
01
53
60 00
03
77 00
02
06
07 00
01
23 00
01
00
69 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
24/1
1) Chellakkaykuppam ( Contd )
24/2
24/8D
24/8E
24/3
24/8G
24/ 8H
24/81
24/8J
24/9A
24/9B
24/9C
23/5B
23/5D
23 / 5E
23/5G
119/4 2) Chettiyandal ( Vada )
119/5
137 / 6A1
137/6A2
137/6B
137/ 7A
137/ 7B
138/2B
138 /2A
138/2C
138 /2D
138 / 3B
138/3A
138/1
138/7
138/5
138/6
138/8
138 / 10A
138/ 10B
138/9
138/4C
76/4C
8597 3
4
5 00
02
13 00
0 '
95 00
02
07 00
01
85 00
04
80 00
00
65 00
01
45 00
01
50
00
00
91
00
03
17
00
02
96
00
03
12
00
02
38
00
05
83
00
01
11
00
09
72
00
00
27
00
02
74
00
00
14
00
09
30
00
00
10
00
03
05
00
03
95
00
05
50
00
00
25
00
04
16
00
00
86
00
08
80
00
05
91
00
00
52
00
06
29
00
01
29
00
02
56
00
06
86
00
01
28
00
01
55
00
04
03
00
05
97
00
08
12 [ Part 11 Sec. 300 8598
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
5
4
3
2
1
12
16
00
76/4D
2) Chettiyandal ( Vada ) ( Contd)
20
07
00
76/4E
44
60
01
196
3) Melpattu
50
02
00
Nala in Survey No. 196
87
37
00
195
31
00
03
River in Survey No. 196
[ F. No. L - 14014/ 100 / 2010 - GP ) SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली , 3 दिसम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 3006. - 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 बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और , भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में , जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः , अब , भारत सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , 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 उपधाग ( 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 एस . राजामनिक्कम, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , न . 9 डी / 6 डी , रामकृष्णपुरम , पील्लैयार कोवील के सामने , करूर 639001 , तमिलनाडु राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । | भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 (ii)]
५. का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
8599
अनुसूची
जिला:विरूधनगर
तालुक: अरूपुक्कोट्टय
गाँव का नाम
सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं.
1
2
1
1 ) वरलोट्टि
2
32/1
33/1
33/2
32/2
32/3
32/4
33/4
33/ 7ए
33/5
33/7वी
33/6
34/1 वी 2
34/1 बी 1
40/1बी
40/2
40/3वी
40/4
40/ 5वी
40/ 6वी
40/7 वी
40/9वी
40/10
41/ 1 बी1
41/1 वी 2
41/ 5सी 1
41/ 5सी 2
44/1 सी
44/ 2सी
45/ 2सी1
45/ 2 सी 2
45/ 2सी 3/ए
45/ 2सी3/वी
46/ 1 सी 1 ए
46/1 सी 1 बी राज्य: तमिलनाडु
आर- ओ- यू- अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल
एयर सिएयर हेक्टेयर
3
4
5 00
50
64 00
11
01 00
13
07 00
03
79 00
04
34 00
04
66 00 04
71 00
03
80 00
04
84 00
0.6
03
10
00
88 00 05
36 00
15
59 00
06
36 00
15
53 00 05
56 00
00
16 00
28
18 00
01
46 00
00
95 00
62
01
00
01
36 00
01
20 00
00
99 00
30
03 00
19
54 00
01
00 00
00
99 00
22
72 00
26
20 00
19
61 00 09
78 00 09
07 00
07
32 00
02
30 00
05
94 00
07
84 8600
Sec . 300 [Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
5
4
3
83 12
00
46/1 सी 2
1) वरलोट्टि (निरंतर)
60 01
00
46/ 2सी
47/3
80 02
00
10
10
00
47/ 2सी
55 07
00
47/4सी
01
07
00
47/5सी
61
05
00
47/ 6सी 1
76
04
00
47/ 6सी 2
60
03
00
47/ 6सी 3
57
16
00
64/1 वी1
20
11
00
63/1 वी1
75
02
00
63/1वी 2
47
06
00
62/1 वी 1
75
09
00
62/1 वी 2
12
09
00
61/4वी
04
08
00
61/ 2वी
06
06
00
61/3बी
36 00 08
60/ 2ए
51
05
05
00
06
09
00
60/ 2वी
25 00 16
59/1 बी
31
04
00
59/ 2बी
59/3
89
05
00
99
30
00
59/4बी
68
21
00
56/1सी
75
53
00
56/ 3 वी 1
60
00
00
56/3 बी 2
56/4
44
04
00
74
01
00
256/4
सर्वे न . 256/5 में रास्ता
70
05
00
21
01
00
256/1 ए
41
13
00
256/15
85
05
00
256/1 बी
31
05
00
256/1सी
11
08
00
256/1 डी
13
00
00
256/ 1 एच
96
21
00
256/1 आइ
50
04
00
256/1जे
87
28
00
257/3ए
98
03
00
257/3बी
55 00 14
257/3सी
39
15
00
263/4
[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 /अग्रहायण 20. 1932
1
2 1 ) वरलोट्टि (निरंतर )
264/ 1 ए
264/1 बी
264/ 3ए 2
264/ 3ए3
264/ 2वी
264/3सी
265/2
270/7
269
274
275
278/1
278/2
279/ 2ए
278/3बी
279/3
279/4
279/5
298/4
299/1 ए
299/ 2 ए
299/4
299/3
299/ 8 ए
299/9
299/10
299/11
299/14
57/1
2) पलवानत्तम
57/2
57/ 6ए
57/5
57/ 6वी
57/7बी
सर्वे न . 56 में नाला
59
66/3ए
66/2बी
सर्वे न . 65 में नाला
424/ 1 ए
सर्वे न . 400 में नाला
399/1
4575 GI /10-9
8601 3
4
5 00
03
96 00
10
41 00
03
70 00
04
36 00
14
51 00
02
64 00
06
20 00
12
13 00
26
13 00
63
94 00 38
50 00
31
23 00
07
15
00
81
05
00 00
10 00
16
46 00
09
45 00
05
59 00
00
94 00
03
98 00
07
91 00 03
86 00
03
34 00
06
23 00 05
26 00
00
93 00
18
21 00
01
60 00
14
32 00
13
65 00 14
81 00 04
52 00
10
61 00 12
64 00
11
55 00 52
49 00
01
00 00 40
23 00
18
39 00
20
51 00
05
23 00
33
65 Sec . 3 (ii ) | Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
8602
2 1
5
4
3
10 00 00
399/2
2) पलवानत्तम (निरंतर)
29
09
00
मर्वे न . 402 में नाला
08
01
00
403/1 ए
14
16
00
403/1वी
34
27
00
403/3वी
56
23
00
388/1
22
00
00
388/2
31
02
00
सर्वे न . 389/1 में नाला
86
01
00
मर्वे न . 388/3 में नाला
83
01
00
389/2
44
25
00
388/4ए
75
17
00
388/4वी
22
16
00
387/2
46
00
00
387/4ए
50
06
00
388/ 5ए
91
19
00
388/5वी
05
09
00
387/4वी
61
02
00
सर्वे न . 386 में नाला
60
02
00
सर्वे न . 385/1 में नाला
84
24
00
385/2
08
01
00
385/3
47
29
00
385/4
384
44
38
00
34
08
00
सर्वे न . 364 में रास्ता
25
40
00
361/4
60
21
00
361/5
27
03
00
361/ 6 वी 1
39
18
00
361/ 6वी 2
00
27
00
360/2
42
19
00
367/ 1 ए
39
19
00
367/1बी
25
01
00
367/2
54
05
00
सर्वे न . 368 में नाला
42
03
00
317/1
60
16
00
317/2
18
00
00
317/3
90
07
00
सर्वे न . 318 में नाला
42
11
00
319/1
78
04
00
319/4
81
20
00
319/3
93
07
00
322/ 5ए
90
05
00
322/5वी
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 /अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
322/ 5डी 2) पलवानत्तम (निरंतर)
320/1
320/ 2बी
320/ 2 ए
320/3
320/4
320/ 6ए
320/5
320/6वी
310/ 2 ए
310/ 2वी
310/3
310/4
311/1
307/3
307/5
300/6
311/3
298/2
298/3
298/4
293/1
293/2
291/2
291/3
291/4
291/8
291/ 9वी
44/2
3 ) कुट्टिप्पाराय
44/6
44/5
48/ 1 ए
48/1 वी
48/2
49
51/4
51/1
51/3
51/2
55
54/4
54/5
8603 3
4
5 00
06
05 00
03
54 00
06
18 00
21
89 00
04
06 00
03
86 00 02
04 00
03
77 00
16
05 00 09
46 00
18
18 00
11
74 00
07
24 00
52
59 00
00
65 00
02
22 00 02
23 00
34
55 00
17
98 00
17
70 00
03
27 00
16
56 00
57
49 00 02
47 00
02
75 00
02
86 00
05
10 00 02
75 00
40
08 00 48
74
02
00
67 00
59
13
00
26
59 00
18
35 00
00
11 00
10
00 00
19
39 00 02
03 00
02
18 00
21
73 00
29 00
37
88 8604
DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYAΝΑ 20 , 1932
THI: GAZETTE OF IFNDIA
2 1
60/1
3 ) कुट्टिप्पाराय (निरंतर )
60/5
58
213/1
213/4
213/5
213/6
213/7
214/4
214/ 5ए
214/ 5वी
222
214/ 8 ए
214/ 8 वी
215/4
219/1
219/2
219/3 [Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
4
5 3
34
43
00
31 00
30
14
30 00
21
00
54
08
46 00
21 00 08
15
06 00
12
15
00
70 00
15
02 00
04
00
02
94
11
37
00
00
00
88
60 00
03
12
06
00
00
10
37 00
10
46 00
04
55
43 00
01
सबै न . 220/1 में नाला
220/4
220/3
220/6
220/10
220/11 00
20
50 00
02
03
23
01
00
05
71 00
00
06
29
04
67 00
गर्वे न . 257 में नाला
258
255
259
260/3
260/2
260/4
260/8
29 00 44
47
07
00
00
03
45
26 00 00
00
10
43 00
09
89
86
27
00
99 00
04
सर्वे न . 261 में नाला
285/4
285/3
285/5
285/8
285/9
285/10
07
49 00
08
69 00
73 00
08
62 00
00
00
00
58
10
00
88
70
07
00
गर्ने न . 284/2 में रास्ता
00
34 00
मर्वे न . 284/ 7ए में रास्ता
284/7सी
20
02
00 | भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
=
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
224
3) कुट्टिप्पाराय (निरंतर)
285/12
330/1
330/2
330/5
331/6
331/5
354/1
354/2
323
355/1
355/2
355/3वी
356/ 2ए
356/ 2बी
357/1
357/2
358/1
358/2
358/3
358/4
सर्वे न . 359 में नाला
416/1
415/1
415/3
414/1
412/3
413/2
413/1
436/6
437/1
437/2
442/1
442/ 2 वी
442/ 2सी
441/1
441/2
441/3
441/4
441/5
तालुक: कारियपट्टि
जिला:विरूधनगर 1 ) अलगियनल्लुर
54/3
55/7
8605 3
4
5 00
05
26 00
05
21 00
17
09 00
05
76 00
16
07 00
45
02 00
00
10 00
01
21 00
13
63 00
22
82 00
11
21 00
12
19 00
10
25 00
14
23 00 09
31 00 19
41 00
19
19 00
17
44 00
21
70 00
23
13 00
19
57 00
09
90 00
57
14 00
23
11 00
10
43 00
39
98 00 06
84 00 41
38 00
07
02 00
39
23 00
20
73 00
20
33 00
11
01 00 09
09 00 09
97 00
07
59 00
06
93 00
03
92 00
06
44 00
19
68 राज्य:तमिलनाडु
00
00
34 00 09
30 8606
Sec . 3 ( ii) | [ Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
5
4
3
67
13
00
55/12ए
1) अलगियनल्लुर (निरंतर )
10
13
00
55/12वी
56/1
59 08
00
93
01
00
56/4ए
97
05
00
56/ 5ए
56/2
56/9
14
13
00
43
07
00
18
05
00
57/ 6ए
26
17
00
57/ 7ए
76
02
00
57/ 8 ए
77
00
00
57/7बी
57/8 %
58/2
71
01
00
64
03
00
71
49
00
सर्वे न . 203 में रास्ता
32
12
00
195/2
15
23
00
195/3
97
00
00
196/1
68
13
00
196/4
27
33
00
195/5
88
26
00
195/6
72
01
00
194/2
83
04
00
सर्व न . 204 में रास्ता
73
07
00
213/ 3ए
43
00
00
213/3बी
87
15
00
213/ 3एफ
16
13
00
212/1
28
07
00
212/2
61
08
00
212/5
02
19
00
212/ 6ए
49
00
00
212/ 6बी
52
15
00
212/8
63
03
00
212/9
81
01
00
212/ 11 ए
25
00
00
212/11बी
83
12
00
212/14
33
02
00
212/13
58 00 07
211/5
80
06
00
205/5
56
03
00
205/6
56
02
00
205/7
54
00
00
205/10 ए
13
02
00
211/7
[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
211/ 8 ए 1 ) अलगियनल्लुर (निरंतर )
211/ 8बी
205/ 11 ए
205/11 बी
205/11 सी
210/1
210/ 2ए
210/ 2सी
210/3
210/5ए
210/4बी
210/5बी
210/7ए
208/ 1 ए1
208/ 1 ए3
208/ 1 ए4
208/ 2ए
208/1 बी
2/7
2) वलुक्कलोट्टि
1/9
1/10
2/10
सर्वे न . 136 में रास्ता
सर्वे न . 138 में रास्ता
134/1
134/ 2 ए 1
134/ 2बी
133/3
133/4
133/5
133/6
133/7
143
सर्वे न . 132/1 में नाला
132/3
132/2
132/4
132/8
132/9
132/5
132/10
8607 3
4
5 00
03
22 00
03
01 00 09
55 00 02
74 00
00
86 00
05
56 00 02
79 00
22
73 00
00
54 00
06
21 00
00
10 00
13
43 00
11
08 00
00
10 00
19
85 00
10
20 00
08
02 00
01
30 00
00
57 00 02
36 00
11
04 00
23
41 00
01
32 00
07
91 00
06
25 00
21
11 00
28
15
00
23
02 00
04
63 00
05
03 00
04
81 00
10
81 00
01
14 00 00
23 00 03
39 00
03
26 00
06
59 00
01
59 00
23
47 00
00
31 00
01
32 00
03
17 [ Part II Sec. 3 ( ii ) | 8608
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
5
4
3
2
1
90
09
00
132/11
2) वलुक्कलोट्टि (निरंतर)
70
00
00
131/1
10
00
00
145
92
07
00
131/3
39
16
00
131/6
83
16
00
128/3
29
05
00
128/ 6ए
74
16
00
128/4
85
04
00
126/1
87
21
00
126/7
88
00
00
126/8
15
00
00
126/6
33
29
00
126/10
29
00
00
127/ 3 ए 1
77
16
00
127 / 3 ए 2
23
06
00
सर्वे न . 127/7 में नाला
71
07
00
116/4
52
74
00
115
10
00
00
91/5
45
02
00
114/1
09
04
00
114/5ए
93
25
00
114/6
87
02
00
92/4
27
31
00
94/1
10
00
00
94/2
70
09
00
93/ 1 ए
25
03
00
95/1 ए
10
00
00
93/1बी
11
10
00
95/1 बी
03
11
00
95/1सी
11
08
00
93/3
03
24
00
95/3
राज्य: तमिलनाडु
जिला:विरूधनगर
तालुक:विरूधनगर
10
26
00
716
1 ) पेरिय पेरलि
82
05
00
717
03
04
00
!
719
26
00
00
721/4
16
40
00
725/1
81
00
00
724
37
30
00
726/1
09
01
00
737/2
36
14
00
737/3
92
15
00
737/4
8609
भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग il- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2 1
737/5 1) पेरिय पेरलि (निरंतर)
728/3
728/4
43/1
43/2
44
53
54/1
61/1
61/2
63/1
62/1
62/2
63/2
63/3
63/4
63/ 5ए
63/5वी
63/6
63/7
200/1
200/2
200/ 3ए
200/3वी
199/1
199/2
197/3
198/5
197/4
197/5
196/2
196/3
183/1 ए
183/2
183/3 ए
183/3वी
184/1
184/ 2ए
184/ 2वी
185/ 2 एफ
185/3
185/4 4575 GI /10-10
3
4
5 00
79
03
00
55 00
00
10
13
00
15
19 00 02
96 00
01
31
00
13
03 00
03
49 00
12
53 00
13
51 00
10
42 00
03
77
06
66 00
00
02
64 00
95
12
00 13
33 00
05
82 00
09
24 00
00
10
13
40 00
22
00
97 00
12
61
19
00
78 00 00
95
02
00
31 00
31
71
00
73 00
00 02
18 00
10
98
12
45 00
00
02
74
14
04 00
70 00
17
00
08
08 00
12
91 00
04
83 00 02
71
18
48 00
00
14
29 00
45
00
00
12
54 00
40
10 8610
Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20, 1932
2 1
5
4
3
84 04
00
सर्वे न . 162 में नाला
1 ) पेरिय पेरलि (निरंतर )
39
14
00
114/4
33
13
00
114/3
35 06
00
114/2
114/1
113
46
00
00
63
84
00
89 00
01
123/1
26
14
00
123/2
11
08
00
124/1
73
19
00
124/2
39
16
00
124/3
63
03
00
124/4
95
00
00
124/5
125
84
26
00
73
17
00
126/2
70
05
00
127/2
39/2
2) कडम्बनकुलम
39/3
39/4
39/6
40/3
40/4
40/5
40/6
65
05
00
62
17
00
55
26
00
80
19
00
40
04
00
92
00
00
97
55
00
41
00
00
11
03
00
सर्वे न . 41/1 में नाला
48
34
01
00
84
25
00
41/ 2 ए
46
05
00
41/ 2वी
41/4
41/5
41/6
41/7
42/1
42/2
42/3
41
02
00
27
04
00
79
12
00
11
08 00
64
36
00
42
02
00
49
29
00
03
05
00
सर्वे न . 42/4 में नाला
41
00
00
166/4
29
28
166/3
59
26
00
166/2
सुर्वे न . 164/1 में नाला
71
02
00
44
01
00
164/3
48
77
00
164/2
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 /अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 2) कडम्बनकुलम (निरंतर)
सर्वे न . 161 में नाला
160/1 बी
179/1
179/2
160/6
160/7
179/3वी
179/5
179/6
158
सर्वे न . 318/1 में नाला
318/ 7ए
318/7 बी
सर्वे न . 318/8 में नाला
318/9 ए
318/9वी
319/5
319/6
319/7
319/8
319/12
319/13
319/14
323/1
323/3
323/4
323/6
323/ 8 ए
323/ 8 वी
323/7बी
323/9
323/10ए
323/10बी
सर्वे न . 324/1 में नाला
324/3
381
380
325
सर्वे न . 379 में नाला
363/4
364/1
364/3
8611 3
4
5 00
10
92 00
13
24 00
08
18 00
07
34 00
03
10 00
19
82 00
01
62 00
22
30 00
26
74 00
01
29 00 03
01 00
41
48 00
02
09 00
01
33 00
01
75 00
10
01 00
08
31 00 06
75 00
07
19 00 06
21 00 03
55 00
14
46 00
07
33 00
09
53 00
07
86 00
04
06 00
02
91 00
06
68 00
01
23 00
01
87 00
07
19 00
01
06 00
07
42 00
03
30 00
36
95 00
00
78 00
12
76 00
02
80 00
05
23 00
07
93 00
27
71 00
22
70 DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
8612
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA
2 1
364/4
2) कडम्बनकुलम (निरंतर)
364/5
Part II Sec . Sur
4
5 3
10 00
00
77 00 39
76
04
00
सर्वे न . 367 में नाला
336/1
336/ 3 ए
336/3वी
336/3मी
336/4ए
99
24
00
13
01
00
29
19
00
97
25
00
80
00
00
74
08
00
सर्वे न . 359 में नाला
335/1
335/4
335/5
335/2
335/3
258/2 3 ) मन्नरकोट्टय
258/1
258/4
258/5
258/7
259/1
259/5
43
23
00
70
13
00
70
01
00
67
05
00
22
18
00
59
03
00
66
09
00
57
10
00
26 00
08
13
82 00
68
12
00
16
18
00
05
09
00
सर्वे न . 259/6 में नाला
257/6
257/7
260
262/1
262/2
262/3
247/8
246
14 00 00
62
00
00
11
09
01
00
04
00
54
61
00
40
00
00
48
20
00
97
11
00
86
01
00
सर्वे न . 264/1 में नाला
264/2
264/5
264/6
110
4 ) कोट्टेयुर
109/3
109/4
113/4
113/5
113/6
83
22
00
95
40
00
16
02
00
10
07
00
64
20
00
81 00
37
14
83 00
07
14
00
81
17
00
81
02
00
सर्वे न . 113/7 में नाला
115/1 ए
83
19
00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
115/1वी 4) कोट्युर (निरंतर)
114/3वी
115/4ए
114/5
115/8
119/2
119/3 ए
119/3वी
119/4सी
119/4डी
120/4
120/ 5ए
120/ 5 वी
92/2बी
92/ 2डी
92/ 2सी
92/3 ए
92/5
92/6
92/4
91/2
195
5 ) पुदुपट्टि
सर्वे न . 194 में नाला
सर्वे न . 209 में नाला
211
226/3
226/4
226/10
226/11
226/9
226/12
सर्वे न . 228 में रास्ता
232
16/1
6) सुन्दरालिन्गापुरम
16/4
16/5
17/ 5ए
17/5सी
17/ 5वी
26/7
26/6
26/8
8613 3
4
5 00 00
59 00
27
58 00
00
31 00
06
52 00
00
39 00
11
26 00
08
85 00
04
25 00
19
62 00
02
25 00
06
24 00
41
55 00
05
35 00
05
33 00
17
41 00
16
72 00
01
60 00
10
30 00
02
61 00
02
57 00
54
43 00
02
56 00
59
04 00
88
35 00
55
37 00
31
43 00
00
10 00 00
13 00
01
18 00
03
52 00 08
34 00
69
44 00
67
95 00
22
62 00
06
07 00
34
42 00
12
44 00
10
01 00
05
84 00
12
98 00
12
47 00
02
66 [Part 11 Sec. 3 (ii ) | 8614
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
5
4
3
2
1
09
00 42
25/1
6) सुन्दरालिन्गापुरम (निरंतर)
75
00
19
सर्वे न . 24 में नाला
83
00 00
21/1
61
07
00
21/2
81
06
00
21/3
33
01
00
21/4
12
22
00
21/5
17
11
00
21/6
01
90
00
21/7
[फा सं. एल. 14014/96/2010 जी.पी. ]
स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 3rd December , 2010
Government of India that it is necessary in public interest S. O. 3006. Whereas it appears to that for transportation of natural gas from terminal point of Vijayawada Nellore - Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in TamilMadu 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 S.Rajamanickam , Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, No. 9D/ 6D Ramakrishnapuram , Opp . Pillayar Kovil, Karur - 639 001 , Tamil Nadu State .
[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
8615
Schedule
Taluk : Aruppukkottai
State: Tamil Nadu
District : Virudhunagar
Village
Survey No./Sub-Division
1
2 1) Varalotti
1
2
32/1
33/1
33/2
32/2
32/3
32/4
33/4
33 /7A
33/5
33/ 7B
33/6
34/182
34/ 1B1
40/ 1B
40/2
40/3B
40/4
40/ 5B
40/6B
40/ 7B
40/9B
40/10
41/ IB1
41/ 1B2
41/ 5C1
41/ 5C2
44/ 1C
44/2C
45/2C1
45/ 2C2
45 / 203 / A
45/2C3/B
46/ 1CIA
46/ IC1B Area to be acquired for RoU Hec
Are
С-Аrе 3
4
5 00
50
64 00
11
01 00
13
07 00
03
79 00
04
34 00
04
66 00
04
71 00
03
80 00
04
84 00
06
03 00
10
88 00
05
36 00
15
59 00
06
36 00
15
53 00
05
56 00
00
16 00
28
18 00
01
46 00
00
95 00
01
62 00
01
36 00
20
01
00
00
99 00
30
03
00
54
19
00
01
00
00
00
99
00
22
72
00
26
20
00
19
61
00
09
78
00
09
07
00
07
32
00
02
30
00
05
94
00
07
84 Sec . S
Patt 11
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20. 1932
8616
2 1
46/ 1C2 1 ) Varalotti ( Contd )
46/2C
47/3
47/2C
47/4C
47/5C
47/6C1
47/6C2
47/6C3
64/ 1B1
63/ 1B1
63/ 1B2
62/ 1B1
62/ 1B2
61/4B
61/2B
61/3B
60/2A
51
60/2B
59/ 1B
59/2B
59/3
59/4B
56/ 1C
56/3B1
56/3B2
56/4
256/4
Road in Survey No. 256/5
256/ 1A
256/ 1E
256/ 1B
256/ 1C
256/ 1D
256/ 1H
256/11
256/ 1J
257/ 3A
257 /3B
257/3C
263/4
5
4
3
83
12
00
60
01
00
80
02
00
10
10
00
55
07
00
01
07
00
61
05
00
76
04
00
60
03
00
57
16
00
20
11
00
75
02
00
47
06
00
75
09
00
12
09
00
04
08
00
06
06
00
36
08
00
05
05
00
06
09
00
25
16
00
31
04
00
89
05
00
39
30
00
68
21
00
75
53
00
60 00
00
44
04
00
74 00
01
70
05
00
21
01
00
41
13
00
85
05
00
31
05
00
11 00
13
00
00
96
21
00
50
04
00
87
28
00
98
03
00
55
14
00
39
15
00 | भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 /अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
2 1
264/ 1A 1) Varalotti ( Contd)
264/ 1B
264/3A2
264/3A3
264/2B
264/ 3C
265/2
270/7
269
274
275
278/1
278/2
279 /2A
278/3B
279/3
279/4
279/5
298/4
299/ 1A
299 / 2A
299/4
299/3
299 / 8A
299/9
299/10
299/11
299/14
57/1
2) Palavanattam
57/2
57/6A
57/5
57/6B
57/ 7B
8617 3
4
5
00
03
96
00
10
41
00
03
70
00
04
36
00
14
51
00
02
64
00
06
20
00
12
13
00
26
13
00
63
94
00
38
50
00
23
31
00
07
15
00
05
81
00
00
10
00
16
46
00
09
45
00
05
59
00
00
94
00
03
98
00
07
91
00
03
86
00
03
34
06
23
00
00
05
26
00
00
93
00
18
21
00
01
60
00
32
14
00
13
65
00
14
81
00
04
52
10
00
61
64
00
12
00
11
55
Nala in Survey No. 56
59
66/3A
66/2B 00
52
49
00
00
01
00
40
23
00
18
39
Naia in Survey No. 65
424/1A 00
51
20
00
05
23
Nala in Survey No. 400
399/1 4575 G1 /10-11
00
65
33 8618
Part II Sec . 3 (in THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20. 1932
2 1
399/2 2) Palavanattam ( Contd )
5
4
3
00
00
10 00
29
09
Nala in Survey No. 402
00
08
403 / 1A
403/ 1B
403/ 3B
388/1
388/2
01
14 00
16
00
27
34 00
56
23
00
22
00
00
02
31
Nala in Survey No. 389/1
00
01
86
Nala in Sruvey No. 388/3
389/2
388/4A
388 /4B
387/2
387/ 4A
388 / 5A
388/ 5B
387/4B 00
01
83 00
25
44 00
17
75
22 00
16
00
00
46 00
06
50 00
91 00
09
05
02
00
61
Nala in Sruvey No. 386
00
02
60
Nala in Survey No. 385/1
385/2
385/3
385/4
384
00
24
84 00
01
08
47 00
29
44
38
00
08
00
34
Road in Survey No. 364
361/4
361/5
25
40
00
21
60 00
03
27
361 / 6B1
00
18
361 / 6B2
360/2
367 / 1A
367 / 1B
367/2 00
39 00
27
00 00
42
19
00
19
39 00
01
25
05
00
54
Nala in Survey No.368
317/1
317/2
317/3
42 00
03
16
60 00
00
18 00
00
07
90
Nala in Survey No. 318
319/1
319/4
319/3
322/ 5A
322/ 5B 00
42
11
00
04
78 00
20
81 00
07
93 00
05
90 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 2) Palavanattam ( Contd)
322/ 5D
320/1
320/ 2B
320/ 2A
320/3
320/4
320/6A
320/5
320/6B
310 /2A
310/ 2B
310/3
310/4
311/1
307/3
307/5
300/6
311/3
298/2
298/3
298/4
293/1
293/2
291/2
291/3
291/4
291/8
291 /9B
44/2
3 ) Kuttipparai
44/6
44/5
48/ 1A
48/ 1B
48/2
49
51/4
51/1
51/3
51/2
55
54/4
54/5
8619 3
4
5 00
06
05 00
03
54 00
06
18 00
21
89 00
04
06 00
03
86 00
02
04 00
03
77
00
16
05
00
09
46
00
18
18
00
11
74
00
07
24
00
52
59
00
00
65
00
02
22
00
02
23
00
34
55
00
17
98
00
17
70
00
03
27
00
16
56
00
57
41
00
02
47
74
00
02
00
02
86
00
05
10
00
02
75
00
40
08
00
48
74
00
02
67
00
13
59
00
26
59
00
18
35
00
00
11
00
10
00
00
39
19
00
02
03
00
02
18
00
21
73
00
12
29
00
37
88 8620
Sec . 3 ( 1 )
[Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20, 1932
2 1
60/1
3) Kuttipparai (Contd)
60/5
58
213/1
213/4
213/5
213/6
213/7
214/4
214/ 5A
214/ 5B
222
214 / 8A
214/ 8B
215/4
219/1
219/2
219/3
Nala in Survey No. 220/1
220/4
220/3
220/6
220/10
220/11
4
5 3
34
43
00
31
30
00
30
14
00
54
21
00
46
08
00
21
08
00
06
15
00
12
15
00
70
15
00
02
04
00
94
02
00
11
37
00
88
00
00
60
03
00
12
06
00
37
10
00
46
10
00
55
04
00
43
01
00
50
20
00
03
02
00
23
01
00
71
05
00
29
06
00
67
04
00
Nala in Sruvey No. 257
258
255
259
260/3
260/2
260/4
260/8
Nala in Survey No. 261
285/4
285/3
285/5
285/8
285/9
285/10
Road in Survey No. 284/2
Road in Survey No. 284 /7A
284/ 7C
29
44
00
07
47 00
45
03
00
26
00
00
43 00
10
89
09
00
86
27
00
99
04
00
49
07
00
69
08
00
73
08
00
62
00
00
58
00
00
88 00
10
70
07
00
34
00
00
20
02
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
224
3) Kuttipparai (Contd)
285/12
330/1
330/2
330/5
331/6
331/5
354/1
354/2
323
355/1
355/2
355 / 3B
356 /2A
356/2B
357/1
357/2
358/1
358/2
358/3
358/4
8621 4
3
5 00
05
26
00
05
21
00
17
09
76 00
05
07
00
16
02
00
45
00
00
10
00
21
01
00
13
63
00
22
82
00
21
11
00
12
19
00
10
25
00
14
23
00
09
31
00
19
41
00
19
19
44
00
17
00
70
21
00
23
13
00
19
57
90
00
09
Nala in Survey No. 359
416/1
415/1
415/3
414/1
412/3
413/2
413/1
436/6
437/1
437/2
442/1
442/2B
442/2C
441/1
441/2
441/3
441/4
441/5 Taluk : Kariapatti
00
57
14
00
23
11
00
10
43
00
39
98
00
06
84
00
41
38
07
00
02
39
00
23
00
20
73
00
20
33
00
11
01
00
09
09
00
09
97
00
07
59
00
06
93
00
03
92
00
44
06
00
68
19
State : Tamil Nadu
District : Virudhunagar
54/3
1) Alagiyanallur
55/7
00
00
34
00
09
30 8622
Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
Part 11
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20. 1932
2 1
55/ 12a 1) Alagiyanallur ( Contd)
55 / 12b
56/1
56/4a
56/ 5a
56/2
56/9
57/ 6A
57/ 7A
57/8A
57/ 7B
57/8B
58/2
5 4
3
67 00
13
10
13
00
59
08
00
93
00
01
97
05
00
14 00
13
07
43 00
05
18 00
17
00
26.
02
76 00
00
77 00
71 00
01
64 00
03
71
49
00
Road in Survey No. 203
195/2
195/3
196/1
196/4
195/5
195/6
194/2
12
00
32
23
15 00
00
97 00
00
68
13
33
27 00
26
88 00
72 00
01
00
04
83
Road in Survey No. 204
213 /3A
213/3B
213 /3F
212/1
212/2
212/5
212/6A
212/ 6B
212/8
212/9 00
07
73
43
00
00
87 00
15
16 00
13
28 00
07
61
08
00
02. 00
19
00
00
49
15
52 00
03
00
63 00
01
81
212/ 11A
25
00
00
212/ 11B
212/14
212/13
211/5
205/5
205/6
205/7
83
12
00
02
33 00
07
00
58
06
80 00
56 00
03
56 00
02
54 00
00
205/10A
211/7
13
02
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 1) Alagiyanallur ( Contd)
211/8A
211/8B
205/ 11A
205/ 11B
205 / 11C
210/1
210/ 2A
210/ 2C
210/3
210 /5A
210/4B
210/5B
210 / 7A
208 / 1A1
208 / 1A3
208 / 1A4
208 /2A
208 / 1B 2) Valukkalotti
2/7
1/9
1/10
2/10
Road in Survey No. 136
Road in Survey No. 138
134/1
134/2A1
134/2B
133/3
133/4
133/5
133/6
133/7
143
Nala in Survey No. 132/1
132/3
132/2
132/4
132/8
132/9
132/5
132/10
8623 3
4
5 00
03
22 00
03
01 00
09
55 00
02
74 00
00
86 00
05
56 00
02
79 00
22
73 00
00
54 00
06
21
00
00
10 00
13
43
00
11
08
00
00
10
00
19
85
00
10
20
00
08
02
00
01
30
00
00
57
00
02
36
00
11
04
00
23
41
00
01
32
00
07
91
00
06
25
00
21
11
00
15
28
00
23
02
00
04
63
00
05
03
00
04
81
00
10
81
00
01
14
00
00
23
00
03
39
00
03
26
00
06
59
00
01
59
00
23
47
00
00
31
00
01
32
00
03
17 8624
Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
[ Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAIHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
132/11 2) Valukkalotti ( Contd)
131/1
145
131/3
131/6
128/3
128 /6A
128/4
126/1
126/7
126/8
126/6
126/10
5
4
3
90
09
00
70
00
00
10
00
00
92
07
00
39
16
00
83
16
00
29
05
00
74
16
GO
85
04
00
87
21
00
88
00
00
15
00
00
33
29
00
29
00
00
127 /3A1
77
16
00
127/3A2
Nala in Survey No. 127/7
116/4
115
91/5
114/1
114/ 5A
114/6
92/4
94/1
94/2
93/ 1A
95/ 1A
93/ 1B
95 / 1B
95/ 1C
93/3
95/3
District: Virudhunagar
Taluk: Virudhunagar
716 1) Periya Perali
717
719
721/4
725/1
724
726/1
737/2
737/3
737/4
23
06
00
71
07
00
52
74
00
10
00
00
45
02
00
09
04
00
93
25
00
87
02
00
27
31
00
10
00
00
70
09
00
25
03
00
10
00
00
11
10
00
03
11
00
11
08
00
03
24
00
State: Tamil Nadu
10
26
00
82
05
00
03
04
00
26
00
00
16
40
00
81
00
00
37
30
00
09
01
00
36
14
00
92
15
00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 1) Periya Perali ( Contd)
737/5
728/3
728/4
43/1
43/2
44
53
54/1
61/1
61/2
63/1
62/1
62/2
63/2
63/3
63/4
63/5A
63/5B
63/6
63/7
200/1
200/2
200 / 3A
200/3B
199/1
199/2
197/3
198/5
197/4
197/5
196/2
196/3
183 / 1A
183/2
183/3A
183/3B
184/1
184/ 2A
184/2B
185 / 2F
185/3
185/4
4575 GI /10-12
8625 3
4
5 00
03
79 00
00
55
00
13
10
00
15
19
00
02
96 00
31
01
00
13
03
00
03
49
00
12
53
00
13
51
00
10
42
00
03
77
00
06
66
00
02
64
00
12
95
00
13
33
00
05
82
00
09
24
00
00
10
00
40
13
00
97
22
00
12
61
00
19
78
00
00
95
00
02
31
00
31
71
00
00
73
00
02
18
00
10
98
00
12
45
00
02
74
00
14
04
00
17
70
00
08
08
00
12
91
00
04
83
00
02
71
00
18
48
00
14
29
00
00
45
00
12
54
00
10
40 8626
Sec . 3 ( i ) |
[Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
5 4
3
84
04
00
Nala in Survey No. 162
1) Periya Perali (Contd)
114/4
114/3
114/2
114/1
113
123/1
123/2
124/1
124/2
124/3
124/4
124/5
125
126/2
127/2
39/2 2) Kadambankulam
39/3
39/4
39/6
40/3
40/4
40/5
40/6
Nala in Survey No. 41/1
48
41/2A
41/2B
41/4
41/5
41/5
41/7
42/1
42/2
42/3
Nala in Survey No. 42/4
166/4
166/3
166/2
Nala in Survey No. 164/1
164/3
164/2
39
14
00
33
00
13
35
06
00
46
00
00
63
84
00
89
01
00
26
14
00
11
08
00
73
19
00
39
16
00
63
03
00
95
00
00
84
26
00
73
17
00
70
05
00
65
05
00
62
17
00
55
26
00
80
19
00
40
04
00
92
00
00
97
55
00
41
00
00
03
00
34
01
00
84
25
00
46
05
00
41
02
00
27
04
00
79
12
00
08
11
00
64
36
00
42
02
00
49
29
00
03
05
00
41
00
00
29
28
00
59
26
00
71
02
00
44
01
00
48
77
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 / अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 2) Kadambankulam ( Contd)
8627
4
3
5
00
10
92
Nala in Survey No. 161
160/ 1B
179/1
179/2
160/6
160/7
179/3B
179/5
179/6
158
00
13
24
00
08
18
00
07
34
00
03
10
00
82
19
00
01
62
00
22
30
00
26
74
00
01
29
00
03
01
Nala in survey No. 318/1
318/ 7A
318/ 7B 00
41
48
00
02
09
00
01
33
Nala in Survey No. 318/8
318 /9A
318/ 9B
319/5
319/6
319/7
319/8
319/12
319/13
319/14
323/1
323/3
323/4
323/6
323 / 8A
323/ 8B
323/ 7B
323/9
323/ 10A
323/ 10B 00
01
75
00
10
01
00
31
08
00
06
75
00
07
19
00
06
21
00
03
SS
00
14
46
00
07
33
00
09
53
07
00
ذع
00
04
06
00
02
91
00
06
68
00
23
01
00
87
01
07
00
19
00
01
06
00
07
42
00
03
30
Nala in Survey No. 324/1
324/3
381
380
325
00
36
95
00
00
78
00
12
76
00
02
80
00
05
23
Nala in Survey No. 379
363/4
364/1
364/3 00
07
93
00
27
71
00
22
70 Sec . 300
Part 11
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
8628
2 1
364/4 2) Kadambankulam ( Contd)
364/5
5
4
3
10
00
00
77
39
00
04
76 00
Nala in Survey No. 367
336/1
336/3A
336/3B
336/3C
336/4A
99
24
00
13
01
00
29 00
19
97
25
00
80
00
00
74
03
00
Nala in Survey No. 359
335/1
335/4
335/5
335/2
335/3
258/2 3 ) Mannarkottai
258/1
258/4
258/5
258/7
259/1
259/5
Nala in Survey No. 259/6
2.57/6
257/7
260
262/1
262/2
262/3
247/8
246
Nala in Survey No. 264/1
264/2
264/5
264/6
110 4) Kottaiyur
109/3
109/4
113/4
113/5
113/6
Nala in Survey No. 113/7
115/ 1A
23
43 00
70 00
13
70 00
01
67
05
00
22 00
18
59
03
00
66
09
00
57
10
00
26
08
00
88
13
00
68
12
00
16
18
00
09
05 00
00
14 00
62 00
00
11
09
01
04
00 00
61
54 00
00
40 00
48
20
00
97 00
11
86
01
00
22
83 00
95 00
40
16 00
02
10 00
07
64
20
00
37
81 00
83
14
00
14
07 00
17
81 00
81 00
02
00
83
19 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 4) Kottaiyur ( Contd )
115 / 1B
114/3B
115/4A
114/5
115/8
119/2
119 /3A
119/3B
119/4C
119/4D
120/4
120/ 5A
120/ 5B
92/2B
92/ 2D
92/2C
92/ 3A
92/5
92/6
92/4
91/2
195
5) Puduppatti
8629 3
4
5 00
00
59
00
27
58
00
00
31
00
06
52
00
00
39
00
11
26
00
08
85
00
04
25
00
19
62
00
02
25
00
06
24
00
41
55
00
05
35
00
05
33
00
17
41
00
16
72
00
01
60
00
10
30
00
02
61
00
02
57
00
54
43
00
02
56
00
Nala in Survey No. 194
59
04
Nala in Survey No. 209
211
226/3
226/4
226/10
226/11
226/9
226/12 00
88
35
00
55
37
00
31
43
00
00
10
00
00
13
00
01
18
00
52
03
00
08
34
Road in Survey No. 228
232
16/1
6) Sundaralingapuram
16/4
16/5
17 / 5A
17/5C
17/5B
26/7
26/6
26/8
00
69
44
00
67
95
00
22
62
00
06
07
00
34
42
00
12
44
00
10
01
00
05
84
00
12
98
00
12
47
00
02
66 Sec . Sti
Part II THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
8630
5
4
3
2
1
09
42
00
25/1
6) Sundaralingapuram ( Contd)
19
75
00
Nala in Survey No. 24
83
00
00
21/1
61
07
00
21/2
81
06
00
21/3
33
00
01
21/4
12
00
22
21/5
17
00
11
21/6
90
00
01
21/7
[F. No. L-14014/96/2010-GP ]
SNEH P. MADAN Under Secy
नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 3007.- 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 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 बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस राजामनिक्कम, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, न . 9 डी/ डी , रामणपुरम, पील्लैयार कोवील के सामने, कटूर 639001 , तमिलनाडु राज्य को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा। [ भाग !! - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
8631
अनुसूची
तालुक:डिन्डिगल
जिला:डिन्डिगल
गाँव का नाम
सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं .
1
2
32
1 ) सेट्टिनायक्कनपटि
38
32/4वी
37/4
37/3
37/5
37/6
37/2
37/7
37/11
37/12
37/10
41 / 2 ए
41/ 1 वी
41/1ए
42/1
42/2
43
44/1वी
44/12
44/ 2ए
44/ 2सी
44/ 2डी
44/3 ए
44/ 1 ए 1
44/ 3सी 1
44/ 3सी 2
69
सर्वे न . 70 में नाला
71
72
73
74/2
74/ 1 ए
74/1 वी
75/2
76/1सी
राज्य: तमिलनाडु
आर - ओ - यू- अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर 3
4
5 00
57
92
00
00
14 00
01
23 00
18
04 00
03
04 00
03
45 00
27
11
01
00
99 00 18
25 00
10
14 00
51
08
00
02
07 00
00
75 00
30
19
00
22
62 00
00
94 00
07
37 00
10
93 00
00
42 00
20
12 00 09
88 00
82 08
00
01
68 00
05
92 00
33
51 00
36
26 00
04
66 00 36
25 00
70 11
00
40
39 00
09
89 00 08
21 00
00
61 00
38
07 00
67 02
00
13
56 00
28
42 8632
Part 11 Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
5
4
3
02
03 00
76/1वी
1 ) सेट्टिनायक्कनपटि (निरंतर)
95 00
09
सर्वे न . 77 में रास्ता
78
36
15
00
98
05
00
329/1 ए
62
05
00
329/1वी
40
03
00
329/2
65
04
00
329/3वी
333
08
28
00
71
07
00
330/1
99
09
00
330/2
05
11
00
330/3
71
10
00
330/5
10
00
00
332/21
34
08
00
332/22
55
00
00
332/19
39
06
00
सर्वे न . 340/1 में रास्ता
72
17
00
339/4
34
04
00
339/3
01
10
00
339/2
55
06
00
339/1
73
05
00
339/13
93
08
00
सर्वे न . 342 में रास्ता
54
00
00
341/7वी
08
10
00
341/8
343
59
00
00
06
37
00
680/7
2) सिन्दलागुन्डु
33
13
00
680/4
10
08 00
681/3
56
03
00
681/4
93
16
00
681/ 7ए
54
07
00
681/6
32
43 00
681/ 5ए
85
00
00
681/ 5वी
21
10
00
693/ 2ए
11
00
00
693/ 2वी
73
01
00
693/ 1 ए
66 00
09
693/1वी
70
12
00
693/1सी
42
11
00
692/2
97
34
00
692/1
691
690
61
33
00
89
00
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड " ' ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 2) सिन्दलागुन्डु (निरंतर)
698/3
698/1
698/2
699
सर्वे न . 697 में रास्ता
700/4
701/3
701/4
701/2
1/1
703
644/2
643
642
637
638/2
638/1
638/3
सर्वे न . 639 में रास्ता
612/3
612/ 2ए
612/2बी
613/1
613/2
613/3
615/1
$15/2
सर्वे न . 616 में रास्ता
621
सर्वे न . 610 में रास्ता
600
599
सर्वे न . 596 में नदी
598
449
सर्वे न . 450 में रास्ता
451
446
445
444
440
434
4575 Gl/10-13
8633
4
3
5 00
13
10 00 22
96 00 08
86 00
01
62 00 04
60 00
00
16 00
01
69 00 28
67 00 08
58 00
01
70 00
03
16 00
16
04 100
27
23 1000
00
20
44
95 100
00 1056
31 00
170
054
57
05
00 06
32 00
02 218 00
27
36
11
66 00 09
73 00 06
57 00 05
43 00
18
58 00 00
81 00 09
60 00
31
03 00
048
64 00
13
59 00
59
71 00
63 12
00
13 AA
00
5
00 07
82 00 37
61 00
33
51 17
73 20
00
13 00 19
23 02
95 0.0 8634
Part II See .Sob THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
1/3
3) कुरुम्बापट्टी
1/2
14
205
1/1
5
4
3
93
21
00
88 00 55
51
00
00
94
01
00
82
29
00
86
09
00
सर्वे नं . 208 में रेल्वे
02
33
00
210/1
57
11
00
सर्वे न . 185 में रास्ता
42
03
00
211/ 2बी
29
13
00
211/ 2ए
36 00
211/1
राज्य: तमिलनाडु
जिला:डिन्डिगल
तालुक: वेदासन्दुर
59
1 ) आलम्बाडि
60
58/1
58/2
57
64
65/1
69 00 04
49
00
00
14
25
00
57
17
00
00 29 28
33
16
00
47
24
00
87
15
00
68/ 2ए
77
16
68/ 2बी
69/2
75/1
75/2
76/1
94
05
00
66 00 69
71 00
31
24
53
00
66
05
00
792/1
88
22
00
792/2
84
23
00
774/1 बी 2
10
00
00
774/ 1 ए
64
773/5
18
09
00
773/1 बी 2
47
04
00
773/ 1 ए
54
30
00
773/ 1 बी 1
69
03
00
सर्वे न . 769 में रास्ता
72
17
00
753/1
20
04 00
753/2
96
07
00
सर्वे न . 754 में रास्ता
759
756
7:44
739
738
725
14
68 00
65
23
00
63
54
00
40
20
00
27
37
00
87
50
00 { भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
सर्वे न . 726 में रास्ता 1 ) आलम्बाडि (निरंतर)
728
727
714/4ए
714/4बी
715
716/1
706
704/4
704/3
704/2
704/5
704/6
704/7
704/8
704/9
704/10
704/11
704/13
704/12
703/25
सर्वे न . 1205 में रास्ता
1201/1
1200/1 डी
$200/1सी
1200/1 बी
1200/ 2 सी
1200 / 2 डी
1199/3
1199/ 2सी
1197/1
1197/3
1197/4
1197/5
1198/1
1198/2
1198/3
1176
1172
1175
1174
सर्वे न . 1170 में रास्ता
8635
4
3
5
02
00
66 00
15
83 00
13
50 00 43
78 00
16
94 00
29
99
01
00
13 00
10
100
00 05
68 00
15
04
00 02
63 00
87 00
01
55
02
00
81 00 00
10 00
03
90 00 00
61 00 04
96 00 01
92
06
87 00
00 00
10
03
00
27 00 00
411 00 00
48 00 00
93 00
15
52
00
00
31 00 04
18 00
01
93 00
14
73 00
78
09
00 00
91 00
02
17 00
01
64 00
03
03 00
05
88 00
19
64 00
77
57 00
32
94 00
13
40 00
00
96
05
00
17 8636
Part II Sec . Stin THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA . DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHΛΥΛΝΑ 20 , 1932
:
2 1
1169
1 ) आलम्बाडि (निरंतर)
1347
1346
1345
1362
1353
1354
1355
1356
1363
4
5 3
47
55 00
29
26
00
80
18
00
14
08
00
35
98
00
62
47
00
00
02
88
23
64 00
60
80 00
66 00 08
63
03
OD
सर्वे न . 1373 में रास्ता
1375
1376
1374
1377
1378
1379
1382
1384
1386
11
00
32
08
19 00
01
03 00
25
30
00
57 00 25
13
01
00
41
39 00
21
47 00
53
49
00
66
03
00
सर्वे न . 1385 में नाला
21
24
00
गर्वे नं . 1428 में रास्ता
1427
745
77
83
35 00
00
92 00
39
01
00
05
00
36
सर्वे न . 628 में रास्ता
2) श्रीरामपुरम
00
38
16
629/3डी
00
00
92
629/31
28
01
00
629/ 3एफ
00
70 00
629/3जी
17
00
81
630/1
56
00
00
630/2
06
00
19
637/1 वी
75
11
00
637/1 सी
35
05
00
637/ 1 डी
56
05
00
637/15
87
09
00
637/ 2 ए
14
05
00
637/ 2ची
00
89
16
637/ 2सी
00
19 00
633/1
04
32 00
636/1 ए
10
00
08
636/1 वी
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 / अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 2) श्रीरामपुरम (निरंतर)
636/12
636/1सी
636/1डी
662/1
सर्वे न . 661 में रास्ता
655
660
659
679
680
677
667/1
668/1
850
669
848/ 2एम
848/2सी
848/ 2डी
848/25
848/1 बी 2
848/1 बी1
848/1सी
848/ 2एफ
848/ 2जी
848/3
848/4
848/ 2एच
848/ 2बी
877/ 1 ए8
877/ 2ए
877/ 1 डी 1
877/107
879/19
879/1 एफ
879/ 2ए
879/ 2बी
880/22
880/18
879/ 2डी
879/25
879/ 2एफ
879/3ए
8637 3
4
5 00
01
41 00 08
23 00
09
02 0.0
04
23 00
21
83 00 02
63 00
45
15 00
16
19 00 09
58 00
21
60 00
24
81
36
00
34 00
26
12 00
00
86 00
22
34
00
00
62 00
01
33 00 06
48 00
03
45 00
03
35 00
09
70 00 04
70 00
00
22 00
01
11 00
12
93 00
00
67 00
09
07 00
00
10 00
01
96 00
01
45 00
01
88 00
13
73 00 01
40 00
00
76 00
10
48 00
03
17 00
00
43 00
01
14 00
04
87 00
01
63 00 02
67 00
12
81 8638
Sec . 3 ( ii ) | [Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
5
4
3
74
03
00
सर्वे त . 881 में रास्ता
2) श्रीरामपुरम (निरंतर )
62
07
00
882/1 ए
56
12
00
882/1 सी
75
09
00
882/ 2ए
34
09
00
882/ 2वी
895
22
00
00
84
09
00
सर्वे न . 901 में रास्ता
906
16
42
00
99
24
00
908/1
04
16
00
908/ 3ए
916
82
03
00
00
12
00
917/3
58 00 29
915/1
13
00
00
915/2
05
29
00
914/1
10
00
00
914/ 2ए
934
764
3 ) मारमबाडि
06
23
00
87
19
00
27
26
00
सर्वे न . 765 में नाला
96
05
00
सर्वे न . 756 में रास्ता
767
766
769
784
783
781
780
786
796
1060
1061
27
11
00
52
25
00
05
00
00
43
15
00
32
22
00
02
23
00
90
15
00
22
73
00
10
12
00
27
12
00
98
31
00
76
10
00
1062
1063
जिला:डिन्डिगल तालुक आत्तुर
84/5 1 ) तमरायकुलम
85/1
85/2
86/4
86/3
86/5
87/2
87/3
87/6
39
27
00
राज्य:तमिलनाडु
13
44 00
73
18
00
12
35
00
25
14
00
06
01
00
56
14
00
78
13
00
25
14
00
44
15
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का संञ्जमंत्र: दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
87/7 1 ) तमरायकुलम (निरंतर)
96/1 ए
96/1 बी
96/3
99/1
99/3
99/2
117/1 ए
117/1 बी
117/1 सी
117/1डी
117/15
117/ 1 एफ
117/2
115/1
115/2
116/1
116/2
115/3डी
115/35
115/3एफ
115/3जी
115/4
115/5
113/1
114/1
114/2
114/3
113/2
113/3
138/1
138/ 2बी
138/ 2डी
139/1
138/3बी
139/2
140/1 ए
140/2
140/3
135/1
सर्वे न . 135/2 में रास्ता
134/5बी 1
8539 3
4
5 00
10
52 00
16
31 00
12
66 00 23
19 00
27
39 00
14
97 00
02
18 00
15
42 00
08
02 00
07
42 00
05
26 00
05
76 00
04
81 00
15
30 00
04
25 00
11
78 100
00
10 00
02
76 00
01
43 00 02
43 00
01
97 00
01
68 00
07
01 00 08
38 00
06
27 00
07
50 00
07
20 00 05
61 00
03
14 00 05
71 00 04
78 00
07
33 00
06
61 00
04
09 00
05
66 00
17
13 00
11
76 00 16
41 00
17
91 00
21
93 00 02
37 00
21
12 8640
Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAMAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
5
4
3
61
01
00
134/ 5 बी 2
1 ) तमरायकुलम (निरंतर )
12
90 00
133/ 2 ए 1
50
00
00
134/5सी
10
00
00
132/1
13
93 00
133 / 2 ए 2
151/1
21
08
00
06
07
00
151/2
00 00
10
151/3
11
25
00
152/1
51 00 08
152/4
79 00
04
152/5
76 00 00
152/6
1/1
2) पिथलायपट्टी
8/ 2ए
8/ 2वी
8/3
8/4
8/5
23/5
7/1
23/3
03 00
67
00 00
24
01 00
28
02
29 00
21 00
28
81 00
00
55 00
19
12
97 00
00
54
09
46
08 00
24/ 2 ए
30/5
30/4
31/1
31/2
28/1
28/2
28/3
25
11
00
00
15 00
06
80 00
77
07
00
05
61 00
04
08 00
200 00 04
02
09 00
28/4ए
00
10
15
28/4वी
00 00 06
28/ 5ए
00
04
00
28/ 5बी
28/6
27/1
27/2
26/1
71
02
100
58 00 08
03
31 00
04
65 00
02
93 00
26/ 2 ए
02
93 00
26/ 2बी
78 00 05
सर्वे न . 140 में रास्ता
01
82 00
147/1
153
73 00 04 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (
2 1
147/ 2ए 2) पिथलायपट्टी (निरंतर)
147/ 2बी
147/ 2सी
148/1बी
148/ 1 ए
152/1
152/2
152/3
152/4
154
सर्वे न. 131/2 में बासा
151/1
163/ 1 ए
162
15
3) वक्कमपट्टी
14
13
सर्वे न . 1 में नाला
12
11/2
11/3
11/5
11/6
सर्वे न . 25 में नाला
28
सर्वे न . 29 में रास्ता
50
49
48
47/1
47/ 2ए
47/ 2बी
47/4ए
47/4बी 1
47/4बी 2
47/ 5 बी1
47/ 5बी 2
47/ 7बी
47/8
47/11बी
47/12 4575 G1 /10-14
8641 3
4
32 00
09
10
00
48
10
02 00
01
16 00
00
06
57
72 00 03
00
16
28
25 00 09
00
10
26
01
42 00
47
00
87 00
02
91 00 05
21 00
34
83 00
00
29
00
45
10 00
35
17 00
03
94 00
17
88 00
11
01 00
03
85
72 00
04
00 00
94 00 00
26 00
66
15
56 00
11
03 00 03
01
00
07
76 00 25
00
11
03 00 06
92 00
87
03
00
33
03
00
04
00
00
64 00
00 03
17
03
90 00
00
04
32 00
03
52 00
02
77 00
03
27 00
03
38 8642
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii )| THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
4
5 3
58 00
05
47/14ए
3 ) वक्कमपट्टी (निरंतर)
75
06
00
47/14बी
51/1
61
02
00
39 00 02
52/1सी
52/2
51/3
51/5
56
58
68
01
00
76 00
01
06
02
00
86
50
00
87
13
00
12
45 00
सर्वे न . 61 में रास्ता
80/1
80/2
80/4
73
03
00
01
01
00
39
00
00
89 00 06
80/ 7ए
2.5 00 08
80/7बी
27
06
00
80/ 7सी
80/9
92 00 04
66 00
04
80/12
02
05 00
80/14
02
06 00
80/16
16
02
00
80/155
22 00 02
80/15एच
01
27 00
80/22
14
09
00
80/23
79
47
11
00
22
00
00
78/ 2सी
78/7
02
09 00
33 00
04
78/ 8बी
77
11
00
83/ 2ए
10
00
00
83/ 2बी
07
05
00
83/ 2सी
96 00
00
83/ 2 एफ
02
29 00
83/ 2जी
03
21 00
83/2आइ
69 00
01
83/2 एल
83/3
83/5
63 00
11
64
03
00
93
03
00
87/4ए
30
05
00
87/ 5ए
59
05
00
87/ 5बी
14 00
01
87/ 5सी
05 00 05
87/ 5डी
{ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
87/ 5एफ 3 ) वक्कमपट्टी (निरंतर)
87/5
87/5जी
87/6
86
85
97/2
97/5सी
97/ 5डी
97/ 9ए
97/9बी
97/10
97/ 11 ए
97/5बी
97/ 6बी
97/ 8बी
97/6ए
97/8ए
98
99/10
99/12ए
99/12बी
108
67/2
4) मुनिलाकोट्टय
67/3
67/4
67/5
123/ 2ए
123/1
123/2वी
123/ 3 ए 1
123/3बी
123/3सी
123/ 3 एच
124/1
124/2
125/ 1 ए
125/1 बी
125/3
125/4
125/2
120/1
8643 3
4
5
02
00
86 00
93
01
00
55
01
00 01
95
24
45 00
00
07
42 00
08
19 00
06
66 00
02
93 00
01
79
34 00
02
00
02
96 00
00
86 00
10
00
00
01
76
00
41 00
00 04
57 00
10
48 00
14
34 00
03
13
02
00
93
02
00
19 00
11
75 00
01
51
02
94 00
00
01
16 00
00
10 00
00
30 00
03
58 00 02
98 00
03
71 00
03
06
01
87 00
00
01
06 00
90
08
00 09
50 00
03
11
09
04 00
00
16
97
03
00
13
03
50 00
01
20 00 8644
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHΛΥΑΝΑ 20 , 1932
1
2
126
4) मुनिज्ञाकोट्टह्य (निरंतर)
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
4
3
5 00
64
94 00
04
127/2
80
127/1
00
04
41
127/3
00
11
43 00
08
01
127/5
00
01
77
165/1 ए
00
12
32
165/1ची
00
165/2
37
19
165/4
00 09
43
09
46 00
165/5
00
16
79
165/ 7ए
00
08
51
166/7
00
04
88
166/ 5 वी
00
03
40
166/ 5 ए
166/55
00
07
52 00 08
57
166/5एफ
00
00
84
166/5जी
166/ 5जे
00
07
50 00
10
166/4वी
67 00
15
82
166/ 6ए
00 08
10
166/4डी
00
05
32
सर्वे न . 171 में रास्ता
00
188/4
25
66
194/2
194/1
00
14
94 00
08
83 00
194/5
05
21
194/4
195
197/1
00
00
31 00
11
94 00 04
78
197/2
05
00
25
197/3
203
00
05
35 00 00
86
198/1
00
06
07 00
07
198/2
88 00
198/3
08
62 00
01
44
184/4वी
00
77 00
सर्वे न . 199 में नाला
00
184/7
34 08
00 04
32
184/ 8 वी
00
05
13
184/ 8 ए
00
56 00
184/3सी
00 06
64
184/3बी
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 4) मुबिलाकोट्टय (निरंतर)
184/3ए
182/10डी
182/10ए
182/10बी
182/10सी
182/14ए
182/12डी
182/13सी
452
449/4बी
449/4सी
449/ 5सी
449/5बी
450
449/9
449/10
449/11
449/15
448
445/3सी
443
414/ 2ए
414/3ए
414/4डी 1
सर्वे न . 415 में रास्ता
417
416
400/ 7 बी1
400/10ए
400/10बी
400/10सी
400/9बी
400/9ए
400/ 7 बी 2
399/4
398/1 बी
394/1
393/1
395/1 ए
395/ 3ए 1
394/2
398/ 2सी
8645 3
4
5 00
00
71 00
11
91 00
02
35 00
04
36 00
06
56 00
00
10 00
07
76 00 09
89 00
16
00 00
00
28 00
12
05 00
07
58 00
01
53 00
16
95 00
05
77 00
06
10 00
05
95 00
11
59 00
25
36 00
03
14 00
65
52 00
12
68 00
13
58 00
03
35 00
11
01 00
41
60 00 30
90 00
07
25 00
02
26 00 02
01 00
02
46 00
03
40 00
04
67 00
02
30 00
11
90 00
01
07 00
25
40 00
01
90 00
10
14 00
20
05 00 06
33 00
07
31 | Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | 8646
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
5
4
3
2
1
98
00
00
396/1
मुनिलाकोट्टय (निरंतर)
4)
52
14
00
397/ 1 ए 2
41
04
00
397/1बी
70
09
00
397/ 2सी
85
08
00
396/3ए
50
00
00
396/3बी
[फा सं. एल. 14014/94/2010 जी.पी. ]
स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 3rd December, 2010
S. O. 3007.- Whereas it appears to that for Government of India that it is necessary in 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 e 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 S.Rajamanickam , Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , No. 9D / 6D Ramakrishnapuram , Opp . Pillayar Kovil , Karur -- 639 001 , Tamil Nadu State .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
सत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
8647
Schedule
Taluk: Dindigul
District : Dindigul
Village
State: Tamil Nadu
Survey No./Sub-Divisien
1
2
32
1) Settinaickanpatti
38
32/4B
37/4
37/3
37/5
37/6
37/2
37/7
37/11
37/12
37/10
41 /2A
41/ 1B
41/ 1A
42/1
42/2
43
44/ 1B
44/ 1A2
44/2A
44/2C
44/2D
44/3A
44/1A1
44/3C1
44/3C2
69
Area to be acquired for RoU Нес
Are
C-Are 3
4
5 00
57
92 00
00
14
01
23 00
00
18
04 00
03
04 00
03
45
00
27
11
00
01
99
00
18
25
00
10
14
00
08
51
00
02
07
00
00
75
00
19
30
00
22
62
00
00
94
00
07
37
00
10
93
00
00
42.
00
20
12
00
09
88.
00
08
82
00
01
68
00
05
92
00
33
51
00
36
26
00
04
66
00
36
25
00
Nala in Survey No.70
71
72
73
74/2
74/ 1A
74/1B
75/2
76/1C
11
70
00
40
39
00
09
89
00
08
21
00
00
61
00
38
07
00
02
67
00
13
56
00
28
42 8648
[Part 11 - Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
76/ 1B 1) Settinaickanpatti ( Contd )
5
4
3
03
02
00
95
09
00
Road in Survey No. 77
78
329/ 1A
329/ 1B
329/2
329/3B
333
330/1
330/2
330/3
330/5
332/21
332/22
332/19
Road in Survey No. 340/1
339/4
339/3
339/2
339/1
339/13
Road in Survey No. 342
341/78
341/8
343
680/7 2) Sindalagundu
680/4
681/3
681/4
681/ 7A
681/6
681/5A
681/5B
693 /2A
693/2B
693 / 1A
693 / 1B
693 / 1C
692/2
692/1
691
690
36
15
00
98
05
00
62
05
00
40
03
00
65
04
00
08
28
00
71
07
00
99
09
00
05
11
00
71
10
00
10
00
00
34
08
00
55
00
00
39
06
00
72
17
00
34
04
00
01
10
00
55
06
00
73
05
00
93
08
00
54
00
00
08
10
00
59
00
00
06
37
00
33
13
00
08
10
00
56
03
00
93
16
00
54
07
00
43
32
00
85
00
00
21
10
00
11
00
00
73 00
01
66
09
00
70
12
00
42 00
11
97 00
34
61
33
00
00
89 00 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड ? (ii ) ]
2 1
698/3 2) Sindalagundu ( Contd)
698/1
698/2
699
8649
4
5 3
00
13
10
22
96
00
00
08
86
62
00
01
04
60
00
Road in Survey No.697
700/4
701/3
701/4
701/2
701/1
703
644/2
643
642
637
638/2
638/1
638/3 00
00
16
01
69
00
67
28
00
08
00
58
70
00
01
00
16
03
04
00
16
27
23
00
00
00
20
44
95
00
00
06
31
10
00
04
00
05
57
06
00
32
Road in Survey No. 639
612/3
612/2A
612/2B
613/1
613/2
613/3
615/1
615/2 00
02
28
36
00
27
00
66
11
09
73
00
06
57
00
05
43
00
58
00
18
00
81
00
09
60
00
Road in Survey No. 616
621
31
03
00
64
00
08
Road in Survey No. 610
600
599
00
13
59
00
59
71
63
12
00
River in Survey No. 596
598
449
00
44
13
00
95
87
00
07
82
Road in Survey No. 450
451
446
445
444
440
434
4575 GI /10-15
61
37
00
51
00
33
17
73
00
20
13
00
19
23
00
95
02
00 8650
[Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
1/3
3) Kurumbapatti
1/2
1/4
205
1/1
Railway in Survey No. 208
210/1
5 4
3
21
93
00
88
55
00
00
51
00
94
01
00
82
29
00
86
09
00
02 00
33
57 00
11
Road in Survey No. 185
211/28
211 / 2A
211/1
District: Dindigul Taluk: Vedasandur
59
1) Alambadi
60
58/1
58/2
57
64
65/1
68/2A
68/2B
69/2
75/1
75/2
76/1
792/1
792/2
42 00
03
29 00
13
36
39
00
State: Tamil Nadu
69
04
00
49
00
00
25
14 00
57
17
00
28 00
29
33
16
00
47
24
00
87 00
15
77
16
00
05
94 00
66
69
00
71 00
31
24
53
00
66
05
00
88 00
22
84
23
00
774/ 1B2
774/ 1A
773/5
10
00
00
64
06
00
09
18 00
773/ 1B2
773 / 1A
47
04
00
54
30
00
773/ 1B1
Road in Survey No. 769
753/1
753/2
Road in Survey No. 754
755
756
744
739
738
725
69
03
00
72
17
00
20
04 00
56
07
00
14
68 00
65
23
00
63
51
00
40 00
20
27
37
00
87 00
50 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 /अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 1) Alambadi ( Contd)
8651
4
3
5
02
00
66
Road in Survey No. 726
728
727
714/4A
714/4B
715
716/1
706
704/4
704/3
704/2
704/5
704/6
704/7
704/8
704/9
704/10
704/11
704/13
704/12
703 /2E 00
15
83 00
13
50 00
45
78 00
16
94 00
29
99 00
01
13 00
00
10 00
05
68 00
04
15 00
02
63
00
00
87
00
01
55 00
02
81
00
00
10
00
03
90
00
00
61
00
04
96
00
01
92
00
06
87
00
00
10
Road in Survey No. 1205
1201/1
1200/ 1D
1200/ 1C
1200/ 1B
1200/2C
1200/2D
1199/3
1199/2C
1197/1
1197/3
1197/4
1197/5
1198/1
1198/2
1198/3
1176
1172
1175
1174
00
03
27
00
00
41
00
00
48
00
00
93
00
15
52
00
00
31
00
04
18
00
01
93
00
14
73
00
09
78
00
00
91
00
02
17
00
01
64
00
03
03
00
05
88
00
19
64
00
77
57
00
32
94
00
13
40
00
00
96
00
Road in Survey No. 1170
05
17 8652
[ Part II--Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20, 1932
2 1
1169 1) Alambadi ( Contd)
1347
1346
1345
1362
1353
1354
1355
1356
1363
5
4
3
55
47
00
29
26
00
80
18
00
14
08
00
35
98
00
62
47
00
02
88 00
64
23
00
80
60
00
66
08
00
63
03
00
Road in Survey No. 1373
1375
1376
1374
1377
1378
1379
1382
1384
1386
32
11
00
19
08
00
03
01
00
25
30
00
57
25
00
13
01
00
39
41
00
47
21
00
49
53 00
66
03
00
Nala in Survey No. 1385
Road in Survey No. 1428
1427
745
77
21
24
00
35
83
00
92
00
00
39
01
00
36
05
00
Road in Survey No. 628
2) Sriramapuram
629/3D
38
16
00
92 00
00
629/ 3E1
629/ 3F
629/3G
630/1
630/2
637/1B
637/ 1C
637/1D
637 / 1E
637/ 2A
637 /2B
637/2C
633/1
636/ 1A
636/ 1B
28
01
00
70
00
00
81
17
100
56
00
00
19
06
00
75
11
00
35
05
00
56
05
00
09
87 00
14
05
00
89
16
00
19
00
00
32
04
00
08 00
10 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
2 1
636/12 2) Sriramapuram ( Contd)
636/ 1C
636/ 1D
662/1
8653 3
4
5
01
00
41
08
00
23 00
09
02
04
00
23
21
00
83
Road in Survey No. 661
655
660
659
679
680
677
667/1
668/1
850
669
848/2M
848/2C
848/2D
848 / 2E
848/ 1B2
848/ 1B1
848/ 1C
848/2F
848/2G
848/3
848/4
848/ 2H
848/2B
877 / 1A8
877 /2A
877 / 1D1
877/ 1A7
879/ 1E
879 / 1F
879/ 2A
879/2B
880/22
880/18
879/2D
879 / 2E
879 / 2F
879/ 3A
02
00
63 00
45
15 00
19
16
00
09
58 00
21
60 00
24
81
36
00
34 26
00
12
00
00
86 00
34
22 00
00
62 00
01
33 06
00
48 00
03
45 00
03
35
70 00
09
00
04
70 00
00
22 00
01
11
00
12
93
00
00
67
00
09
07
00
00
10
00
01
96
00
01
45
00
01
88
00
73
13
01
00
40 00
00
76
00
10
48
00
17
03
00
00
43
00
14
01
04
87
00
00
01
63
00
67
02
00
12
81 8654
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
2) Sriramapuram ( Contd )...
3
4
5 00
03
74
Road in Survey No. 881
882/ 1A
882/ 1C
882/ 2A
882/2B
895
07
62 00
12
56 00
00
09
75
34 00
09
00
22
00
00
09
84
Road in Survey No. 901
906
908/1
908/3A
916
917/3
915/1
915/2
914/1
914/2A
934
764
3) Marambadi
42
16 00
99
24
00
00
16
04 00
03
82
00 00
12
00
29
58
00
00
13 00
29
05 00
00
10
06 00
23
00
19
87 00
27
26
Nala in Survey No. 765
00
96
05
Road in Survey No. 756
767
766
769
784
783
781
780
786
796
1060
1061
1062
1063 Taluk : Athoor
District : Dindigul
84/5 1 ) Tamaraikulam
85/1
85/2
86/4
86/3
86/5
87/2
87/3
87/6 00
27
11
00
52
25
00
05
00
00
43
15
00
22
32
23
00
02 00
90
15
00
73
22 00
10
12
00
12
27 00
31
98
10
76 00
27
00
39 State: Tamil Nadu
00
44
13
00
73
18
35
00
12
25 00
14
06 00
01
14
56 00
78 00
13
00
14
25 00
44
15 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 1 ) Tamaraikulam ( Contd)
87/7
96/1A
96/ 1B
96/3
99/1
99/3
99/2
117 / 1A
117/1B
117/ 1C
117/ 1D
117 / 1E
117 / 1F
117/2
115/1
115/2
116/1
116/2
115 /3D
115/ 3E
115/ 3F
115/3G
115/4
115/5
113/1
114/1
114/2
114/3
113/2
113/3
138/1
138/2B
138/2D
139/1
138/3B
139/2
140/ 1A
140/2
140/3
135/1
8655 3
4
5 00
10
52 00
16
31
00
12
66 00
23
19
00
27
39
00
14
97
00
02
18
00
15
42
00
08
02
00
07
42
00
26
05
00
05
76
00
04
81
00
15
30
00
04
25
00
11
78
00
00
10
00
02
76
00
01
43
00
02
43
00
01
97
00
01
68
00
07
01
00
08
38
00
06
27
00
07
50
00
07
20
00
05
61
00
03
14
00
05
71
00
04
78
00
07
33
00
06
61
00
04
09
00
05
66
00
17
13
00
11
76
00
16
41
00
17
91
00
21
93
00
Road in Sruvey No. 135/2
134/5B1 02
37
00
21
12 8656
[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20, 1932
2 1
5
4
3
61
01
00
134/5B2
1) Tamaraikulam ( Contd)
90
12
00
133 /2A1
134/5C
132/1
50
00
00
10
00
00
93
13
00
133 / 2A2
151/1
151/2
151/3
152/1
152/4
152/5
152/6
1/1
2) Pithalaipatti
8 /2A
8/2B
8/3
8/4
8/5
23/5
7/1
23/3
24/2A
30/5
30/4
31/1
31/2
28/1
28/2
28/3
28 /4A
28/4B
28 /5A
28/5B
28/6
27/1
27/2
26/1
26/2A
26/2B
Road in Survey No. 140
147/1
153
21
08
00
06
07
00
00
10
00
25
11 00
51 00
08
04
79 00
76
00
00
03
67
00
00
24
00
01
28
00
29
02
00
21
28
00
81
00
00
55
19
00
97
12
00
54
09
00
08 00
46
25 00
11
15
00
00
80
06
00
07
77 00
61
05
00
08
04
00
00
04
00
02
09 00
15
10
00
00
06
00
00
04
00
02
71 00
58
08
00
03
31 00
04
65 00
02
93 00
02
93 00
05
78 00
82
01
00
04
73 00 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20, 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
2
147/2A 2) Pithalaipatti (Contd)
147/2B
147/20
148/1B
148/ 1A
152/1
152/2
152/3
152/4
154
Nala in Survey No. 151/2
151/1
163/1A
162
15
3) Vakkampatti
14
13
Nala in Survey No. 1
12
11/2
11/3
11/5
11/6
Nala in Survey No. 25
28
Road in Sruvey.29
50
49
48
47/1
47/2A
47/2B
47/4A
47/4B1
47/4B2
47/5B1
47/5B2
47/7B
47/8
47/11B
47/12 4575 Gl /10-16
8657
4
3
5
32 00
09
10
48 00
02 00
10
01
16
00
06
57
00
72 00
03
28 00
16
25
00
09
26
10
00
42
00
01
47
87
00
91
02
00
21
00
05
83
00
34
00
29
00
10
00
45
00
35
17
94
00
03
17
88
00
01
00
11
85
03
00
72
00
04
00
00
94
26
00
00
66
00
15
56
11
00
03
03
00
07
01
00
76
25
00
03
11
00
92
06
00
03
87
00
33
00
03
00
00
04
64
00
00
17
00
03
90
00
03
32
04
00
52
03
00
77
02
00
27
03
00
38
00
03 DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA :
8658
2 1
47/ 14A 3) Vakkampatti (Contd)
47/14B
51/1
52/ 1C
52/2
51/3
51/5
56
58
[ Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
5
4
3
58
05
00
75
06
00
61
02
00
39
02
00
68
01
00
76
01
00
06
02
00
86
50
00
87
13
00
12
45 00
Road in Survey No. 61
80/1
80/2
80/4
30/7A
80/7B
80/7C
80/9
80/12
80/14
80/16
80/ 15F
80/ 15H
80/22
80/23
79
78/2C
78/7
78 /8B
83 /2A
83/2B
83/2C
83/2F
83/2G
83/21
83/ 2L
83/3
83/5
87/4A
87/5A
87/5B
87/5C
87/ 5D
73
03
00
01
01
00
39
00
00
06
89 00
25
08
00
27
06
00
92
04
00
66
04
00
05
02
00
06
02
00
02
16 00
02
22 00
27
01
00
14
09
00
47
11
00
22
00
00
02
09 00
33
04
00
77
11
00
10
00
00
07
05
00
96
00
00
29
02
00
21 00
03
69 00
01
63
11
00
64
03
00
93
03
00
30
05
00
59
05
00
14
01
00
05
05
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
2 1
87 /5F 3) Vakkampatti (Contd)
87/ 5E
87/ 5G
87/6
86
85
97/2
97 /5C
97 /5D
97/9A
97/9B
97/10
97/ 11A
97/5B
97/6B
97 /8D
97/6A
97/8A
98
99/10
99/ 12A
99/12B
108
67/2 4) Munnilakottai
67/3
67/4
-67/5-
123 /2A
123/1
123/2B
123/ 3A1
123/3B
123/3C
123 / 3H
124/1
124/2
125 / 1A
125/ 1B
125/3
125/4
125/2
120/1
8659
5 3
4
86
00
02
01
93
00
00
01
55
00
01
95
00
24
45 00
07
42
00
08
19
00
06
66
00
02
93
01
00
79
00
02
34
00
02
96
00
00
86
00
00
10
76
00
01
00
41
00
04
57
00
10
48
00
00
14
34
00
03
13
00
02
93
00
02
19
00
75
11
51
00
01
02
94
00
00
01
16
00
00
10
00
30
00
00
03
58
02
98
00
00
03
71
00
03
06
87
00
01
01
00
06
00
08
90
00
09
50
00
03
11
00
09
04
16
00
97
00
03
13
00
03
50
00
20
01 THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932 [ Part 11 Sec . 3 ( 11 ) ] 8660
2 1
126
4) Munnilakottai (Contd)
127/2
127/1
127/3
127/5
165/1A
165/1B
165/2
165/4
165/5
165/ 7A
166/7
166/5B
166/5A
166/ 5E
166/5F
166/5G
166/5J
166/4B
166/6A
166/4D
Road in Survey No. 171
188/4
194/2
194/1
194/5
194/4
195
197/1
197/2
197/3
203
198/1
198/2
198/3
184/4B
Nala in Survey No. 199
184/7
184/8B
184/8A
184/3C
184/3B
5
4
3
94
64
00
80
04
00
41
04
00
43
11
00
01 00
08
77
01
00
32
12
00
37
19
00
43
09
00
46
09
00
79
16
00
51
08
00
88
04
00
40 00
03
52
07
00
57
08
00
84
00
00
50
07
0/
10
82
15
BG
10
08
00
32
05
00
66
25
00
94
14
00
83
08
00
21
05
00
31
00
00
94 00
11
78
04
00
25
05
00
35
05
00
86
00
00
07
06
00
88
07
00
62
08
00
44
01
00
77
00
00
34 00
08
32
04
00
13 00
05
56
00
00
06
64 00 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
184/ 3A 4) Munnilakottai ( Contd)
182/ 10D
182/ 10A
182/ 10B
182/ 10C
182/ 14A
182/ 12D
182/ 13C
452
449/4B
449/4C
449/5C
449/5B
450
449/9
449/10
449/11
449/15
448
445/3C
443
414/2A
414/3A
414/4D1
8661
4
3
5
71
00
00
91 00
11
02
35 00
36
04
00
00
06
56
10 00
00
76 00
07
00
89
09
00
00
16
00
28 00
05
12
00
07
58 00
00
01
53
95 00
16
05
77 00
00
06
10 00
05
95 00
11
59 00
25
36
03
14 00
65
00
52 00
68
12
00
13
58 00
03
35 00
11
01
Road in Survey No. 415
417
416
400/ 7B1
400/ 10A
400/ 10B
400/ 10C
400/9B
400/ 9A
400/ 7B2
399/4
398/ 1B
394/1
393/1
395/ 1A
395/3A1
394/2
398 /2C 00
41
60 00
30
90 00
25 07
26 00
02
00
02
01 00
02
46 00
03
40 00
04
67 00
02
30 00
11
90 00
07
01
40 00
25
00
90
01
10
00
14 00
05 20
33 00
06
00
07
31 8662
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932 [ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
4
5
3
2
1
00
98
00
396/1
Munnilakottai ( Contd)
4)
52
00
14
397 / 1A2
41
04
00
397 / 1B
70
09
00
397 / 2C
00
85
08
396/3A
00
50
00
396/3B
[ F. No. L - 14014/94 / 2010 -GP ) SNEH P. MADAN , Under Sect
नई दिल्ली , 3 दिसम्बर , 2010
का. आ . 3008. - 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 बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और, भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में , जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः, अब , भारत सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस . राजामनिक्कम , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, न. 9डी/ 6डी, रामकृष्णपुरम, पील्लैयार कोवील के सामने, करूर - 639001 , तमिलनाडु राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 /अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8663
अनुसूची
जिला:डिन्डिगल
तालुक:आत्तुर
गाँव का नाम
सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं- 1
2
61/1
1 ) अम्बातुराय
61/ 2बी
62/ 2 ए
62/ 2बी
62/ 2सी
63
70/1
70/2
69/ 2ए
69/ 2बी
69/ 2सी
68
78/ 1 ए1
78/ 2ए
79
81/ 6ए1
80
81/8
81/9
81/10बी
81/11 ए
81/11बी
83/ 1 ए 2 राज्य: तमिलनाडु
आर -ओ - यू- अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेतफल
हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर
4
3
5 00
18
11 00 07
51 00 08
37 00
07
91 00
07
74 00
01
43
12
63 00
00
03
84 00
03
30
13
00
37
01
46 00
00
22
72
02
36 00
00
26
15
00
01
57 00 23
48
01 00
12
31
00
78
26
00
15 00
00
38 00
01
03
00
03
12 00 05
16 00
04
15
सर्वे न . 152 में रास्ता
151
150/1
150/2
145
146
134/2
134/1
135/1
135/2
136
42 00
07
00
58
88 00
00
13 00 36
42 00 20
45
37 00 08
00
15
64
28
24 00
00
54
15
70
00
16 00
32
05
सर्वे न . 374 में रास्ता
363/ 1 बी 1 बी
363/ 1 बी 1 ए
00
00
86
61 00 04 8664
[ Part II Sec . 3 (ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
4
5 3
84 00
03
363/ 2ए
1) अम्बातुराय (निरंतर)
52
00
00
363/ 2वी
41
09
00
363/ 3 ए
364
366
10
21
00
34 00 54
57
05
00
361/1
21
06
00
361/ 6ए
51
23
00
361/5
00
86 00
360/3ए
06
04 00
355/1ए
63 00
10
355/1बी
85
02
00
360/4
00 06
15
355/3
00
00
94
355/2
23
77 00
354/3
07
09
00
354/7
05 00 08
354/8
05 00 09
354/9
10
13
00
345/1
00 03
88
345/ 2बी
00 08
98
345/ 2ए
24
00
52
345/6
344
00
97 00
02 00 06
345/8
79 00
16
345/9ए
38
12
00
345/10ए
346
22
23 00
00
03
73
343/11
13 00 06
343/10
70 00
10
341/1
66 00
07
343/9
87 00 05
342/1
62 00
03
342/2
69 00 04
342/3
00
22 00
341/2
17
30 00
342/4
43 00
17
340/1
00
12
96
340/ 2वी
66
08
00
340/ 2डी
80
01
00
340/25
00 03
98
340/ 2सी
00
51
09
340/3
[भाग- खण्ड 3( ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
339 1) अम्बातुख्य (निरंतर)
338/1
338/3
335/ 1 ए1
सर्वे न . 336 में रेल्वे
332
336
331
330/1बी
329
330/2
330/1सी
330/4
330/5
298
297/ 2बी
297/ 2सी
297/ 2ए
297/ 2डी
297/3ए
सर्वे न . 296 में नाला
295/1सी
300
295/1 डी
295/15
295/1 एफ
295/ 2एफ
295/ 2जी
295/2आड
295/ 2 एच
295/3बी
295/4ए
295/4बी
सर्वे न . 294 में रास्ता
270/1
270/3
270/ 5ए 1
270/ 5ए 2
271/3
271/4
जिला:डिन्डिगल तालुक:निलकोट्टय
119/1सी 1 ) जम्बुतरिकोट्टय
119/1 बी 4575 Gl/10-17
8665 3
4
5 00
10
76 00
23
75 00
03
22 00
64
04
00
25
20 00
26
54 00
15
37 00
24
30 00 00
15 00
02
31 00 04
31 00
01
59 00
27
26 00 08
72 00
07
71 00
16
89 00
0.0
29 00 02 29 00
10
09 00
07
03 00 04
25 00
07
58 00
34
06 00
00
34 00 00
10 00
00
33 00
05
76 00
04
80 00
01
91 00 02
93 00 09
99 00 06
36 00
05
74 00 06
71 00
15
01 00
17
83 00 09
91 00 08
41 00
03
45 00
13
83 राज्य: तमिलनाडु
00
05
08 00
03
57 8666
[ Part 11 - Sec. 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
5
4
3
10 00
00
119/15
1 ) जम्बुतरिकोट्टय (निरंतर )
74 00
05
119/1डी
17 00
03
119/25
00
04
00
119/ 2वी
67
02
00
119/ 2सी
12 00 06
119/ 2.डी
04
86 00
120 / 6ए
78 00 02
सर्वे न . 120/7 में रास्ता
50
21
00
177/ 5बी
00
31 00
177/ 5ए
05
04 00
177/ 8 ए
50 00
01
177/7बी
89 00 08
177/7ए
02
22 00
177/ 8 वी
00
08
84
177/ 10 ए
71 00
04
177 /10सी
15 00
01
177/10 बी
02
03 00
177/11
118
59
34 00
32
14
00
125/1
02
84 00
125/5
85 00
01
125/6
32
01
00
12.5/ 9 ए
10
00
00
125/7
125/8
23
03 00
18 00
07
125/10
21
13
00
125/11
10
00
00
125/12
105/1
55 00
02
86
00
00
105/7बी
77
10
00
105/ 7ए
63
12
00
105/ 6ए
56
10
00
105/ 6वी
00
10 00
105/4ए
09 00 19
105/5
39
00
00
105/9
78
07
00
102/8
24
00
00
102/ 7ए
12 00
04
102/7बी
73 00
03
102/7सी
10 00
00
102/9
00
01
00
102/11 ए
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
2 1
102/6 1 ) जम्बुतरिकोट्टय (निरंतर )
101/3
101/4
101/5
89
81/1
81/2
81/7
81/9
84/3
84/4
84/6
84/15बी 1
84/15बी 2
84/15 बी3
83/1
83/15
84/16
83/12
83/13ए
85/7
85/4
85/5
85/6
85/9ए
85/9
सर्वे न . 282 में रास्ता
85/13ए
85/13बी
85/12
85/13सी
85/14ए 2
85/14ए3
85/14सी
283
284/ 1 ए 1
284/ 1 ए5
284/104
284/ 1बी5
284/ 1 बी6
284/1 बी 6
284/1 बी4
8667
4
5 3
16
11 00
10
87 00
05
95 00
00
01
09
77
00
51 00
23
89 00
18
18
12
46 00
06
33 00
27
04
00
00
04
99 00
05
26 00 12
96 00 02
32
12 00
14
00
65 00
00
00
64
05
00
91
00
10 00
00
07
81 00
06
18 00
00
87
08
00
40 00
12
43
72 00
01
00
03
54
33
06
00
00
00
28 00
81
04
00
00
10 00
10
46 00
62
09
00
07
39 00 00
31
21
00
95 00
14
64 00
42
00
04
48 00
00
01
84
00
71 00
60 00
00
00
23
21 8668
Sec . 3 ( ii ) | [Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
5
4
3
81
01
00
284/1 बी3
1 ) जम्बुतरिकोट्टय (निरंतर)
84 00 18
284/1 बी 8
05 00 19
292/3सी
32 00
01
292/4
79 00
01
292/5
01
90 00
292/6
01
89 00
292/7
02
99 00
292/9
12
03
00
292/10
02
65 00
292/11
02
00
68
292/12
53
04
00
292/15
10
00
00
292/14
57 00
05
292/16
10
00
00
292/17
22
07
00
292/19
65
0.5
00
292/20
23
88 00
293/1
20
12
00
293/2
85
05
00
293/3जे
75 00
03
293/3के
02
00
33.
293/3 आड
15 00
07
293/ 3एल
22 00
00
293/3
18
13
00
293/3एन
05 00
06
293/ 3आ
74
00
00
293/3पी
71 00
00
सर्वे न . 262 में नाला
86 00
13
सर्वे न . 261 में रास्ता
71 00
11
263/ 2बी
93
11
00
263/3 ए
10
00
00
263/35
41 00
04
263/3बी
02
79 00
263/ 3सी
78
07
00
263/ 3डी
22 00 01
259/ 1 ए
15
09 00
259/4ए
60 00
01
259/4बी
04 00 06
259/ 3ए
05 00
05
259/3बी
54 00
03
259/3सी
04
77 00
259/6
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 / अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
306/1 1 ) जम्बुतरिकोट्य (निरंतर )
306/2
306/3
306/4
307/7
307/8
सर्वे न . 311 में नाला
312/3
320/2
320/ 3ए
312/4
320/3बी 1
320/4
320/1बी
320/5ए
320/8
319/2
319/3
319/4
319/6
575
576/6
576/7ए
577/1 ए
577/13
577/ 7ए
577/ 6ए
577/ 6बी
577/5
577/9
577/8
577/10
577/11
578/1
578/8
41/3
2) ओरूतदु
41/4
41/11
42/1
43/1 ए
43/2
43/1बी
8669
4
3
5 00
16
17 00
24
72 0.0 15
59 00 16
68 00
15
37 00
16
94 00
07
68 00 30
50 00
15
08 00
14
24
01
00
17 00
10
96 00 05
19 00
07
53 00
08
24 00
14
69 00
20
44 00
00
37 00
15
32 00
13
26 00
53
36 00
04
28 00
10
29 00 08
73 00
02
46 00
07
71 00
05
96 00
10
11 00
00
45 00
01
86 00
09
51 00 06
40 00
11
79 00 43
42 00
20
62 00
00
10 00
01
14 02
00
13 00 14
51 00 32
17 00 00
41 00 03
69 8670
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
::
2 1
5
4
3
34
00
00
43/3ए
2) ओरूतटु (निरंतर)
93
03
00
43/3बी
43/4
23
85 00
73
03
00
43/7 बी3
43
08
00
सर्वे न . 43/8 में नाला
44/6
44/8
44/9
53
00
00
02
89 00
13
19 00
74
06
00
44/10
60/8
60
00
00
13
01
00
सर्वे न . 44/11 में रास्ता
57
00
00
59/12
01
47 00
सर्वे न . 60/10 में रास्ता
62
20
00
60/12
59/1
60/9
57/4
57/5
57/6
57/8
09
92 00
53
79 00
74 00 04
40 00
17
05
04 00
63 00
12
24
03
00
सर्वे न . 55/1 में रास्ता
10
00
00
सर्वे न . 56 में रास्ता
64/6
64/7
65/1
82
05
00
23
27
00
32
00
00
69 00 19
66/12
53 00
08
66/13ए
28
07
00
66/13बी
36
08
00
66/13सी
66/3
68/4
68/3
74
35
00
50
16
00
63
00
00
09
07
00
68/ 2सी
56
07
00
68/ 2वी
68/1
11 00 10
98
08
00
सर्वे न . 67 में नाला
57
01
00
सर्वे न . 93 में नाला
00
79 00
121/6
10
18
00
118/4
50
44
00
117/6
115/1
42
26
00
19 00
05
115/45
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भ का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2 2) ओरूतदु (निरंतर)
115/4सी
115/4बी
114/1
114/2
112/ 5ए
112/9
112/10
111 / 2 ए
111/ 2सी 1
112/11
सर्वे न . 111/3 में रास्ता
110/1
110/18
110/ 8 ए
110/11सी
110/ 8बी
110/11 बी
110/17बी
110/17सी
110/17 डी 1
110/ 17 डी 2
109/3बी
109/4
109/5बी
109/5ए
109/8
109/9
109/10
109/12 ए
109/11
134/1 बी
134/4बी
134/7ए
134/8
134/7बी
134/ 13ए 1
134/13 बी1
134/13 बी 2
134/ 13 ए 2
135/3
135/4ए
8671 3
4
5 00
16
21 00
15
57 00
15
42 00
17
86 00
00
16 00
02
73 00
02
00 00
22
43 00
13
42 00
16
46
00
00
66 00
01
71 00
02
09 00 03
08 00
04
96 00
06
63 00 00
63 00
01
27 00
04
18 00
01
25 00 08
61 00
18
93 00
08
42 00 05
98 00
02
67 00
06
88 00
05
27 00
04
57 00 04
73 00
16
56 00 02
72 00
02
04 00
12
33 00
03
75 00 08
57 00
03
75 00
09
75 00
00
43 00
60 00
00
02
33 00
10
34 00
05
34 | Pan II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHA YANA 20, 1932
8672
2 1
5 4
3
90 00
00
135/4बी
2) ओरूतटु (निरंतर)
49 17
00
सर्वे न . 137 में नाला
63 07
00
138/1
97
10
00
138/2
26
11
00
138/4ए
89 02
00
138/5
63
07
00
138/6
35
08
00
138/7
51
07
00
138/8
61
08
00
138/9
28
01
00
138/10
01
01
00
138/11
09
01
00
162/1
41
10
00
सर्वे न . 165 में नाला
64
17
00
सर्वे न . 136 में नाला
49
06
00
166/2
89
05
00
166/4
64
08
00
166/6
60 00 07
166/12
53
03
00
166/11
70
01
00
166/10
06
04
00
166/9सी
02
58 00
166/9बी
93
06
00
166/15
26
12
00
168/15
24
05
00
168/ 1 एफ
90
05
00
168/1 डी
19
00
00
168/7
38
26
00
168/ 6ए 1
80
03
00
168/ 6ए 2
20
05
00
168/ 6सी
94 00 07
168/ 6बी
28
03
00
168/2
59
05
00
169/11
03
64 00
169/14
19
12
00
169/9 ए
68
08
00
169/12
40
04
00
169/15
77
04
00
170/9
41 00 08
170/8
59 00
01
170/10
05
02
00
170/5जी
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
170/ 5एच 2) ओरूतदु (निरंतर)
170/5आड
170/5जे
170/45
171/3बी
171/4डी
171/4सी
171/4बी
171/8ए
171/5
171/7
7
3 ) मलयागौन्डनपट्टी
6
8
सर्वे न . 10 में रास्ता
12
13
14
15
18
17
58
45
46
49
48
51
83
82
81
78
102
100
109/1
109/2
109/3
109/ 6ए
109/6बी
108/2
109/8
108/13ए
108/13बी 4575GI /10-18
8673
4
5 3
33 00 03
05
21 00
00 02
67 00 02
79 00
08
25 00
05
44
20
00
06
00
87 00
00
13
05
00 26
77
32
00
00
00
01
30 00
74
70
00 29
25 00
06
41
00 00 36
00
35
04 00 27
98
27 00
37
02
00
53 00 38
25 00
03
70
28
44 00
48
07 00
05
47 00
51 00 09
00
51
69
29
01 00
26 00 19
00 46
98
37 00
31
00 08
04 00
47 00
00 00
31
84 00 02
00
00
44 02
06 00
07
41 00
00
28 03
00 06
10 03
90 00
59 03
00 8674
Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] [Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
5
4
3
10
00
00
108/3
3 ) मलयागौन्डनपट्टी (निरंतर )
27
05
00
108/12
60
19
00
108/14
12
00
00
109/9सी
18
02
00
सर्वे न . 106 में रास्ता
80
05
00
सर्वे न . 110 में रास्ता
10
01
00
120/5ए
23
04
00
120/ 5बी
27
06
00
120/5सी
00
10 00
120/10
58
11
00
120/9
06
39 00
120/12
93
02
00
120/13
10
00
00
120/14
03
03
00
120/15
84
00
00
120/16
121
60
00
00
22 00 08
140/3
10 00 05
140/4ए
26
03
00
140/4बी
12
91 00
140/6
52
13
00
140/8
50
11
00
140/11
139
35
17
00
64
22
00
146/1
36 00 02
137/7
84
16
00
146/4
01 00
18
146/5
145/1
86 00 05
84 00 02
145/2
10
00
00
147 / 1 सी
08
50 00
147/5
59
06
00
147/7
40
11
00
147/6
18
00
00
147/8
33
05
00
147/17
21
98 00
147/18
148/1
83
03
00
76 00 00
सर्वे न . 150/8 में नाला
50
01
00
150/7
74
02
00
150/9
07
04
00
150/10
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
150/11 3 ) मलयागौन्डनपट्टी (निरंतर)
150/12
149/1 ए
149/12
149/11
149/13
149/10
149/8
149/6
149/15
149/16
149/17
149/18
161/6
161/7 बी
161/7सी
161/7डी
161/8 號
161/ 8 एफ
161/9
162/5
162/ 6ए
162/ 6बी
163/12
163/13
164/11
164/12
164/13
164/14
सर्वे न . 197 में नाला
सर्वे न . 196 में नाला
195/1
195/2
195/3
195/4ए
195/4बी1
195/4बी 2
194/11 ए
194/13ए
194/11बी
194/13बी
194/13सी
8675 3
4
5 00 08
63
09
00
46 00
00
49 00
02
15 00
00
56 00
06
78 00
10
10 00
03
79 00 00
32 00
02
38 00
04
83 00
02
83 00
00
10 00 02
11 00
07
68 00
07
55 00
07
09
00
06
88 00
04
06 00 02
39 00
08
79 00
12
89 00
12
55 00
22
29
00 04
18 00
00
98 00
05
04 00
03
90 00
05
69 00
09
74 00 02
90 00 24
41 00
17
51 00 06
72 00 04
22 00
31
19
00 09
60 00 02
19 00 05
62 00 00
18 00 06
62 00 04
21 8676
Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] [Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
5
4
3
51
01
00
194/13डी
3) मलयागौन्डनपट्टी (निरंतर )
10
00
00
194/14आड
157
4) कुत्तलकुन्डु
146
145
43
38
00
81
77
00
74
07
00
28
03
00
144/4ए
73
43
00
144/4बी
89
02
00
144/4सी
20
01
00
134/4
39
22
00
134/5ए
28
00
00
134/6
67
22
00
134/ 5बी
49
06
00
134/9
34 00
134/8
138
53
03
00
02 00
07
133/4
17
12
133/6
95
01
133/3
97
03
00
133/2
11
11
00
131/1
71 00 09
131/2
98
06
00
131/3
29
24
00
131/8
84
11
00
131/9
91
08
00
131/10
26
01
00
130/5
10
00
00
123/ 2 ए
87
27
00
124/1
21
00
00
124/2
95
12
00
123/5
10
05
00
123/6
32
02
00
123/7
51
16
00
123/8
32
29
00
121/6
28
27
00
121/7
15
05
00
117/5
77
12
00
117/ 6ए
64
02
00
117/7
91
01
00
117/8
114
90
15
00
00
06
00
116/6
38
00
00
116/7
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
1
2
115
4) कुत्तलकुन्डु (निरंतर)
107
98
96
76
सर्वे न . 86 में नाला
88
84
82
80
81
31/1सी 5 ) पल्लापट्टी
31/ 1 डी
31/1 ई
31/ 1 एफ
85
6) मट्टाप्पाराय
71
59
58
60
6
7
5
4
1
183ए/3 7 ) रामराजपुरम
183/1
183ए/ 2
सर्वे न . 236 में रास्ता
183बी/ 2
183बी/ 3ए
183बी/3बी
183बी/ 3सी
185/ 3ए
185/3बी
185/3डी
185/3डी
185/4ए
185/4 बी
185/8
185/ 5ए
185/5बी
8677 3
4
5
28
21 00
00
55
08 00 86
99 00 02
71 00
32
80 00
12
05
00
89
30
67 00 29
00 56
02
12
00
05 00
53
08 00
01
42
54 00 03
61 00
03
32
01
00
00 29
73 00
67
15
10 00
19
00
29
32 00
15
98 00
83
44 00
01
91
21
93 00
00 08
84 00
11
71
00
10 00
82
15
00
04
00
74 00 04
05 00
54
16
13
00
58
09
00
49
03
00
56
10 00 00
00
11
03
00
15
49 00
02
11
53 00 14
00 17
69 00
10
77 00 05
08 00 00
50 8678
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHΛΥΑΝΑ 20 , 1932
2 1
4
5 3
34
06
00
191/2
7) रामराजपुरम (निरंतर)
43
13
00
191/3
12
59 00
192/1
22
14
00
192/2
26
14
00
192/5
11 00
00
192/4
180
68 00
42
10
40 00
177/2
28 00 15
177/3
71
13
00
177/6
69 00
04
195/3
60
04
00
195/1 ए
25
06
00
195/5
57
10
00
215/1
04
51 00
215/ 2 ए
07
52 00
220/1
10 00 00
215/ 2बी
67 00 15
218/ 1 ए1
08
00
49
218/ 1 ए 2
36 00 00
218/3
85
09
00
216/ 1 ए
54
11
00
216/1बी
11
69 00
216/3
00
10 00
217/2
67
07
00
216/2
00
04
59
217/3
32
06
00
214/3ए
72
11
00
214/3बी
74 00 07
213/1
67 00 05
212/1
05
00
01
212/2
07
96 00
212/10 ए
35
04
00
212/3
22
07
00
212/13
47 00 04
212/14
28 00 01
212/ 15ए
03
58 00
212/15 बी 1
87 00 00
212/ 15 बी 2
10
00
00
212/16 बी 1
46 00
13
212/ 16 बी 2
10
00
00
212/ 6 बी1
73
04
00
212/ 6 बी 2
8679 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
5
4
3
2
1
10
00
00
212/7 बी
7) रामराजपुरम (निरंतर)
26
03
00
212/5
49
43
00
205
21
03
00
210/1
49
01
00
210/2
41
05
00
206
63
06
00
207/2
94
03
00
209/1
48
01
00
209/2
10
00
00
208/1
59
00
00
208/2
[फा सं. एल.- 14014/94/2010 जी.पी. ]
स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 3rd December , 2010
Government of India that it is necessary S. O. 3008.- Whereas it appears to public interest that for transportation of tatu 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 S.Rajamanickam , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , No. 9D/6D Ramakrishnapuram , Opp . Pillayar Kovil , Karur – 639 001 , Tamil Nadu State .
8680
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
Schedule Taluk : Athoor
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] State : Tamil Nadu
District : Dindigul
Survey No./Sub-Division Village
2 1
61/1
1) Ambathurai
61/2B
62/ 2A
62/2B
62/2C
63
70/1
70/2
69/ 2A
69/2B
69/2C
68
78 / 1A1
78/ 2A
79
81/ 6A1
80
81/8
81/9
81/ 10B
81 / 11A
81/ 11B
83/ 1A2 Area to be acquired for RoU Hec
C-Are
Are
3
4
5 00
18
11
07
51
00
00
37
08
00
07
91
00
07
74 00
01
43 00
12
63
03
00
84 00
30
03
00
13
37
46 00
01
00
22
72 00
36
02
00
15
26 00
01
57 00
48
23
00
01
12
00
31
78 00
26
15 00
00
38 00
03
01
00
03
12 00
05
16 00
04
15
Road in Survey No. 152
151
150/1
150/2
145
146
134/2
134/1
135/1
135/2
136
07
00
42 00
58
88 00
00
13
36
42 00
20
45 00
37 00
08
00
15
64 00
24
28
00
54
15
00
70
16 00
05
32
Road in Survey No. 374
363/ IBIB
00
00
86 00
04
363 / IBIA
61 8681
भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11, 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 (8) ]
2 1
363/2A 1 ) Ambathurai ( Contd)
363/2B
363/3A
364
366
361/1
361/6A
361/5
360/3A
355/ 1A
355/1B
360/4
355/3
355/2
354/3
354/7
354/8
354/9
345/1
345/2B
345/2A
345/6
344
345/8
345/9A
345/ 10A
346
343/11
343/10
341/1
343/9
342/1
342/2
342/3
341/2
342/4
340/1
340/2B
340/2D
340/2F
340/2C
340/3 4575 GI /10-19
5 4
3
84
03
00
52
00
00
41
09
00
10
21
00
34
54
00
57
05
00
21
06
00
51
23
00
86
00
00
04
06
00
63
10
00
85
02
00
15
06
00
94
00
00
77
23
00
07
09
00
05
08
00
05
09
00
10
13
00
88
03
00
98
08
00
52
24
00
97
00
00
02
06
00
79
16
00
38
12
00
23
22
00
73
03
00
13
06
00
70
10
00
66
07
00
87
05
00
62
03
00
69
04
00
22
00
00
30
17
00
43
17
00
96
12
00
66
08
00
80
01
00
98
03
00
51
09
00 8682
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20, 1932
1
2 1) Ambathurai (Contd)
339
338/1
338/3
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( in) | 3
4
5 00
10
76 00
23
75 00
03
22
335 / 1A1
00
04
64
Railway In Survey No. 336
332
336
331
330/ B
329
330/2
330/ IC
330/4
330/5
298
297/2B
297/2C
297 /2A
297/2D
297/3A 00
25
20 00
26
54 00
15
37 00
24
30 00
00
15 00
02
31
00
04
31
00
01
59
00
27
26
00
08
72
00
07
71
00
16
89
00
00
29
00
02
29
00
10
09
00
07
03
Nala in Survey No. 296
295 / 1C
300
295 / 1D
295 / 1E
295/ 1F
295 /2F
295 /2G
295/21
295 / 2H
295/3B
295 /4A
295/4B 00
04
25
90
07
58
00
34
06
00
00
34
00
00
10
00
00
33
00
05
76
00
04
80
00
01
91
00
02
93
00
09
99
00
06
36
00
05
74
Road in Survey No. 294
270/1
270/3
270/ 5A1
270/5A2
271/3
271/4
Taluk: Nilakottai
00
06
71
00
15
01
00
17
83
00
09
91
00
08
41
00
03
45
00
13
83
District : Dindigul
1) Jambutharikottai
119/1C
119/1B
State: Tamil Nadu
00
05
08
00
03
57 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
=== [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
2 1
119 / 1E
1 ) Jambutharikottai (Contd)
119/1D
119 /2E
119/2B
119 /2C
119/2D
120/6A
8683
5 4
3
10
00
00
74
05
00
17
03
00
00
04
00
67
02
00
12
06
00
86
04
00
78
02
00
Road in Survey No. 120/7
177/5B
177 / 5A
177/ 8A
177/ 7B
177 / 7A
177/8B
177/ 10A
177 / 10C
177/10B
177/11
118
125/1
125/5
125/6
125 / 9A
125/7
125/8
125/10
125/11
125/12
105/1
105 /7B
105/ 7A
105/6A
105/6B
105/4A
105/5
105/9
102/8
102 / 7A
102/7B
102/7C
102/9
102/ 11A
50
21
00
31
00
00
04
05
00
50
01
00
89
08
00
22
02
00
84
08
00
71
04
00
15
01
00
03
02
00
34
59
00
32
14
00
84
02
00
85
01
00
32
01
00
10
00
00
03
23
00
18
07
00
21
13
00
10
00
00
55
02
00
86
00
00
77
10
00
63
12
00
56
10
00
10
00
00
09
19
00
39
00
00
78
07
00
24
00
00
12
04
00
73
03
00
10
00
00
00
01
00 8684
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
1
2 1) Jambutharikottai (Contd)
102/6
101/3
101/4
101/5
89
81/1
81/2
81/7
81/9
84/3
84/4
84/6
Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5 00
16
00
10
87 00
05
95 00
01
09 00
77
1 00
23
89 00
18
13 00
12
46 00
06
33
04
27
00
00
04
00
05
26
84/1581
00
12
96
84/ 15B2
00
02
32
84/1583
83/1
83/15
84/16
83/12
83 / 13A
85/7
85/4
85/5
85/6
85/9A
85/9B
00
14
12
00
00
65
00
00
64
00
05
91
00
00
10
07
81
00
06
18
00
00
87
00
08
40
00
12
43
00
01
72
00
03
54
Road in Survey No. 282
85 / 13A
85/ 13B
85/12
85/13C
85/ 14A2
85 / 14A3
85/ 14C
283
284/ 1A1
284/ 1A5
284/ 1A4
284/ 1B5
284/ 1A6
284/1B6
284/1B4
00
06
33
00
00
28
00
04
81
00
00
10
00
10
46
00
09
62
00
07
39
00
00
31
00
21
95
00
14
64
00
00
42
00
04
48
00
01
84
00
00
71
00
00
60
00
21
23 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
2 1
284/ 1B3 1 ) Jambutharikottai (Contd)
284/ 1B8
292/3C
292/4
292/5
292/6
292/7
292/9
292/10
292/11
292/12
292/15
292/14
292/16
292/17
292/19
292/20
293/1
293/2
293/3J
293/3K
293/31
293/3L
293/3M
293 / 3N
293/30
293 /3P
8685 3
4
5
00
81
01
00
84
18
00
05
19
32
00
01
00
01
79
00
01
90
01
00
89
02
00
99
00
03
12
00
02
65
00
02
68
00
04
53
00
00
10
00
05
57
00
00
10
07
22
00
00
05
65
88
00
23
00
12
20
05
00
85
00
03
75
02
33
00
00
07
15
00
22
00
00
13
18
00
06
05
00
00
74
00
00
71
Nala in Survey No. 262
86
00
13
Road in Survey No. 261
263/2B
263/3A
263 / 3E
263/3B
263/3C
263 /3D
259/14
259 /4A
259/4B
259/ 3A
259/3B
259/3C
259/6
71
00
11
93
00
11
00
10
00
00
04
41
02
00
79
00
07
78
22
00
01
00
15
09
01
00
60
06
00
04
00
05
05
54
00
03
77
00
04 8686
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
1
2 1) Jambutharikottai ( Contd)
306/1
306/2
306/3
306/4
307/7
307/8
Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
[ Part II
4
3
5 00
16
17 00
24
72 00
15
59 00
68
16
00
15
37 00
16
94 00
07
68
Nala in Survey No. 311
312/3
320/2
320/ 3A
312/4 00
30
50
00
15
08 00
14
24
00
01
17
320/3B1
320/4
320/ 1B
320 / 5A
320/8
319/2
319/3
319/4
319/6
575
576/6
576/ 7A
577/ 1A
577/13
577/ 7A
577/ 6A
577/ 6B
577/5
577/9
577/8
577/10
577/11
578/1
578/8
41/3
2) Oruthattu
41/4
41/11
42/1
43 /1A
43/2
43/ 1B 00
10
96
00
05
19
00
07
53
00
08
24
00
14
69
00
20
44
00
00
37
00
15
32
00
13
26
00
53
36
00
04
28
00
10
29
00
08
73
00
02
46
00
07
71
00
05
96
00
11
10
00
00
45
00
01
86
00
09
51
00
06
40
00
79
11
00
43
42
00
20
62
00
00
10
00
01
14
00
02
13
00
14
51
00
32
17
00
00
41
00
03
69 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2 1
43/ 3A 2) Oruthattu ( Contd )
43/3B
43/4
43/ 7B3
8687
5
4
3
34
00
00
03
93
00
85
23
00
73
03
00
43
08
00
Nala in Survey No. 43/8
44/6
44/8
44/9
44/10
60/8
53
00
00
89
02
00
19
13
00
06
74
00
60
00
00
13
00
01
Road in Survey No. 44/11
59/12
00
57
00
47
01
00
Road in Survey No. 60/10
60/12
59/1
60/9
57/4
57/5
57/6
57/8
62
20
00
92
09
00
79
53
00
74
04
00
40
17
00
04
05
00
63
12
00
24
03
00
Road in Survey No. 55/1
10
00
00
Road in Survey No. 56
64/6
64/7
65/1
66/12
66/ 13A
66/13B
66/ 13C
66/3
68/4
68/3
68/2C
68/2B
68/1
82
05
00
23
27
00
32
00
00
69
19
00
53 00
08
28
07
00
36
08
00
74
35
00
50
16
00
63
00
00
09
07
00
56
07
00
11
10
00
98
08
00
Nala in Survey No. 67
57 00
01
Nala in Survey No. 93
121/6
118/4
117/6
115/1
115 / 4E
79
00
00
10
18
00
50
44
00
42
26
00
19
05
00 8688
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
1
2 2) Oruthattu ( Contd)
115/4C
115/4B
114/1
114/2
112/ 5A
112/9
112/10
111 /2A
111 / 2C1
112/11
[ Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
4
3
5 00
16
21
00
15
57
00
15
42 00
17
86 00
00
16 00
02
73
00
02
00
00
22
43
00
13
42 00
46
16
00
00
66 00
01
71
Road in Survey No. 111/3
110/1
110/18
110/ 8A 00
02
09 00
03
08
00
04
96
110/ 11C
110/8B 00
06
63
00
00
63
110/ 11D
00
01
27
110/17B
00
04
18
110/ 17C
00
01
25
110/ 17D1
00
08
61
110/ 17D2
109/3B
109/4
109/ 5B
109/ 5A
109/8
109/9
109/10 00
18
93
00
08
42
00
05
98
00
02
67
00
06
88
00
05
27
00
04
57
00
04
73
109/ 12A
00
16
56
109/ 11B
134/1A
134/4B
134/7A
134/8
134/ 7B 00
02
72
00
02
04
00
12
33
00
03
75
00
08
57
00
03
75
134/ 13A1
00
09
75
134/ 13B1
00
00
43
134/ 13B2
00
00
60
134/ 13A2
135/3
135/4A 00
02
33
00
10
34
00
05
34 8689
भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ]
2 1
135/4B 2) Oruthattu (Contd)
3
4
5 00
00
90
00
17
49
Nala in Survey No. 137
138/1
138/2
138/ 4A
138/5
138/6
138/7
138/8
138/9
138/10
138/11
162/1 07
63
00
00
10
97 00
26
11
00
89
02
00
07
63
35
00
08
07
00
51
00
08
61
00
01
28
00
01
01
00
09
01
00
10
41
Nala in Survey No. 165
00
17
64
Nala in Survey No. 136
166/2
166/4
166/6
166/12
166/11
166/10
166/9C
166/9B
166/15
168 / 1E
168/ 1F
168/1D
168/7
168/6A1
168/6A2
168/6C
168/6B
168/2
169/11
169/14
169 /9A
169/12
169/15
170/9
170/8
170/10
170/5G 4575 G1 /10-20
00
49
06
00
05
89
00
08
64
00
07
60
00
03
53
70
01
00
00
04
06
02
58
00
00
06
93
26
00
12
00
24
05
05
00
90
00
19
00
00
38
26
03
00
80
20
00
05
07
94
00
00
28
03
59
05
00
64
00
03
19
00
12
00
68
08
00
04
40
00
04
77
00
41
08
00
01
59
00
05
02 8690
Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
[ Part II
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
2 1
170/ 5H 2) Oruthattu ( Contd)
170/51
170/53
170 /4E
171/3B
171 /4D
171/4C
171/4B
171 /8A
171/5
171/7
7
3 ) Malayagoundanpatti
6
8
5 4
3
33
03
00
21
05
00
67
02
00
79 00
02
08
25 00
44
05
00
06
20
00
00
87 00
05
13 00
26
77 00
32 00
00
30 00
01
74 00
70
25
29
00
06
00
41
Road in Survey No. 10
12
13
14
15
18
17
58
45
46
49
48
51
83
82
81
78
102
100
109/1
109/2
109/3
109/ 6A
109/6B
108/2
109/8
00
36
00
04
35
00
98 00
27
37
27 00
02
53 00
25
38
00
03
70 00
44
28
00
07
48
00
47
05
00
09
51 00
51
69
00
29
01 00
26
19
00
98
46
00
37
31
00
04
08
00
47
00
00
00
31 00
02
84 00
00
44 00
06
02
00
41
07
00
28
03
00
10
06
00
90
03
00
108 / 13A
03
59 00
108/ 13B
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
108/3 3) Malayagoundanpatti (Contd)
108/12
108/14
109/9C
8691
5 4
3
10
00
00
27
05
00
60
19
00
12
00
00
18
02
00
Road in Survey No. 106
80
05
00
Road in Survey No. 110
120 /5A
120/5B
120/5C
120/10
120/9
120/12
120/13
120/14
120/15
120/16
121
140/3
140/4A
140/4B
140/6
140/8
140/11
139
146/1
137/7
146/4
146/5
145/1
145/2
147/ 1C
147/5
147/7
147/6
147/8
147/17
147/18
148/1
10
01
00
23
04
00
27
06
00
10
00
00
58
11
00
39
06
00
93
02
00
10
00
00
03.
03
00
84
00
00
60
00
00
22
08
00
10
05
00
26
03
00
91
12
00
52
13
00
50
11
00
35
17
00
64
22
00
36
02
00
84
16
00
01
18
00
86
05
00
84
02
00
10
00
00
50.
08
00
59
06
00
40
11
00
18
00
00
33
05
00
98
21
00
83
03
00
76
00
00
Nala in Survey No. 150/8
150/7
150/9
150/10
50
01
00
74
02
00
07
04
00 8692
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
1
2 3) Malayagoundanpatti ( Contd)
150/11
150/12
149/1A
149/12
149/11
149/13
149/10
149/8
149/6
149/15
149/16
149/17
149/18
161/6
161 / 7B
161 / 7C
161/ 7D
161 /8E
161 / 8F
161/9
162/5
162/6A
162/6B
163/12
163/13
164/11
164/12
164/13
164/14
[Part II--Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5 00
08
63 00
09
46 00
00
49 00
02
15 00
00
56 00
06
78 00
10
10 00
03
79 00
00
32
00
02
38
00
04
83
00
02
83
00
00
10
00
02
11
00
07
68
00
07
55
00
09
07
00
06
88
00
04
06
00
02
39
00
08
79
00
12
89
00
12
55
00
29
22
00
04
18
00
00
98
00
05
04
00
03
90
00
05
69
Nala in Survey No. 197
00
09
74
Nala in Survey No. 196
195/1
195/2
195/3
195/4A
195/4B1
195/4B2
194/ 11A
194/ 13A
194/ 11B
194/13B
194/ 13C
00
02
90
00
24
41
00
17
51
00
06
72
00
04
22
00
19
31
00
09
60
00
02
19
00
05
62
00
00
18
00
06
62
00
04
21 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2 1
194/ 13D 3 ) Malayagoundanpatti ( Contd )
194/141
157
4) Kuttalkundu
146
145
144/ 4A
144/4B
144/4C
134/4
134/ 5A
134/6
134/5B
134/9
134/8
138
133/4
133/6
133/3
133/2
131/1
131/2
131/3
131/8
131/9
131/10
130/5
123 / 2A
124/1
124/2
123/5
123/6
123/7
123/8
121/6
121/7
117/5
117/6A
117/7
117/8
114
116/6
116/7
8693
5
4
3
51
00
01
10
00
00
38
00
43
81
77
00
74
07
00
28
03
00
73
43
00
89
00
02
20
00
01
39
00
22
00
28
00
67
22
00
49
06
00
14
34 00
53
00
03
02 00
07
17
12
00
95 00
01
97
03
00
11
00
11
71
09
00
98
06
00
29
24
00
84 00
11
91
08
00
26 00
01
00
10 00
87
27
00
00
21 00
95
12
00
05
10 00
32
02
00
51
16
00
32
29
00
28
27
00
05
15 00
77
12
00
02
64 00
01
91 00
15
90 00
00 00
06
38
00
00 8694
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
1
2 4) Kuttalkundu (Contd)
115
107
98
96
76
| Part II Sec . 3 ( ii ) | 3
4
5
21
00
28
00
55
08
00
86
99
00
02
71
00
32
80 00
05
12
Nala in Survey No. 86
88
84
82
80
81
31/ 1C 5) Pallapatti
31/ 1D
31 / 1E
31/1F
85
6) Mattapparai
71
59
58
60
6
7
5
4
1
183A/3 7) Par arajpuram
183A/ 1
183A/2 00
30
89
00
29
67
00
56
02
00
12
05
00
53
08
00
01
42
00
03
54
00
03
61
00
01
32
00
29
73
00
67
15
00
19
10
00
29
32
00
98
15
00
83
44
00
01
91
00
21
93
00
08
84
00
11
71
00
00
10
00
82
15
74
00
04
00
04
05
Road in Survey No. 236
183B/2 00
16
54
183B/ 3A
00
58
13
183B/3B
00
09
49
183B/3C
185/3A
185/ 3B
185/ 3C
185/ 3D
185/ 4A
185 /4B
185/8
185 /5A
185 /5B 00
56
03
00
00
10
00
03
11
00
49
15
00
02
11
00
14
53
00
17
69
00
77
10
00
05
08
00
00
50 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2 1
191/2 7) Ramarajpuram ( Contd)
191/3
192/1
192/2
192/5
192/4
180
177/2
177/3
177/6
195/3
195/ 1A
195/5
215/1
215 /2A
220/1
215/2B
218 / 1A1
218 / 1A2
218/3
216/ 1A
216/1B
216/3
217/2
216/2
217/3
214/3A
214/3B
213/1
212/1
212/2
212/ 10A
212/3
212/13
212/14
212/ 15A
212/ 15B1
212/ 15B2
212/ 16B1
212/ 16B2
212/ 6B1
212/ 6B2
8695
5 4
3
34
06
00
43
13
00
59
12
00
22
14
00
26
14
00
11
00
00
68
42
00
40
10
00
28
15
00
71
13
00
69
04
00
60
04
00
25
06
00
57
10
00
51
04
00
52
07
00
10
00
00
67
15
00
49
08
00
36
00
00
85
09
00
54
11
00
69
11
00
10
00
00
67
07
00
59
04
00
32
06
00
72
11
00
74
07
00
67
05
00
01
05
00
96
07
00
35
04
00
22
07
00
47
04
00
28
01
00
58
03
00
87
00
00
10
00
00
46
13
00
10
00
00
73
04
00 8696
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRATIAYANA 20 , 1932 [ Part II Sec. 3 (ii ) | 1
2
3
4
5 7) Ramarajpuram (Contd)
212/ 7B
00
00
10
212/5
00
03
26
205
00
43
49
210/1
00
03
21
210/2
00
01
49
206
00
05
41
207/2
00
06
63
209/1
00
03
94
209/2
00
01
48
208/1
00
00
10
208/2
00
00
59
[ F. No. L - 14014/94/2010-GP ]
SNEH P. MADAN . Under Secy
नई दिल्ली , 9 दिसम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 3009.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मुन्द्रा (गुजराज ) से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्रीमती आशु चौधरी, सक्षम अधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, डी-7 लालबहादुर नगर ( पूर्व ) , क्लार्क्स आमेर होटल के सामने , जवाहरलाल नेहरू मार्ग , मालवीय नगर, जयपुर-302017 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 8697 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20, 1932
[ भाग II - खण्ड ii ) ]
अनुसूची
राज्यः राजस्थान तहसिलः विराटनगर
जिलाः जयपुर
क्षेत्रफल
खसरा नं.
गाँव का नाम
क्र. सं.
वर्गमीटर
हेक्टेअर
एयर
6
5
4
3
2
1
36
06
0
1457
1
जयसिंहपुरा
19
00
0
1455
36
00
0
1447
28
00
0
1434
(-31015/58/2004 ओ.आर. ।।। [फा. सं. आर-31015 / 58 /
ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 9th December , 2010
S. O. 3009. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Mundra ( Gujarat ) to Delhi , a pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in 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) , 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 copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Ms. Ashu Choudhary , Competent Authority , Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline Project , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , D - 7 , Lal Bahadur Nagar ( East) , Opp . Clarks Amer Hotel , Jawaharlal Nehru Marg , Malviya Nagar , Jaipur - 302017 (Rajasthan)
4575 Gl / 10-21 8698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932 [Part 11 Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]
Schedule
Tehsil : VIRATNAG AR
District : JAIPUR
State : RAJASTHAN
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the ' illage
Sr. No.
Hectare
Are
Sq . Mtr.
2
4
3
5
6 JAISINGHPURA .
1
1457
0
06
36
1455
0
00
19
1447
0
00
36
1434
0
00
28
[ F. No. 'R - 31015 / 58 /2004 - O R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI . Under Secy
नई दिल्ली , 9 दिसम्बर , 2010
का. आ. 3010. - केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मुन्द्रा (गुजराज) से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
{ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 (ii ) |
8699
मे जिसको ग्ती हैं, कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी ७ . इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्रीमती आशु चौधरी , सक्षम अधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, डी -7 लालबहादुर नगर ( पूर्व ) , क्लार्क्स आमेर होटल के सामने , जवाहरलाल नेहरू मार्ग , मालवीय नगर, जयपुर-302017 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्यः राजस्थान
जिलाः जयपुर
तहसिलः जयपुर
खसरा नं.
गाँव का नाम
क्र. सं.
3
2
1
33 नारीकाबास
1
क्षेत्रफल
वर्गमीटर हेक्टेअर
एयर
6
5
4
07
01
0
42 0
01
47 (स. चारागाह)
1 2
लालचन्दपुरा
2
76 बावडी
3
64 सिंवार
4
227
382
मांचवा
5
228
225
16
10
0
20
01
0
01
54 0
03
09 0
98 0
01
48
03
0
93 0
03
01
-78 0
[फा. सं. आर-31015/58 /2004 ओ.आर. ।। ।
ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव 8700
THE GAZETTE OF IFNDIA DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932 | Part 11 Sec. Stil
New Delhi , the 9th December , 2010
L S. O. 3010.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum from Mundra ( Gujarat ) to Delhi , a pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in 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) , 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 copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Ms. Ashu Choudhary , Competent Authority , Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline Project , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , D - 7 , Lal Bahadur Nagar ( East ) , Opp . Clarks Amer Hotel , Jawaharlal Nehru Marg , Malviya Nagar , Jaipur - 302017 ( Rajasthan )
Schedule
Tehsil : JAPUR
District : JAIPUR
State : RAJASTHAN
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Sr. No.
Hectare
Are
Sq . Mtr .
1
2
3
4
5
6 1 NARIKAWAS
33
0
01
07
0
01
42
47 ( G / L Pasture )
2 LALCHANDPURA
1
0
10
16
2
0
01
20 3 BAVADI
76
0
01
54 4 SINWAR
64
0
03
09
227
0
01
98 5 MANCHAWA
382
0
03
48
228
0
03
93
225
01
78
0 A
[ F. No. R - 31015 / 58 / 2004 - OR - II
A. GOSWAMI . Under Secv 8701 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
No. L - 20012/42/2000- I.R. ( C - I ) , dated , the 29th June , 2000.
SCHEDULE
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2010
"Whether the action of the management of CCL Bachara Project to dismiss the workman Sri Girdhari Ganjhu w.e.f. 31-3-97 from service is proper and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ?"
का.आ. 3011.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 191 /2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/42/2000- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi , the 10th November, 2010
S.O. 3011. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.191 /2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-11-2010.
2. In this case of the workman as disclosed in his Written Statement is what the concerned workman Girdhari Ganjhu was initially appointed as a permanent workman on 21-4-93 against permanent vacancy and he had been working there since then regularly and continuously to the satisfaction of the management . The concerned workman was forcibly implicated in a criminal case and the local police arrested him during his duty hours and reamanded him in jail custody. He also informed the management from the jail custody through letter which was duly forwarded by the Jail Superintendent to the management stating threin about his arrest and detention injail custody with a prayer to grant him leave . The wife of the concerned workman also personally informed the management about the arrest of her husband and detention in the jail custody. Shri Sarju Thakur also informed the management by a registered letter about the arrest of the concerned workman and detention in jail custody.
[No. L- 20012/42/ 2000- IR (C - I) ]
D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.1 , AT DHANBAD
PRESENT: Shri H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Disputes under section 10 ( 1 ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .
Reference No. 191 of 2000
3. It has been alleged on behalf of the concerned workman that though the management was fully aware of the arrest of the concerned workman till then the management with a malafide intention to remove the concerned workman from service issued him a false and frivolous chargesheet . The concerned workman was honourably acquitted in the said criminal case and after release from the jail he reported for his duty before the management but the management did not allow him to resume duty on the ground that he was dismissed for unauthorised absence from duty.
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of M/s . B.C.C.L and their workman .
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman : Mr. D. Mukherjee , Advocate
On behalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma , Advocate
Industry : Coal
State: Jharkhand
Dated, Dhanbad the 29-10-2010 AWARD
4. It has been further stated by the workman that the concerned workman never received any chargesheet nor any enquiry notice was ever served to the concerned workman . The management after holding an illegal and arbitrary exparte enquiry dismissed the concerned workman from service . It has been alleged that the Enquiry Officer was biased and prejudiced against the concerned workman and the enquiry was also conducted in utter violation ofthe principles of natural justice . The concerned workman was dismissed by an authorised person in violation of the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company . The concerned workman represented before the management against the illegal and arbitrary dismissal order but without any effect .
5. It has been stated that the concerned workman seeing no other alternative moved the Hon'ble High Court , Patna at Ranchi Bench challenging the order ofdismissal The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under section 10 (1) (d) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order 8702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20, 1932 [ PAR D1 Ste ( in) ]
Accordingly management directed to adduce evidence on merit . On merit of the case management has produced one Sri Sarman Ram who has been examined as MW - 2 who has proved document marked as Ext. W- 3 . On behalf of the workman concerned workman has been examined as WW- 1 and one item of document has been marked as Ext .W-3 .
which was registered as CWJC No.111 / 99 ( R) and the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 7-7-99 directed the concerned workman to raise an industrial dispute . In pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the I. D. Act, 1947 and on failure of the conciliation proceeding present refcrence has been made . It has been prayed on behalf of the concerned workman to pass an Award in favour of the concerned workman directing the management to reinstate him in service with full back wages and consequential benefits .
11. Argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that no notice was served to him by the management regarding start of the enquiry because he was in Jail . Neither any publication of the enquiry has been done by the management nor second show cause notice was served to the concerned workman before passing final order . He was acquitted by the Criminal Court . When he came to join he was informed by the management that he was dismissed from service .
6. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of the management it has been stated by them that the reference in question is not maintainable either in law or on facts . It has been stated by the management that the concerned workman started absenting from his duty from 18-7-96 unauthorisedly for which management issued a chargesheet vide Chargesheet No.PO ( B ) PD / Charge - sheet/ 11- " A" / 97 / 963-68 dated 6-3-97 to the concerned workman . Thereafter the management conducted a Departmental Enquiry according to the Principles of Natural Justice .
7. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the concerned workman is guilty of the unauthorised absence. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter dismissed the concerned workman vide Removal Order dated 31-3-97 for his proved misconduct .
8. It has been stated on behalf of the management that the concerned workman absented fronı his duty without taking prior permission from the management . It has been submitted on behalf of the management to decide the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and in case if it is held that the enquiry is not fair and proper management may be allowed to adduce fresh evidence to prove the misconduct of the concerned workman . It has been further submitted on behalf of the management to pass an Award holding the dismissal of the concerned workman a justifieu and that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.
12. In this respect the evidence of MW- 1 is very much important . He is the enquiry Officer . He has stated in cross - examination " I do not know whether the concerned workman was apprehended by the police in course of performance of his duty . The concerned workman was in Jail custody during the said period. " This statement of the witness MW-1 shows that the concerned workman was arrested during the course of his duty and was in Jail . So it was not possible for the concerned workman to take prior permission for leave etc. though he has sent his letter through Jail as per Ext . W - 1 , on 22-6-96 . The concerned workman WW- 1 stated on oath that he was arrestal while on duty on 16-7-26 in criminal case and he was in Jail till judgement ofthe case in which by Ext . W- 2 he was acquitted MW- 1 in cross - examination at page - 2 stated " I remember one Record/Time Keeper was examined by the manageme before the enquiry proceeding . It is not mentioned in my report whether any such time- keeper or record keeper was examined by the management before the enquiry proceeding . Before conducting the exparte enquiry the chargesheet or the enquiry notice was not published in any newspapers . I do not know whether any second show cause notice was sent to the concerned workman or not after the submission of my report and prior to the passing ofthe order of dismissal .
9. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinder admitting and denying the contents of each other's Written Statement in some of the paras .
10. Before taking up the case for hearing on merit fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry was heard as a preliminary issue in which management produced Shri J. Tiwary who has been examined as MW - 1 . The documents of the management have been marked as Ext, M- 1 to M -6 . On behalf of the workman the concerned workman Girdhari Ganjhu has been examined as WW- 1 and documents on his behalf has been marked as Ext . W- 1 and W - 2 . This Tribunal after hearing both sides and considering the materials on record held vide Order No.25 dated 21-4-2005 that the domestic enquiry conducted against the concerned workman is not at all fair and proper .
13. Another argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that as per Ext.M - 4 Enquiry Officer was appointed on 25/26-3-97 and notice has been sent by the Enquiry Officer for holding enquiry as per Ext.M - 3 on 18-3-97 which shown that before he got appointment as Enquiry Officer as per Ext.M - 4 on 25 / 26-3-97 he started enquiry as per Ext.M - 3 on 18-3-97 shows malafide intention and working of the management . As per Enquiry report which has been submitted on 29-3-97 giving two days time before starting enquiry as per Ext.M - 4 and within three days enquiry report Ext.M - 5 was completed and in this Ext.M - 5 it has been mentioned " As per information available from the records produced by M. R. it is noted [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
thatthe employee is in custody of Central Jail , Hazaribagh . He has failed either to appear in person for the enquiry or to give any reply to the charg- sheet and notices of enquiry sent to him to the prison . The letters sent to his home address have come undelivered . " This shows that letters which have been sent to his home address have come back undelivered and no notice which has been sent through Jail to the concerned workman has been filed by the management . That will show that he was not given prior notice for attending the enquiry before passing final Order . As per Ext.M - 6 which is removal order of the concerned workman shows that no second show cause notice was given to him . As per Ext . W- 2 the concerned workman was acquited by the Criminal Court on 22-12-97 .
14. The concerned workman has referred to a decision reported in F.J.R. Vol . XX page 91 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following:-
"Misconduct Domestic enquiry Proper notice of charge to workman --putting up notice on notice board or publication in newspaper-Whether sufficient notice- Proper mode of serving notice when service by registered post is not possible . " Inthe decision reported in 1998 LLR 1097 referred by the workman Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following:-
" Charge- Sheet- Service of- Sent by registered post Returned with postal remarks ' not found' does not amount to tendering to the addressee Cannot be legally treated to have been served.
In the decision reported in 62 S. C. 1991 as cited by the workman Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following:-
" 1. Constitution of India - Art . 311 ( 2 ) -After 42nd amendment Disciplinary proceedings Whether necessary to supply to delinquent copy of inquiry officer's report Whether he is entitled to make any representation against the same Whether any change is brought about by 42nd amendment Held that supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommendations , if any, inthe matter ofproposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would therefore be entitled to supply of a copy thereof and that the Forty Second Amendment has not brought about any change in this position . " In the decision reported in 1983 Lab I. C. 1909 Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following :-
" (B) Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders ) Act (20 of 1946) S. 13A - Misconduct committed within the premise of the establishment or in the vicinity thereof- Connotation of - Misconduct must have casual connection with place of work and with duty
8703
त का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
hours - Employer has no extra - territorial jurisdiction under Standing Orders to punish for misconduct. " Inthe decision reported in 1998 LLR 1097 as cited by the workman the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following:-
" The postal endorsement not found on the cover of the envelope containing the charge- sheet sent by registered post indicated that the charge - sheet was not tendered to the respondent even by the postal authorities . It could not be legally treated to have been served as observed by the Supreme Court . The appellant should have made further efforts to serve the charge - sheet on the respondent . A single efforts , in the circumstances of the case , Court be treated as sufficient thus the initiation of the departmental proceedings was bad in law . "
In the decision reported in 2007 ( 112 ) FLR 336 as cited by the workmanside the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following :-
"Departmental proceedings - Can be initiated by a person lower in rank than appointing authority. But the final order can be passed only appointing authority or higher to him . "
15. MW - 2 admitted this fact that the concerned workman was on duty when he was arrested on 16-7-96 . He stated in cross - examination that on 16-7-96 he was on underground duty.
16. In the circumstances as discussed above it shows that the concerned workman was arrested by the Police at his working place during the course of his duty on 16-7-96 and sent to Jail and he was acquitted by the Criminal Court as per Ext . W- 2 . Moreover , the management has not given second show cause notice as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court before passing final order as per Ext.M - 5 . There is also no any letter which has been produced by the management to prove that notice was sent to the concerned workman through Jail Authority or any publication of the notice was made in any leading newspaper . Simply the enquiry was conducted against the concerned workman very hurriedly. When the concerned workman was in Jail and arrested by police during the course of his duty it was not possible for him to take prior permission or to take leave in such circumstances . So it appears that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman from service is not proper and justified . In the result the following Award is rendered:-
" The action of the management of CCL , Bachara Project to dismiss the workman Sri Girdhari Ganjhu w.e.f. 31-3-97from service is not proper and justified . Consequently, he is entitled to be reinstated in his original job from the date of his dismissal without 8704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
AWARD
(Dated : 24th August , 2009) any back wages , However , he will be entitled continuity of service from the date of his dismissal till the date ofhis reinstatement with other benefits ."
Management is directed to implement the Award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India in the light of the observation made above.
H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2010
1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between Shri Bhaurao S/ o Laxmanrao Anatkar , 2/11 Hudaco Colony LIG - 1 Behind Jaripataka Police Station , Nara Road , Nagpur Party No. 2 and The Senior Branch Manager L.I.C. of India City Branch Kings Way Nagpur - 440006 Party No.1 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L - 17012/36/ 2001 - IR ( B - I) Dt . 20 May 2005 under clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of1947) with the following schodule.
" Whether the action of the management of LIC of India in terminating the services of Shri Bhaurao S / o Laxmanrao Anatkar w.e.f. 6-6-2001 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to ? " का.आ. 3012,-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 केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-17012/36/2001- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 12th November, 2010
1. The petitioner approached with the contention that he was employed as Peon by the respondent Party No.1 as peon on 6-11-1998 and without any break continued up to 6-6-2001 beside it he has also performed over- time duties for which he is paid . Thus according to him he has putmore than 240 day's continuous service with out any break.
2. He was reprehended without complying the provisions of the L.I.C. service rules or ofthe section 25 ( F ) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947. He prayed to reinstate with full back wages .
S.O. 3012.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of L.I.C. of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 10-11-2010.
[No. L- 17012/ 36/2001 - IR (B - I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
3. The management on service of notice initially appeared on 6-7-2005 and 14-9-2005 as per roznama of the case and letter on stopped and did not appear . The management has not resisted the claim of the petitioner by filling the W. S. Consequently the claim of the petitioner remained unchallenged and practically the case proceeded ex-parte against it .
BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/ NGP/ 47 /2005
Date : 24-8-2009
Petitioner.
Shri Bhaurao S/o Laxmanrao Anatkar , 2/11 Hudaco Colony LIG - 1 , Behind Jaripataka Police Station , Nara Road, Nagpur .
Party No. 2
Versus
Respondent.
(A) The Senior Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India City Branch Kings Way, Nagpur440006 (B) Union of India, Ministry of Finance , New Delhi - 110001
Party No. 1
4. The crucial point for condiseration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the reinstatement as claimed by him? The petitioner examined himslef by filling the affidavit the managment being absent did not even cross- examine him . The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that he worked continuously from 6-11-98 to 6-6-2001 . Beside it he has also worked beyond duty hours for which he has been paid as over - time allowance . He gave the exact number of over- time hours . He also filed lists of the documents which he has handled . It contends even the maintenance of the registers . Those documents bear the signatures of the workman as well as of the officials of the management . This supports his evidence that he had worked in the office ofthe management L.I.C. during the period mentioned by him . It also supports his contentions regarding the working period as well as continuity in services . It clearly establishes that he worked for more than 240 days continuously without any break within a every year . Since the management L. I. C. has not filed any W. S. or its 8705 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
ANNEXURE
statement of claim denying his contentions they remained unchallenged.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present :
Shri J. Srivastava ,
Presiding Officer, C.GI.T. - cum- Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 371/2001
Date of Passing Award 22nd October, 2010
Between:
TheManagement of the Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India,
Zonal Office , Bhubaneswar,
Orissa - 751009
.... 1st Party -Management
And
5. The same thing in respect of the retrenchment as well as non payment of compensation for it. There is nothing to show that the provisions of Section 25 F and G. were complied. No notice was given to him before retrenchment . Nothing has been submitted as to how he was not entitled for the same. In fact his averments in the statement ofclaim remain undisputed due to non filling of the W. S. His evidence also remained unchallenged because ofnon cross examination . Consequently it has to be presumed as admitted. The provisions are obligatory and its non compliance renders the retrenchment illegal . In such circumstances as the retrenchment is illegal it will have to be treated that he was in service entitling him for backwages . Hence I hold that the workman is entitled for reinstatement as well as for back wages right from the date ofretrenchment i.e. from 6-6-2001 . I Pass the award in the affirmative as follows .
Their Workmen Shri Duryodhan Khuntia,
Represented through the General Secretary,
StateBank of India Employees Union , Bhubaneswar, Orissa- 751009
6. The Management is directed to reins ten the petitioner as a peon and pay the full back wages right from 6-6-2001 till the reinstatement within two months from the date ofpublication of this award in the gazette .
... 2nd Party- Union Date24-8-09
APPEARANCES
A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर, 2010
Forthe 1st Party- Management .
M/s . H. K. Mohanty, Advocate
For the 2nd Party-
M/ s . B. C. Bastia &
Union
Associates , Advocate
AWARD
का.आ. 3013.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 371/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -12012 /420/2000- आईआर( बी -1 ) ]
रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour has referred the present dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, and their workman under clause ( d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act vide their Letter No. L - 12012/420/ 2000- IR (B - I ) , dated 30-1-2001 to this Tribunal for adjudication to the following effect:
New Delhi , the 12th November, 2010
"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, by not regularizing the service of Shri Duryodhan Khuntia in the Bank, is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" S.O. 3013.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I. D. No. 371/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 10-11-2010.
[No. L- 12012/420/2000- IR(B-I)]
2. The 2nd Party- Union has filed the statement of claim in which it has been stated that thedisputant Shri Duryodhan Khuntia had joined the service in July 1988 after being selected in an interview held by the Bank on 2-3-1998 as a cook-cum- canteen boy under the 1st Party- Management and is continuing on the same post till today. As per the agreement/settlement between the State Bank of India & All India State Bank of India Staff Federation RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
4575 GI /10-22 8706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932 [ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] regarding take over of Bank's canteen and appointment of canteen boy, it was agreed that only those canteen staff will be considered for permanent appointment , who were engaged by Local Implementation Committee on regular basis as on 9th June 1989. As the disputant - workman had joined before the stipulated date , he was eligible for permanent absorption . But the Management has given regular appointment to juniors to him in the Bank. The workman continued in the job till 15-2-1989 but the bank suddenly asked the workman to work on daily wage basis . The workman worked as Cook - cum- Canteen boy on daily wage basis equal to permanent canteen boy from 16-2-1989 to 27-7-1994 continuously . The bank then issued him so many temporary appointment letters first being dated 27-7-1994 . Since then the workman has been continuing in the service till date . The Management of State Bank of India runs the canteen under its direct control and supervision and the staff including disputant- workman are paid their wages by the Management . Thus there exists master and servant relationship between the 1st Party -Management and the disputant - workman . The work performed by the disputant - workman is perennial in nature . The disputant- workman has been working in the canteen continuously and uninterruptedly since 1994, but he is getting much less pay than his co -workers . Under a scttlement made between certain banking companies and their employees on 19-10-1966 provisions for regularization of temporary employees against permanent vancancies were made . Again in the year 1992 another settlement was made between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Employees Federation in which provision for taking over the staff canteen by the Bank and absorption of temporary canteen staff was made amongst other things . Pursuant to this settlement State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bhubaneswar invited applications from the existing temporary employees for their regular absorption . The disputant - workman fulfilled all the eligibility criteria , but his case for regularization could not be considered by the Management even though some of his Juniors has been given regular appointment . The action of the 1st Party- Management in not regularizing the services of the disputant-workman is not only discriminatory , but also arbitrary and malafide . He was enlisted in the panel of selected candidates for the post of cook - cum - canteen boy in the year 1988 , but the Management appointed from the new panel of non - messengerial cadre of 1993 and ignored his claim even after utilizing his service for ten years . The bank had given appointment to one Shri K. C. Mangraj in one of the increased vancancies of canteen boy wherein the disputant - workman's name was enlisted . His case differs from other temporary employces he was selected and appointed against regular vacancy . Therefore he is entitled to regularization of his services under the settled principles of law and for grant of equal pay for equal work from the date his juniors have been regularized .
3. The 1st Party - Management in its reply has stated that in order to absorb the temporary employees of various categories engaged by the Management in its branches , the Management and Staff Federation had entered into an agreement/settlement which provided criteria for consideration of eligible temporary employees for permanent appointment in the Bank . In pursuance of such settlements all eligible temporary employees were offered opportunities for permanent appointment and were called for interview in the year 1990 and 1993. The disputant- workman was called for interview held in the ycar 1993 , butunfortunately he could not qualify in the interview and his name did not appear in 1993 panel . Panels of temporary employees were prepared on the basis of interview conducted during the years 1990 and 1993 which remained in force till 31-3-1997 . After that all the panels expired and no one has any claim over the same. From these panels 140 sanctioned posts were filled in , but the disputant- workman could not qualify in the said interview . The disputant- workman then filed O.J.C. No. 4929/97 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa challenging inter - alia the non- regularization of his service and claiming arrears at par with regular employees from the date of his initial appointment . The above Writ Petition was heard along with a bunch of similar Writ Petitions filed by other temporary employees . The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dismissed all the Writ Petitions by a comman judgement given on 15-5-1998 in O.J.C. No. 2787/97 and upheld the action of the Management in offering appointments from both the panels . Aggrieved by the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa , one Natabar Das approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. which was also dismissed on merit . Therefore , the disputant - workman is now estopped from re- agitating the same issue of regularization of service . The engagement of the disputant - workman was purely temporary in nature and was extended from time to time. It is not a fact that the staff of all the canteens are the employees of the Bank and there exists master and servant relationship . The staff of canteen which is run by the Local Implementation Committee , is appointed by the committee . They are not the employees of the bank. The disputant- workman was appointed as a temporay cook- cum-canteen boy for 15 days vide letter dated 8-7-1988 . He worked intermittently on temporary basis till 15-2-1989 . The workman is put to strict proof that he worked continuously and uninterruptedly from 16-2-1989 to 27-7-1994. Since the canteen boy were decided to be non - messengerial cadre and such vacancies can be filled up from the ex - temporary employees empanelled in non - messengerial cadre in terms of settlement dated 27-10-1988 and 9-1-1991 the same were filled from empanelled employces of non -messengerial cadre . In the 1988 panel the position of the disputant- workman was at Sl . No. 10. Therefore , he could not be accommodated in the said six vacancies . The case of the disputant-workman is no way different from other temporary employees after the 1993 interview. The appointments were 8707 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
ISSUE No. II
made taking into account the performance in the interview and position in the panel .
4. Out of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled for adjudication :-
ISSUES
1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?
2. Whether the 2nd Party - workman is eligible for regularization in the post ?
3. Whether the action of State Bank of India in not regularizing the service of the workman is legal and justified ?
4. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?
5. The 2nd Party - Union has examined the disputant- workman Shri Duryodhan Khuntia , as W.W. - 1 and has exhibited series of documents from Ext . - 1 to Ext . - 7 . The 1st Party -Management , on the other hand has examined two witnesses namely Shri G L. Narasingham as M. W. - 1 and Shri Srimanta Kr . Das as M. W. - 2 and has also exhibited certaindocuments from Ext . - A to Ext.-J.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1
7. It is an admitted case of the disputant - workman that he was appointed as cook- cum- canteen boy in the zonal office canteen of the State Bank of India at Bhubaneswar after being selected in an interview held on 2-3-1988 . Thereafter he was given employment as a temporary cook-cum-canteen boy for 15 days commencing from 18-7-1988 to 1-8-1988 with the condition that the appointment may be terminated earlier at the bank's discretion without assigning any reason and shall come to an end on the expiry of the aforsaid period . His appointment was extended from time to time and has been continuing till date . During this period for a little spell oftime , he worked on daily wages . But his services were not regularized though the Chief Manager ( Office Administration ) vide his letter dated 10-10-1995 marked as Ext . - 7 wrote to the Chief Manager (Personnel ) of the State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar to make necessary arrangements to fill up the vacancies of canteen boys by posting permanent incumbents . He also quoted the names of five temporary canteen boys including the name of the disputant- workman who have been working since July 1994. This letter does not make any recommendation to appoint these five candidates on permanent post of canteen boy . The contention ofthe disputant - workman that the Chief Manager (Office Administration) has recommended his name along with four others for their permanent absorption against the posts of canteen boy is expelled from the contents of the letter itself.
8. The agreement/settlement dated 17-11-1987 and subsequent settlements as referred to in the pleadings of the parties relate to temporary employees of the State Bank of India working intermittently from time to time at different branches / establishments of the Bank including casual and daily rated workers . These agreements / settlements were entered into between the Management of the State Bank of India and the State Bank of India Staff Federation to provide criteria for consideration of eligible temporary employees for their permanent appointment in the Bank . In pursuance of these agreements/ settlements all eligible temporary employees were afforded opportunity for permanent appointment and were called to appear at the interviews held during the years 1990 and 1993. The disputant - workman was called for interview during the year 1993 , but he did not qualify, though the disputant - workman has concealed these facts in his statement of claim . Later it has been revealed in his evidence before the Court that he had applied for permanent absorption in the Bank in response to an advertisement published in pursuance of the said agreements / settlements made between the Federation and the Management of the State Bank of India . He has admitted that he faced the interview in the year 1993. The penels of selected temporary employees for permanent 6. This issue seems to be some what- superfluous as the 1st party - Management has not any where averred in their written statement about the non - maintainability of the reference . They have only stated that the statement of claim as submitted by the 2nd Party - Union is not maintainable either on facts or on points of law. And secondly, the General Secretary of the State Bank of India Employees Union has no locus standi to raise this industrial dispute for regularization of service of the present workman . Both these allegations do not hit at the very root of the maintainability of the reference. The claim ofthe 2nd Party - workman may or may not with stand in the eye of law or the General Secretary of the 2nd Part- Union may or may not have the right to pursue the claim , but how can a question be raised , and virtually not raised , about the maintainability of the reference . It is quite different that the matter of regularization was carried to the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and it did not find favour with the workman and the matter cannot be now re - agitated in the Courts or Tribunals subordinate to it , but that does not mean that this Tribunal is devoid of right to hear in the matter basically . In my view the reference is maintainable in this Tribunal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act so sent by the Government of India for adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . Hence, this issue is answered accordingly .
8708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
the canteen boy of the canteen managed by the Bank. He has further admitted that there are more than 250 employees inthe Bank under which the canteen was functioning . The canteen is managed by the Management of the State Bank of India where there are more than 100 employees . The Management Witness No. 2 Shri Srimanta Kumar . Das has also admited in his cross examination that the canteen is a bank run canteen. In view of it the 1st Party - Management cannot deny the fact that the disputant - workman is a State Bank of India employee .
10. There is a statement of the Management Witness No. 2 Shri Srimanta Kumar Das in his cross examination that the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court marked as Ext. - J is in respect of temporary messengers but not in respect of the canteen boys . This statement shows a lack of knowledge and prudence on the part of the deponent . Asstated above the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa covers all the temporary employees of the State Bank of India whether in short term engagement or working as a casual or daily wage earners . The agreements / settements also do not make such distinction.
absorption prepared on the basis of interviews conducted during the years 1990 and 1993 remained in force till 31-3-1997 . Thereafter all the panels expried and now no one can claim any right over the same . It is also an admitted fact that the disputant - workman along with some other aggrieved workman filed a bunch of O.J.Cs before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa challenging therein inter alia non - regularization of their services and praying for issue of direction to the Bank to treat their services as regular from the date of their initial appointment and to pay them the arrears . The O.J.C. filed by the disputant- workman is numbered as O.J.C. No.4929 /97 . The Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa heard the above mentioned case of the disputant- workman along with a bunch of similar cases filed by other temporary employees and dismissed all the writ petitions by a commonjudgement dated 15-5-1998 passed in O.J.C. No. 2787/97 . The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa upheld the action of the 1st Party - Management in offering regular appointment from both the panels . One Natabar Das filed SpecialLeave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa which was too dismissed after hearing .
11. Therefore it is settled that the disputant - workman has been given due opportunity for being considered and appointed on permanent post of messenger /canteen boy or such other equivalent post but because of his failure to qualify in the interview he was not absorbed on permanent post . Being aggrieved he filed an O.J.C. No. 4929/1997 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa challenging non- regularization of his services and praying for issue of direction to the Bank to treat his services as regular from the date ofhis initial appointment and to pay him the arrears. But his case along with a bunch of similar cases was dismissed after hearing by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa videa commonjudgement dated 15-5-1998 which was given in O.J.C. 2787/97 . A special leave petition was also filed against this judgement by one of the aggrieved workmen Sri Natabar Das before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which too was dismissed . Therefore the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has become final and the disputant- workman is stopped from re - agitating the same issue before this Tribunal .
12. The 2nd Party - Union has made another contention that the workman has rendered continuous and regular service at the Bank for the last so many years and he has been still continuing on the post of canteen boy. So the right to regularization has accrued to him.
9. The contention of the disputant- workman is that he has prayed for regularization of his services as a canteen boy and the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa does not cover temporary canteen boys employed in the Bank. But his contention does not hold good as the term " temporary employees " includes all workmen working temporarily in any capacity or post either as casual worker or daily wage earner . No distinction can be drawn in any categories of the temporary workmen given different names . This is also apparent from the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and the contents of agreements /settlements entered into between the Management of the State Bank of India and the State Bank of India Staff Federation . It is to be noted here that the disputant- workman has appeared in the interview arranged for absorption of the temporary employees against the permanent vacancies in pursuance of the above agreements /settlements . If his case was not covered, how he appeared in the interview ? The cases of all temporary employees who were working under the State Bank of India from the year 1975 were covered under the said agreements /settlements for consideration of their names for permanent absorption in the Bank . Therefore it cannot be said that the case of the disputant - workman is distinct or stands on better footing from other temporary employees . it is also to be pointed out that in its statement of claim the 2nd Party - Union has prayed for regularization of the service of the disputant-workman not as a canteen boy but in generalized way . The Management Witness No.1 Shri G L. Narasimham, Chief Manager , Office Administration Section of the State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Bhubaneswar has stated in his cross examination that the agreement between the Bank and the Federation also covers
13. In support of this very contention several citations such as SCLJ ( 1991-93 ) -1241 SC, 2006 ( 110) FLR 226. SC. , LLJ ( I) 2006 ( Bom. ) , LLJ March - 06-842, LLJ ( 1 ) Bom . - 244 , LLJ 2006 ( III ) , SC 482 , LLJ 2006 ( 1 ) (March) 842 and 2000 ( II ) LLJ - 1109 ( S. C. ) have been referred to , but these rulings ar not applicable in the present set ofcircumstances , as the matter of regularization or permanent appointment has finally been decided by the 8709 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
Hon'ble High Court of Orissa on the basis of a bipartite agreement/ settlement between the Management of State Bank of India and the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which is binding on all concerned and they cannot wriggle out of it .
was also dismissed . The judgement is binding not only on the parties of the cases but also on all courts subordinate or lower in rank to it . Therefore , the matter of regularization is not now open to be adjudicated upon in this Tribunal as the same has been settled for all and it is held that the 2nd Party - workman is not eligible for permanent absorption or regularization in the post . This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO . III
14. The 1st Party - Management has relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of" Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Versus - Uma Devi & Others " reported in AIR 2006 S. C. 1806 which replies to all the questions raised by the 2nd Party -Union. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
16. For the foregoing discussions made in Issue No. II the action of the State Bank of India in not regularizing the services of the workman cannot be held illegal and unjustified. Since the disputant - workman had availed of the opportunity of appearing in the interview for permanent appointment and he had not come out successful to be placed on the existing vacancy and the waitlisted panel had expired on 31-3-1997 , there remains no course open for regularization in view of the bipartite agreement / settlement entered into between the Management of State Bank of India and the State bank of India Staff Federation . This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO . IV
17. In view of the conclusions arrived at under the foregoing issues the 2nd Party - Union is not entitled to any relief.
Dictated & Corrected by me .
J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2010 " Unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons , the same would not confer any right on the appointee . 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 ondaily 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 ofhis 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 permanent , merely on the strength of such continuance , if the 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 nas come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment do not acquire any right . "
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that:-
का.आ. 3014.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 38/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/ 295/2004- आईआर( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 12th November , 2010 "Employment on daily wage confers no right of permanent employment . Daily wager appointed on less than minimum wages that was made known to him is not forced labour . Daily wagers form a class by themselves . They can not claim parity vis - a - via those regularly recruited on basis of relevant Rules and not be made permanent in employment . "
S.O. 3014. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. I.D. No. 38/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 10-11-2010 .
15. Thejudgement given by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in O.J.C. No. 2787/97 and other analogous cases reported in " 86 (1998 ) C.L.T. 834 " (Abhimanyu Mandal &Others)-Versus - State Bank of India & Others ) is binding onall the petitioners including the disputant- workman . In these cases regularization of temporary employees /daily wagers /casual employees was prayed and all the cases with that prayer were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court and Special Leave Petition filed by one of the workman namely Natabar Das before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
[No. L- 12012/ 295 /2004 - IR ( B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 8710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 38 of 2005
BETWEEN
Sri Radhey Shyam Verma son of Sri Ram Kishan , C/o Sri Shiv Kumar, 117/N- 166, Tulsi Nagar, Kakadeo, Kanpur AND
The Deputy General Manager , State Bank of India , Personnel Department, Kanpur Main Branch , Kanpur.
AWARD
1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi , vide Notification No. L- 12012/295 /2004- IR (B- 1 ) dated 10-11-2005 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal-
2. Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Kanpur in refusing employment to Sri Radhey Shyam Verma son of Sri Ram Krishan is fair and justified ? Ifnot to what relief the applicant concerned is entitled to ?
3. Frief facts are-
4. Claimant Sri Radhey Shyam Verma has filed this claim statement claiming that he should be reinstated in the service of the opposite party and he should be provided back wages and all consequential benefits .
5. It is alleged that he was engaged in the year 1989 by the opposite party in a regular way and he was working regularly and satisfactorily. Opposite party is indulging in an unfair labour practice as they are not making payment regularly according to the prescribed pay scales , not taking attendance on the attendance register etc. When the grievances were raised opposite party department invited all the employees of the bank in the year 1991 for interview. Claimant also appeared in the interview and passed the test but the opposite party never informed till date about the result and he was not engaged as employee of the opposite party and he was exploited . His name in the waiting list was included for giving appointment . But instead of giving employment the opposite parties have not given him the work . They are not giving anything in writing . Therefore, he files the present claim statement .
6. Opposite has filed the written statement opposing the allegations and aversions of the claimant . It is alleged that the claimant has never worked in the DGM Office of the bank. It is stated that the claimant had worked only
[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] for 89 days as a casual labour from August 89 to Nov. 89 . There is a prescribed procedure in the bank to fill up the sanctioned post , then the candidates are called from the employment exchange and through the advertisement in the newspaper thereafter interview board conducts an interview and who so ever is found suitable is given employment after police and medical verification . Claimant was never appointed after adopting such procedure by the bank . He never worked for 240 days in a year precexling the date of his alleged retrenchment . It is stated that there were settlements in between the Union representing the employees of the bank and the management of the bank to employ such persons who have put in 89 days of continuous service at any relevant time prior to the settlement . His name was also called for interview and he was found suitable and his name was in the penal of 1991 and the same penal has been vanished in the year 1997. As no vacancy has arisen so he could not be kept in the employment of the opposite party. Accordingly the claim of the workman is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.
7. Both the parties have filed documentary evidence . But the oral evidence has been filed only by the management the claimant did not adduce any evidence in support of his claim.
8. I have heard the arguments of the opposite party only as on the date of arguments none appeared from the side of the claimant and also perused the record of the case carefully.
9. Claimant has filed one letter which shows that he was called for interview which is paper no . 12/2 . This fact has already been stated by the opposite party that the name of the applicant was included with the candidates called for interview . He was found suitable and his name was placed in the penal prepared for selected candidates . As the penal has vanished and further no vacancy has aroses so he could not be given engagement or employment against any regular and permanent post .
10. Opposite party has stated this fact on oath by adducing a witness Sri Gyanendra Kumar Pandey who is the branch manager of the opposite party as M. W. 1. His statement is uncontroverted whereas claimant has not adduced any oral orany cogent documentary evidence to support his pleadings therefore the tribunal does not feel any hesitation in believing the evidence of the opposite party.
11. Accordingly it is held that the claimant has palpably failed to prove his claim before the tribunal by adducing cogent evidence and under the given circumstances of the case the claimant is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him .
12. Therefore the reference is decided in negative against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party holding that the claimant is not entitled for any relief.
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
13. Reference is therefore , answered accordingly against the workman .
Date 28-10-10
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3015.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , बंगलूर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल -41012 / 29/2003- आईआर( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th November , 2010 S.O. 3015. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID..No . 32/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Southern Railway and their workman , received by the Central Government on 10-11-2010 .
[No. L -41012/ 29/2003 - IR (B - I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
Dated : 14th September, 2010
PRESENT : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer C. R. No. 32/2003
I PARTY
Shri N. Pushpakanthan , S / o Shri Nateshan , No.24 E.No 4th Street , Old Madras Road , Ulsoor , Bangalore - 560008
ΠPARTY
The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer , Sorthern Railway, Divisional Office, Mechanical Branch , Bangalore - 560023
8711
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ( 14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide Order No. L -41012/ 29/2003 - IR(B - 1) dated 13-5-2003 for adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Southern Railway in removing Shri N. Pushpakantan , Ex . Khalasi/Helper from service w.e.f. 19-5-1999 is justified? If not , what relief he is entitled to ?" 2. Pursuant to the notices issued by this tribunal the first party and the second party entered their appearance through their respective advocates and filed claim statement and counter statement respectively. Having regard to the assertion made by the first party that the enquiry made against him was not fair and proper , my Learned Predecessor while framing the Preliminary Issue as to " Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the Second party is fair and proper " , after recording the evidence of Shri V. Ravindra , office Superintendent, Sr. Mechanical Engineer , Southwestern Railway, Bangalore as MW1 for the management and exhibiting charge sheet in original , nomination enquiry officer letter dated 22-12-97 letter of Enquiry officer dated 9-3-98 , letter of enquiry officer dated 12-3-1998 , letter of defence Helper dated 13-3-98 , Proceedings held on 21-3-1998 , Proceedings held on 25-3-1998 , Proceedings held on 4-4-1998 findings of the enquiry Officer dated 4-4-1998 and Enquiry Report acknowledged by the first party in Original as Ex . Ml to M10 and also the evidence of first party as WWI and in his cross examination his Service Register confronted to him as Ex . M11 after hearing the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing for both the parties by order dated 3-9-2007 answered the Preliminary Issue in the affirmative holding that the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party as fair and proper . Thereafter the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing for both the sides were heard on merit .
3. The learned advocate appearing for the Second Party taking me through the enquiry proceedings and evidence brought on record in the departmental enquiry urged that since it is not in dispute the first party having remained absent without availing any sort of leave from 30-5-1997 to 14-10-1997 and as he failed to give any satisfactory explanation , departmental enquiry was held and there also since the failed to produce any material to substantiate his unauthorized absence for a period of 154 days the enquiry officer gave finding the charge being proved and thereafter having regard to the long unauthorized absence , he has been removed from service 8712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYAΝΑ 20 , 1932 [ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] by the competent authority as such there is no necessity to this tribunal to interfere either in the finding of the enquiry officer or the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and thus he supported the action of the management . Interalia the Learned Advocate appearing for the first party urged that as there is no dispute that the first party having remained absent from 30-5-1997 to 14-10-1997 without availing any sort of leave and also failed to explain the same on service of charge sheet as well as before the enquiry officer producing any documentary evidence , even if this tribunal were to say that the finding of the enquiry officer is correct, having regard to the long service of 22 years rendered by the first party in the Railways , invoking the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act , this tribunal may reduce the punishment of removal to any lesser punishment and direct the management to pay the consequential benefits since he cannot be reinstated in view of his age being crossed the superannuation . In support of his argument he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jagadish Singh V/ s Punjab Engineering College& Others reported in 2009 - III - LLJ 373 ( SC) .
unauthorized absent from 30-5-1997 to 14-10-1997 the only factor that remains for my consideration is whether the punishment imposed by the management of his removal from service is proper and justified under the circumstances . It has been contended by the management in their counter statement that the first party while working in the Engineering Department for having remained unauthorized absence from 19-3-1989 to 8-9-1989 he was awarded with minor penalty of withholding of annual increment for 24 months ; he was suspended from pay and allowances from 13-6-1995 to 22-6-1995 ; his one set of privilage pass withheld for sleeping on duty on 17-1-1995, his annual increment was withheld for three months from 1-4-1996 for his disobedience ; his annual increment was withheld for two years for his disobedience from 1-4-1997 ; one set of privilege pass was withheld for his unauthorized absence from 31-1-1996 to 25-2-1996, 28-2-1996 to 11-3-1996 and from 14-3-1996 to 4-7-1996; his pay was reduced to the lowest stage for the period of three years for his unauthorized absence from 14-7-1996 to 16-7-1996 , 26-7-1996 to 27-7-1996, 28-12-1996 to 31-12-1996 , 3-1-1997 to 6-1-1997, 15-1-1997 to 12-2-1997; one set of privilege ticket order was withheld for his unauthorized absence from 14-7-1995 to 7-8-1995 and one set of Privilege pass was with held for his unauthorized absence from 15-5-1998 to 31-7-1998 and this has not been denied by the first party and it has also been corroborated and supported by the entries made in his Service Register marked in his cross examination as Ex.M11 by confrontation which do suggest that he was in the habit of remaining unauthorized absent and on and often . In view of this conduct on the part of the first party, the decision relied upon by the learned advocate in the decision reported in 2009 - III - LLJ 373 ( SC ) do not cometohis help . In the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the Learned Advocate appearing for the first party it has been held in a case of not a habitual absenteeism dismissal being disproportionate , but in the instant case the evidence brought on record when suggest that the first party was in the habit of remaining unauthorized absent, I find no justification in showing any leniency in the punishment and I am of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is proper and justified . Accordingly, I pass the followingAward:
AWARD
The action of the management of Southern Railway in removing Shri N. Pushpakantan , Ex . Khalasi /Helper ( First Party ) from service w.e.f. 19-5-1999 is justified and he is not entitled for any relief. No costs .
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 14-9-2010 ) 4. It is borne out from the proceedings of the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer in the Domestic Enquiry that the first party did not dispute the fact of remining absent unauthorisedly without availing any sort of leave from 30-5-1997 to 14-10-1997 and put forward a defence that due to some family circumstances and sickness he was compelled to remain absent during that period but he failed to place on record any evidence that he was suffering from such a sick that he could not even sent a leave application by post or appearing in the office where he was serving at that time . It is only along with his appeal , revision and mercy petition he produced certificate having taken treatment with Dr. K. N. Rohini , Dy . Chief Medical Officer , Ulsoor , Bangalore for swelling and pain from 31-5-1997 to 9-7-1997 ; certificate having taken treatment under Dr. M. Krishana of Sri Krishna Clinic for Hepatitis from 12-7-1997 to 25-8-1997; a certificate having taken treatment under Asst . Surgeon , Vani Vilas Hospital, Bangalore for viral fever from 26-8-1997 to 14-9- 1997 and a certificate issued by the Dy. Chief Medical Officer, Ulsoor, Bangalore for left leg pain for one day i.e. 15-9-1997. If at all such a treatment was taken by the first party with these doctors , he could have put forward this plea in the DE and examine the concerned doctors to substantiate that he was under their treatment for respective periods and satisfy the enquiry officer or Dsiciplinary Authority that he was in such a condition that he could not even sent a leave letter or appears in the office where he was working to request for grant of leave . Therefore absolutely I find no error in the finding of the enquiry officer regarding proof of charge levelled against the first party. In view of this finding that the charge has been proved gainst the first party having remained
S. N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer [ भाग II-- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3016 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ईरकान लि. के प्रबंध- तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41012/201/2003- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th November, 2010 S.O. 3016. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Kota as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of L.I.C. of India and their workmen, received by the Central Governiment on 11-11-2010 .
[No. L-41012/201 /2003 - IR (B - I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
अनुबंध
न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक न्यायाधीकरण , कोटा/केन्द्रीय
प्रौद्यो/राज
पीठासीन अधिकारी : अनुराधा शर्मा , आर. एच.जे.एस. निदेश प्रकरण क्रमांक: औ. ज्या. 36/03 दिनांक स्थापित : 20-10-2003
प्रसंग : भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश संख्या एल -41012/201 /2003 , आई आर बी1 दिनांक 26/9/2003 निर्देश/विवाद अर्न्तगत धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947
मध्य जवाहर सिंह पुत्र श्री नारायण सिंह
-प्रार्थी श्रमिक
एवं
ग्रुप मैनेजर , ईरकान इन्टरनेशनल लिमि. पालिका बाजार सैक्टर -13 , नई दिल्ली
-अप्रार्थी नियोजक
उपस्थिति
प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि श्री नरेन्द्र सिंह चौधरी
श्री एम . सी . गुप्ता अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि
अधिनिर्णय दिनांक : 30-9-2010
4575 G1 /10-23
8713
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
अधिनिर्णय
भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा अपने उक्त प्रासंगिक आदेश दिनांक 26-9-2003 में दिए निम्न निर्देश विवाद , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( जिसे तदुपंरात " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जाएगा ) की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णय सम्प्रेषित किया गया है।
"Whether the workmen Shri Jawahar Singh S / o Shri Narayan Singh was in continuous services ofM/ s . Ircon International Limited , New Delhi from 21-7-90 to 31-3-1697 ? If yes , whether the action of its group Manager in terminating the services ofthe workman w.e.f. 31-2-1997 is Legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen is entitled to and from which date ?" 2. निर्देश/विवाद , न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों को सूचना विधिवत रूप में जारी की गई जिस पर दोनों पक्षों की ओर से अपने- अपने अभ्यावेदन प्रस्तुत किए गए। 3. प्रार्थी श्रमिक द्वारा प्रस्तुत शपथ पत्र पर जिरह हेतु आज पत्रावली नियत थी , किन्तु प्रार्थी श्रमिक न्यायालय में अपनी जिरह हेतु उपस्थितनहीं हुआ है । पत्रावली के अवलोकन से प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक की जिरह में पत्रावली दिनांक 17-7-2006 से चली आ रही है और इस बीच हुई पेशियों पर अनुपस्थिति के कारण उससे जिरह नहीं हो सकी है , आज भी वह उपस्थित नहीं है , ना कोई कारण ही उसकी अनुपस्थिति बाबत बतलाया गया है , इन परिस्थिति में जब और समय दिया जाना उचित नहीं समझते हुए उसकी जिरह बन्द की जाती है तथा प्रार्थी द्वरा प्रस्तुत शपथ- पत्र साक्ष्य योग्य नहीं रहेगा । अप्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से भी कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं दिया जाना प्रकट किया गया।
बहस पक्षकारान प्रतिनिधियों की सुनी गई , पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया। पत्रावली अवलोकनोपरान्त यह स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक अपने द्वारा प्रस्तुत क्लेम स्टेटमेंट को किसी ठोस साक्ष्य से साबित नहीं कर सका है , अर्थात् वो अपने मामले को साबित करने में पूर्णतया असफल रहा है । अतः प्रार्थी श्रमिक , अप्रार्थी नियोजक से अधिनियमान्तर्गत कोई संरक्षण प्राप्त नहीं होने से किसी प्रकार का कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है और सम्प्रेषित निर्देश/ विवाद को इसी प्रकार अधिनिर्णित कर उत्तरित किया जाता है ।
अनुराधा शर्मा , न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3017.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मायल भरवेली बालाघाट मध्य प्रदेश 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 8714
[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( 11 ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
( संदर्भ संख्या 68/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-29012/128/2000- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th November, 2010 S.O. 3017. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 68/ 2001) of the Central Government 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 Bharveli Mine ofMOIL Distt . Balaghat (M.P. ) and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 16-11-2010.
[ No. L - 29012/ 128/2000 - IR. (M) ]
JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO.CGIT/LC /R/ 68/2001
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Smt . Phekanbai ,
Workman/Union .
W/ O Late Sukhramdas , C/O Shri Tekram , Surpanch , Village Budasagar, PO Budhvas , Tehsil Gadai , Distt . Rajnandgaon , Rajnandgaon ( MP)
Versus
...Management The Chairman - Cum- Managing Director, 3 , Mount Road, Extension , Nagpur (M.S) , Nagpur
AWARD
Passed on 18th day of October , 2010 I. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 290 12/ 128 / 2000/ IR ( M) dated 30- 3-2001 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal ; μ
" Whether the action of Dy . Manager (Production) , Bharveli Mine of MOIL , PO Bharveli , Distt . Balaghat ( M.P) in dismissing the services of Shri Sukhramdas S / O Samundas , underground worker of Bharveli Mine of MOIL w.e.f. 6-8-84 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
2. The applicant/ workman appeared on 20-10-05 through lawyer but did not file statement of claim in spite of sufficient time granted to the applicant/ workman . Lastly the then Tribunal proceeded exparte against the applicant/ workman on 20-11-07 .
3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement in the reference . The case of the management in short is that the workman had earlier raised the Industrial Dispute but the Central Govt . vide order dated 5-11-84 refused to refer the reference but again the Government without any fresh material referred the terms of reference to the Tribunal for adjudication and therefore it is not maintainable . The present reference is also not maintainable on the ground of delay . The further case is thatone Shri Kankar Munjare was trying to form an Union at Bharveli Mines but this organization was not a recognised Union. They had organized a meeting and were instigating the workers to assault the officers in front of the Mine Manager's office and thereby they were compelling to withdraw the charge sheet served on Shri Dasrath . When the Enquiry Officer tried to conduct enquiry on 27-6-82 , the workman Shri Dasrath alongwith others opposed the same and surrounded the Mine Manager and other officials . The SDM and police also reached there . The workers misbehaved with the officers of the mine and it became violent . The officers warned them and ordered to leave the place . Ultimately the police was compelled to fire upon them causing death of three persons in the incident . The workman was chargeshected . Shri Dasrath participated in the departmental proceeding . The Enquiry Officer gave fuli opportunity to defend himself . After enquiry the E.O found that the charges levelled against him had been proved and he submitted his enquiry report . The Disciplinary authority served second showcause alongwith enquiry report . The Disciplinary Authority after considering all materials on record passed the order of dismissal from service . It is stated that there is no violation of natural justice and the action of the management is justified .
4. The following issues are framed for adjudication- I. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is proper and legal ?
II . Whether the action of the management in dismissing the workman Shri Dasrath is justified?
III . To what relief, the applicant is entitled to ?
5. Issue no.I Since the Tribunal procceded exparte against the workman , all the issues are taken up finally. The management counsel has submitted that a joint departmental proceeding was conducted and one Shri Sevak Ram was also dismissed after the said departmental proceeding . He had also raised industrial dispute and the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
reference was referred which was Case No. CGIT/LC/R/ 60/87 . In the said reference , award was passed on 21-7-2003 . The copy of the award is filed in the case . It is submitted that in the said reference , the Tribunal had held that enquiry conducted against the workman is just , proper and legal . On perusal of the said award it is clear that the then Tribunal had held on 10-1-96 that enquiry conducted is just , proper and legal . However the management has filed the papers of the departmental proceeding . On perusal ofthe papers ( Exhibit 5) , it is clear that the workman Shri Dasrath had participated in the proceeding and Shri Mangal Singh was Defence Assistant . It is also clear that four witnesses were examined by the management and they had been cross - examined at length . The workman also examined his defence witness . After enquiry, the E.O found guilty of charges and submitted his report . The Disciplinary Officer again issued show cause and supplied the copy of the enquiry report with a proposal of punishment. The workman appeared to have replied but it was not found satisfactory and the order of dismissal was passed on 6-8-84 . I find that full opportunity was given to the workman Shri Dasrath to defend himself . I , therefore hold that the departmental proceeding conducted against the workman Shri Dasrath is proper, legal and valid . This issue is accordingly answered .
6. Issue no . II
8715
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3018.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 821/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30012/128/2000- आई आर( एम ) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th November, 2010 S.O. 3018. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. 821/2005 ) of the Central Government Govt . Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chandigarh 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 Centrai Government on 16-11-2010 .
[ No. L- 30012/ 128/2000 - IR ( M) ]
JOHAN TOPNO , Urder Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri A : K . Rastogi , Presiding Officer .
Case No. I.D. 821 /2K5
Now the another question is as to whether the action ofthe management is justified and the punishment imposed on the workman was just and proper . The management has examined one witness . Shri Nitin Pagnis is Sr.Manager (P) in Manganese Ore ( India) Ltd. , at H.Q. Nagpur . He has supported the case of the management . His evidence and the evidence adduced before the E.O show that the workman Dasrath took active participation in the violent agitation against the management . His dismissal from service after holding enquiry appears to be fully justified . There is no other evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of the management . I find no reason to interfere in the punishment order. I find and hold that the dismissal order passed against the workman Shri Dasrath is proper and the management is justified in dismissing him . This issue is also accordingly answered .
7. Issue No. III
On the basis of the discussions made above, I find that the applicant is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered .
8. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .
Registered on 08-09-2005
Sh . Raman Kumar S/ o . Sh. Dwarka Dass
R/ o Qtr . No. C - 8 , PNT Colony ,
Bathinda ( Punjab) .
...Applicant
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corp. , Ltd. , The Chief Divisional Manager , Tel Bhawan, Sector 19 - B , Madhya Marg , Chandigarh.
...Respondent APPEARANCES
:
Forthe workman
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
Sh . H.S. Batth , Advocate .
For the Management : Authorized Representative .
8716
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANΝΑ 20 , 1932
AWARD
Passed on 26th Oct. , 2010
Central Government vide Notification No. L -30012/ 128 / 2000/IR ( M) Dated 08-01-2001 , 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 Bharat Petroleum Corpn . , Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh . Raman Kr . S / o Sh . Dwarka Dass is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"
The workman has raised this industrial dispute by stating that he had been engaged as labour on 13-02-1995 . His job was of permanent nature.but his services were terminated on 22-05-1999 without any notice , compensation, Charge - sheet or enquiry . Employees junior to him and new hands are still in service and the workman is still unemployed after termination of his services . He nad claimed his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages .
The management has contested the claim . It has been stated in the written statement that at its installation at Bathinda it has positioned its regular manpower consisting of 5 Officers , 3 Assistants , 4 Operators ( Field) and I HVD and day to day activities of the establishment are carried out by the regular employees of the respondent. However , during the course of using the Plant and other machinery and building , certain miscellaneous jobs in the form of repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery , white washing of building and construction/ reconstruction activities connected with civil and mechanical jobs arise from time to time and these jobs being irregular in nature are awarded on contract to local contractors . As per information of the management the applicant used to be engaged by such local contractors for various miscellaneous jobs and he used to work with contractors on mutually agreed terms and received payment from them for the services rendered and he was doing the job under the control and supervision of the contractor/employer . There was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman . The claim is bad for non -joinder of contractors . Since the workman was not in the employment of the management hence the question of termination of his services , payment of compensation , issue of charge- sheet and conducting of enquiry does not arise . The management denied the retention of juniors . It was stated that the management has the requisite strength of employees at its establishment at Bathinda , hence ; there is no need to depute new employees . According to the information of the management the workman is gainfully employed and is not entitled to any relief.
From the pleadings of the parties , the following issues arise for consideration: -
(1) Whether the workman was employee of the management and there was a relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman ?
(ii) Whether the management terminated the services of the workman , if yes , whether the action of the management is legal and justified ?
(iii) To what relief is the workman entitled to and from which date ?
In evidence the workman tendered his affidavit along with certain documents and affidavit of J.S. Brar , the Heavy Vehicle Driver of Tank Lorry No. DT- 352 attached to Bathinda Depot of management . While the management tendered in evidence the affidavit of Dev Dutt Kaushal , presently working as Manager Operation ( Retail ) In - charge atParadeep Installation ( Orissa) . ( He had I worked in the year 2002 at Bathinda Depot of the management ) and affidavit of N.K. Ahuja , who worked as Depott Manager (In- charge) from 01-08-1990 to 31-01-1996 and as Manager (In - charge) from 01-02-1996 to 30-04-1996 at Bathinda Depot . Certain documents are annexed with the affidavit ofN.K. Ahuja .
Parties have filed written arguments in the case, which were perused by me . I also carefully perused the evidence on record . My findings on various issues are as follows :-
Issue No. 1
Strangely enough in his claim statement or affidavit the workman has not stated that he was in the employment of the management . In the claim statement he has stated that he has been engaged as labour and his services were terminated. It is conspicuously missing in the claim statement that he was engaged and his services were terminated by the management . Similarly , in his affidavit he stated to have worked with the management and his services were wrongfully terminated but it is missing here also that he was in the employment of the management and his services were terminated by the management . In his evidence , he has tendered certain photographs , photo copies of Tank Lorry Log Sheet and otherdocuments 1 to 233 and copy of Log Books from S. No.1 to 219. These documents have been received in evidence as Ex . W - 2/ 1 to W- 219 and Ex . W- 220 to 453. During cross- examination he stated that he had not joined the respondent company through Employment Exchange but he had been recruited by the respondent company . Earlier he was working at Kotapur with a contractor of Hindustan Petroleum .
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
He also stated that he was brought to Bathinda by N.K. Ahuja , the In- charge of the Depot and he had been appointed on the post of Cleaner in the Tank loading section . He had not made any application and he was not issued any appointment letter or termination letter . He however, stated that his attendance was used to be marked in the Attendance Register and the salary was paid to him through vouchers .
The workman in his cross - examination has also stated that the management used to deduct E.S.I. contribution and Provident Fund contribution from his salary and he had filled the required form for becoming the member of the said schemes . But he says that he was not given the E.S.I. Card and he cannot say whether the management deposited his contribution with the concerned authorities or not . He admits that he was not paid bonus , given leave and L.T.C.
About the photo copies of the Log Sheets he said that he had got the original Log Sheet photo copies every day. But later on he said that the photo copies of the Log Book were given to him by an officer of the management . He however, refused to disclose the name of the officer on the pretext that the management may take action against him. It is , however, important that in his statement he admits not to have signed the Log Book and that the Log Book was being signed by the driver and the party concerned . He denied that he had worked from 01-05-1995 to 10-05-1995 and from 15-09-1995 to 06-10-1996 for M/ s . R.K. Enterprises and at any time during 1995 to August 1997 for Navjot Enterprises and from February 95 to October 1997 for Yadav construction and Fabrication Company.
The witness of the workman G.P.S. Brar in his affidavit has stated that the workman worked as helper/ cleaner with Lorry No. 352 regularly. He in his affidavit has stated what was not stated by the workman in his claim statement and affidavit . He said that the management of the Bharat Petroleum had engaged the workman and his salary were being paid by the management . He had been deputed to the work on the said Lorry by the management and the workman used to fill and sign the Log Book of the said vehicle . In his cross - examination he however stated about the maintenance of Log book by workman . He further stated that on his transfer to Bathinda unit in January 1994 there was no Tank Lorry available in the said unit and the same was made available to him 4 on 22-01-1994 . At the time of his joining there was no helper . On his demand the management had provided him a helper . He had seen the workman in Bathinda for the first time and there were 11 officials including the workman working at Bathinda unit . In his cross - examination he also stated that the workman received his salary from the depot in his presence .
It is interesting to note that earlier the management had filed the affidavit of this witness in which it was stated
8717
भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
that on the Tank Lorry there was no cleaner or helper and the witness used to operate the Tank lorry of his own and also maintain the Log Book and Log Sheet on day to day basis . He operated the Tank lorry alone without anybody's help . On some days workman had gone alongwith him on the Tank lorry on his asking and also that the workman used to come irregular since he was working with various contractors . Regarding this affidavit , which was not tendered in evidence , the witness appearing as the workman witness admitted his signatures but said that without reading the contents of the affidavit he had signed it and at that time notary was not present .
On the other hand the management witness Dev Dutt Kaushal in his affidavit stated that workman was never employed at any post and he was not given any Identity Card . The workman had been given an Entry Pass only, as he was engaged by contractors for doing petty jobs . The witness is a witness to the earlier affidavit marked ' A' of workman's witness GP.S. Brar referred above . The witness was cross - examined at length about the affidavit marked ' A ' of G P. S. Brar . According to him the contents ofthis affidavit had been made clear in Hindi and Punjabi both to GP.S. Brar and he had signed after knowing the contents . He also stated that G.P.S. Brar had taken voluntary retirement in June 2004. It is important to note that affidavit marked ' A' had been sworn on 08-08-2002 i.e. when GP.S. Brar was in service , while the other affidavit, which was tendered in evidence on behalf of workman was sworn on 21-02-2007 .
The other witness of the management N.K. Ahuja had worked as Deputy Manager ( In - charge) from 01-08-1990 to 31-01-1996 and as Manager ( In - charge) from 01-02-1996 to 30-04-1996 at Bathinda Depot of the management . In his affidavit he has stated that workman was never in the employment of the respondent / management and there is no post of helper / labour at the said depot . His name was neither sponsored through Employment Exchange nor he ever applied for any post against any advertisement published in any newspaper . Hehas filed the copies of Muster Roll Ex . MW - 1 / 1 to MW- 1/9 and statement of a copy of record showing date of joining of all employees at the depot and the detail of salary Ex. MW- 1 /10 of a fresh recruited General Operator . He also stated that during the period 1995 to 1997 miscellaneous jobs were awarded to various contractors i.e. R.K. Enterprises , Navjot Enterprises and'Yadav- Construction and Fabrication Company on job rate basis . Copies of payment vouchers , work orders of these contracts are Ex . MW - 1 / 11 to MW - 1 / 16 . He further deposed that on an enquiry from the contractors , the letter gave details of their having engaged workman during the said period . The letters of the contractors are enclosed to the affidavit as Ex . MW - 1 / 17 to MW- 1 / 19 . According to this witness there was only one company Tank Lorry, which was run by G.P.S. Brar , Heavy Vehicle Driver and there was 8718
[PART II -SEC 3 (it ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20, 1932
no cleaner or helper for the Tank Lorry to travel with him as no such post was sanctioned at the said depot . GP.S. Brar operated and managed the running of the vehicle and doing all related documentation regarding maintaining Log Book and Log Sheet of his own and occasionally he might have taken the workman along with him in Tank Lorry on mutual understanding between them . He also stated that workman was never issued an Identity Card. Contract labour and visitors etc. are issued temporary entry papers to enter the premises as per government guidelines . A copy of such pass and the government guidelines are Ex. MW- 1 /21 and MW- 1 / 22 respectively. In the affidavit of the witness it is also disputed that the workman had worked for 240 days in any period of 12 months . An analysis of the record submitted by the applicant has been submitted by this witness as Ex . MW- 1/23 . On showing the original of the I. Card submitted by the workman , the witness in his cross - examination admitted that the words "Entry Pass" are scored through. The witness explained that this may be due to some mistake . In cross - examination the witness further stated that the original Log Book , photo copies of which are on record are not available, since it was not mandatory to keep the record after five years . He , however , had brought at the time of his statement the attendance record and Cash Payment vouchers . Regarding the Log Book he said that the name of the driver is entered in the Log Book and no helper or cleaner is provided on tanker .
The arguments of the workman's counsel is that the Log Book and the Log sheets filed by the workman are the proof that the workman worked on Tank lorry owned by the company and the Identity Card also is a proof that the workman was an employee of the government and it is not the case of the management that the Identity Card is a fake or forged document . The management did not produce any contractor in evidence to prove its stand that the workman was the employee of any contractor . G.P.S. Brar the driver of the vehicle and an employee of the management has supported the workman's case .
While the argument of the management is that workman could not be treated as the employee of the management as he was not engaged through Employment Exchange. There was no advertisement in the newspaper about the alleged post and no interview or appointment letter was issued to him . There was no appointment as per guidelines / rules applicable to the Corporation which is a public sector undertaking. Workman , who had worked through various contractors , had been issued only entry passes from time to time . Identity Cards are issued by Deputy General Manager (HR) North , while the Entry Passes are issued by the Officer of the Depot . The specimen of the Identity Card is Ex . MW- 1 /20 . The Identity Card Ex . MW- 1/20 and the Card produced by the workman are different . Identity Card bears Staff Number and bears the signatures of Deputy General Manager ( Personnel ) , whereas the Entry Pass does not bear the staff number and is not signed by a competent authority i.c. Deputy General Manager (Personnel) . The Card produced by the workman cannot be treated as Identity Card simply on the ground that fron: the words " Identity Card/ Entry Card" printed on such card the word " Identity Card " has not been erased it does not become I - Card . From the payment vouchers , work orders Ex . MW- 1 / 11 to Ex . MW - 1/ 16, it is clear that the workman had worked through contractors M /s . F. K. Enterprises , Navjot Enterprises and M/ s. Yadav Construction and Fabrication . This fact is further proved by the letters Ex. MW - 1/ 17 to Ex . MW - 1 / 19 issued by the concerned contractors . The workman has not disputed the genuineness of these documents . It was further argued that the photo copies of Log Book and Log Sheets cannot be relied upon unless the genuineness of the photo copies are proved either by the writer of the documents or comparexi with the original documents . Workman even refused t name the officer of the company who have provided the photo copies of the documents to him . These documente cannot be relied upon to establish the relationship of employer and employce .
Inthe very first place it is important to note that the well settled principle of law is that the person who sets the plea of existence ofrelationship of employer and crepleyou , the burden will be upon him . In Saroop Dass Gupta Verses FirstLabour Court of West Bengal 1975 Lab . IC 202 it was held " where a person asserts that he was a workman of a company and it is denied by the company, it is for himto prove the fact . It is not for the company to prove that he was not an employee of the company but of some other person."
So in the present case the burden of proof is on the workman to establish the employee - employer relationship between him and the Co - oporation.
In Chintaman Rac Vs State of MPAIR 1958 SC 388 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed " The concept of employment involves three ingredients ( 1 ) Principai Employer ( 2) Employee (3 ) Contract of employment . The employer is one who employs i.e. one who engages the services of other persons . The employee is one who works for another for hire . The employment is a contract of service between the employer and the employees where - under the employee agrees to serve an employer subject to his control and supervision .
Now there is a difference between ' contract of service ' and ' contract for service' . In order to establish the employer and employee relationship , the workman has to prove that there was a ' contract of service' between him and the employer . There is nothing of that sort in the present case. At one time the supervision and control uscxi to be considered as the prima facie test for determining the relationship of employee and employer but as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workman of Nilgiri Cooperative [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Marketing Society Limited Versus State ofTamil Nadu 2004- II - LLJ 253 observed that " No single test- be it control test organization test or any other test was determinative test for determining the jural relationship of employer and employee " . The Hon'ble Court held that the court is required to consider several factors which would have a bearing on the result : ( a) Who is appointing authority? (b) Who is pay master ? ( c) Who can dismiss ? ( d) How long alternative service lasts ? ( e) The extent of control and supervision ( f) The nature of job e.g. whether it is professional or skilled work ? ( g ) Nature of establishment ? (h) The right to reject .
Here in the present case there is no sanctioned post ofa helper or cleaner for the heavy vehicle (Tanker Lorry) . There was no advertisement for the post and Employment Exchange had not sponsored the name of the workman to any such post . No appointment letter was issued to the workman. There is nothing to show that the workman was being paid salary or wages by the Corporation and the Corporation was his pay master . Also there is nothing to show that he was under the control and supervision of the Corporation . The Log Sheets and Log Book filed by him have not come from proper custody. On the basis of these documents it may be said that the workman had worked on the vehicle but it does not prove the fact of the employment of the work man with the Corporation . The letters of the contractors Ex . MW- 1/ 17 to MW 1/19 , the genuineness of which has not been challenged by the workman goes to show that he was in the service of the contractors . Moreover , the job of a helper of cleaner is not a job of a professional or skilled worker and there is nothing on record to show that the management had disciplinary control over the workman and has a right to terminate his services .
8719
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
management and the later did not terminate his service. Workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly, against the workman . Let two copies of the award be sent to the Central Government after due compliance.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3019. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन आयल कारपेंशन लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , ईरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30012/2/2008- आई आर( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th November , 2010 S.O. 3019. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 14/2008 ) of the Central Government Govt. Indus . Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16-11-2010 .
[No. L- 30012/22008 - IR ( M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present : Shri . P.L.Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer Friday, the 22nd day of October , 2010/30th Ashinam , 1932
I.D. 14/2008
Union
Log Sheets or Log Book and for that purpose even an Identity Card cannot be treated as an evidence of employer - employee relationship . The evidence of retired driver of the vehicle GP.S. Brar is also not sufficient to prove the said relationship . He has taken contradictory stand in his two affidavits . He is not a reliable witness . It is , therefore , held that the workman was not an employee of the management and there was no relationship of employer- employee between the management and the workman. Issue No.1 is decided against the workman.
Issue No. 2
The General Secretary Ernakulam Jilla Motor Thozhilali Sangam , BMS District Committee Office , IS Press Road , Kochi (Kerala) -18 . By Adv. Shri . T.C.Krishna.
Management
As the workman was not in the employment of the management , the question of terminating his services by management does not arise . There is no termination order issued by the managements . There is no question of holding any enquiry against the workman and issuing him a notice or paying him compensation by the management . Issue No. 2 is decided against the workman .
Issue No. 3
From the above going discussion and findings it is clear that the workman was not in the employment of the The General Manager ( HR) , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Southern Region , Indian Oil Bhawan , 139 , Uttamar Gandhi Road , Chennai - 600034.
By Advs . M / s . Menon & Pai .
This case coming up for hearing on 19-10-2010 , this Tribunal - cum - Labour Court on the same day passed the following.
8720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYAΝΑ 20 , 1932
AWARD
This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is :
"Whether the action of the management of M/ s .
Indian Oil Corporation in terminating Sh. Sukumaran w.e.f. 30-6-1989 as Driver from its services is fair and justifiable ? If not to what relief he is entitled to ? "
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :-
The union has questioned the legality of termination of service of Sri . Sukumaran . According to the union Sri . Sukumaran had joined the service of management as casual driver in the year 1984 and was working as driver in the petroleum tanker at Feroke Depot . He continued to work as such till 30-06-1989 , when his service was terminated by the management . He had done continuous service . However the termination was effected without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . All other similar workers were absorbed in the service of the management . Therefore the union prays that the worker may be reinstated inservice.
3. According to the management the corporation had petroleum tanker for the purpose of transportation of petroleum products from the storage depot to dealers in various places . The management had , besides the permanent drivers , a few casual drivers as well for the purpose of meeting emergent situations . Thus Sri . Sukumaran was also engaged . However he worked only up to 29-06-1989 . Thereafter he did not turn up for engagement . After 1995 the distribution of petroleum to. dealers is done by 3rd parties . Now the corporation does not have tankers . Though the worker stopped the work in 1989 he did not raise a claim until 2008. There is delay in raising the dispute . There is no termination of service by the management . The management disputes the contention with regard to alternate employment after 29-06-1989 . The claim is liable to be rejected .
4. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration .
1. Is the termination legal ?.
2. To what relief, if any, the worker is entitled?
5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WW 1 and documentary evidence of Exts . W1 to 4 on the side of the union and MW1 on the side of the management .
6. Point No.1 :- It is an admitted fact that Sri . Sukumaran was engaged as causal driver in the management storage depot at Feroke of Kozhikode district . According to the union his service was terminated on 30-6-1989 . But according to the management he did not turn up for work after 29-6-89 . It is admitted in the written
[PART II- SEC . 3 (u)] statement of the management that the distribution of petroleum products from storage depot to dealers was done by the management directly up to 1995 and thereafter through contractors . That means there was work for drivers , if not continuously , at least intermittently up to 1995. The worker has produced Exts . W1 and 2 identity cards . They show that he had worked up to 1987. The worker had questioned the termination and sought a direction for reinstatement as a temporary driver by filing writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Kerala . Ext. W3 is thejudgment in O.P. The writ petition was disposed of on 12-01-2006 without prejudice to the rights of the worker under Industrial Disputes Act . Ext . W4 is a reply of the management to the representation of union for employment and absorption of worker in service . The reply is that the worker had not reported for engagement for a long time after 1989 and he could not be empanelled as casual labourer since he was not in service at the relevant time . Hence his request for reinstatement was rejected . Besides these documents the worker has given oral evidence . He says that he was engaged as driver from 1984 to 1989. However he did not deny the suggestion of management in the cross- examination that he was engaged last on 29-06-1989 . He admits that empanelment of causal labourers was done either in 1995 or 1998 and he was not in service at that time. He also admits that after 1989 he had alternate employment sometimes . According to MW1 Sr. Depot Manager employment of casual drivers continued till 1996 and none ofthem were terminated from service by the management . In1996 as per the direction of the department all available casual labourers were empanelled and later absorbed in service. When the distribution of petroleum products was entrusted to contractors such absorbed employees were redeployed for some other work other than driving in the management . However the worker was not working as casual driver after 29-6-1989 . Therefore he could not be empanelled in 1996 .
7. The worker is questioning the legality of termination . The burden is on him to show that his services were terminated by the management . If he has by his own accord stopped work , it does not amount to termination of service. Assuming that he was terminated from service on 30-06-1989 still he has to show that he has done continuous service of 240 days minimum proceding the termination. There is absolutely no evidence on the file to prove continuous service , much less 240 days preceding his termination on 30-06-1989 . Therefore he cannot contend that S.25 - F of ID Act or any other provision of the Act is violated by the management . Thus both termination and continuous service are not proved by the union .
8. Though absorption is not an issue referred a contention was raised that the worker was not empanelled for absorption while similar other casual workers were empanelled . As mentioned above the worker has admitted in the box that at the time of empanelment he was not in service . He admits that the empanelment was sometime भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
between 1995 and 1998. Therefore there was no chance for including his name in the list for the purpose of absorption . In view of the above circumstances it has to be found that there is no termination of service and no illegality is committed by the management in the matter of employment ofthe worker.
9. Point No. 2:--- In the light of the above findings it follows that the worker is not entitled for any relief including notice of termination or compensation as contemplated under S.25 - F of ID Act .
In the result an award is passed finding that there is no termination of service of worker by the management and no illegality is committed by the management in the matter of employment of the worker Sri . Sukumaran .
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 22nd day of October, 2010.
P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer
Appendix
Witness for the Union :
WWI
Sukumaran , workman .
Witness for the Management :
MWI- Sudhakaran P.V. , Senior Depot Manager.
Exhibits for the Union :
WI-
Identity Card of worker -
-do-
W2-
W3--
Judgment in OP.No.9208 / 1999 dtd. 12-01-2006 of High Court of Kerala .
W4---
Letter No.P/ 1741 /VIP dtd . 31-10-2000 sent by management to the union.
Nil.
Exhibit for the Management
नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3020.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस. कुमार हेडिलिंग ऐजन्सी कोन्ट्रैक्टर एम.एम.टी.सी बारबीर केन्जोर उड़ीसा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल-29011 /5/2005- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव 4575 Gl / 10-24
8721 New Delhi , the 16th November, 2010
S.O. 3020. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubneswar now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . S. Kumar HandlingAgency Contractor MMTC Barbil Keonjhar Orissa and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-11-2010.
[No. L- 29011/5 /2005 - IR (M ) ]
JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR Present:
Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer, C.G..I.T. - cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 32/2005
Date of Passing : Award - 7th October , 2010
Between:
The Management of M/ s . S. Kumar Handling Agency, M.M.T.C. Railway Siding , Station Road , P.O. Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar, Orissa .
... 1st Party- Management .
(And)
Their workman represented through the General Secretary, North Orissa Workers Union , At./Po . Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar , Orissa .
... 2nd Party - Union .
APPEARANCES:
None.
Forthe 1st Party- Management
For the 2nd Party- Union.
Shri B.S. Pati, General Secretary
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred the present dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of S. Kumar Handling Agency, M.M.T.C. Railway Siding and their workman under clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act vide their Letter No. L- 29011 / 5 / 2005 - IR ( M ) , dated 8722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYAΝΑ 20, 1932
11-11-2005 to this Tribunal for adjudication to the following effect:
"Whether the demand of the North Orissa Workers Union At/Po . Barbil , Dist Keonjhar demanding 20% bonus and exgratia @ Rs . 3000 for the accounting year 2003-2004 to all workers working under M/ s . S.K. Handling Agency, Wagon Loading Contractor , Barbil Railway Siding , MMTC , Barbil is justified ? If not , what relief the workmen are entitled to? " 2. Pursuant to the letter of reference the 2nd Party- Union preferred its statement of claim . The claim statement contains the averments mentioning that the 1st Party- Management has employed a number of employees for smooth functioning of its activities and the 2nd Party Union is formed of such employees who are workmen within the meaning of Section 2 ( s ) of the Industrial Dispures Act , 1947. The 2nd Party Union on behalf of the employees raised the demand for payment ofbonus at the rate of 20 % and exgratia of Rs . 3000 for the accounting year 2003-04. The 1st Party - Management did not respond to the demand of the Union . Therefore , the Union raised an industrial dispute before the Asstt Labour Commissioner ( Central), Rourkela which was admitted into conciliation . Buducause of non- cooperation and adverse attitude of the ist Party- Management , the conciliation ended in failure and consequently the present reference was made . The bonus is dependant on the profit made by the employer and the concept of bonus is nothing but profit sharing among the partners in the process of production/business . For arriving the duty at the figure of profit from which the bonus is to be paid to the employees , the duty is cast on the employer to establich the same by relevant and acceptable evidence . In the instant case the 1st Party- Management had neither shared with the information pertaining to its financial activities to the Union nor to the conciliation officer. The said documents are in the custody of the 1st Party- Management and unless the same are placed before this Tribunal/ Court it will not be possible to arrive at correct percentage of bonus and exgratia to be paid to the employees of the Ist Party - Management for the accounting year 2003-2004 . It has therefore been praved that the demand of the Union regarding payment of 20 % bonus and exgratia of Rs . 3000 for the accounting year 200.1-04 to all workers of the 1st Party- Managementbe fulfilled and the payment be made accordingly .
3. The ist Party - Management despite having given so many dates and opportunities did not file any written statement . Hence the case was set exparte against the ist Party -Management by order dated 8-6-2010.
4. The 2nd Party- Union has filed the sworn Affidavit of Shri Bhabani Shankar Pati , General Secretary of the North Orissa Workers Union who has put forward and supported the claim of the Union for grant of bonus at the rate of 20 % of the wages and exgratia at the rate of Rs . 3000 for the accounting year 2003-04 to all workers working under M/ s . S.K. Handling Agency, Wagon Loading Contractor , Barbil Railway , Siding MMTC, Barbil . The claim ofthe 2nd Party-
[PART II - SEC.00 ] Union has not been resisted or denied by the 1st Party- Management by filing any written statement or evidence . Therefore, the claim of the 2nd Party- Union with regard to payment of bonus at the rate of 20 % of wages and exgratia ofRs . 3000 for the accounting year 2003-04 is to be hoid justified on face of the un- controverted exparte evidence of the 2nd Party - Union and the 1st Party - Managemeat is liable to be directed to make payment of 20 % bonus and exgratia at the rate of Rs . 3000 for the accounting ycar 2003-04 to all workers working at that time under MAS K. Handling Agency, Wagon Loading Contractor , Barol Railway , Siding MMTC , Barbil within three months trom the date of passing of this Award. The award is so passod and the directions are so issued.
5. Reference is answered accordingly. Dictated & Corrected by me .
J. SRIVASTAVA , Preseling Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3021, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार न्यू होतया एश्योरन्स कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विल्यद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर में पंथा ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय अन्तर को16-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-17011/3/2009 - आई आर ०५: जोहन तोपनी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th Novemba, 2011 ) S.O. 3021. In pursuance of Section 17 or t Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Contra Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 32/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunat - curm - Labour Court , Bhubneswar as shown in the Annexture, to the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and their workmen , which was recerved by the Central Goveminent on 16-11-2010 .
[No. L- 17011 /3 / 2009 -IK ( M ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Unda Sixcy . ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present :
Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. - cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar.
Industrial Dispute Case No. 32/2009 Date of Passing Award - 8th October 2010 Between:
TheManagement of the Regional Manager , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , Bhubaneswar [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Regional Office, 550000 , 1st Floor, Alok Bharati Tower , Sahid Nagar , Bhubaneswar .
... 1st Party -Management .
(And)
Their workman represented through the General Secretary, Orissa State General Insurance Employees Association , C/ o . New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , DO - I , Cantonment Road, Cuttack - 753 001 .
...2nd Party -Union .
APPEARANCES :
None:
Forthe 1st Party- Management None:
For the 2nd Party - Union
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred the present dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , and their workman under clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947 vide their Letter No. L - 17011/ 3/2009 - IR (M) , dated 6-7-2009 .
2. The dispute mentioned in the schedule of the letter ofreference is as follows :-
"Whether the action of the Management of New India Assurance Company Ltd. , in transferring Shri H. K. Kar from Choudwar to Paradip within one year of service is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to ?" 3. The 2nd Party - Union raising the dispute has filed its statement of claim in which it is stated that Shri H. K. Kar, Assistant ( C ) was transferred from Cuttack District Branch Office of New India Assurance Company Ltd. to Choudwar Branch Office vide New India Management Order dated 22-3-2007 and joined there on 26-3-2007. Shri Kar was entitled to get Rs . 400 per month as disturbance allowance as he was transferred from Cuttack city to a distinctly different city as per provisions of Para - 5 of the Transfer Mobility Policy ( TMP) formulated by the New India Assurance Company. He was not to be transferred within a period of three years from the date of joining at Choudwar to another head quarter as per rule . But he was again issued with a transfer order dated 21-7-2008 which was served on him on 31-7-2008 in violation of the provisions of the TMP. The 2nd Party - Union whereupon raised an industrial dispute before the Asst . Labour Commissioner (Central) vide its letter dated 11-8-2008 , but the matter ended in failure due to non - cooperation of the New India Management . Taking advantage of the failure ofthe conciliation proceedings , the Ist Party - Management forcibly relieved Shri Kar from Choudwar Branch on 19-1-2009 and thereby Shri Kar was forced to join at Paradip Branch office on 21-1-2009 . It is to be noted that Para - 4 of the TMP was not applicable to Shri H. S. Kar as the job rotation within the same station is applicable to the employees who have completed five years of continuous working in a particular office. The 1st Party- Management
8723
भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
did not even release the financial benefits in favour of Shri Kar till date and thereby caused willful hardship to him , 4. The 1st Party - Management is treating Cuttack and Choudwar as two separate cities and releasing transfer benefits to the Class - I Officers transferred under TMP and not disturbing them from Choudwar in the next year TMP exercise but in the case of Class - III employees they are treating the said two towns as one town in order to deprive transfer benefits to Class - III employees . Therefore , it has been prayed that necessary orders for transfer of services of Shri H. K. Kar from Paradip Branch to Choudwar Branch be passed.
5. The Ist Party - Management inspite of putting in appearance in the case had not filed any written statement till date . Therefore the case was ordered to be proceeded exparte against the 1st Party - Management on 29-7-2010 and the 2nd Party - Union was called upon to file the exparte evidence by 20-9-2010 . But the 2nd Party - Union did not file any exparte evidence on the date fixed nor appeared in court . Therefore the case was put up for orders on 8-10-2010.
6. Although the 2nd Party -Union has put forward its case against the 1st Party Managernent relating to unfair transfer of Shri H. K. Kar alleged to be violative of the provisions of the TMP ( Transfer Mobility Policy ) of the New India Assurance Company Limited , yet it is to be seen whether the transfer order of Shri H. K. Karfion Choudwar to Paradip within one year of service can be acid illegal and unjustified in view of the provisions of the said TMP.
7. The 2nd Party - Union has failed to file any evidence in support of its claim . Only certain documents in the shape of xerox copies relating to policy document and transfer order etc. have been filed. The policy document has to be given relevance , but it cannot be gathered from it that the 1st Party - Management is not authorized or entitled to transfer its employee from one station to another within one year of his posting at that station. There may be exigencies or pressing needs when an employee can be transferred within a short span from one station to another . The 2nd party Union could not show that the 1st Party- Management has transferred Shri H. K. Kar from Choudwar to Paradip within one year of service without any reasonable cause and in gross violation of the provisions of the TMP. With mere contention without the strength of any evidence itcannot be held that the workman is entitled to the relief claimed and the 2nd Party- Union has been successful to prove its case .
8. In the result the action of the Management of New IndiaAssurance Company Limited in transferring Shri H. K. Kar from Choudwar to Paradip within one year of service cannot be held as illegal and unjustified and Shri Kar is not entitled to any relief.
9. Reference is answered accordingly . Dictated & Corrected by me .
J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer 8724
[PART I - See) !
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYAΝΑ 20, 1932
नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3022 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण मध्य रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41014/01/2010 - आई आर ( बी -- Ⅰ ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th November , 2010 S.O. 3022. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 15/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South Central Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 16-11-2010 .
[No. L-41014/01 /2010 - IR (B - 1) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 2nd day of August, 2010 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 15/2006 BETWEEN:
AWARD
This petition wader Sec . 2. A ( 2 ) of the LD . aa, was filed by Sri J. Mohan Rao , Ex . Yard Khalasi in light of thejudgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesia reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotten Corporation of Jadia and two others to reinstate him in the service with full back wages and other service benefits .
2. Petitioner filed his claim staciment stating thời thathe was appointed as Khalasi ( regular ) in be year 1976 and during employment the Petitioner got some mental ailment , for which he was referred to medical treatmien di Railway Hospital , Secunderbad. It is submitted that ne was under treatment from 20-1-1980 to 3-9-2002 for ' mesal depression' . Petitioner approached Respondents after his recovery from the ailment and made representations dated 26-2-2003 , 15-10-2005 and 25-5-2005 . That Respondent bas not accepted the requests of the Petitioner . He prayed for a direction to the Respondent to reinstate Petitioner's son with continuity of service , back wages and with all consequential benefits .
3. Respondent has filed counter statement . F has been stated that Petitioner has filed this petition after a lapse of 26 years and also this case is not only barroi by limitation but also records are not available because maximum period of preservation of records is only if years and thereafter all records will be destroyed , as such the petition be dismissed .
4. Case is fixed for Petitioner's evidence Pentioner absent of 2-8-2010 , as such petition is dismissed in absence ofPetitioner . Therefore , a ' Nil ' Award is passed in absence ofPetitioner concerned .
Award passed accordingly. Transmit .
Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistam transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 2nd day of August , 2010 .
VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presidmg Officer Appendix of evidence
.... Petitioner
Sri J. Mohan Rao S/ o J. Krishna Rao , C/ o Sri R. Yogender Singh , Advocate , D. No. 6-3-628/ 21 , Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
AND
1 The General Manager , South Central Railway, RailNilayam, Secunderbad ,
2 The Senior Divisional Administrative Officer , BG, South Central Railway, Secunderbad
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL
NIL
Douments marked for the Petitioner NIL
Douments marked for the Respondent NIL
Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : Sri R. Yogender Singh , Advocate For the Respondent : Sri A. Prithivi Raj , Advocate नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3023, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
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 45/2005) कोप्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/ 26/2005- आई आर ( बी.1 ) ]
रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th November , 2010 S.O. 3023.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/ 2.005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, -1 , Chandigarh as shown in the annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, recieved by the Central Government on 16-11-2010 .
[No. L- 12012/26/2005 - IR (B - I) ]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case I.D. No. 45/2005
Shri Ajit Singh C/ o Shri J.G. Verma , General Secretary, SBI Staff Congress , Chandigarh Circle 3030/1 , Sector - 44 - D , Chandigarh.
8725
= 2002 by two stages in the scale of pay is legal andjustified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "
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 paid amount of 28,440 at the time of presenting of token and this fact that he has not paid the amount has not been proved before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has not summoned the complainant Shri Satyawan in evidence who has complained against him for non delivery of Rs . 28,440. On charge no . 2, it is contended by the workman that every transaction was duly authorized and permitted by the bank . Apart from it , the workman has said much about fairness of enquiry and has challenged the enquiry proceedings on the ground of violation of the principle of naturaljustice .
...Applicant
Versus
TheAssistant General Manager State Bank of India , P - III , Zonal Office , Panchkula , Haryana .
The management of respondent bank has opposed the contention of the workman by filing written statement . It is contended by the management that there was a written complaint against the workman and his brother official Shri Mange Ram filed by Shri Satyawan who presented a cheque to the workman for Rs . 28,440 . It was alleged in the complaint that token was received by the workman Shri Ajit Singh but payment was not made good . Subsequently a FIR was lodged against Shri Ajit Singh and Shri Mange Ram . Both have applied for anticipatory bail . The anticipatory bail order clearly speaks that workman along with Shri Mange Ram have paid the amount to the complainant after lodging FIR . It is also contended by the management of the respondent bank that workman has compromised with Shri Satyawan resulting non turning of Satyawan in enquiry proceedings . It is further contended by the management of respondent bank that workman along with Shri Mange Ram was acquitted by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of the compromise entered into between the workman and Shri Satyawan .
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
Shri Raj Kaushik For the Workman :
Shri S.K. Gupta.
For the Management :
AWARD
Passed on :-27-10-10
Government of India vide notification No. L - 12012 / 26/2005 - IR(B - I) , dated 27-10-2005 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 State Bank of India, Panchkula in imposing the punishment of bringing down the pay of Shri Ajit Singh , Asstt . Cashier vide Order dated 28-02- Apart from it the management has conceded that proper and fair enquiry was conducted against the workman. The punishment was lesser then the gravity of misconduct. On charge no . 2 , it is contended by the bank that there is no permission of any officer of the bank for the said transactions .
As per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , and the mechanism adopted by this Tribunal , parties were heard on the preliminary issue on the fairness of enquiry. As per the mechanism adopted by this Tribunal personal presence of the workman on the date of hearing on preliminary issue on the fairness of enquiry is mandatory. The workman turns up . He was heard in person along with learned counsel for the parties . The issue of fairness of enquiry was decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 15-12-2009 . Order dated 15-12-2009 shall be the part ofthis award . Vide order dated 15-12-2009 , it was 8726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
held by this Tribunal that a fair , proper and reasonable enquiry was conducted by the management against the workman . It was also held by this Tribunal that there has been no violation of any rules of the principle of natural justice. Both of the parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence on perversity, if any , in decision making and on the quantum of punishment . Order dated 7-04-2010 makes it clear that the workman has stated that be is no more interested to adduce any evidence and the industrial dispute may be decided on the basis of the documentary evidence . The same statement was given by the representative of the management . Accordingly, evidence of the partics on the perversity, if any, on decision making of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authonty and on quantum of punishment was also closed Parties were also heard at length . The learned counsel for the workman has contended that the statement in bail order regarding the payment of amount in question has no relations with the workman . Shri Mange Ram might have paid the amount. It was a co - incidence that application of the workman and Shri Mange Ram for anticipatory bail was disposed off by the Court by a common order. There is no evidence on record that the said amount was deposited/ paid by the workman .
Learned counsel for the management has contended and argued that disciplinary proceedings commenced after the acquittal of the workman from the criminal case . Acquittal was the outcome and result of the compromise between Shri Satyawan on one part and Shri Mange Ram and workman on the other . The document on record clearly established that amount in question was not paid by the workman to Shri Satyawan at the time of presenting the token. It was subsequently paid in a compromise through gram panchayat . Thus , the documents clearly proved and established that workman was guilty of non - payment of amount in question at the time of receiving the token at counter and has pocketed the amount . Under such scenario where Shri Satyawan compromise , there was no need for recording his statement because the documents clearly established and proved the charges levelled against the workman .
As stated earlier , the charge against the workman is that he has not paid the amount of Rs . 28,440 to Shri Satyawan at the time of presenting the token. The workman in connivance with other employee Shri Mange Ram has pocketed the amount . The contention of the workman that he has been acquitted by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction is of no use because the nature of the departmental proceedings and the proceedings before this Tribunal are altogether different then the proceedings before the Civil Courts or the Criminal Courts . The workman might have been acquitted by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction but if by independent evidence the charge levellod against the workman has been proved there is no bar in awarding the punishment to the workman for
[PART II -SEC. 360) ) misconduct as per the rules irrespective of the fact that he was acquitted in the criminal charge levelled agams : him by the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction . The materials on record are the bail order passed by Additiousi Sessions Judge on anticipatory bail application of workinan and Shri Mange Ram and the acquittal order passed by the Court on the basis of the compromise . The cumulative effect ofboth of the documents is that amount in question was paid to Shri Satyawan after lodgor , FIR ina compromise. It is not the case before thirribunal cha amount was paid twice to Shri Satyawan and work and Shri Mange Ram had to pay the amount just to save themselves for criminal proccodings and the departmenial proceedings . It is the only contention of the criman da amount was paid by Shri Mange Ram. The application of the workman for anticipatory bail was heard jointly There was ajoint trial of both of the persons , hence сазпол said that workman has no concon with the payтеті amount in question to Shri Satyawan . It was the ouir p of the payment of amount after FIR that anticipatory bad was allowed and both of the accused persons acquitters The workman cannot be elective . In the Criminal Court on has taken the benefit of payment of amount and befor departmental proceedings he is saying that he has pes paid the amount but the same was paid by Shri Mange Ram . The payment of amount to Shri Satyawan resur.d the relief and benefit to the workman before the Crimin Court . Moreover , the workman was on the so responsible for the payment of amount in question to Shri Satyawan and Shri Mange Ram was on another seat in the bank . The opportunity for non payment was to to workman none else Accordingly, tise docanschir evidence and circumstances clearly proved thatthe amou was not paid to Shri Satyawan at the time of the receiving the token and the charge no . I was established and proveri against the workman .
So far as charge no . 2 is concern , it is wrongly held to be proved against the workman . Receipts filed by the workman shows that every transaction was under the authority of the bank officers . Moreover , in the ordinsee course of the nature such transactions are presumed under authority from the employee of the prudence in the similar circumstances . Thus , I am ofthe view that enquiry officer has wrongly held charge no . 2 be proved against the workman.
Regarding the gravity of the charge no . I and the punishment awarded to the workman , I am of the view that disciplinary authority has already been lenient in awarding the punishment and no interference by this Tribunal is called for . Accordingly, there is no force in the claim of the workman . The industrial dispute and reference is accordingly answered . Let Central Government be approached for publication of the award , and thereafter. file be consigned to record room .
G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 18 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3024.-ओद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.एस.एन.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल-40012/ 113/ 2004- आई आर ( डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th November , 2010 S.O. 3024. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 17 / 2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court- Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the raanagement of BSNL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 18-11-2010.
[ No. L- 40012/ 113 / 2004- IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present: - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of September , 2010 Industrial Dispute No. 17/2005
BETWEEN :
Smt. T. Ludhiya,
.... Petitioner W/o Sri M. Bramanjaneyulu , C/ o Sh . P.Appa Rao Reddy , Distt . Secretary , NUMBSNL W ( FNTO ) , No. 252, Labour Colony, Vidyadharapuram , Vijayawada- 12
AND
Respondent The General Manager , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited , Vijayawada APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : M/s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates For the Respondent : Sri P. Bhaskara Mohan , Advocate
AWARD
This reference has been received from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No.
8727
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010 / अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
L - 40012 / 113 / 2004 - IR ( DU) dated 13-1-2005 under section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 to resolve the dispute between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and their workman Smt . T. Ludhiya . The term ofreference is as under :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Vijayawada in dismissing services of Smt . T. Ludhiya Ex . Casual Mazdoor is justified? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 17/2005 and notices were issued to the parties .
2. Petitioner workman has filed claim statement stating therein that she was appointed as a casual mazdoor in department ofTelecom and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , on 27-8-84 in the Office of SDE - II Vijayawada after considering her past service with the department . She has been discharging his duties to the best of her abilities as per the instructions given by superiors .
3. She worked in the above said department for more than 19 years but her services were not regularized by Respondent . Instead, when she sought regularization of her services the management arbitrarily, illegally terminated her services . After termination of the services the workman has raised conciliation proceedings which resulted in failure and conciliation officer submitted failure report to the Government of India of Ministry of Labour and Employment which has referred the dispute to this tribunal . She has further alleged that juniors to her have been regularizex! but Petitioner workman's case has not been considered for regularization when the Petitioner insisted for regularization . Her services were terminated w.e.f. 12-11-2003 . She has prayed for quashment of the termination order and to reinstate her with direction to regularize her in the service with full back wages .
4. Counter statement has been filed by the Respondent wherein they have stated that the Petitioner was never appointed in the department of Telecom /Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. In fact the original alleged certificate issued byAssistant Engineer Railway Electrification Project which was submitted before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) was said to be not traceable . On the enquiry it was revealed that the project was closed long back and no further details are available in that regard . The document did not disclose any proof of employment with DOT /Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. They have further alleged that the SDE.II ( TRG Coordination ) , Vijayawada addressed letter to AGM ( A ) , 0/0 GMTD, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Vijayawada reveals that nobody by name Smt . T. Ludhiya had ever worked in Sub Divisional Office as casual mazdoor.
5. The contention of the Petitioner that she worked for more than 19 years is unfounded and baseless . There is no proof of employment and termination of the Petitioner 8728
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( 1)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
from the service on alleged dated i.e.12-11-2003 . The claim is misleading and unfounded . It is further been alleged that there is ban from 1985 onward that mazdoor can not be engaged for more than 100 days in a year . During 1985 it was only for 60 days in a year which was later raised to 100 days . Petition deserves to be dismissed .
6. Both the parties filed their respective evidence . The workman has filed a self prepared statement showing her attendance . She has further filed alleged xerox copy of statement that Smt . T. Ludhiya has worked for 2184 days at Gannavaram from 7-2-96 to 31-1-2002 . The workman has filed xerox copy of the said statement and her own affidavit as her examination in chief and has presentol herself for cross examination and has been cross examined by Respondent . The workman has filed identity card Ex . WI , alleged original letter dated 27-8-84 as Ex . W2, statement of working for more than 4 hours at SDE ( P ) , Gannavaram Ex . W3 , book showing her number of working days from 7-3-96 to 1-12-96 Ex. W4 , self declaration as Ex . W5 and xerox copy of application filed before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) as Ex . W6 .
7. Respondent has also filed documents Ex . M1 to M10 which are letters from SDE , SDOP and circulars and ictter of department of Telecomm nation which will be discussed in the latter paragraphs . The Respondent has filed affidavitof Sri K. Surya Chandra Rao and has presented him for cross examination.
8. One Sri K. Mohan Rao has also filed his affidavit on behalf of the management wherein he has refuted the allegations made by the Petitioner and has stated that Petitioner was never employed in the department of Telecommunications nor he was terminated from the service as alleged by him.
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed written arguments supported with the latest judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 292/2002 in between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and Teja Singh . None had appeared for arguments on behalf of the Petitioner workman as such , I have myself gone through the claim statement and documents produced by the claimant and counter statement , documents produced by the Respondent and arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondents .
10. This tribunal has to consider : --
(I ) Whether the action of the management in dismissing the services of Smt . T. Ludhiya , ex- Casual mazdoor is justified ?
(II ) Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled?
Ltd. , management or not ? Respondent has challenged the very existence of relationship of master and servant. Gi employee or employer between the Petitioner workman and the management . The Petitioner has stated in her clain: statement that she was appointed in the department ai telecommunication and joined on 27-8-84. This fact bas been challenged by the Respondent , in that case it was the duty of the Petitioner to substantiate that she has actually worked with the department of telecommunication from 27-8-84 . The Petitioner has not been able to produce any single piece of paper to show that she was employed by the Department of Post and Telegraphs on 27-8-84 in her cross examination she has stated that Ex. Whis the identity card issued by the Telecom District , Vijayaw zla and Ex . W2 is the appointment order but to the uiter surprise it is found that alleged Ex . W2 is not ar appointment order , because it is mentioned in this document that " Following condidates who have been working at different places beyond 16 KM from Vijayawada and Machilipatnam ( Head Quarters of employment exchange) were interviewed on 27-8-1984 at Gudiwada and were selected as casual mazdoors on daily wages . " This letter has not been proved by the Petitioner . More over this Ex . W2 shows that Smt . T. Ludhiya was selected as casual mazdoor , whether she was appointed or not it does not disclose . It is settled law that selection for a post is not a proof of her appointment . As such it can not be said that Ex . W2 is appointment letter. Scondly she has submitted self prepared document , wherein it is mentioned that Smt . T. Ludhiya has worked for 2184 days , on what basis this statement has been prepared is also a secret which has not been proved by the Petitioner workman . Against this document there is letter by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Sub Divisional Engineer's office , Gannavarar ! dated 27-2-2004 stating therein that nobody by name Smt . T. Ludhiya has ever worked in that Sub - Division as casual worker . There is another letter of SDE , Branch Telecom Training Centre , Vijayawada dated 27-1-2004 regarding non - engagement of the Petitioner and another letter dated 23-8-2005 sending comments on the self prepared working days of Smt . T.Ludhiya that she was not engaged as casual worker in the office of SDE - II , Trg . Coordination , Autonagar , SDE ( GRS ) , Gannavaram . There is another document Ex . M4 from the office D.E.Telecom, Palakol that the days of working as claimed by Smt . T. Ludhiya are not true . There is another document Ex . M5 from the office of the AGM, O / 0 GMTD , Vijayawada addressed to AGM Legal that no person in the nameof Smt.T. Ludhiya has ever worked under SDE as casual worker from 1-3-97 to 28-2-98 . The Respondent has further filed Ex . M7 i.e. , letter of the Telecom Department dated 12-2-99 imposing ban on engagement of casual labour which read that " Department of Telecommunication has
imposed a ban on recruitment/ engagement of casua .
labourers . That permitted not more than 15 days during
exigencies and natural clamities to engage casual
labourers . "
11. Point No. ( I ) : To consider the legality and justification of the alleged dismissal order , this tribunal has to see whether Petitioner Smt . T. Ludhiya was actually appointed and worked under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam 8729 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II -खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Dictatedto Smt . P. Phani Gowri . Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 29th day of September, 2010 .
VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
WW1: Smt . T. Ludhiya
MWI : Sri K. Surya Chandra Rao
MW2: Sri K. Mohan Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Identity card of WW1
Selection letter dt . 27-8-84
Ex. W2:
Ex.W3: List ofpart time casual labourers working for more than 4 hrs reg .
Ex.W4:
12. The workman during her cross examination has stated that the service certificates are given to her by the Respondent but there is neither any seal of the Respondent department nor it has been issued on the letter head ofthe Respondent department. She has stated that she has not filed any service record from 1990 to 2003 as no certificate was given to her. The Respondent has challenged the authenticity of the documents filed by the Petitionerie. , Ex. W1 and W2 . Petitioner has not been able to prove that she has worked under the Department of Telecommunication/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., or she was appointed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , as alleged by her. She herself has stated that she is not having any 1000 2003 service record that she worked for the period 1990 to as such, it can not be said to have been proved that Petitioner was terminated from the service on 12-11-2003 , there is neither any written appointment letter nor there is retrenchment/termination order , in that case even ifthe Petitioner has worked as casual mazdoor for some days , she is not entitled for regularization or absorption in the service ofTelecom Department/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Original book showing working days of WW1 from 7-3-96 to 1-1-96
Ex.W5: Copy ofdeclaration given by WW1dt. 22-9-2003 reg.his particulars
Ex.W6: Copy ofapplication to ALC (C)dt . 22-9-2003 Documents marked for the Respondent 13. Learmed Counsel for the Respondent has cited thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 292/2009 between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and Teja Singh wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a daily rate worker is not entitled for regularization or absorption in the service."
Ex.M1: Copy oflr.dt. 27-2-2004 of SDE (Extl . & Intl.) BSNL,Vijayawada- 15
Ex.M2: Copy of lr.dt . 27-1-2004 of SDE, BSNL , Vijayawada reg. factual report of engagement ofPetitioner.
Ex.M3: Copy of Ir.dt . 23-8-2005 of SDE ( Internal ), Nuzuvidto AGM ( Legal ) BSNL, Vijayawada reg. comments on working day of WWI
Ex.M4: Copy of lr.dt. 16-12-2005 of DE . Telecom,Mice, Palakol on working days of WWI 14. From the above discussion, this tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner was neither appointed nor shewas terminated from service on alleged date12-11-2003 as such, her claim that she was dismissed illegally or unjustifiable is incorrect . Since she was not dismissed from the services neither she was a workman nor there was relationship of employer and employee between the Respondent management and the workman, there is no question to determine " whether the action of the management in dismissing the services is justified or not" Petitioner was neither appointed nor dismissed. She has come with a concocted case and statement which is unfounded and baseless . The point No. (I ) is decided accordingly.
Ex.M5: Copy of Ir.dt . 24-12-2005 ofAGM ( Admn ) O/ o GMTD, Vijayawada on working days of the claimant to AGM (Legal) , Vijayawada .
Ex.M6: Copy of DoT OMdt . 12-2-99 - reg.the ban on engagement of casual labourers
Ex.M7: Copyof DoTOMdt . 12-2-99-reg . the contingent expenditure
15. Point No. ( II ) : The Petitioner was neither appointed nor she has worked as casual mazdoor or daily rated workman nor she was disengaged from the services she is not entitled for any relief. The petition is misconceived and Petitioner does not deserve any relief. This point No. (II) is also decided in favour of the management.
Ex.M8: Copy of DoT OMdt. 15-6-99- reg . the bank on engagement of casual labourers .
Ex.M9: Copy of endorsement letter of O/ o CGMT, AP, HD, dt. 18-6-99
Ex.M10: Copy ofwritten statement filed before the ALC (C) Vijayawada in Ir. dt. 15-3-2004 16. From the above discussion, this tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner was never engaged nor she wasdismissed from the service and she is not entitled for any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. Award passed accordingly. Transnuit .
4575 G1 /10--25 8730
[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( i) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/ AGRAHAYANΝΑ 20 , 1932
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3025.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.एस.एन.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल -40012/ 111/2004- आई आर ( डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th November , 2010 S.O. 3025. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 15/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court- Hyderbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BSNL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-11-2010.
[No. L-40012/111 /2004 - IR (DU)] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present :- Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of September, 2010 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 15/2005 Between:
Sri . K. Phillips ,
10 (1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947to resolve the dispute between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and their workman Sri . K. Phillips . The term of reference is as under:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Vijayawads in dismissing services of Sh . K. Phillips Ex . Casual Mazdoor is justified? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 15/2005 and notices were issued to the parties .
2. Petitioner workman has filed claim statement stating therein that he was appointed as a casual mazdoor in department of Telecom and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , on 1-10-84 in the office of SDE ( P) BSNL External , Machavaram, Vijayawada after undergoing selection and considering his past service with the department . He has been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities as per the instructions given by superiors .
3. He worked in the above said department for more than 19 years but his services were not regularizai by Respondent . Instead , when he sought regularozation ofhis services the management arbitrarily, illegally terminated his services . After termination of the services the workman has raised conciliation proceedings which resulted in failure and conciliation officer submitted failure report to the Government of India of Ministry of Labour and Employment which has referred the dispute to this tribunal . He has further alleged that juniors to him have been regularized butPetitioner workman's case has not been considered for regularization when the Petitioner insisted for regularization . His services were terminated w.e.f. 13-11-2003 . He has prayed for quashment of the termination order and to reinstate him with direction to regularize him in the services with full back wages .
Pentioner
S/o Sri K. Arlappa, C/ o Sh . P.Appa Rao Reddy, Distt. Secretary, NUMBSNL W ( FNTO ) , No. 252, Labour Colony, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada- 12 .
AND
The General Manager,
Respondent
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited , Vijayawada
Appearances :
Forthe Petitioner : M/s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates For the Respondent : Sri P. Bhaskara Mohan , Advocate
AWARD
This reference has been received from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40012/ 111 /2004- IR (DU) dated 13-1-2005 under Section 4. Counter statement has been filed by the Respondent wherein they have stated that the Petitioner was never appointed in the department of Telecom/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. In fact the original alleged certificate issued byAssistant Engineer Railway Electrification Project which was submitted before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) was found to be correct . On the enquiry it was revealed that the project was closed long back and no further details are available in that regard . The document did not disclose any proof of employment with DOT/ Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. They have further alleged that the SDE ( Extl . ) . Machavaram, Vijayawada addressed letter to AGM ( A ) , 0/0 GMTD , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vijayawada reveals that nobody by name Sri K. Phillips , had ever worked in Sub Divisional Office as casual mazdoor.
5. The contention of the Petitioner that he worked for more than 19 years is unfounded and baseless . There is [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8731 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
no proof of employment and termination of the Petitioner from the service on alleged dated i.e. 13-11-2003 . The claim is misleading and unfounded . It is further been alleged that there is ban from 1985 onward that mazdoor can not be engaged for more than 100 days in a year . During 1985 it was only for 60 days in a year which was raised to 100 days . Petition deserves to be dismissed .
6. Both the parties filed their respective evidence . The workman has filed a self prepared statement showing is attendance and alleged xerox copy of letter No. E2 /Mazdoors/ 84-85 / 20 dated 1-10-84 at RE project , Kazipet . That Petitioner Sri K. Phillips , was selected as casual mazdoor on daily wages . He has further filed alleged xerox copy of certificate that Sri K. Phillips , has worked for 1106 days at AE , Telecom , Railway Electrification project , Vijayawada from 1-1-85 to 30-6-89 . The workman has filed xerox copy of the said certificate and his own affidavit his examination in chief and has presented himself for cross examination and has been cross examined by Respondent . The workman has filed original alleged letter dated 1-10-1984 as Ex . W1 and service certificate as Ex. W2 , xerox copy of application filed before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) as Ex . W3 , xerox copy of declaration by Petitioner workman as Ex . W4 and copy of the order dated 11-3-2003 of Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) reporting failure of conciliation proceeding Ex . W5 .
7. Respondent has also filed documents Ex . M1 to M9 which are letters from SDE , SDOP and circulars and letter of department of Telecommunication which will be discussed in the latter paragraphs . The Respondent has filed affidavit of Sri K. Surya Chandra Rao and has presented him for cross examination .
8. One Sri K. Mohan Rao has also filed his affidavit on behalf of the management wherein he has refuted the allegations made by the Petitioner and has stated that Petitioner was never employed in the Department of Telecommunications nor he was terminated from the service as alleged by him .
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed written arguments supported with the latest judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 292/2002 in between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Teja Singh . None had appeared for arguments on behalf of the Petitioner workman as such , I have myself gone through the claim statement and documents produced by the claimant and counter statement , documents produced by the Respondent and arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondents .
10. This tribunal has to consider :-
11. Point No. ( 1) : To consider about the legality and justification of the alleged dismissal order , this tribunal has to see whether Petitioner Sri K. Phillips , was actually appointed and worked under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , management or not Respondent has challenged the very existence of relationship of master and servant or employer and employee between the Petitioner workman and the management . The Petitioner has stated in his claim statement that he was appointed in the Department of Telecommunication and joined on 1-10-84 . This fact has been challenged by the Respondent . It was the duty ofthe Petitioner to substantiate that he has actually worked with the Department of Telecommunication from 1-10-84. The Petitioner has not been able to produce any single piece of paper to show that he was employed by the Department of Post and Telegraphs on 1-10-84 . In his cross examination he has stated that Ex . W1 is the appointment order but to the utter surprise it is found that alleged Ex. W1 is not an appointment order , because it is mentioned in this document that " Following candidates who have been working at different places which beyond 16KM from Khammam ( Head Quarter ) of Employment Exchange were interviewed on 1-10-1984 at Kazipet and were selected as casual mazdoors on daily wages . " This letter has not been proved by the Petitioner . More over Ex . W1 shows that Sri K. Phillips , was selected as casual mazdoor , whether he was appointed or not it does not disclose . It is settled law that selection for 2 post is not a proof of his appointment . As such it can not be said that Ex . W¹ is appointment letter . Secondly Ex . W2 the alleged cetificate from Railway Electrification Project Vijayawada is also not a decument from the Department of Posts and Telecommunications . It is from Railway Electrification Project, Vijayawada wherein it has been mentioned that Sri K. Phillips , has worked for 1106 days , who has issued this certificate is also secret which has not been proved by the Petitioner workman . Against this document there is letter by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Sub- Divisional Engineer's Office dated 11-11-2003 stating therein that nobody by name Sri K. Phillips , has ever worked in that Sub- Divisional as casual worker . There is another letter of SDO , Phones Vijayawada dated 5-8-2005 sending comments on the store vouchers filed by Sri K. Phillips , that he was not engaged as casual worker in the Office of SDO , Phones , Vijayawada . The Respondent has further filed Ex . M4 ie . , letter of the Telecom Department dated 12-2-99 imposing ban on engagement of casual labour which read that " Department of Telecommunication has imposed a bar on recruitment/ engagement of casual labour . That permitted not more than 15 days during exigencies and natural calamities to engage casual labourers ."
( I ) Whether the action of the management in dismissing the services of Sri K. Phillips , Ex. Casual mazdoor is justified?
12. The workman during his cross examination has stated that the service certificates are given to him by the Respondent but there is neither any seal of the Respondent (II) If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?
8732
HART 130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20,1992
department nor it has been issued on the letter head of the Respondent department. He has stated that he has not filed any service record from 1990 to 2003 as no certificate was given to him. He has further admitted that no payment slip was given to him . The Respondent has challenged the authenticity of the documents filed by the Petitioner i.e. , Ex . W1 and W2 . Thus , the Petitioner has not been able to prove that he has worked under the Department of Telecommunication/ Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , or he was appointed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , as alleged by him . He himself has stated that he is not having any service record that he worked for the period 1990 to 2003 as such , it can not be said to have been proved that Petitioner was terminatod from the service on 13-11-2003 , there is neither any written appointment letter nor there is retrenchment/ termination order , in that case even if the Petitioner has worked as casual mazdoor for some days , he is not entitled for regularization or absorption in the service of Telecom Department/Sharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
13. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 292/2009 between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and Teja Singh wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a daily rete worker is not entitled for regularization or absoupion in the services .
14. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner was neither appointed nor he was terminated from service er alleged date 13-11-2003 as such , his claim that he was dismissed illegally or unjustifiably is incorrect . Since he was not dismis sed from the services neither he was a workman nor there was relationship of employer and employce between the Respondent management and the workman , there is no question to determination , " whether the action of the management in dismissing the services is justified or not, Petitioner was neither appointed nor dismissed . " He has come with a concocted statement and case which is unfounded and baseless . The point No. ( 1.) is decided accordingly.
15. Foint No. ( II ) : The Petitioner was neither appointed nor he has worked as casual mazdoor or daily rated workman nor he was disengaged from the service he is not entitied for any relief. The petition is misconceived and Petitionerdoes not deserve any relief . This point No. (II) is also decided in favour of the management .
16. From the above discussion , this tribuanl is of the opinion that the Petitioner was never engaged nor he was dismissed from the service and he is not entitled for any relief. The reference is answered accord ingly.
Awa. d passed accordingly. Trans.mit.
Drcratedto Smt . P. Phani , Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 29th day of Septen ocr, 2010 .
VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Armender of evidenck
Witnesses obred Witnesses examinen
for the Respondan for the Petitioner
WW1 : Sri . K. Phillips
MWI: SPF . Surya Chandra 279
MW2 Srichan Rao
Documents marked Cor 1 Petiterer Ex. WI: Selection lettor dt 1-10-1924
Ex. W2: Service certificate
Ex. W3: Copy of application befors Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) dt 22-9-2003
Ex.W4: Copy of declaration given by WW ! dt. 22-9-2003 reg. his particulaci
Ex.W5: Copy of failure of conciliation repo 61. 11-3-2003.
Documents marked for the Respondeer Ex. MI: Copy of Ir.dt. 11-11-2003 of SDE ( ) BSNL , Machavaram , Vijayawada-
Ex.M2: Copy of ir. dt . 5-8-2005 of SDE ( Tech. ), 0/0 DGM (U & CS) , BSNL , Vijayawada Ex.M3: Copy of Consolidated statement of the MRS from January, 85 to September, 85
Ex.M4: Copy oflr . DoT OM dt . 12-2-99 - reg the ban on engagement of casual labourers Ex.MS : Copy ofDoT OMdt. 12-2-99 - reg. the contingent expenditure
Ex.M6: Copy of DoT OM dt. 15-6-99 -reg, the ban on engagement of casual labourers
Ex.M7: Copy of Endorsement letter of O/% COMT, A. P. HD . dt . 18-6-99
Ex.M8: Copy ofwritten statement filed before the ALC ( C ) Vijayawada in ir. dt . 30-10-2003 Ex.M9: Certified MRs running into 84 pages from January, 1985 to February, 1985 .
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3026 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. , एस.एन. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/ 105/2004 - आई आर(डो यू) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 18th November, 2010 S.O. 3026.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Hyderbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BSNL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18-11-2010.
[ No. L-40012/ 105 /2004- IR ( DU) ]
JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of September, 2010 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 9/2005 BETWEEN:
Sri K. Basava Sankara Rao , S /o Sri K.. Subba Rao ,
C/ o Sh . P. Appa Rao Reddy,
Distt . Secretary , NUMBSNL W ( FNTO ) ,
No. 252 , Labour Colony, Vidyadharapuram,
8733
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
2. Petitioner workman has filed claim statement stating therein that he was appointed as a casual mazdoor in department of Telecom and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , on 1-1-1985 in the office of SDE Extn . , Ajitsinghnagar , Vijayawada after undergoing selection and considering his past service with the department . He has been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities as per the instructions given by superiors .
3. He worked in the above said department for more than 19 years but his services were not regularized by Respondent . Instead, when he sought regularization of his services the management arbitrarily, illegally terminated his services . After termination of the services the workman has raised conciliation proceedings which resulted in failure and conciliation officer submitted failure report to the Government of India of Ministry of Labour and Employment which has referred the dispute to this tribunal . He has further alleged that juniors to him have been regularized butPetitioner workman's case has not been considered for regularization when the Petitioner insisted for regularization . His services were terminated w.e.f. 12-11-2003 . He has prayed for quashment of the termination order and to reinstate him with direction to regularize him in the services with full back wages .
.... Petitioner
Vijayawada - 12.
AND
The General Manager ,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ,
Respondent
Vijayawada
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : M/ s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates .
Sri P. Bhaskara Mohan , Advocate .
For the Respondent :
AWARD
This reference has been received from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40012/ 105 / 2004 - IR ( DU) dated 13-1-2005 under section 10 (1 ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 to resolve the dispute between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and their workman Sri . K. Basava Sankara Rao . The term of reference is as under:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Vijayawada in dismissing services of Sh . K. Basava Sankara Rao , Ex . Casual Mazdoor is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 9/2005 and notices were issued to the parties .
4. Counter statement has been filed by the Respondent wherein they have stated that the Petitioner was never appointed in the department of Telecom/ Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. In fact the original alleged certificate issed by Assistant Engineer Railway Electrification Project which was submitted before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) was not traced . On the enquiry it was revealed that the project was closed long back and no further details are available in that regard. The document did not disclose any proof of employment with DOT/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. They have further alleged that the SDE( Extl . ) Ajitsingh Nagar , Vijayawada addressed letter to AGM ( A ) , 0/0 GMTD , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Vijayawada reveals that nobody by name Sri K. Basava Sankara Rao had ever worked in Sub Divisional Office as casual mazdoor .
5. The contention of the Petitioner that he worked for more than 19 years is unfounded and baseless . There is no proof of employment and termination of the Petitioner from the service on alleged dated i.e. , 12-11-2003 . The claim is misleading and unfounded . It is further been alleged that there is ban from 1985 onward that mazdoor can not be engaged for more than 100 days in a year . During 1985 it was only for 60 days in a year which was raised to 100 days . Petition deserves to be dismissed .
6. Both the parties filed their respective evidence . The workman has filed a self prepared statement showing his attendance and alleged xerox copy of the letter No. E - 2/ Mazdoor/ 84-85 / 20 dated 1-10-84 at RE Project, Kazipet, that Petitioner Sri K. Basava Sanakara Rao was selected as casual [PART II - SFC. 3 ( ii ) ] 8734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
mazdoor on daily wages . He has further filed alleged xerox copy of certificate that Sri K. Basava Sanakara Rao has worked for 1106 days a AE , Telecom , Railway Electrification Project , Vijayawada from 1-1-85 to 1-6-89 . The workman has filed xerox copy of the said certificate and his own affidavit his examination in chief and has presented himself for cross - examination and has been cross examined by Respondent . The workman has filed alleged letter dated 1-10-84 as Ex . W1 and service certificate as Ex . W2, xerox copy of application filed before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) as Ex . W3 , xerox copy of his application as Ex . W4 and copy of the order dated 11-3-2003 of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) reporting failure of conciliation proceeding .
7. Respondent has also filed documents Ex . MI to M11 which are letters from SDE , SDOP and circulars and letter of department of Telecom nation which will be discussed in the latter paragraphs . The Respondent has filed affidavit of Sri . K. Surya Chandra Rao and has presented him for cross - examination and vouchers of payment to show that no payment has been made to Sri K. Basava Sankara Rao .
8. One Sri K. Mohan Rao has also filed his affidavit on behalf of the management wherein he has refuted the allegations made by the Petitioner and has stated that Petitioner was never employed in the department of Telecommunications nor he was terminated from the service as alleged by him .
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed written arguments supported with the latest judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 292/2002 in between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and Teja Singh . None had appeared for arguments on behalf of the Petitioner workman as such , I have myself gone through the claim statement and documents produced by the claimant and counter statement , documents produced by the Respondent and arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondents .
10. This tribunal has to consider,
(1) Whether the action of the management in dismissing the services of Sri K. Basava Sankara Rao , Ex. Casual mazdoor is justified ?
(II) If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?
Respondent . It was the duty of the Petitioner workman to substantiate that he has actually worked with the department of telecommunication from1-1-1985 . The Petitioner has not been able to produce any single piece of paper to show that he was employed by the Department of Post and Telegraphs on 1-1-1985 . In his cross - examination he has stated that Ex . WI is the appointment order but to the utter surprise it is found that alleged Ex. W is not an appointment order , because it is mentiened in this documents that " Following candidates who have been working at different places which beyond 16KMK front Khammam (Head Quarters ) of employment exchange were interviewed on 1-1-1984 at Kazipet and were selected as casual mazdoor on daily wage . " This letter has not been proved by the Petitioner . Morcover this Ex . Wishows that Sri K.. Basava Sankara Rao was selected as casual mazdoor, whether he was appointed or not it does not disclose. Selection for a post does not confer right of appointment and is not proof of his appointment . As such it can not be said that Ex. W1 is appointment letter . Secondly Ex. W2 the alleged certificate from Railway Electrification Project , Vijayawada is also not a document from the Department of posts and Telecommunications . It is from Railway Electrification Project , Vijayawada wherein it has been mentioned that Sri K. Basava Sankara Rao has worked for 1106 days , who has issued this certificate is also a question of fact which has not been proved by the Petitioner workman . Against this document there is letter by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Sub - Divisional Engineer's office datoxi 11-11-2003 stating therein that nobody by name Sri K .. Basava Sankara Rao has ever worked in that Sub Division as casual worker . There is another letter of SDO , Phones . Vijayawada dated 4-8-2005 sending comments on the sel certificate of Sri K. Basava Sankara Rao that he was not engaged as casual worker in the office of SDO , Phones , Vijayawada . Moreover there is another certificate from SDE , Technical , Ex.M3 that no person named ij . Appa Rac has worked as JTO and the same way no person named V Subba Rao has ever worked in the SDE in that division . There is another document Ex . M4 from the office of the SDE , Satyanarayanapuram addressed to AGM Legai that no person in the name of Sri K. Basava Sankara Rao has everworked under SDE as casual worker . There is another document Ex . M5 from the office of Sub Divisional Engineer , External , Machavaram , to AGM Legal that no person named Sri K. Basava Sankara Rao has worked in that section as per available record . They have further submitted the list of the officers and their tenure as Ex . M6 . The Respondent had further filed Ex. M7 i.c. , letter of the Telecom Department dated 12-2-99 imposing ban on engagement of casual labour which read that " Department ofTelecommunication has imposed a ban on recruitment / engagement of casual labourers . That permitted not more
than 15 days during exigencies and natural calamities to
engage casual labourers . "
11. Point No. ( I) : To consider about the legality and justification of the alleged dismissed this tribunal has to see whether Petitioner Sri K. Basava Sankara Rao was actually appointed and worked under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , management or not ? To this question , the Respondent has challenged the very existence of relationship of master and servant or employee or employer between the Petitioner workman and the management . The Petitioner has stated in his claim statement that he was appointed in the department of telecommunication and joined on 1-1-1985 . This fact has been challenged by the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
8735
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 29th day of September, 2010.
VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner
12. The workman during his cross examination has stated that the service certifiacte are given to him by the Respondent but there is neither any seal of the Respondent department nor it has been issued on the letter head of the Respondent department . He has stated that he has not filed any service record from 1990 to 2003 as no certificate was given to him . He has further admitted that no payment slip was given to him . The Respondent has challenged the authenticity of the documents filed by the Petitioner i.e. , Ex . W1 and W2 . Thus , the Petitioner has not been able to prove that he has worked under the Department of Telecommunication/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , or he was appointed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , as alleged by him . He himself has stated that he is not having any service record that he worked for the period 1990 to 2003 as such , it can not be said to have been proved that Petitioner was terminated from the service on 12-11-2003 . There is neither any written appointment letter nor there is retrenchment order , in that case even if the Petitioner has worked as casual mazdoor , he is not entitled for regularization or absorption in the service of Telecom Department/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
13. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 292/2009 between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and Teja Singh wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a daily rate worker is not entitled for regularization or absorption in the services . "
14. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner was neither appointed nor he was terminated from service on alleged date 12-11-2003 , as such , his claim that he was dismissed illegally or unjustifiable is incorrect . Since he was not dismissed from the services nor he was a workman nor there was relationship of employer and employee between the Respondent management and the workman, there is no question to determine whether the action of the management in dismissing the services is justified or not . Petitioner was neither appointed nor dismissed . He has come with a concocted statement which is unfounded and baseless . The point No. (I) is decided accordingly 15. Point No. ( II ) : The Petitioner was neither appointed nor he has worked as casual mazdoor or daily rated workman nor he was disengaged from the services he is not entitled for any relief. The petition is misconceived and Petitioner does not deserve any relief. This point No. ( II ) is also decided in favour of the management .
16. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner was never engaged nor he was dismissed from the service and he is not entitled for any relief. The reference is answered accordingly.
Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
Witnesses examined for the Respondent WW1 : Sri . K. Basava Sankara Rao MW1 : Sri K. Surya Chandra Rao
MW2 : Sri K. Mohan Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. W1: Selection letter dt . 1-10-1984
Service certificate
Ex. W2:
Ex. W3: Copy of application before Assistant Labour Commissioner (C ) dt . 22-9-2003
Ex.W4: Copy of declaration given by WW1 dt. 22-9-2003 reg . his particulars
Ex.W5: Copy of failure of conciliation report dt. 11-3-2003
Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. M1: Copy of Lr .dt. 11-11-2003 of SDE ( Extl . ) BSNL, Vijayawada- 15
Ex.M2: Copy of Lr .dt . 4-8-2005 of SDOP -I BSNL , Vijayawada on certified working days .
Ex.M3: Copy of Lr .dt . 5-8-2005 of SDE ( Tech ) , O/ o DGM (U & CS ) , BSNL, Vijayawada
Ex.M4: Copy of Lr . dt. 6-8-2005 of SDE (Extl .) Vijayawada - 11on working days
Ex.M5: Copy of Lr . dt : 8-8-2005 of SDE ( E ) , Machavaram - comments of working days of the claimant
Ex.M6: Consolidated statement of the MRs from January, 85 to Septemer , 85
Ex.M7: Copy of DoT OMdt. 12-2-99 - reg .-the ban on engagement of casual labourers
Ex.M8: Copy of DoT OM dt . 12-2-99 --- reg . the contingent expenditure
Ex.M9: Copy of DoT OMdt . 15-6-99- reg.--- the ban on engagement of casual labourers Ex. M10: Copy of endorsement letter of O / o CGMT, AP, HD, dt. 18-6-99
Ex. M11 : Copy ofwritten statement filed before the ALC (C) Vijayawada in Lr . dt . 6-1-2004
Ex.M12: Certified MRs running into 84 pagesfrom Janurary 1985 to February, 1985 .
8736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3027.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी . एस. एन . एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-10 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/106/2004- आईआर (डीयू) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th November, 2010 S.O. 3027.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of B.S.N.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-11-2010 .
[No. L -40012/ 106/2004- IR (DU) ]
JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of September , 2010
Industrial Dispute No. 10/2005
BETWEEN :
Sri D. Pentaiah ,
S/ o Sh . D. Jeeva Ratnam ,
C / o Sh . P. Appa Rao Reddy , Distt. Secretary, NUMBSNL W ( FNTO ) ,
No. 252 , Labour Colony , Vidyadharapurarn ,
[PART - SHC.36 )
AWARD
This reference has been received from tho Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order Ne L- 40012/ 106 /2004 - IR( DU) dated 13-1-2005 under section 10 (1 ) ( d ) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 to resolve the dispute between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd... and their workman Sri D. Pentaiah. The terrn of references as under:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Vijayawada in dismissing services of Sh . D. Pentaiah , Ex - Casual Mazdoor s justified? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitivi to?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as D No.10/ 2005 and notices were issued to the parties .
2. Petitioner workman has filed claim statement stating therein that he was appointed as a casual mazdoor in department of Telecom and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Lid . on 1-7-83 in the office of SDE Extn . , Bhavanipurata , Vijayawada after undergoing selection and considering his past service with the department . He has been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities as per the instructions given by superiors .
3.He worked in the above said department for more than 19 years but his services were not regularized by Respondent . Instead , when he sought regularization of his services the management arbitarily, illegally terminated his services . After termination of the services the workman has raised conciliation proceedings which resulted in failure and conciliation officer submitted failure report to the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment which has referred the dispute to this tribunal . He has further alleged the juniors to him have been regularized but petitioner workman's case has not been considered for regularization when the Petitioner insisted for regularization . His services were terminated w.e.t. 12-11-2003 . He has prayed for quashment of the termination order and to reinstate him with direction to regularized him in the services with full back wages .
...Petitioner
Vijayawada - 12
AND
...Respondent
The General Manager , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited , Vijayawada
APPEAREANCES :
For the Petitioner : M/ s . C. Vijaya Shekhar Rexldy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates For the Respondent : Sri P. Bhaskra Mohan , Advocate 4. Counter statement has been filed by the Respondent wherein they have stated that the Petitioner was never appointed in the department of Telecom/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. In fact the original alleged certificate issued by Assistant Engineer Railway Electrification Project which was submitted before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) was not traced . On the enquiry it was revealed that the project was closed long back and no further details are available in that regard . The document did not disclose any proof of employmem with DOT / Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , They have further alleged that the SDE( Ext1 . ) , Bhavanipuran. , Vijayawada 1 भाग -खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
8737
10. This tribunal has to consider:-
addressed letter to AGM (A) , 0/0 GMTD, Bharat Sanchar igam Ltd. , Vijayawada reveals that nobody by name Sri Pentaiah had ever worked in Sub Divisional Office as sel mazdoor.
(1) Whether the action of the management in dismissing the services of Sri D. Pentaiah , ex- Casual mazdoor is justified?
(II) Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled ?
5. The contention of the Petitioner that he worked roote than 19 years is unfounded and baseless . There proof of employment and termination of the Petitioner Tom the service on alleged dated i.e. , 12-11-2003 . The claim musteading and unfounded. It is further been alleged that there is ban from 1985 onward that mazdoor can not trengaged for more than 100 days in a year. During 1985 , only for 60 days in a year which was raised to 100 Bettion deserves to be dismissed.
6. Both the parties filed their respective evidence . Theworkman has filed a self prepared statement showing his attendance and alleged xerox copy of the letter No.E2/ Mazdoots/82/29 dated 27-7-83 at RE project , Kazipet , that istitioner Sri D. Pentaiah was selected as casual mazdoor on daily wages . He has further filed alleged xerox copy of certificate that Sri D. Pentaiah has worked for 1032 days at Felecom, Railway Electrification project , Vijayawada 11-7-8610 1-2-90. The workman has filed xerox copy of the said certificate and his own affidavit as his examination chief and has presented himself for cross examination ved has been examined by Respondent . The workman has Med original alleged letter dated 27-7-83 as Ex . W1 and rvice certificate as Ex . W2 , bunch of store receipts Ex. W3 , " rex copy of application filed before Assistant Labour Aommissioner( C) as Ex . W4 , xerox copy of declaration by Mitioner workman as Ex . W5 and copy of the order dated 17.3-2003 ofAssistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) reporting halure of conciliation proceeding Ex .W6 .
7. Respondent has also fileddocuments Ex . Mlto which are letters from SDE , SDOP and circulars and etter ofdepartment ofTelecommunication which will be Jiscussed in the latter paragraphs . The Respondent has ted affidavit of Sri K. Surya Chandra Rao and has Besented him for cross examination .
8. One Sri K. Mohan Rao has also filed his affidavit on behalf of the management wherein he has refuted the Slegations made by the Petitioner and has stated that oner was never employed in the department of communications nor he was terminated from the Teas allegod by him .
Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed
Hen arguments supported with the latest judgement of
De Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No.292/ 2002 in
ween Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and Teja Singh . None
d appeared for arguments on behalf of the Petitioner
kman as such , I have myself gone through the claim
Maternent and documents produced by the claimant and
unter statement, documents produced by the
Respondent and arguments advanced on behalf of the
11.Point No. (I) : To consider about the legality and justification of the alleged dismissal order, this tribunal has to see whether Petitioner Sri D. Pentaiah was actually appointed and worked under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , management or not ? Respondent has challenged the very existence of relationship of master and servant or employee or employer between the Petitioner workman and the management . The Petitioner has stated in his claim statement that he was appointed in the department of telecommunication and joined on 1-7-83 . This fact has been challenged by the Respondent .It was the duty of the Petitioner to substantiate that he has actually worked with the department of telecommunication from 1-7-83 . The Petitioner has not been able to produce any single piece ofpaper to show that be was employed by the Department of Post and Telegraphs on 1-7-83 . In his cross examination he has stated that Ex.WI is the appointment order but 10 the utter surprise it is found that alleged Ex .WI is not an appointment order, because it is mentioned in this document that " Following candidates who have been working at different places which beyond 16 KM from Kazipet, a Khammam Project ( Head Quarters of employment exchange) were interviewed on 27-7-83 at Kazipet and were selected as casual mazdoors on daily wages . " This letter has not been proved by the Petitioner. More over this Ex . Wl shows that Sri D. Pentaiah was selected as casual mazdoor, whether he was appointed or not it does not disclose , because selection for a post is not a proof of his appointment . As such it can not be said that Ex . W1 is appointment letter. Secondly Ex . W2 the alleged certificate from Railway Electrification Project , Vijayawada is also not a document from the Department of Posts and Telecommunications . It is from Railway Electrification Project , Vijayawada wherein it has been mentioned that Sri D. Pentaiah has worked for 1032 days , who has issued this certificate is also a question which has not been proved by the Petitioner workman. Against this document there is letter by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Sub- Divisional Engineer's office dated 10-11-2003 stating therein that nobody by name Sri D. Pentaiah has ever worked in that Sub Division as casual worker. There is another letter of SDO , Phones , Vijayawada dated 6-8-2005 sending comments on the store vouchers filed by Sri D. Pentaiah, that he was not engaged as casual worker in the office of SDO , Phones , Vijayawada . The Respondent has further filed Ex. M4 i.e. , letter of the Telecom Department dated 12-2-99 imposing ban on engagement of casual labour which read that " Department of Telecommunication has imposed a ban on recruitment/engagement of casual spondents .
26-10اق [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYAΝΑ 20 , 1932
8738
dismissed from the service and he is not entitled for any relief. The reference is answered accordingly .
labour . That permitted not more than 15 days during exigencies and natural calamities to engage casual labourers . "
Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 29th day of September, 2010.
VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent
WW1 : Sri D. Pentaiah MWI : Sri K. Surya Chandra Rao MW2 : Sri K. Mohan Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
ExW1: Selection letterdt . 12-10-1983
Ex.W2 : Service certificate for 1032 days
ExW3 : Bunch of store receipts
Ex.W4: Copy of application to Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) , Vijayawada dt . 22-9-2003 12. The workman during his cross examination has stated that the service certificates are given to him by the Respondent but there is neither any seal of the respondent department nor it has been issued on the letter head of the Respondent department . He has stated that he has not filed any service record from 1990 to 2003 as no certificate was given to him . He has further admitted that no payment slip was given to him . The Respondent has challenged the authenticity of the documents filed by the Petitioner i.e. , Ex . Wl and W2 . Thus , the Petitioner has not been able to prove that he has worked under the Department of Telecommunication/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , or he was appointed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , as alleged by him. He himself has stated that he is not having any service record that he worked for the period 1990 to 2003 as such , it can not be said to have been proved that Petitioner was terminated from the service on 12-11-2003 , there is neither any written appointment letter nor there is termination/ retrenchment order , in that case even if the Petitioner has worked as casual mazdoor for some days , he is not entitled for regularization or absorption in the service ofTelecom Department/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Ex.W5: Copy of declaration given by WW1 dt . 22-9-2003 reg . his particulars
Fx.W6: Copy of failure of conciliation reportdt . 22-3-2005 Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1: Copy of Lr .dt. 10-11-2003 of SDE ( Extl . ) BSNL , Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada - 15 13. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has cited thejudgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.292/ 2009 between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and Teja Singh wherein Hon ' ble Supreme Court has held that a daily rate worker is not entitled for regularization or absorption in the services . "
Ex.M2: Copy of Lr .dt . 6-8-2005 of SDEP ( Exti . ) Bhavanipuram , Vijayawada - 12 reg . non- engagement of the Petitioner
ExM3: Copy of Lr . dt . 29-3-2007 of SDEP ( Extl . ) Bhavanipuram, reg . non - engagement of the Petitioner
Ex.M4: Copy of DoT OM dt. 12-2-99- reg . the ban on engagement of casual labourers
Ex.M5 : Copy of DoT OM dt . 12-2-99- reg . the contingent expenditure
Ex.M6: Copy of DoT OM dt . 15-6-99 - reg . the ban on engagement of casual labourers 14. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner was neither appointed nor he was terminated from service on alleged date 12-11-2003 as such , his claim that he was dismissed illegally or unjustifiably is incorrect . Since he was not dismissed from the services neither he was a workman nor there was relationship of employer and employee between the Respondent management and the workman , there is no question to determine whether the action of the management in dismissing the services is justified or not. Petitioner was neither appointed nor dismissed . The workman has come with a concocted statement which is unfounded and baseless . The point No. (1 ) is decided accordingly.
Ex.M7: Copy of endorsement letter of O /o CGMT, AP, HD dt. 18-6-99
Ex.M8: Copy ofwritten statement filed before the ALC ( C ) Vijayawada in Lr . dt. 6-1-2003
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010 15. Point No. ( II ) : The Petitioner was neither appointed nor he has worked as causal mazdoor or daily rated workman nor he was disengaged from the services he is not entitled for any rclief . The petition is misconceived and Petitioner does not deserve any relief. This point No. ( II) is also decided in favour of the management .
का.आ. 3028 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.एस.एन.एल 16. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner was never engaged nor he was भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
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 56/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-10 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल -40012/236 /2003- आईआर ( डीयू) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th November , 2010 S.O. 3028.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of B.S.N.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 18-11-2010 .
[No. L-40012/236/2003 - IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : Dr. Manju Nigam, Presiding Officer 1. D. No. 56/2004
Ref . No. L-40012/236/2003 - IR(DU) dated : 21-06-2004 BETWEEN
Sri Shiv Shanker
S/ o Sh . Lakhan Singh , Vill. Suratpur P.O. Nagla Katila Distt . Etah
AND
1. The Sub Division Officer , Telecom, BSNL , Kasganj , Etah.
2. The District Manager, Telecom, BSNL , Etah .
AWARD 20-10-2010
1. By order No. L - 40012 / 236/ 2003 - IR(DU) dated: 21-6-2004 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 ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the
8739 Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this industrial dispute between Sh . Shiv Shanker S / o . Sh . Lakhan Singh, Vill . Suratpur , PO . Nagla Katila , Distt . Etah and the Sub - Division Officer , Telecom , BSNL, Kasganj , Etah & the District Manager , Telecom , BSNL , Etah for adjudication .
2.The reference under adjudication is:
" Whether the action of the management of District Manager BSNL , Etha in terminating the services of Sh . Shiv Shankar S / o Sh . Lakhan Singh w.c.f. 15-2-2002 is just ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
3. The case of the workman in brief is that the workman was appointed by the opposite party as Line Man on Daily Wage ( Muster Roll ) basis though no document was furnished to him in respect of his services by the employer ; but he was paid in the end of the month after obtaining his signatures , which is Annexure I. The workman has submitted that he worked at Ammapur , Distt . Etah and the employer terminated his services , on 15-2-2002; without disposing of his representation , which was moved by him in pursuance to the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Allahabad's order dated 28-2-2002 in O.A. No. 1004/2001 . It has been alleged by the workman' that the action of management interminating his services w.e.f. 15-2-2002 is illegal and against the principles of natural justice . He has further submitted that the BSNLis an industry and termination of his services comes within the definition of ' retrenchment ' under Section 2 ( oo) and the opposite party is duty bound to comply with the provisions contained in Section 25 and Section 25 G; and also the opposite party has violated the provisions contained ' in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that his termination order , terminating his services w.c.f. 15-2-2002 be cancelled and he be reinstated with all consequential benefits
4. The management of the BSNL in its written statement has disputed the claim of the workman and has submitted that it never engaged the workman in any capacity at any point of time and he was not retrenched at all . It has further submitted that the appointment on the post of Line Man can only be done according to the Indian Telegraph Manual , Vol . IV and in the instant case the workman himself has stated that he was not given any appointment letter. The management has also denied of engaging the workman as daily wager or making any payment on Muster Roll as the practice of engaging labourers , was discontinued by the department in 1987 itself. Thus , the management of the opposite party has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being not maintainable .
5. The workman's union has filed rejoinder whereby it has only reiterated its averments in the statement of claim and has not introduced any new fact .
8740
:
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
[Pit
SDO has not authority to appoint any castial Wint the practice of appointing casual worker was discht . in 1997 , therefore , there arise no question of enga casual labour at Rs . 1800 per month on ACG- 17 18 : also stated in that the documents submittere workman in support of his claim are fake
9. The management vitness ( MW 2 SL Prasad has stated on oath that the workman va appointed as Line Man in the department appointments are made in accordanch Telegraph Manual , vor. IV by the higher authe workman was never issued any apponthicha ica . much as practice of Muster Roil was discontior.. about in 1987, therefore , there arise no queshoot payment through iMuster Roll it has also statali evidences produced by the workman are talse He has not been cross - examined by the workinaй 6. The workman has filed photocopies of certain documents , less any appointment order , in support of his case, with the statement of his claim , list of documents and oral evidence in form of affidavit whereas the management has not filed any documents witin written statement , although it has disputed the authenticity of the documents filed by the workman . The workman was cross - examined by the opposite party. After workman's evidence the management was provided opportunity to filed its evidence in form of affidavit and it afforded the same and filed affidavits of its witnesses viz . Shri Ram Gopal Singh , Phone Mechanic ( MW- 1) and Shri Rajendera Prasad , Divisional Engineer (A & P) ( MW- 2 ) in support of their case and the workman cross - examined MW- 1 , Shri Ram Gopal Singh on 1-5-2007 and next date i.e. 10-7- 2007 was fixed for cross - examination of MW- 2 . But the management witness remained absent on 10-7-2007; accordingly , it was presumed that the witness does not want to get cross - examined and case proceexled ex -paite against the management and next date was fixed for arguments on 16-7-2007 . On the date fixed for arguments the management moved application to recall ex - parte orders and the same was recalled vide order dated 6-8-2007 and next date i.e. 16-10-2007 was fixed for cross - examination of the MW- 2 . Thereafter, the workman was afforded several opportunities for cross - examination of the MW- 2 i.e. on 24-2-2009 , 21-4-2009 , 8-7-2009 and 2-9-2009 , but the workman did not turn up for the same ; accordingly, the case was ordered to proceed ex - parte against the workman on 2-9-2009 and 16-9-2009 was fixed for arguments .
10. Adminoily, no appointment led and no post was ever advertised for the appontonant is no evidence of the workman that SDGsasta to engage daily wager . He has not proba attendance register or any other documenta , to prove this fact that he was paid on nmonthly i salary for the period mentioned in his statement M he has filed photo copy of two ACG - 17 vouchers of his claim ; but in view of dental of the manag regarding its genuineness , it was the worktada to seow his claim by summoning the original from the cusрал but he failed to do so .
7. The workman again remained absent on the following dates fixed for argument i.e. on 16-9-2009 , 1-10-2009, 14-10-2009 , 18-11-2009 , 20-1-2010 , 26-2-2010 , 30-3-2010 , 4-5-2010, 29-6-2010 , 3-8-2010 and 28-10-2010 ; whereas the management filed its written arguments on 14-10-2009 . When the workman did not turn up for putting forward its arguments the case was reserved for award .
11. It is well settled that if a pare Palings legality of order the burden lies upon him to prevetlleyela of the order and if no evidence is produced the invoking jurisdiction of the court , must fat!. In the p case burden was on the workman to set out the grote to challenge the validity of the termination order.. prove that the termination order was illegal It w case of the workınan that he had worked continuousi w.e.f. 1-1-1997 till 14-2-2002 , without any appointment lat. This claim has been denied by the management , theref ... itwas for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked continuously w.c.f. 1-1-1997 !! 14-2-2002 . In (2002 ) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officertai Hadimani Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as unde.
8. The workman in its statement on oath has stated that he has been employed by the employers , without any appointment letter , as a daily rated employee on Muster Roll fordoing work of Line Man in Aammapur w.e.f. 1-1-97 and he worked as such continuously up to 14-2-2002 when his services have been terminated on 15-2-2002 without any warning or charge - sheet . The workman has also annexed photo copies of two ACG - 17 vouchers towards the payment made to him , which are not admitted by the management . In his cross - examination the workman has stated that he was appointed by SDO on the post of Line Man without any appointment letter and he used to repair telephone without any training . Further, he has stated in his cross - examination that he was not given any written order cither to bring Diesel or to operate the Generator and he was stopped to perform duties orally by the SDO .
" It was the case of the claimant that he had so but this claim was denied by the appellant . It then for the claimant to lead evidence to sho he had in fact worked for 240 days in the d preceding his termination . Filing of an affidavas only his own statement in his favour and that Can not be regarded as sufficient evidence for any or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workuran had, in fact , worked for 240 days or order or revend of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside 9. The management witness ( MW - 1 ) Shri Ram Gopal Singh has stated in his cross - examination that he has never seen de workman working in the office . The ( 1) ]
17 Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid Fon'bleApex Court has observed in 2006 ( 108 ) FLR Vellati & Assti . Executive Engineer as follow :
it is clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . However , applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof 2. on the claimant to show that he had worked 240 days in a given year . This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness OJA. This burden is discharged upon the workman Adducing cogent evidence , both oral and cumentary. In cases of termination of services of daily wages eamer , there will be no letter of appoitument or termination . There will also be no receipt or proof of payment . Thus , in most cases , workman ( claimant ) can only call upon the aployer to produce before the Court the nominal ipuster roll for the given period , the letter of appointment or termination , if any, the wage register , the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case . The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the claimant/ workman will no suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden Maced by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year . The above judgments further lay down that mere non production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse nference against the management . "
13. In the present case the workman has stated that s worked continuously w.e.f. 1-1-1997 till 14-2-2002, i nas not produced any original documents in support of nis oral evidence , merely filing of affidavit is not * fficient ; nor did he turn up to cross - examine the management witness or to forward his oral argument . Merely pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous working w.e.f. 11-1997 till 14-2-2002 was on the workman but he has failed to discharge the above burden . On the other hand the management by the way of its witnesses viz . Shri Ram Gopal and Shri Rajendera Prasad has well proved that the workman was never engaged as Line Man at any point of time and he was not retrenched at- all and also that the appointment on the post of Line Man can only be done accordingto the Indian Telegraph Manual , Vol . IV and any engagement as daily wager or making any payment on Muster Roll could not be made as the practice of engaging such labourers , was discontinued by the department in 1987. Thus , there is no reliable material for
8741
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
recording findings that the workman had worked continuously w.e.f. 1-1-1997 till 14-2-2002 before the date ofhis alleged terminationi.e. 15-2-2002 and unjust or illegai order of termination was passed by the management .
14. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made above , the reference is answered as above .
Dr. MANJU NIGAM , Presiding Officer Lucknow 20-10-2010 .
नई दिल्ली, 18 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3029. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 201/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल-12014/01/2010- आईआर( दी -1 ) ]
रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th November, 2010 S.O. 3029.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 201/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the Management of State Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 16-11-2010 .
[No. L - 12014/01 /2010 - IR ( B - 1 ) ]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 3rd day of August , 2010
Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 201/2004 Between:
Sri I. Vijaya Sekhar, S/ o I. Sunder Rao , R/ o Plot No. 67 , Lake View Residence , Sainikpuri , Secunderabad- 94
...Petitioner 8742
[PART I-Sec THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
AND
The Chief General Manager ( Personal ) ,
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti ,
Hyderabad.
...Respondent
APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner : M/ s S. Prasada Rao , C.V.
Vysampayan, C. Bala Subramanyam, K Jhansi Rani & B. Bala Sundar, Advocates
For the Respondent : M/ s B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates
AWARD
This petition has been filed by Sri I. Vijay Sekhar , ex- employee in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 ( 3 ) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No.8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others , challenging order of disengagement dated 31-7-1997 as illegal , arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and an outcome to unfair labour practice .
2. It has been submitted that he was appointed as Messenger in December , 1983 in Respondent organization atNellore branch . He worked upto 31-3-1997 . Thereafter , he was stopped from working under the orders of the Respondent . Respondent wanted to prepare panel of its employees for giving posting in the vacant posts and the workman was also called for interview in the year 1992. He was empanelled in the year 1994 and worked upto 1997 i.c. for totally 807 days .
3. The Petitioner and other similarly situatexi workmen filed W.P.No. 4194/97 and the batch of other writ petitions which were disposed off by common order and on which Respondent preferred writ appeals in W.A.86 /98 . Mean while in contempt petition C.C. 27/97 the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , has ordered for mutual discussions and an understanding was arrived at between representatives of temporary and casual workers on 1988 panel and 90-92 panel , while so the applicant was not considered but his juniors were considered . It is submitted that the Petitioner has crossed the age of recruitment . The Petitioner possess the requisite qualification for the post of messenger which is as follows , " those who have completed minimum of30 days aggregate any calendar month after 1-7-1995 or 75 days in aggregate in a continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 were called for interview by virtue of a settlement dated 17-11-1987 ." Thereafter , Respondent has entered into fresh settlements on 9-1-91 , 30-7-1996 etc.. It is submitted that the Respondent has not followed the provisions of Sec.25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly 1st settlement dated 17-7-1989 was not implemented before the valid date, there were subsequent agreements on 16-10-1988,27-10-1988 followed by agreements on 26-4-1994 which shows that the carter settlements were modified the intention to give chance to empanelled people was not followed by the Respondent Since his termination the Petitioner could not secure alternative employment inspite of his best efforts . Lis prayed that the action of the management on terminarion , discharge of Petitioner from service be held as illegal arbitrary and unjust and direct the Resperdent management to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service , back wages and all other attendan benefits .
3. As against this , the Respondenis filed covere statement denying the allegations in the claim stateme of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Portioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum - water boy watchman by the respondent and never terminatul from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank, used to take temporary sub - staff and it is further explamed the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorizei . According in categories , panels were prepared . Various settlementa wetu arrived at between the Employees Federation and tre management bank on 17-11-87, 16-7-1988 , 27-11-188 9-1-1991 . It is submitted that as per settlements paneis were prepared as per the eligibility of the employees according to their number of working days for messenger and non - messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the period mentioned . It was further agreed that all messengerizi non - messengerial vacancies / positions in the subordinate cadre were filled up within the stipulated period . The last extension of the period for expiry of panels is 31-3-1997 , The settlements were made as one time measure to brop about an end to the practice of such engagement . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .
4.Boththe parties were directed to file their evidenc Petitioner filed his affidavit as evidence but did not appear for cross examination , as such , the evidence of the workman was closed . Respondent has also not filed any evidence and the evidence of Respondent was also closed.
5. No party appeared on the last date of hearing as such , I have gone through the claim statement and counter statement and material placed by the workman , it is admitted case of charge sheeted employee that he was disengaged in the year 1997. Thereafter he filed Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court , however , no order of Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , has been filed by him . He himself has stated in the claim statement that against the order of Hon'ble Single Judge , W.A. 86/98 was filed wherein the order passed by Learned Single Judge was set aside , the Petitioner workman filed Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed, meaning thereby that no relief was granted to the Petitioner through भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1952
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
the writ petition filed by him and after exhausting the forum ofwrit jurisdiction this petition under Sec.2A ( 2) has been filed by him after seven years of his being disengaged from the service i.e. , in the year 2004. However , he has not been able to file or produce any such material before this tribunal that the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in a year prior to his disengagement from the services .
6. Petitioner has raised a plea that the procedure laid down under Sec.25F was not followed in his case though he worked for 803 days before disengagement from the service from 1983 to 1997. This contention of Petitioner prove that worked for 803 days in a span of 14 years . There is no proof that during the entire period of 14 years the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in any of the year . He has worked for 201 days from 28-4-93 to 26-3- 94, from 14-6-94 to 31-3-95 for 142 days , from 21-8-95 to 16- 2-96 for 73 days , from 11-3-96 to 30-3-97 for 101 days . This prove that Petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any of the year preceding date of his disengagement . Thus , the provision of Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is not applicable in the present case and the non - compliance of that provision neither fatal nor it adversely affect the disengagement order . No other document has been placed by the Petitioner workman , as such , he has not been able to prove that he worked regularly without any break from 1983 to 1997 or he has worked for more than 240 days in any of the calendar years preceding date of his disengagement, as such , the Petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement and this petition is devoid of any merit , deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such , hence , this award .
Award passed accordingly. Transmit .
Dicated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant , transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 3rd day ofAugust , 2010
VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witness examined for the Petitioner
Witness examined for the Respondent
WWI : Sri I. Vijay Kumar NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3030.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
8743 अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/270/2005- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th November, 2010 S.O. 3030. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the Management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-11-2010 .
[No. L- 22012/ 270 / 2005 - IR ( CM - II ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVAS RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 4th day of August , 2010
Industrial Dispute No. 50/2006
Between:
The President
Sri Bundari Lingaiah Singareni Collieries Employees Union ( CITU) Mandamarri Division , Mandamarri , Adilabad district - 504231 ... Petitioner AND
The General Manager ,
M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Mandamarri Division , Mandamarri . Adilabad district - 504231
...Respondent APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner : M/ s A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy , Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
This case has been registered on the basis of reference received from Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012/ 270/ 2005 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 17-6-2006 under section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 to adjudicate the dispute between the management of M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The term of reference is as under:
PARA 8744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
SCHEDULE
was suffering kidney problem that was the rat non - attendance of the duty . These patt
principles of natural justice . Enquiry was tops language not known to the Petitioner workean S Petitioner has to attend court case 200 KM awa workplace , he could not attend to his duties regula's considered by the Enquiry Officer.
"Whether the action of the General Manager , M / s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Mandamarri Division, Mandamarri , Adilabad District , in terminating the services of Sri Pittala Ravinder, General Mazdoor , KK - 2 Incline , Mandamarri Division with effect from 26-4-2002 is Iegal and justified? If not , to what relief is the workman is cutitled?"
4. The Petitioner has challenged enquiry on the basis of bias in afforg opportunity and in violation of principlesola etc.
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 30/2006 and notices issued to the parties .
2. The claim statement has been filed by the President Singareni Employees Union , Mandarmarri branch Adilabad district stating therein that one of its member Sri P. Ravinder was appointed as badli filler on 6-10-1986 and he was confirmed as coal filler in the vear 1991. He has been working regularly without adverse remarks . While doing so , during the year 2000 the Petitioner became sick on account of kidney problem , in the mean time he was implicated in a false criminal case registered in crime No.51 /2000 PS Mandamarri under Section 302 , 201 of IPC and is was arrested by the police and he was kept under remand from 4-4-2000 to 24-7-2000 and thereafter he was d on bail . After his release from the jail Petitioner fen med ter duty. However , the criminal prosecution was continued before Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge , Adilabad frequently , which is about 200 KM away from the work place. Apart from the above criminal case the Petitioner was suffering ill - health and he was under the pressure of criminal proceeding foisted against him as such, he was undergoing great mental agony which forced him to be irregular to his duties . During course of his judicial custody he has under gone operation at MGM Hospital , Warangal for his kidney problem . On the conclusion ofthe criminal proceeding the Petitioner was convicted to undergo life imprisonment . However , he filed an appeal before Hon'ble High Court and he was acquitted on 12-12-2003 .
5. It has been contended by the PL management through their counter statened it Petitioner was appointed on 16-8-1986 and he wo general mazdoor from 1-7-1996 . His contentionthert sick during the year 2000 is not correct Hadbeben he could have availed the medical facility being extermin by the Respondent management through its hope area hospital and main hospital . He could t sick in the colliery hospital , but he did not do ao Petitioner has not been able to substantiateals ailments with any valid documentary evidenc involved in criminal case it was his responsibility ? to his superiors but he did not do so . He has put mo musters which amount to misconduct under standing 25.25 . He was served with a charge sheet . He s his explanation but without any documentary pro Petitioner failed to produce any medical caufia during course of domestic enquiry. However , on theis of the statement given by the workman durog op proceeding that he remained under remand from 44 to 24-7-2000 , this period of absence has been consid by the Enquiry Officer and he has given his opinio.t during this period the absence of the workman was dav o reasonable grounds . However , the Petitioner has not been able to prove that he has been suffering from kidney tros !. or he has taken treatment from any hospital during enquir proceeding . Management witnesses were examined in th presence of the delinquent employce . Delinquent employ did not cross - examine those management witnesse Though he was afforded opportunity to cross - exami them . He was given opportunity to produce his evid ou and he examined himself in his defence Thereby principles of natural justice has been observed by Enquiry Officer. He has followed the principles of proceedings . No illegality or irregularity has committed by the Enquiry Officer . The Mitten admitted during course of enquiry about his guib Here Officer's findings is based on material available b him . The Enquiry Officer found that the charges ag the Petitioner were proved and thus , the pumsh imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessiv disproportionate . Thus , the action of managem terminating the services of the Petitioner is lege justified as such , the workman is not entitled for t 3. While the matter stood thus , a charge sheet dated 31-1-2001 was issued under company standing order No.25.25 the Petitioner has put in only 64 musters during the year 2000 and he remained absent without any reasonable or sufficient cause . On receipt of the charge shoes Petitioner submitted his explanation on 10-2-2001 the management was not satisfied with the explanation ndred for the domestic enquiry and Enquiry Officer was appointed who has based his finding on lopsided enquiry. He was of the opinion that the charges against the workman were proved on the basis of the finding Cubanitted by the Enquiry Officer , the Petitioner was dismissed from the service . Then , union proceeded for conciliation, however , conciliation proceeding failed and conciliation officer reported the matter to the Government of India who has referred this dispute to this ribunai . The Enquiry Officer has not followed the 8745 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)]
the statement of the Petitioner was not considered by the Enquiry Officer is misconceived and without any basis .
11. I have considered the above argument . This tribunal has to determine the following points:
"(I) Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , in terminating the services of the Petitioner Sri P. Ravinder is legal and justified ?
(II) Ifnot , to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?" 6. Both the parties were directed to produce their evidences . Petitioner workman has not filed any evidence . However, Respondent management has filed 8 documents and the entire domestic enquiry proceedings papers running into 16 pages which consists of charge sheet, explanation of the workman , a certificate from office of the Superintendent, Asifabad jail, enquiry proceeding book possessing statement of S/Sri Y. Venkateswarlu and K. Narayana Rao and charge sheeted employee i.e. , P. Ravinder and the enquiry report letter of the office or management addressed to the workman calling for his explanation against the enquiry report and punishment order.
7. The Petitioner workman has challenged the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry through his claim statement . However , on 20th March, 2009 the Learned Counsel for the workman filed memo conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry, thus , on the basis of his conceding memo, domestic enquiry held to be legal and valid and the case was posted for argument under Sec.11A .
8. I have heard both the counsels . They have filed written arguments on behalf of their respective parties .
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner union through his written submission has submitted that the Petitioner workman has worked for 64 musters during the year 2000. He was implicated in a case of murder and he was sent to jail from 4-4-2000 to 24-7-2000 for which he has submitted a certificate through the concerned Jail Superintendent after being released from the jail he has attended to the duty. Further, due to kidney problem he could not put regular duties . Documents submitted by the management during the course of enquiry also prove that workman could have worked for 64 days . The Enquiry Officer's report is biased hence, no punishment could have been inflicted on the basis of such biased report, because the Enquiry Officer has not given any finding regarding the sickness ofthe Petitioner workman . No doubt , the Enquiry Officer has held that since Petitioner workman was in judicial custodyw.e.f.4-4-2000 to 24-7-2000, that period of absence can be excluded . But , no finding has been given on the statement of the Petitioner that in the year 2000 he was sufferingfrom kidney problem and has undergone treatment in MGM hospital and due to this he could not attend to his duty.
12. Point No. (i ) : From the written submissions of the parties it is undisputed fact that Petitioner workman was appointed in the year 1986 and he was confirmed as coal filler in the year 1991 or 1996. The material year is 2000 wherein it is alleged that Petitioner put in only 64 musters during the entire period and he remained absent for more than 300 days and thereby he has committed misconduct under company's standing order 25.25 . This material fact is also not disputed by the workman . He has stated through his claim statement that he put in only 64 musters for which he has given an explanation that he suffered from kidney ailment, he was implicated in a serious criminal case of the murder . He was arrested by the police and he was remanded to the judicial custody. He remained in the jail from 4-4-2000 to 24-7-2000 , he has stated that his absence during that period was for a reasonable cause . I have considered this material aspect of the case . The Enquiry Officer has also considered this aspect during course of enquiry, he has come to the conclusion that though the absence of Petitioner for entire period of his absence is unjustifiable however, he was in judicial custody from 4-4-2000 to 24-7-2000 and he was not convicted in the final verdict of the Hon'ble Court . Hence, that period of absence is excluded . Thus , there is no force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the absence of the Petitioner during his retention in the jail . I do not find any force in this argument and submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman , because the Enquiry Officer has considered this point and has excluded this period from his unauthorized absence . However, the material available in the enquiry proceeding book , there is no piece of paper which may go to prove that Petitioner ever informed the management about his retention in the jail or about his sickness . Even if the Petitioner was in judicial custody it was his bounden duty to inform the management or his employer that he is unable to come for the duty as he was arrested in a criminal case and has been detained in a jail . There is nothing on record to show thatworkman has taken any step to inform the management about his absence . Even then, the Enquiry Officer has excluded this period from his unauthorized absence . If this period is excluded from the unauthorized absence of the Petitioner, the total period comes to 140 days when workman remained in Jail . The workman has put in only 64 musters thereby he has explained for 204 days of his duty but for remaining period of his absence no explanation has been submitted . The one which was submitted by the 10. As against this argument Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the Petitioner workman has no doubt stated that he was suffering from kidney problem and taken treatment in company's hospital as well as MGM hospital , Warangal . However, in his own explanation dated 10-2-2001 the Petitioner himself has stated that , " during the remand period I was operated for my kidney problem at MGM hospital, Warangal . " This itself proved that Petitioner kidney problem was treated during the period he was under judicial custody. Nowhere in his statement the Petitioner has stated that he took treatment for the kidney problem after release from the Jail orbefore his release from the Jail. Thus , the argument that
4575 G1/10-27 8746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
Appendix of evidenc
Witness exatami tor Respondent
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Paritioner NIL Documents marked for the Respanneus NIL
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर, 2010
का.आ. 3031, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियয় का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्राय एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में अंन्द्रीय सरकार अद्यांगक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 127/2006 ) कोनात करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-2010 का प्राप्त हु
[सं. एल-22013/1/2010- आई आर( मा डी. एस. एस . श्रीनिवास राय मनकारी
New Delhi , the 18th November 2010 Petitioner through his written lettet dated 10-2-2001 he has informed that he was suffering from the kidney problem and he was operated for the kidney problem at MGM Hospita ' during his detention period. if this contention of the Petitioner is taken to be wholly correct even then , it will not be a sufficient ground for the Petitioner to remain absent after his release from the Jail or frore the hospital . Workman has not been able to brought forward the date on which he was operated in MGM hospital , when he was discharged from MGM hospital and what was the ailment for which he was operated in the MGM hospital and what was the advise of the Doctors after the operation . These are very material questions which were to be explained by the Petitioner workman for proving that has absence is for reasonable cause . He has not expiained either before the Enquiry Officer or before this tribunai , as such, this tribunal is ofthe definite opinion that Petitioner workinan remained absent for insufficient cause and be bis consmitted misconduct within the meaning of 25.25 of Standing Orders of the company and in that event the management has not committed any illegality in terminating the arrvices of such careless and indisciplined worker . The conduct of the Petitioner prove that he is so unwilling worker he did not put in regular musters even after his release from the jail he has remained absent in the month of August from 1-12, 14, 22 , 24 , 25 , 29 and 31 , in September 1, 7. 13 to 15, 18 , 19,22 , 28 to 30 , in October 5 , 14 , 17, 19 to 21 , and 24 , in November 103 , 7, 8 , 13 , 17, 20-22, and 30 and in December 1, 6, 8 , 14 , 25 to 27. This prove that Petitioner is careless . He is not a serious worker and thus , the punishment imposed by the management is legai and justified . Point No. ( 1 ) is decided accordingly.
S.O. 3031. In pursuance of Section 1 Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 114 of 1947), the Comunal Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 277 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunai.com Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of M/ s . SCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-10-2010
[No. L- 22013 / 4 / 2010-1R ( C- B 月 D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer
Dated the 5th day of October , 2010
13. Point No. ( II) : Learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman has argued that the punishment of dismissal from the service is a capital punishment and Petitioner could have been awarded lesser punishment . I have considered this argument but , the record shows that the conduct of the Petitioner is highly objectionable . He was involved in criminal case though he was acquitted from court , he remained in jail and he did not informed the management , after release also he did not resume duty immediately. He remained absent for other days . All this prove that the punishment inflicted or imposed on the workman is the only punishment which could have been imposed on the Petitioner. The Petitioner workman has not been able to prove that his termination order is illegal or unjustified or he has been imposed with excessive or disproportionate punishment . He is not entitled for any relief . Point No. ( 11 ) is decided accordingly,
Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 127/2006
Between :
14. To sum up from the abos e discussion this tribunal is of the opinion that the manage nent has not committed any illegality in terminating the stry , vorkman Sri P. Ravinder and he is ast entitled for any 2 Fef and petition- deserves to be disanssol . Hence, med .
Award passed accordingly. Transmi Dicatedto Smt . P. Phant Gowri . Per curl Assistant , transcribed by her corrected by isten this the 4th day of October, 2010 .
...Pettioner VED PRAKASHACK , neading Officer
Sri Bolisetti Shankar, S/o Mallaiah , C/ o Smt . A. Sarojana , Advocate , Flat No. G7 ,Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan , Opp : Badruka Jr. College ForGirls , Kachiguda , Hyderabad.
8747 भारत का राजपत्र सम्र 11 , 2010/20 1432
Daries Company ,
Cosmes Carmpany id ,
...Fesponden's
Maa Saroisna & K. Vasude
Sec, 2 ( 2 ) of 17 Act, 19-7
Meuunya Suri Shake, ex- badli sütlerin ligh Heigenen of one Hon'ble High Court of Andi.re Indecente 28 No. 1395 of 1989 datex 3-1-1995 Evean 112 12. Chinese and Mis . Cotion Corporatica deadmoo her in sea as ide the termination order 2017-1-2005 am to zeans ate the Petitioner workman
3. Maragement has submitted his reply alleging therein that Petitioner remained absent for the year 2003 but for 4 days which hampered the working of the company, the absence of the Paitioner was without any sufficient cause which is grave misconduct within the Standing Orderm 2.5.25 of the company and dismissal i not badin the light of the case law renerted in 1996 ( 1) BCC 302 State of J.P. nad Others Vs. Ashor Kumar Singh. Peritionor'a coronart, the as wis net adorded proper opportunity is incorrect Due netipss were given ο δαν Petitioner to pantonese in the enquiry proceding The notice was acknowledged by the Petitioner and he participated in the enquiry proceding Potion- chanar availed dhe za Co - Worse Rouge W. 200 the opportunity to it ke the help of a corolur. Poslans dić not produce siness , dus alio Officer. During the years 2000, 28851 81 2002 20 Potitioner was not regular to nis Julies , is hoyrr he put in 101 neasters , in 2007 herи 1асть от year 2002 inchas pia in 126 musters . However, indycar 2003 пера моniy 4 musters . This prove that the Paino was not sincere to his work . He intentionally absum.ed W'mself without any reason or caure . The company kas provided medical facilities by establishing tespitis , the Petitioner did noi veported to the company hospital for his sickness thus , his submission that he was nosem due to ill-health is unfounded, Enquiry Officer has given his finding on the material placed before him by the management and no fault can be find in the enquiry report , it is based on evidence and Petitioner's disnussai order is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by hira since Petitioner was not regular to his duties company has dismissed him which is neither illegal nor invalio .
4. Parties were directed to produce documentary evidence in support of their claims . Petitioner has filed xerox copies of charge - sheet , enquiry proceeding , enquiry report and dismissal order dated 7-4-2005 . However , the Respondent has filed entire domestic enquiry proceedings file explanation submitted by the Petitioner , show cause notice issued to him , his explanation against show cause notice , copy of the statement of the witnesses and that of the Petitioner himself and dismissal order.
5. Before coming to the point of the legality of the order passed by the management it is pertinent to mention that Learned Counsel for the Petitioner moved memo dated 30-1-2009 conceding the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry as such , the domestic enquiry was held to be legal and valid .
6. I have heard counsels for the parties and has gone through the claim petition , counter statement and documents filed by the parties .
7. It is admitted fact that the Petitioner has put in only 4 musters during the year 2003 for which a charge sheet dated 1-1-2004 was issued to the Petitioner against which the Petitioner filed his explanation stating therein that he remained absent due to ill - health and family is sileged by the Petitioner that he was anointed as sal: filer in 1988 andlater ine was confirmed . Tar Petitioner sufood with ili - heakh recurrently, he underwent treatment at various hospitals , as such he could not be regalar to his daties . A charge- sheet dated 1-1-2004 was issued alleged that the Petitioner has worked for deys during 2000 which amount to misconduct under company's Standing Orders No. 25.25 . The Petitioner has submitted his explanation but the Respondent were not satisfied and ordered for departmental enquiry . The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry with pre - determined notion . The enquiry was not valid in nature . The Enquiry Officer suomitted his report on the basis of a show cause notice dated 19-4-2004to the Petitioner against which Petitioner submitted his repiy on 14-5-2004 . The Disciplinary Authority did not consider the submission made by the Putitioner and passed dismissal order of Petitioner w.e.f. 16-2-2005 vide order dated 7-4-2005 . The Petitioner was absent due to ill - health and the same was stated by the Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer , no challenge was made from the side of the management as such , the submission made by the Petitioner would have been dermed to be correct but the Enquiry Officer has not considered the submission made by the Petitioner workman . He submitted his enquiry report with a predetermined notion as such , the order passed on such enquiry report is bad and deserves to be quashed . Proper opportunity was not given to the Petitioner in the enquiry proceeding . Hence , it is prayed that the impugned order dated 7-4-2005 issued by Respondent No. I be declared as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits .
8748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYAΝΑ 20 , 1932
problems . It is also admitted that domestic enquiry was conducted and Petitioner participated in the domestic enquiry. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dismissal order has been passed against the Petitioner which is under challenge .
8. This tribunal has to consider the following points:
(1 ) Whether the absence of Petitioner during the year 2003 was for any sufficient and reasonable cause or not and the report of Enquiry Officer is based on evidence or not?
(2) Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the Petitioner ?
9. Point No. 1 : The Petitioner has submitted that he remained ill during the year 2003 due to which he remained absent and put in 4 musters during the year 2003. His statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer and during the course of the enquiry he stated that he worked for 4 days and remained absent for the rest of days in the year 2003. Due to health problem the Petitioner has underwent treatment at various hospitals . But has not been able to provide any single document before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate his allegations . In his reply dated 9-1-2004 he has not mentioned what was the cause of his ill - health and where did he took treatment . He simply written that he took treatment at various hospitals . But to which hospital , the Petitioner has gone was neither mentioned in the explanation dated 9-1-2004 nor in his statement before the Enquiry Officer. As against this , the management has produced Sri M. Suryanarayana Rao , OS , SMG - 1 Incline and Sri N.S.S.S. Murthy , Paysheet clerk to prove that Petitioner remained absent without any leave or without any intimation during the year 2003 from January to December except for 4 days of his attendance . Since absence of the Petitioner was admitted by the Petitioner himself it was the sole duty of the Petitioner to prove that his absence was due to any cogent reason or sufficient cause . Petitioner was unable to prove that his absence during the year 2003 was due to sufficient reason . Though he stated that he was absent due to ill - health but he is not able to provide any evidence or material in support of his illness . Even if it is presumed that Petitioner remained absent due to te til- health why he did not informed his superiors regarding his illness has not been explained by he Petitioner Thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner's absence during the year 2003 and putting only & austers in the year 2003 was based on evidence and reasoning and no fault can be fir d in the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer.
9. This tribunal is also of the opimon that the Petitioner remained absent withou any intimation to his employer during the year 2003 , his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient casse sad thereby the Petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in para 25.25 of the Standing Orders of the company Prim N decided accordingly.
10. Point No.2: So far as the question of puma Nchi is concerned the Petitioner bas not been able to jusun absence during the year 2003 , he has voluntarily thai before the Enquiry Officer that he remained abszat wing 2003 and could attend only 4 musters though pe Respondent management has stated in the coURMET statement that Petitioner remained absent during th 2000 , 2001 and 2002 but it was not mentioned in the charg sheet . However, this fact was not brought before the Enquiry Officer also . As such , the previous absence an not be taken into consideration but the absence : the year 2003 but for 4 days attendance during the entire swar 2003 is surely a grave misconduct and management has not committed any mistake in passing the punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's family is starving due to dismissal of the Petitioner against which Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation ofthe family members , the Petitioner was a unwilling worker sho has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such . the punishment was proper and interference is not requiral in this case .
11. I agree with the argument of the Learned Counsci forthe Respondent and I am also of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner is not a deserving person for any lenient view to be taken in favour of the Petitioner . The Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of his family members , no interference is required in the matter of the punishment . Point No. 2 is decided accordingly.
12. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claim petition is unfounded, no interference is required in this case . Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Hence , this award .
Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant , transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 5th day ofOctober, 2010 .
Witness examined for the Witness examined for the Petitioner
VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Respondent
NIL
NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010
विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 अगरण , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. নিবাজনদানী कर्मकारों के बीच, দিন হৈাতিন: सरकार औद्योगिक
दर्भ संख्या 38/2007 ) सदा भी है, 18-11-2010 को
31-2213-10आई आर ( सी- II ) ] को एम. एस. श्रीनिव , डेस्क अधिकारी New De the 1 ' οιοί , 2010 S.O. 3032.n pamannce of Suction 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 of 1947) , the Central Governmeat hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 38/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of SCCL and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 18-10-2010 .
[ No. L- 22013 / 1/ 2010 - IR ( C - II) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAQ , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -COM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of October , 2010 Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 38/2007 BETWEEN :
Sri N. Ravi Babu , S/ o Veeraiah , R/ o 20-172/ 1 , Sanjaynagar , Yellandu Post , Khammam District
x749
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
declared as illegal , arbitrary and set aside the order of termination and petitioner be reinstated in the services with all consequential benefits in the light of case law reported injudgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Praedesh W. P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. It has been submitted by the petitioner in his claim statement that the petitioner was appointed as badli filler on 1-8-2000 at IK- IA incline . Petitioner was regular to his duties till 19-2-2002 , however , on 19-2-2002 petitioner met with an accident in the mines and the Petitioner was seriously injured . He was admitted in the hospital and he was on sick leave from 19-2-2002 to 9-3-2003 . Thereafter he was admitted in private hospital and got treated being on sick leave from 19-2-2002 to 9-3-2003 . He informed the Respondent about his illness but without considering the same Respondent has issued a charge sheet dated 11-12-2002 was issued to the petitioner in which it was alleged that Petitioner remained absent on number of days without leave or sufficient cause during the year 2002 .
... Petitioner
AND
The Director ( PA & W) ,
M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Yellandu , Khammam district
3. On receipt of the same, petitioner submitted his explanation explanining the reason for his inability to remain absent but without considering the merits of the submissions made by the petitioner an enquiry was ordered to be conducted . It is submitted that the absence period mentioned in the charge sheet is false and incorrect as Petitioner was under sick leave for the period from 19-2-2002 to 9-3-2002 due to an accident that took place in the mine . He was seriously injured , he attended the duties in the month of March , 2002 , on 14th , 21st and 22nd of March , Ist and 18th of April , 8th and 16th of May, 1st and 26th of June, 1st and 26th of September , 2002 but these were also mentioned as absent from duty in the charge sheet. Without considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Enquiry Officer held the charges to be proved vide report dated 18-7-2003 . The Respondent has failed to apply his mind while issuing the dismissal order dated 28-1-2004 .
.Respondent
APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner : Sri P. Sudheer Rao , Advocate
Forthe Respondent : M/ s . M.V. Hanumantha Rao & K. Seetharama Rao , Advocates
AWARD
This claim petition u/ s 2A ( 2 ) of the I.D. Act has been presented by Sri Ravi Babu , and ex - employee of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited has been filed with prayer that termination of his services dated 28-1-2004 be 4. The Petitioner has further challenged the order of the dismissal on the ground that the impugned dismissal order was not approved by the competent authority and no approval was obtained as per standing orders . No opportunity was given to the Petitioner to contradict the charges . The reason given by the Enquiry Officer is not valid because he has proceeded with the pre- conceived notion, the proceeding was held in a language not known to the Petitioner . The Enquiry Officer's report is based on irrelevant evidence and evidence of such witness who has no personal knowledge about the Petitioner . The submission of the Petitioner was not considered by the Enquiry Officer or disciplinary authority . The Petitioner's submission raised before the Enquiry Officer remained un- rebutted as the Petitioner has categorically pleaded that he remained absent due to ill - health . It was not rebutted TAL JAZETTE OF INDI DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA
evidence or meread
by me Laprada , management as soda , ander th
During enquiry the P
estesiane, tahornis of the law un -rebrzed evidence u
his mistake for rot res y detes
Taken to Door The Fetitioner artemisi, is duly on
pleaded to excuselin watsara .
14122 Areth , 2012 , 1 18 of , 2002, 維 產
the same in future
also Petitioner did nous
Winereas Lan Respondent has shown the Fctitioner to be
in 2003 and I musi
dues en Shose lese. The Enquiry For are mo
Respondent was cour .
consideres marciscit
unauthorized absentor
videncoregera ng bir il- health in de zaanth of Fenra... y
22-1-2004. It is summit
3002 to Mard , 11012 and the sickness corticate
and had put in omy 75d
Fines Hospizi. Pentioner kas subrritous mea
of the company, the absenc
Hradcatar el ke Respondent organize
any sufficient cause which
Standing Orders 25.23
MorrorDefleding ofthe Anquiry
not bad in the light of areca-
Hestarted t
302 State of D. P. and oth
pation be dammased art .
Long the g
6. As a legal
enquiry nas beamGum
has passed orина от
domestic organy
wt Autbudget and all other alertes
5-2-2010 boksing ?
ized for argum
3. Respondeur management has correndo , dec
sic coma or statement that the Petitincir was sporitva
assachileron - 2000 21 IK-IA incline, Sriramer
made by the panier a Crum
Respondera relating to the depari
19-2-2003 and he was on acciden fick lease comm 19-2-2002 10-3-2003 . Petitioner's attendance particulars Learned Counsel for the Petitioner 1.4.co :. That Petitioner met with an accident in the from the year 2000 are furnished as und
this tribunal that he assalein ayen
Enquiry Officer becaw is base
Attendance
has not challenged the action owne 2003
proceedings on any other groane but ir da
finding is based on no evidence Fehr - commons 200
this tribunal that he sub anten beibre the durat 2002 (upto November , 2002 ) charge
that he met with an accideni during the cos sneet issu
employment . He remained on sick seave Jon
9-3-2002 and on the bas's of tirat acerrien fuma
attend to his duties on several dates in Lie пог 2004 ( Up to 14-2-2004)
April , May, June , July and August and Sumon ha
he was present on 14/3 , 21/3 , 22 / 3,3 / 4
26/6 , and 26/9 of the year 2003, вале
report froste concerned hospital wine has r
absent . I mys argument submitted by the copy of his application dated 26-2-2-4 the office department Pomme N. Ravi Bab We he hospital from 19-2-202109-2002 due to the may left foot while carrying loaded basket which was feu on his foot . I have gone through the proceeding book domestic enquiry which runs five pages . The enquiry proceedings shows that though the Petitioner receiveri... charge sheet No. I K. IA/ 2002 / R08/ 3319 datod 11-12-2002 and had understood its contents , but he has not filed any written explanation against the said chargesheet . He has given categorical statement before the Enquiry Officer that s seer from the above that the Petitioner failedto De mandatory 190 musters in any year from 2002 onwards . The Pespondent management has checked these dates through the attendance register , nay shoes , attendance in lamp room and tub account book and found that the Petitioner was absent from try on the shovs dates and he aas not worked in Respondent concern . It is true that the Petitioner was on sick leave from 19-2-2002 10 9-3-2002 due to accident and that period was not considered as unauthorized absence . As such the allegation of the Petitioner was not found to be true and Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on the basis of the evidence produced before him and taking into consideration the entire evidence available before him . The contention of the Petitioner that the enquiry report is based on no नाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
8751 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
18-7-2003 and he has given the detailed reasons for the conclusion arrived at by him . He opined that the oral and documentary evidence adduced in enquiry corroborated the fact that Petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly and without any intimation over a period of one year habitually during the year 2002. The worker has not contested the charges nor has contradicted oral and documentary evidence adduced during the enquiry . On the other end he has pleaded guilty of the charges and thus , Enquiry Officer has arrived at the conclusion that the charges against the Petitioner is proved and the Petitioner is guilty of the misconduct under clause 25.25 ofthe company's standing order as such , the Respondent is constrained to dismiss the Petitioner for unauthorized absence w.e.f. 14-2-2004 vide order dated 28-1-2004.
8. This tribunal has to consider the following points:
( 1) Whether the absence of Petitioner during the year 2002 was for any sufficient and reasonable cause or not and the report of Enquiry Officer is based on evidence or not?
(2) Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the Petitioner ?
9. Point No. 1 : The Petitioner has submitted that he met withan accident during the year 2002 due to which he remained absent and put in 76 musters during the year 2002. His statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer and during the course of the enquiry he stated that he worked for 76 days and remained absent for the rest of days in the year 2002 , but has not been able to provide any single document before the Enquiry Officerto substantiate his allegations . As against this , the management has produced Sri I.C.S Rao , OS , IK.IA Incline and Sri K.V. L. Charyulu , Payshect clerk to prove that Petitioner remained absent without any leave or without any intimation during the year 2002 from January to December except for 79 days of his attendance . Since absence of the Petitioner was admitted by the Petitioner himself it was the sole duty of the Petitioner to prove that his absence was due to any cogent reason or sufficient cause . Petitioner was unable to prove that his absence during the year 2002 was due to sufficient reason . Though he stated that he was absent due to accident in the month of February , 2002 he sustained injury in left leg which troubled him through out the year , he is not able to provide any evidence or proof in support of his ailment. Even if it is presumed that Petitioner remained absent due to the ill -health why he did not informed his superiors regarding his illness has not been explained by the Petitioner . Thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner's absence during the year 2002 and putting only 79 musters in the year 2002 was based on evidence and reasoning and no fault can be find in the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer.
he has not fled any explanation and he pleaded guilty of The charges, Managernet has produced Mr. I.C.S. Rao , K.Ancime who has stated that Sri N. Ravi Babu heris habitual absentce , he has put in only 79 wurmy the year 2002 and 18 musters during the ver2 : 01 Rehas further stated that Petitioner remained altyn the vear 2002 whhout obtaining any από nhout any pristation . He has further Pd the Pshioner has not submitted any written пачкайсы из n achon of rensining absent without Od leave amounts to misconduct under clause She company's stunding order. This witness was not cross exama you bythe Petitioner. Though the witness was examinedin the presence of Petioner Sri N. Ravi Babu. The proceering Book father boves that apart from Mir . 1.C.S. Rao , Sri K. V.L. Charyalu , Paysheet clerk was Riso produced by the management who has also deposed that Petitioner is a regular absentee and Petitioner is uregular in attendance. Petitioner remained absent from work frequently without leave or prior intimation in the year 2002. That Petitioner has not intimated the reason if any for his unauthorised absence . Sri K. V.L Charyulu has given categorical statement regarding the absence of Petitioner during year 2002 , month and date wise which has been reproduced in his oral statement which has not been challenged by the Petitioner. Though it was recorded in his presence but Petitioner has not asked any question nor he has put in any suggestion before the paysheet clerk that he has given information to the Respondent management regarding his sickness . However , the Petitioner has stated during the course of his statement that he remained absent due to accident which lead to the injury in his left leg . This left leg injury troubled him most ofthe time . This statement was recorded on 4-7-2003 and he stated thathe is still suffering from back pain and for all these reasons and problems he took private treatment at Vijayawada . He has stated that he agree that he has committed mistake for the year 2002 and 2003 and he may be excused . During cross examination he has stated before the Enquiry Officer that due to ignorance and innocence he has not reported his sickness in the company's hospital and to his superiors . There is no other evidence before the Enquiry Officer produced from side of the Petitioner. The documents produced along with the claim statement that is application dated 24-2-2002 and the report of the hospital from where receipt of his treatment was not produceal before the Enquiry Officer . Even if it is presumed and taken to be proved that the Petitioner remained absent from 19-2-2002 to 9-3-2002 duc to the injury sustained by him during the course of his employment that injury has not been proved to be grave injury which could restrain the Petitioner from attending duty beyond the period from March , 2002. More over , this piece of evidence was not produced before the Enquiry Officer . Though it was stated in the statement of the Petitioner and it has been considered by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated [PART 11-Sel 8752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010 9. This tribunal is also of the opinion that the Petitioner remained absent without any intimation to his employer during the year 2002 , his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient cause and thereby the Petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in para 25.25 of the Standing Orders of the company. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
का.आ. 3033. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 113/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22013 / 1 /2010- आई आर ( नीं -11 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th November , 2010
S.O. 3033. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No 113 / 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-10-2010 .
10. Point No. 2 : So far as the question of punishment is concerned the Petitioner has not been able to justify his absence during the year 2002 , he has voluntarily admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he remained absent during 2002 and could attend only 79 musters though the Respondent management has stated in the counter statement that Petitioner remained absent during the year 2000 and 2001 also which was not mentioned in the charge shect . However, this fact was not brought before the Enquiry Officer also . As such , the previous absence can not be taken into consideration but the absence in the year 2002 for 200 days during the entire year 2002 is surely a grave misconduct and management has not committed any mistake in passing the punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner . The Petitioner has contended that his family is starving due to dismissal of the Petitioner. Against which Respondent contended that Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of the family members , the Petitioner was a unwilling worker who has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such , the punishment was proper and interference is not required in this case .
[No. L - 22013 / 1 /2010 - IR ( C - II ) ; D. S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present: - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of October , 2010 Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 113/2007 11. I agree with the contention of the Respondent management and I am also of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner is not a deserving person for any lenient view to be taken in favour of the Petitioner . The Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of his family members , no interference is required in the matter of the punishment . Point No. 2 is decided accordingly .
12. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the ...idered opinion that the claim petition is unfounded , no interference is required in this case . Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed . Hence , this award .
Fashioner Award passed accordingly Transmit .
BETWEEN: Sri Ungu Tirupathi , S/o Ramaiah , C/ o Smt . A. Sarojana Advocais . Flat No. G 7 ,Ground Floor , Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan , Opp . Badruka Jr. College For Girls , Kachiguda , Hyderabad
AND
Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 5th day of October, 2010 ..
1. The General Manager , M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Mandamarri Area , Mandamarri . Adilabad District .
VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent
Respondent
2. The Superintendent of Mines , M/ s . Singareni Collierics Company Ltd. , KK- 5 Incline , Mandamarri Arca , Mandamarri . Adilabad District .
NIL
NIL [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8753 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20, 1932
APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent : M/ s . P.A. A. V. V. S Sarma & Vijayalaxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
Sri Ungu Tirupathi , ex - worker of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , challenged the order of his dismissal dated 2-1-2004 and to reinstate him in the services with full back wages through his claim petition filed under Sec . 2A (2) ofthe I. D. Act , 1947 in light of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W. P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
of enquiry was explained to the Petitioner and he has put in his signature on each page of the proceeding . It proves that enquiry proceeding was conducted in a free and fair manner . Petitioner has not availed the assistance of defence assistant himself. Witnesses produced by the management and their statement was explained in Telugu language to the Petitioner. Petitioner has accepted his guilt . Petitioner has kept quite for three and half years after dismissal. Hence, the Petition suffers from delay and latches . Petitioner had put in 35 musters only during 2001 . After issuance of charge sheet dated 11 / 13-2-2002 he submitted his explanation to the charges dated 26-4-2002 explaining his inability to attend his duties due to ill-health and he realized his mistake assuring improvement in his attendance in future . But after charge sheet also he has put in only 15 musters in the year 2002 and 2 musters in 2003. He did not improve his musters .
4. Petitioner has not been able to prove the plea raised by him during course of enquiry with any valid documentary evidence and the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is based on evidence . It is not a result of predetermined notion or non- application of the mind . Respondent No. 1 being the General Manager of the Area is empowered to impose penalty including dismissal on proved charges against NCWA employees upto Grade - C, as Petitioner is NCWA employee , Respondent No.1 is empowered to issue dismissal order and requires no approval of higher authorities before issuing dismissal order. Petition deserves to be dismissed .
5. It is pertinent to mention here that though the proceeding taken before the Enquiry Officer was challenged by the workman through his claim petition , but on 9-3-2009 Petitioner's counsel filed memo before this tribunal conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry, thus , thedomestic enquiry has been held to be legal and valid.
2. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that he was appointed as badli filler on 16-6-2000 on compassionate grounds . However, during the year 2001 Petitioner himself suffered with illness and other family problems due to which he could not attend regular duties and could put only 35 days during the year 2001. Charge sheet dated 13-2-2002 was issued to him alleging that Petitioner has committed misconduct under Company's Standing Order 25.25 and he was asked to submit his explanation . The Petitioner has submitted his reply to the charges and pleaded his inability to perform duties on account of his own health problems and family problems . He further assured that he will attend duty. Unfortunately without considering any of the above submissions , Petitioner was dismissed w.e.f. 28-1-2004 vide office order dated 2-1-2004 in a illegal , arbitrary manner violating principles of natural justice . The enquiry was conducted in a routine and mechanical manner with pre- determined intentions . It was a mere formality which resulted in the issuance of impugned dismissal order . The Disciplinary Authority failed to apply his mind while issuing the dismissal order dated 2-1-2004. The witness who deposed against the Petitioner has no personal knowledge of the charges against the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has not considered the submissions made by the Petitioner nor he has considered the medical fitness produced by the Petitioner during the course of enquiry which remained un- rebutted . As such it deserves to be set aside and Petitioner be reinstated with full back wages.
3. Respondent has filed counter statement . The Respondent has alleged that Petitioner's allegation that enquiry was lopsided or it was conducted with a pre- determined notion is incorrect . Petitioner has not put in sufficient musters , his contention that he was absent on account of ill - health and family problems is put to strict proof. Respondent has not committed any mistake in dismissing the services of the Petitioner because the performance of the Petitioner was not satisfactory. It was effecting the production of the company. The procedure
6. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that though Petitioner has conceded to the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry, but he has every right to challenge the findings of the Enquiry Officer , during the course of arguments under Sec.ll A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. In the present case the Petitioner's absence is not challenged as Petitioner submitted before the Enquiry Officer that due to family problems and ill -health he remained absent and pleaded guilty assuring improvement in his attendance in future but it was not considered and he was dismissed from the services . Against this argument , Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Enquiry Officer has considered all the material placed before him and his report isbased on evidence produced before him . Petitioner has himself voluntarily admitted his mistake and assured during the course of enquiry that he will be regular in future and Enquiry Officer has given his finding regarding the evidence produced by the Petitioner. Thus , no fault can 4575 GI /10-28 8754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20, 1932
any intimation during the year 2001 tron , lan be find in the enquiry report or proceeding .
December and attended only 25 days . Since abre a the Petitioner was admitted by the Petitioner hirise !
7. It is undisputed that Petitioner remamed absent under clause 25.25 . The misconduct is habitual attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause . Absence from duty without sufficient cause is misconduct . It 13 admitted fact that the Petitiones has put in only 35 musters during the year 2001 for which a cherge sheet dated 11 / 13-2-2002 was issued to the fentioner avatust which the Petitioner filed his explanation staring therein that he remained absent dueto ill -health and taruly problems . It is also admitted that domestic eraquiry was conducted and Petitioner participated in the domestic enquiry . On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dismissal order has been passed against the Petitioner which is under challenge .
was the sole duty of the Petitioner to prove has absence was due to any cogen reason or sufficie Petitioner was not able to prove that Lis absunruh the year 2001 was due to suficient eason . Th stated that he was absent due to ill -health but h able to provide any evidence or proot in support of illness . Even if it is presumed that fetitioner um . absent due to ill - health why he did not inform his super regarding his illness has not been explained hy Petitioner. Thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer : Petitioner's absence without leave was based on eviden and reasoning and no fault can be find in the finding art ! atby the Enquiry Officer .
10. This tribunal is also of the opinion the tec
Petitioner remained absent without any intimation employer during the year 2001 and had put in only musters , his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient cause and I thereby the Petitioner has comnuitzi misconduct mentioned in para 25.25 of the Standing Ondus ofthe company . Point No. I is decided accordingly .
8. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relief upon the case law reported in ( 1996) 1 SCC page 302 between State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another , wherein the Apex Court held that having noticed the fact that the first Respondent has absented himself from duty without leave on several occasions were are unable to appreciate the observation that " his absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge . Even other wise on the facts of the case there was no justification to the High Court to interfere with the punishment holding that the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge especially when the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts . " and also relied upon several other similarly adjudicated cases .
In this case this tribunal has to consider :
( 1 ) Whether the absence of Petitioner during the year 2001 was for any sufficient and reasonable cause or not and the report of Enquiry Officer is based on evidence or not?
(2) Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the Petitioner ?
11. Point No. 2 So far as the question punishment is concerned the Petitioner has not been able to justify his absence during the year 2001 te voluntarily admitted before the Enquiry Officer that the remained absent during 2001 and could attend DEIN 35 musters though the Respondent management has statel in the counter statement that Petitioner remained absen during the year 2001 also which was not mentioned in the charge sheet . However , this fact was not brought before the Enquiry Officer also . As such , the previous absence can not be taken into consideration but the absence in the year 2001 is surely a grave misconduct and management has not committed any mistake in passing the punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner . The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's family is starving due to dismissal of the Petitioner against which Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of the family members , the Petitioner was a unwilling worker who has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such , the punishment was proper and interference is not required in this case .
12. I agree with the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent and I am also of the considered opnion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner is not a deserving person for any lenient view , to be taken in favour of the Petitioner . The Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of his family members , no interference is required in the matter of the punishment . Point No. 2 is decided accordingly.
9. Point No. 1 : The Petitioner has submitted that he remained ill during the year 2001 due to which he remained absent and put in 35 musters during the year 2001. His statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer and during the course of the enquiry he stated that " I accept that I avamed absent on the dates mentioned in the charge heet . Itis a mistake on my part to remain absent like this . isccept the charge and plead guilty of the charge . I was stsent dueto ill- health . Now I am alright ! assure to be Kretal and work regularly in future . " Euquiry Officer has simply stated that the workman has explainer that due to -health he could not attend the duty, but has not been aude to provide any single documens before the Enquiry Officer te substantiate absence . The management has produced Mr. P. S. S. Ranga Rac , Grade Clerk and vir. L. Venkateswarlu , Paysheet Clerk to prove that titioner remained absent withoum ny leave or without भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( 11 ) ]
8755 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
Shri Vijay Pal Singh
13. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claim petition is unfounded , no interference is required in this case. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, petition deserves to be dismissed and hence , this award .
As Represented by All India Central PWD ( MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regs . ) , House No. 4823 , Gali No. 13 , Balbir Nagar Extension , Shahdara , Delhi - 110032. ... Workman Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
Versus
Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 5th day of October, 2010 .
The Executive Engineer ( E ) Vigyan Bhawan Electrical Division , CPWD , New Delhi .
... Management VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
AWARD
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnessess examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 42012/ 190 /2005 - IR ( CM - U ) datol 24-3-2008 bas referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010
"Whether the action of the management of CPWD in not giving benefit of ACP Scheme to Shri Vijay Pal Singh w.e.f. 09-08-1999 is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief is the workman entitled ? " का.आ. 3034.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नं. 2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 04/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को18-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/190/2005 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 18th November , 2010
The statement of claim was filed by the workman through the Authorized Representative Shri Satish Kumar in May, 2008. The management filed written statement to the same . Thereafter , rejoinder was also filed by the workman. The case was thereafter fixed for framing of issues in this case . However , on 28-10-2010 , the Authorized Representative of the workman has moved an application stating therein that the workman is not interested to pursue this case any more . He has also not been attending the case for the last five dates of hearing despite intimation given to him by his Authorized Representative . In the application , it has been prayed that the workman may be allowed to withdraw the case and a no dispute award may be passed in this case. In these circumstances , a no dispute award is passed in this case and the reference sent by the Central Government stands disposed of accordingly .
Dated 28-10-2010
SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer S.O. 3034. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 04/ 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management ofVigyan Bhawan Electrical Division , CPWD, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18-11-2010 .
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010 [No. L -42012/ 190/2005 - IR ( CM - II ) ] D. S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT II, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI -110032
का.आ. 3035.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल ब्यूरो आफ प्लांट जेनेटीक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 132/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
In the court of Shri Satnam Singh , Presiding Officer ID No. 4/2008
Dated the 28-10-2010
[ सं. एल -42012 /229/ 2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी In the matter of dispute between :
[PART I- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 8756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20, 1932
New Delhi , the 18th November , 2010
S.O. 3035. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of National Bureau of Plant Genetics and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18-11-2010 .
[No. L- 42012/ 229/ 2002 - IR ( CM - II) ]
D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT /NGP/ 132/2003
Date: 01-11-2010
Petitioner/
Party No. 1
: Shri Vijay Ramchandra Borkar, Jalanapur , Post & Tehsil Chandur Bazar , Dist . Amravati , Amravati
Versus
:
Respondent/ Party No. 2
The Scientist Incharge , National Bureau of Plant Genetics Resources , Satellite Centre , Amravati
AWARD
(Dated: 1st November , 2010 )
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 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute betwen the employers , in relation to the management of National Bureau of Plant Genetic Research "NBPGR" in short ) and their workman , Shri Vijay R. Border (" the workman " in short ) for adjudication , as per letter No.L - 42012 / 229 / 2002 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 24-4-2003 , with the following schedule : -
"Whether the action of the management of National Bureau of Plant Genetic Research , Satellite Centre , Amravati , through its Scientist Incharge in terminating the service of Sh. Vijay S /o Ramchandra Borkar who was working as Labour - cum - Chowkidar w.e.f. 1-10-1995 is legal andjustitied ? If not , to what relief the workman is entried to?"
2 On receipt of the reference , the parties were reticed to file the statement of claim and written statement serpectively, mcompliance of which, the werkman filed his tatement of claim and the managemca ed its written tatement .
called for the names of the candidates from the Employment Exchange, for filing the permanent and clear vacant posts and conducted interview and after his selection in the interview, he was appointed orally as a labour - cum- chowkidar on 21-1-91 on daily rated basis and since then, he started performing his duty as such and continued to work without break till 30-9-95 and during the said period. NBPGR was not paying his wages for one to two months in a year on record , even though the wage was being paid to him regularly , only to show technical and artificial break and initially he was getting Rs . 20 per day as his wages , which was subsequently increased from time to time and at the time ofhis termination , he was getting Rs . 59.60 per day and after termination of his service by the management of NBPGR on 1-10-1995 , he approached the authority of NBPGR and requested for taking him back in service , but no heed was paid to his request , so he gave an application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner , Amravati , before whom, the management of NBPGR orally promised to provide work to him , so the matter was dropped by the Asstt . Labour Commissioner and on 2-1-99 , when he went to join his duty , he was informed about his engagement and payment of wages would be made through a contractor and he requested to make payment as per the previous practice by signing the muster roll and on his request , the NBPGR stopped to provide him the work , therefore , he submitted an application to the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (C)-1 , Nagpur in August , 98 , but the ALC returned his application with a direction to move the State Government in the matter and thereafter , he have an approach notice on 23-8-99 to the authorities of NBPGR for taking him back in service with continuity of service and back wages , but as he did not get any reply, he approached the Asstt . Labour Commissioner , Amravati u/ s 2 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act and ultimately his application was referred to the Labour Court , Amravati and registered as I.D.A. case No. 3/2000 and 16-4-2002 , the Court held the reference not to be legal . as the same was being referred by the State Government instead of the Central Government, who was the appropriate government and for that he approached the Asstt . Labour Commissioner, Nagpur for getting justice . It is also pleaded by the workman that the was in continuous service with NBPGR and had worked more than 240 days in a year proceeding the date of termination i.e. 1-10-2005 , but the authority of NBPGR failed to issue one month notice or to pay one month wages in lieu thereof as provided u/ s 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act and also violated the provisions of Section 25 - C of the Industrial Disputes Act by retaining the juniors , namely Nana Gajbhiye , Surendra Pochpar , Chavan , Gowardhan Gharade and others in service and also violated Section 25 - H by appointing new employees after terminating his service and the authority also did not publish the seniority list of the employees as per the provisions of Rule 81 of the Bombay Industrial Dispute Rules and as in spite of his attempts , NBPGR (did not provide him any work , again he approached the Asstt .
It is pleaded by the workmas Aids statement of claim that he was appointed as a labez c -cnowkidar on 1-1-91 by NBPGR and prior to his apportent , isBPGR 8757 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
Labour Commissioner , Nagpur for redress and lastly, the mavier was referred to the Tribunal . The workman has prayed for fés reinstatement in service with continuity in service and hul wages
earlier to that before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner and introduced such a plea by way of amendment of the written statement and as such , the said plea should not be taken into consideration . It was also submitted that NBPGR is an industry as it produces new seeds and distributes and sells the same.
5. So far the first part of the contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman regarding the plea of the management that it is not an industry should not be taken into consideration as the same was introduced by way of amendment of the written statement is devoid of merit and is rejected , as because once a plea is included in the pleadings even by way of amendment , the same is to be considered on merit .
6. So far the other question as to whether NBPGR is an industry or not is concerned , I think it apropos to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 1997 1 CLR - 1116 ( supra) . The Hon'ble Apex Court have held that : - The matagement of NBPGR in the written Fmatomest cas raised legal objection regarding the watmamabtity of the reference on the ground that NBPGR en an industry and therefore , the Industrial Disputes вечеррісable , it is also pleaded by the management but the woman was never appointed as a labour - cum- chuwatiar by way of conducting any interview but he worked na thally maid labourer for the periods as per the Informations furnished in Annexure- i and the wages was being paid to him as perthe Central Govanment rules and amendments circulated from time to time and it is false to say that he worked continuously without any break till 30-9-95 and the workman had never completed 240 days of work in any calendar year and as such , there was no violation of Section 25 - F of I.D. Act and Government of India adopted to implement the work contract system in 1996 and Suresh Pachpar and Chavan were working through the contractor and Gowardhan Ghorade and Nana Gajbhiye never worked even through contractors appointed by the NBPGR and the works through DPL woring directly by the Government departments was stopped w.e.f. 16-1-2000 and as such there was no violation of Sections 25-Hof I.D. Act and as no daily paid labour completed 240 or 180 days in any calendar year till the contractual work system was implemented w.e.f. 16-1-2000 , the provision of rule 81 of Bombay Industrial Disputes Rules is not applicable .
4. In view of the objection raised by the management that NBPGR is not an industry as defined under Section 2(j ) of the Act . I think it proper to deal with said objection at first , before entering into the merit of the case .
" Therefore , the question whether PRL is an ' Industry' under the I. D. Act will have to be decided by applying the above principles ; but at the same time , it has to be kept in mind that these principles were formulated as this Court found the definition of the word " industry " as vague and " rather - clumsy, vapourous and tall and dwarf " . Therefore, while interpreting the words " undertaking " , "calling" and service " which are of much wider import , the principle of "noscitur a sociis " was applied and it was held that they would be " industry " only if they are found to be analogous to trade or business . Furthermore , an activity taken by the Government cannot be regarded as " industry" if it is done in discharge of its sovereign functions . One more aspect to be kept in mind is that the aforesaid principles are not exhaustive either as regards what can be said to be sovereign functions or as regards the other aspects dealt with by the Court .
The material discloses that the object with which the research activity is under taken by RPL is to obtain knowledge for the benefit of the Department of Space . Its object is not to render services to others nor in fact it does so except in an indirect manner" .
At the time of argument , it was submitted by the Learned advocate for the management that NBPGR was established by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research in the year 1976 with its main campus at Delhi with the mandate to plan , conduct , promote and co - ordinate all activities concerning plant exploration and collection , safe conservation and distribution of both indigenous and exotic plant genetic resources in crop plants and their wild relatives and it is predominantly involved in maintaining research work and preserving the genetic variability of plants and therefore NBPGR is not an industry and as such the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to it and consequently this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference . In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decisions reported in 19971 CLR - 1116 ( Physical Research Laboratory Vr K. G Sharma) andAIR 1997 S.C. 2663 (Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka ) V. K. Somasetty) .
Itis foundfrom the above stated judgement that the Hon ' ble Apex Court have held that " industry " as defined in Section (j ) has a wide import and absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant , be the venture in the public, joint , private or other sector and the true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer -employee relations and if the organization is a trade or business , it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the undertaking .
On the other hand , the learned advocate for the workman submitted that the management did not take such a stand at the time of filing of the written statement or 8758
[PAR !!
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
Applying the tests as prescribed by the Hon ' ble Apex Court to the present case at hand , it is found that the NBPGR is an industry, because it is found from the evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the management that NBPGR is collecting germ- plasm , conservating and supplying the samples to different government organizations and agricultural universities , though it was not selling the seeds or the same is not a commercial institution . It is clear that NBPGR is rendering service to others directly . Hence , I find no force in the submission made by the learned advocate for the management on that score .
7. So far the merit of the case is concerned , the workman as claimed that he was appointed against permanent and clear vacancy as a labour - cum- chowkidar after being selected In the interview conducted for the same and he worked continuously from 21-1-91 to 30-9-95 and the management of NBPGR terminated his service on 1-10-95 and he had worked 240 days on each calendar year , still then , the provisions of Sections 25 - F, 25 - C and 25 -H were not complied with and the list of seniority was not published by the management , which have been denied by the management .
During argument, the learned advocate for the workman reiterated the said contentions and relied on the decision reported in AIR 1986 S.C 132 ( H. D. Singh Vs Reserved Bank of India) .
Section 25 - B of the I. D. Act provides the definition of continuous service which provides that , " a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period , ifhe is , for that period , in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or on accident or as strike which is not illegal or a lock - out or a ceasation of work, which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman , ( 2 ) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning ofclause ( 1) for a period of one year or six months , he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-
( a) for a period of one year, if the workman, Juring a period of twelve calendar months, proceeding the azte with recrence to which calculatis is to be made, has actually worked under the employe for not less than me Landred and nin , y days to the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine , and (ii) two hundred and forty days in any other case ;
Section 25 - F of I.D. Act deals with conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman and it provides that , " no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until,
(a) the workman has been given on montr inwriting indicating the reasons for retrenchmenti period of notice has expired , or the workman host paid in lieu of such notice , wages for the period ormarec.
(b)
(c)
It is clear from the said provisions tis for application of the provisions of Section 25 F it is necessary for the workman to be in continuous service of one year i.e. 240 days in one calendar year . In the decision onwhich reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the workman also , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that for application of Section 25 - F of theAct , working for 240 days in the preceding 12 months is required by stating as follows:
"where the name of a Tikka Mazdoor in the Rave Bank , person who helps the Examiners of coins etes, who claimed to have put in service of more than 24 нау in the preceding 12 months was struck off from the rolls after his passing matriculation examination , the act would amount to termination of service which in turn : Was retrenchment and would be invalid for non - observance requirements of Section . of In the present case at hand , the workman has not produced any scrap of paper to show that the NBPGR called for the names of the candidates from the employment exchange for selection of labour- cum-chowkidar and he appeared in the interview and was selected to be posted as labour - cum- chowkidar . He has not filed anydocument to show even that his name was registered in any employment exchange . It is also cicar from his own evidence and documents Ext . W- I and Ext.M - I to M - III that his claim about working continuously with NBPGR from 21-1-91 to 30-9-95 is not true as he had never worked for 240 days in any calendar year from 91 to 95. As the workman did not work for 240 days in any calendar year from 91 to 95 , the provisions of Section 25 - F, or 25 - C or 25 - H is not appicable in this case . It is also clear from the materials on record that the workman worked as a daily rated worker and he was being engaged by NBPGR from 91 to 95 and im 99, whwarver there was any work and he was never appointed continuously or as a regular worker and when there was no work , the system of engagement of daily rated worker way shoped and he was not engaged by the NBPGR any 99. Hence , I find no merit in dicreference and it isordered:-
ORDER
The action of the management of NBPGR, Amravati , through its Scientist In - charge in terminating the service of Shri Vijay S / o Ramchandra Borkar who was working as labour - cum- chowkidar w.e.f. 1-10-95 is legal and justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली 18 नवम्बर , 2010
राद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947
जीरा सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल.
कर्मकारों के बीच ,
मेंदीवरकार औद्योगिक
5 ) को प्रकाशित
16-1 -
प्राप्त हुआ था ।
र (सीएम- II ) ]
৩৫. ইদিকাল সা डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhabe , 2010 S.O. 3036.1
care of son 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194/14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 70/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpuras shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the Management of M/ s . Western Coalfields Limited , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-11-2010 .
[No. L- 22012/ 382/ 2004- IR(CM - II ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 70/2005
The General Secretary, National Colliery Mazdoor Congress , Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Post Ballarpur, Chandrapur
Petitioner/ 1st Party
Versus
The Sub Area Manager ,
Ballarpur Area of M/ s Western Coalfields Limited , PostBallarpur , Chandrapur
Respondent/ 2nd Party
AWARD
(Dated: 8th November , 2010 )
This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) for adjudication of the Industrial dispute between the Western Coalfields Limited , the employer and their workman , Shri Nilkanth Ramteke, as per letter No. L- 22012/382/ 2004/ IR ( CM - II) dated 18-8-2005 with the following schedule .
" Whether the action of the management in relation to Ballarpur Area of W.C.L. in not promoting Sh . Nilkanth
8759
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
Ramteke , Driver - cum - Mechanic , T& S Grade - C ( SLU ) as Asstt . Supervisor ( Transportation) T & S Gr. C is accordance with relevant norms of promotion ? and
"Whether the transferring Sh . Nilkanth Ramteke , Driver- cum - Mechanic , T& S Grade-Cfrom Ballarpur O/C Mineto Gouri O / C Mine vide office order No. WCL/ CGM / PER / 3895 dated 08-8-2004 is legal and justified? Ifnot , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"
2. The workman is present . Advocate for both the parties are present . The workman files a pursis being signed by him, his advocate and the General Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress intimating that both the parties have arrived at a settlement mutually and as such , a consent award be passed .
3. The workman also files the xerox copy of the settlement signed by the parties .Advocates for the parties (both workman and the management ) have also made endorsement that they have no objection in passing an award in terms of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties . In view of the pursis and the submissions made by the advocates for the parties and the workman himself , the reference is disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at by the parties . This may be treated as a consent award in terms of the settlement arrived at by the parties . Copy of the settlement be made a part of the award .
J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT. NAGPUR Case No. CGIT : NGP/ 70 / 2005
Empolyers in relation to the Sub Area Manager , Ballarpur Sub Arca / Area WCL , PO - Ballarpur
Vs.
(Nilkanth Narayan Ramteke)
Their workmen represented by Shri Lomesh Maroti Khartad , General Secretary , Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress ( RCMC ) , Dr. Ambedkar Ward, Po - Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur.
Vs. Pursis
In the above mentioned Indusrtial Dispute pending before this Tribuanl for Adjudication the parties to the above dispute jointly submit that both the parties have arrived at a settlement mutually and copics of the same are placed below and both parties will abide by the terms of the said settlement .
In view of the amicable settlement arrived between the parties in which the workman is also signatory to the settlement both the parties jointly pray that a consent award may kindly be passed accordingly .
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 /AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
8760
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectively prayed that the hon'ble presiding officer may kindly be pleased to pass an award in terms to the amicable mutual settlement arrived between the parties . Hence this pursis .
(Nilkanth Narayan Ramteke)
Driver -Cum-Mech
Ballarpur Opencast Mine PO. Ballarpur, Teh. Ballarpur , Distt, Chandrapur
(Lomesh Maroti Khartad)
General Secretary
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor
Congress (RCMC) Dr. Ambadkar Ward, PO Ballarpur , Distt Chandrapur
(K. D. Prasad)
SAM/BSA , BA
PO/Teh . Ballarpur , Distt . Chandrapur
Dated 8-11-10
Western Coalfields Limited
Office of the Chief General Manager Bailarpur Area PO : Sasti
"Whether the action of the Management in relation to Ballarpur Area of WCL in not promoting Shri Nilkanth Ramteke , Driver - cum- Mechanic T & SGr. C( Slu) as Asstt . Supervisor (Transport ) T & SGr. Cis in accordance with the referred norms of promotion? AndWhether the transferring Shri Nilknath Ramteka, Driver- cum-Mechanic T & SGr . C from Ballarpur OC Mine to Gouri OC Mine vide office order No. WCL/ CGM/PER/ 3895 dtd 08-08-2004 is legal and justitiod ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman 18 entitled" .
2. The Case is presently being heard before Hon . Presiding Officer, CGIT, Nagpur vide case No. NGP /70 / 2005 . The Next date of hearing is to be held on 08-11-201 3. While the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal the parties have mutually negotiated for arriving at an amicable settlement of the dispute . As a result of this negotiation the parties have arrived at the following terms ofagreement :-
Terms of the settlement are as under :
1. That the workman Shri Nilkanth Narayan Ramteke has already been transferred back to Ballarpur Sub Area from Gouri Sub Area vide order No. WCL / BA/ CGM /PER/ 1378 dated 02-08-2008 and he has already joined at Ballarpur Sub on 11-08-2008 . The matter therefore stands settled .
Dated 14-10-2010
Ref. No. WCL/BACGM/PER/3778
FORM- H
(See Rule- 58)
Memorandum of Setiement arrived at between the Management of WCL, Ballarpur Area and the Workman on .
PARTIES
Management Representatives
1. Shri R.K. Raut, DyGM (Per . )
Area Personnel Manager , WCL, BallarpurArea
Shri C.V.S. Ramanujam , Manager (Per . ) , IR, WCL , BallarpurArea
3. Shri K.V. Binaje Kumar , Manager Per /Adm . ). BA
Workawwurkmen Representative
1. Shri Lomes hartar General Secretary, RCMC ,
2. Shri Nilkanth N. Ramteke , Driver-cum-Mech. T& SGr. Clu)
SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE 1. Shri Nilkanth Ramteke , presently designated as Driver -cum-Mechanic T& S Gr. C ( Slu ) raised and Industrial Dispute whose terms of reference is as follows , 2. It is mutually agreed that , Shri Nilkanth Narayan Ramteke, presetnly designated as Driver- cum-Machanic T& S Gr.C ( Slu ) will be promoted to the Post of Asst . supervisor ( Transportation ) T & SGr.C w.e.f. 14-10-2010 . on submission of the settlement before the Hon . CGIT- cunt- Labour Court , Nagpur.
3. It is mutually agreed that , there will be no demand for Promotion whatsoever from the date of dispute pending before CGIT or from any date .
4. It is also mutually agreed that , no back wages or any consequential benefit will be given to Shri Nilkanth Narayan Ramteke consequent to the above settlement .
5. It is mutually agreed that this is full and final settlement of the above dispute and is considered equally omesicial to both the parties .
Sari Nilkenth Narayan Ramteke will not raise any dispute hat so ever before any statutory Forum/Court of Machinery /Non - Statutory Forum in this natter either by himself of through any trade Unions .
7.This Agreement will be binding upon the Wrokman as well as the Union and is treated as full and final .
3. It is mutually agreed that Shri Nilkanth Narayan Ramteke or his Counsel/Trade Union will not treat this case as precedence in any other case in future .
9. It is also agreed that Shri Nilkanth Narayan Ramteke and the Union and the Management will jointly file this ( 6/20 ) को प्रकाशित भ
-220 : 2
The Distria Man៩៣, Food Corporation of India, Ajni Nagpur
Asaager Pex/IR ) . Br ..
Respondent Party No. 2
AWARD
(Dated: 8th November , 2010 ) Shri Benaje Kumar, Manager ( Per /Admn . ) , BA
Sari Nikantn Narayan Ramteke Workmen
General Secretary, RCMC, Ballarper
उपक्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक बल्लारपूर उपक्षेत्र
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Centrai Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Food Corporation of India ( " FCI " in short ) through Zonal Manager ( West ) , Bombay , Sr. Manager , Bombay and District Manager , Nagpur and their employees , Smt . V.M. Choudhuri and Shri S. Ramesh ( " workmen " in short) for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur , as per letter No. L - 22012 / 482 / 95 - IR ( C - II ) datod 21-8-1996 , with the following schedule: -
" Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , through Zonal Manager (West) , का.आ. 3037. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के
4575 G1 /10-29 8762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYAΝΑ 20, 1932
all the twenty three redesignated explicat
junior to both of them in the seniority us
Grade- ill (Ministerial ) published during 1974 197
and by virtue of their seniority positu
promoted to the post of Assistant Grade
1976 and 1978 respectively and consequencer
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 14-8-98
30th and 43rd Amendment to the FCI ( Staff) Se
unconstitutional , the promotion of workman ,
as Assistant Grade - II was later or revised
date 30-9-76 alongwith that of Snit . V.M.Com
twenty three rexdesignated Assistant Grade- senal Bombay, Sr. Regional Manager , Bombay and District Manager , Nagpur in interpolating the seniority of Sh . S. Duttagupta, Smt . Madhu Saini , Sh . B. B. Naidu , Sh . S. N. Tiwari , AGII (Ministerial ) over Sh. S. Ramesh and Smt . V. M. Choudhury AGII ( M) in the seniority List of AGII ( M) as on 31-12-92 , circulated by Zonal Office (West) FCI , Bombay vide circalar No. Estt./ 5(13 )/93 dated 14-7-93 is justified and proper ? Ifnot to what relief the two affected employce i.e. Smt. V.M. Choudhury and Shri S. Ramesh AGII (M) are entitled and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
got their promotion to the post of Assistant
(Ministerial ) only during 1979 which obviously Subsequently the case was transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute
truth that the redesignated employees re
juniors to the workmen and in the semoruy
Grade - II (Ministerial ) for the year 1980 1982 19
and 1988 all of them were shown as Juniors
workmen and there is a provision in the
stagnation increment to an employee in cas 2.On receipt ofthe reference, the barties were noticexi with direction to file their respective statement of claim and written statement, in response to which the workmen file their statement of claim and the manageraent of FC ! filed the written statement .
of eight years ars of continuous service 34 parcard not
and the workmen were granted rock ac
compietion of eight years of continuous surve...
ofAssistant Grade - II ( Ministerial bus
redesignated employees were granted such bar ,
ater than the workmen but in the senior
name of one of the redesignated
S. Duttagupta , who was jumorean
conspicuously placed above ach care te
management had not circulated therevision
of Shri Duttagupta amongst of 200
when ail other redesignates emproveo
junior to them ( workmen ) and in tec
Assistant Grade - Il ( Ministerial ) circulatcabo de na
Manager ( West ) , Munibar snowта , реч
31-12-92 vide notice No. Estt./5(13/95 date
of the five redesignated employeu
Duttagupta , Smt , Madhu Saini , Sari ..
Khare and Shri S.N. Tiwart wer bac
though interestingly the names of An
employees were placed below then au
did not circulate the revision order of de
four redesignated crapsoyees among ouders
II (Ministerial ) employees and being ent 150
seniority list of Assistant Grade - II ( Minestera
The workmen represented before the Zonal ace
representation dated 25-8-93 and there
intention in revision of the seniority to leave is
improper , illegal and the representation of the wich
was turned down by the Zonal Manager vue tis Aur
dated 25-11-93 , on the ground that " the cases four
officials were examined by this office and it was decided to The claim of the workmen as per their statement of claim is that they were appointexd in the FCI during the month of June , 1972 in ministerial cadre and their seniority was accordingiy fixed in the seniority list of Assistant Grade- ill ( Ministernal ) and the management decided to fill on vacancies in the caure of Assistant Crade III ( Ministerial) M.F. Region by considering option from the Assistant Grade- ill (Godown , who were gractatus for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade - Iii Coliaterialy and in their cacular dated 5-4-72 , cailed for view of the interested Grade- ill (Godown ) empicyces , Incurchiar, various conditions were laid down by the 701 sacluding the conditions that they will have to tirege dheir lien on their posts of gedown cadre and they will rank below the Assistant Grade - III in the ministerial madre for ourpose of seniority and promotion and the management vide office order No. A/ 25 ( 13 )/ 72 dated 33-902 re- designated wenty three employees including 2 Duttagupta, 3.S. Naidu , S.N. Tiwari and Miss Madhe Sani , who were as working Assistani Grade- III ( Godoven Assistant Grade- III (Ministerial ) , subject to the terms and conditions that they will have no lien in their post of godown cadre, that they rank below all the Assistant Grade- ( Ministerial ) in the rast trial cadre for purpose of seniorty and promotion , Got thu- er vine rendered by them the cadre of godown dak wilt, however, coat Ser purpose of fixation of pay, pension ztc , and the options exercised by them for redestination as Assistani Grade 11 in the ministerial cadre are final d they will not be ait withdraw their options and accordingly, the semeury of all the said 23 employees was fixed in the post of Astant Grade- III (iviinisterial ) from 30-11-72.
fix their seniority from the last date of option 30-4-72 and
not from the date of exercising the option. Accordingly,
the seniority of four officials from whom the representation
for re - fixation of seniority were received was revised from The further case of the work mon management usedto publish the seniority list of all me cmployees in different cadres once in every two years tad the names of 8763 भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
the last date of option to be exercised i.e. 30-4-1972 " , and Cigatoid employees were given Selection Grade wapention sapaceding them, which is unjustified , вертолетрокa Locause of the illegal placement of Radhe, there has beige monetary loss to Parayed or restoration of their sheng Deir names above the redesignated e and promotion to ester Udomirarial ) from the date , ets supinyou were giver , the selection grade reactiverz Amma v print ofselection
14-8-98 declaring 30th and 43rd amendment to the F.C.I. (staff) Regulations , 1971 is unconstitutional and void and since those ten employees were also effected due to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and they were senior to the workmen , their seniority was also revisexi and their names were shown above the workmen in the seniority list and since the selection grade is being granted to each employees of the Corporation on completion of 12 years in particular post and all the ten officials have completed 12 years , their cases for selection grade were considered as per their turn in the seniority subject to the vacancies available and as no selection grade has been sanctioned to any employees , who is junior to the workmen , the question of grant of selection grade to them does not arise and their case would be placed before next Zonai Promotion Committee and as such the reference be dismissed .
4. From the stands taken by the parties in their respective pleadings and the materials on record, it is found that the claims made by the workmen have virtually been admitted by the management of the F.C.I. The explanation given by the management for enlisting Shri S. Duttagupta above the workmen in the seniority list of the year 1990 and four other redesignated employees , whose name have already been mentioned before hand in the seniority list of 1992 was due to revision of their seniority after consideration of their representation and fixation of their seniority w.e.f. 30-4-72 , the last date of submission of option for switching over to the cadre ofAG - III ( Ministerial ) from AG - III ( godown) . It is also found from the copy of the letter of the Deputy Manager ( Per . ) for the Zonal Manager (West) bearing No. Estt./5(13)/93 dated 25-11-93 addressoi to the Regional Manager ( Mah ) , F.C.I. that the workmen had made representation to the higher authorityto maintain their seniority but their representation was rejected . Hence, it is necessary to consider as to whether the action of the management about refixing the seniority of the four redesignated employees , who had opted to switch over to AG - III (Ministerial ) from AG - III ( godown ) w.c.l. 30-4-72 is justified or not . It is clear from the circular No. 4/25 ( 10 ) / 72 dated 5-4-72 of the Regional Manager , F.C.J. , Bhopai that option from Graduate Assistant Grade - III ( godown ) was invited for appointment as Assistant Grade - III ( Ministerial ) with the terms and conditions that they will have to forgo their lien on their posts of godown clerk and they will rank below all the Assistant Grade - III in the Ministerial cadre for the purpose of seniority and promotion alongwith two other conditions and in response to the said circular, Shri S. Duttagupta , Smt . Madhu Saini , Shri B. B. Naidu and Shri S. N. Tiwari and some others gave their option . It is also found from the office order dated 30-11-72 that 23 Assistant Grade - III ( Godown) including the above named employees were redesignated as Assistant Grade- III (Ministerial) and were placed at different places with the following terms and conditions :-
Pадрас mnt in is writer statement has not Memed the picae 31 de workmen trom Paras 2 to 8 made a the statement of spically pleaded that the ten redesignated finis were shown as juniors to the workmenin the seniority inst of Assistant Grade - II Ministerial ) upto 1988 but subsequently on receipt of representanen from them, same were examined and it was dechiext to in their seniority from the last date of option 20-4-72 which was exercised by them to switch over from Denot to Ministerial cadre and the circumstances under which the seniority of ten employees revised had been expiainci in the letter dated 25-11-93 and though as per the policyof management of FCI , while formation of new cadre phons are being invited from the employees working in other cadres and they are to be placed as junior- most in the wire and in the case of these ten employees , they had exercised the option from Depot cadre to Ministerial cadre and their cases were finalized on 30-11-72 by SRM ( MP ) de his office order No. A/ 25 ( 13 ) /72 dated 30-11-72 and ceir seniority was fixed from the date of issue of the said order, but since all the ten officials were appointed in FCI in 1971 and 1972 as AC - III ( D) and excrcised their option for ministernal cadre in April , 1972, but the options were finalized Novemoer , 72 , the employees who were appointed between May, 1972 to November , 1972 including the Foremon , who were appointees of 8-6-72 and 19-6-72 remectives were shown above those ten employecs , therefore they abmitted their representation for injustice cameo to hem by placing them below the appointees of May, 12 to November, 72 , even though they ( workmen) verejunior in the entry in the service of FCI as well as in The post ofAG - III ( M) and as per H.Q. letter dated 19-7-93, that " the godown clerks had exercise the option to come over to the Ministerial side in the terms of Office Circular No. 9/ 137/ 68 /Al dated 21-3-69 in April/ June , 1969 and it is unfortunate that the actual orders of transfer could be issued in Docember , 1971 and February, 1972 oniy . The delay is administrative for which the individuals cannot be made to suffer . We have therefore , no objection to the fixation of their seniority as A.G.III ( M) w.e.f. the date of their option and on the same analogy, the cases of these ten employees were finalized and their seniority was fixed w.e.f. 30-4-72 , which was the last date of exercising the option " and the seniority of the workmen was subsequently revised consequent on Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated redsignated
grade per vite
post of AG-
were given the
which , the workmen werd appointe
agen
Sdam at De die ground that the same was lime barred per the direction o. SRM. Bhops ) , the cars wat reopered and suggestion was given for reikartus aba seniority w.e.f. 30-4-70s staten in dre sais note tant , Shri Duttagupis had represented since 2-1-75.However , the application of Shri Dattagupta nied 1.75 nas not been filed before this Tribunal ir. m. The representation was allowed o ane gronne that the last date of option order for regnauon was passed on 3 delay of the rotearos c 23 employees, the said employees shown be suturun , then the seniority of all the 23 em your zhouad re been revised . Moreover , at the cost of on, it is in be mentioned that in view of the an , of the terms and conditions imposed by the negatom by de redesignated employees there want to the seniority of Shri Duttagupta or any other redesignated emplovers w.e.f. 30-4-72 . It is also found from the record rexing नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर
का.आ. 3038.--औद्योगिन लिवर अधिनि
का 14 ) की धारा জার । और
थयालग
77224479/2000
को 150 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-23012/ 12/2001-आईआर( मी [ सं. एल-23012/14/2001- आईआर ( सो डो. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क आं New Delhi , the 18th November, 2010 S.O. 3038.- In pursuance of Section 17 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Cas [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 77/2002 &79/2002) 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 18-11-2010.
[No. L- 23012/ 12/2001 - IR(CM - II)]
[No. L- 23012/ 14/2001 - IR(CM- 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. DNo. 77/2002 & 79/2002
(1) Shri Kulwinder Singh C/o Shri R.K.Singh, 211 - L, Brari . P.O. Partap Nagar, Nanagal Dam, Ropar
(2) Shri Tejinder Singh C/o Shri R.K.Singh, 211 -L, Brari . P.O. Partap Nagar, Nanagal Dam,Ropar
8765
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20, 1932
justified? I fnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
(2) ID No. 79/2002 , Tejinder Singh vs. BBMB , Ref. No. L- 23012/ 14/2001-1R(CM - II) , dated 30-04-2002 "Whether the action of the Chief Engineer (Power Wing) Generation , BBMB , Nangal Township , Ropar in terminating the seryices of Shri Tejinder Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh w.e.f. 28-02-1999 is legal and justified? Ifnot. to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
...Applicants
Versus
TheChiefEngineer PowerWing (Generation) BBMB, Nangal Township. District-Ropar(Punjab)
After receiving the reference, parties were informed. Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . In nut shell , it is the contention of the workman that they were engaged by the management of BBMB several times by showing them on contract, whereas , the work was continuously available with the management . In both of the industrial disputes date of initial appointment and thereafter, so called fresh appointment issued by the management on different dates are different but the nature ofgrievances are the same . In Kulwinder Singh vs. BBMB . it is the contention of the workman that he was engaged/ appointed by the management on 06-05-1997 and he was terminatedby the management on 28-02-99 without a month notice or payment of one month wages in lieu of notice andwithout payment of retrenchment compensation . The terminationof the workman, as per the contention of the workman, is illegal being against the provisions of Section 25 F of theAct.
Respondeat
APPEARANCES
For the Work
:
Shri R.K.Singh.
:
Shri Rajinder Singh.
For theManagement
AWARD
Passed on:-28-6-10
These two references are related to each other. Hence, for ends of justice, both of the references and industrial disputes are answered and adjudicated by this common award. Common questions of law and facts, in bothofthe industrial disputes and references are involved, that is the reason, this Tribunal is passing the joint award. Thereferences referred by the appropriate Government in bothofthe industrial disputes are as follows :-
(1) ID No. 77/2002, Kulwinder Singh vs. BBMB, Ref. No. L-23012/ 12/2001 - IR( CM - II), dated 30-04-2002.
"Whether the action of the Chief Engineer (Power Wing) Generation, BBMB , Nangal Township , Ropar interminatingthe services of Shri Kulwinder Singh S/o Shri Om Parkash w.e.f. 28-02-1999 is legal and 4575 Gl /10-30
Likewise, in Tejinder Singh versus BBMB, it is the contentionofthe workman that he was engaged by the management on 03-05-1997 and he worked as such on different appointment letters up to 04-07-2000 . It is also thecontention ofthe workman that he has completed 240 days ofwork in the preceding year and his termination is also illegal being against the provisions of Section 25 F of theAct because before termination of his services no notice or one month wages in lieu of the notice and retrenchment compensation were paid.
Themanagement appeared in both ofthe references and preliminary objections were raised that initial appointment ofthe workman was for a fixed time on a fixed wages and it was on contract basis . On expiry of the term ofthe initial appointment . the services of the workman automatically terminated . After this automatically termination of the services . Workman was once again engaged on fresh contract for fixed term, and for fixed wages. Thus, there is lack of privity of contract between the management and the workmen . The management has also denied all the materials and facts raised by the workman in its reply on merits .
Parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Oral evidence of both of the parties has been recorded . Relevant documents , meaning thereby . all the 8766
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
appointment letters and other related documents are on record.
length. I have heard learned counsels for the parties at The main issue raised before this Tribunal is whether the work was continuously avaiable ? Whether the management can be permitted to engage the workman for a particular period and after expiry of the period , appointing the workman once again afresh on so called contract ? Learned Counsel for the workman has termed it as unlawful labour practice .
The management has also stressed upon that work was not of continuous nature . The workman was appointed for a fixed term for particular work. On completion of work , the services of the workman automatically terminated .
On perusing the pleadings and evidence of the parties , it is evidently clear that management raised entirely two contentions :-
(1) Both of the workmen were engaged for a particular work and their services were terminated on cessation of work .
(2) The workmen were appointed on contract basis for a fixed term on fixed wages and on expiry of this tenure of contract, their services automatically terminated.
So far as the contention no . 1 raised by the management is concern , I am of the view that it is settled law of service jurisprudence thut a casual worker appointed for a particular job ceases his job for cessation of worked . If the work for which a daily wager is engage is finished , the workman cannot claim continuation . But on perusing the entire evidence of the parties there is no iota of evidence that work for which the workman was engaged was over . Moreover , from the nature of work which was entrusted to the workmen , it is clear'that it was of a continuous nature . Management has failed to prove even prima facie that the work for which every workman was engaged was of a temporary and for short period and after the completion of the work the services of the workman were automatically terminated . Moreover , it is the case of the workman that services were taken by the management or . different appointment letters for a fixed period on fixed wages . The practice adopted by the management itself prove that work was of contínuous nature and to prevent he workman from the lawful exercise of his rights which could have accrued under the provisions of the Act . Different appointment letters for differunt and fixed period or the fixed wages were given to the workman . Thus , on int no . 1 , I am of the view that management has failed to prove that workmen were engaged for a particular work ind as soon as the work was over the services of the orkmen atomatically terminated .
So far as point no . 2 raised by the management is concern, I am of the view that it is undoubtedly unlawful labour practice . If the work is of continues nature and is available with the management , there is no reason to appoint the workman for a fixed and different periods on fixed wages several times . What was the reason that the work if available , was not taken and provided with to the workman continuously . It itself shows that this act of the management was unlawful labour practice because the only intention behind it was to prevent and restrained the workman for claiming the exercise of lawful rights which could have accrued under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . Hon'ble the Apex Court has also laid down the same view in 2006 AIR SCW 2979. Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mamni . In para no . 9 of the judgment it is held by the Hon'ble the Court as under :-
"The respondent was appointed from time to time . Her services used to be terminated on the expiry of 89 days on regular basis . However, it is noticed that she used to be appointed after a gap of one or two days upon completion of each term . Such an action on the part of the Appellant cannot be said to be bona fide . The High Court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant herein stating:
It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid plea raised at the hands of the management on account of the fact that the factual position , which has not been disputed, reveals that the respondent- workman was repeatedly engaged on 89 days basis . It is , therefore , clear that the intention of the management was not to engage the respondent workman for a specified period , as alleged , but was to defeat the rights available to him under Section 25 - F of the Act . The aforesaid practice at the hands of the petitioner - management to employ the workman repeatedly after a notional break , clearly falls within the ambit and scope of unfair labour practice : '
Thus , it is the settled law of service jurisprudence that whenever work is continuously available . it is not open to the management to split out the work and change the nature of appointment just by giving several appointment letters and term edit as on contact basis . Resultantly all the appointment letters shall be treated as one and it shall be presumed that workman has continuously worked for more than 240 days with the management .
It is also the settled law of service jurisprudence that a casual worker or a daily waged worker has no right to post . He cannot claim for regularization of his services . The protection under the Industrial Disputes Act is the protection against the illegal termination and not regarding the regularization of the services . If the issue of regularization of services is considered by this Tribunal it will amount to bye pass the rules regarding the recruitment 8767 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, -1 , CHANDIGARH.
Case I. D No. 28/2007
Shri Rajesh Kumar
C/o Shri Subhash Chander President, 31010, Sector - 24- D, Chandigarh
to the public appointment . It is not the intention of the legislature .Accordingly, termination of the workman was illegal void abinitio . The only remedy available is the reasonable compensation because the case of the workman cannot be considered for the regularization of the services and as per the contention of the management the regular appointments have been made . Thus , neither the post is available nor the case of the workman can be considered for regularization . Accordingly, as stated earlier , the only remedy available to the workman is a reasonable compensation on account ofhis illegal termination.
...Applicant
Versus
The Director, PGI , Chandigarh .
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the Workman
:
Shri D. R. Sharma & Jagdeep Jaswal .
Shri N. K. Zakhmi .
For the Management :
AWARD
Passed on : -26-10-10
Government of India vide notification no . L - 42012/ 259/2005/IR (CM - II) , dated 01-05-2007 by exercising its pow- ers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ( the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
What should be a reasonable compensation depends on facts and circumstances of each case . In my view the factors to be considered for granting and calculating the reasonable compensation are period the workman has served with the management, his age , his socio -economic condition, the wages he was getting at the time of his termination, one month wages in lieu of notice, amount of retrenchment compensation interest thereon, inflation in Indian economy, price index factor etc. If all the above factors are considered by this Tribunal and length of service is also considered, workman Kulwinder Singh is entitled for Rs . 75,000 and Tejinder Singh is entitled for Rs . 1,00,000 (one lack ) . In my opinion the above compensation will be a reasonable compensation and certainly it will meet the ends ofjustice. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay to the workmen/deposit in the account of this Tribunal the above mentioned amounts within one month from the date of publication of the award . Let appropriate Government be approached for publication of award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.
GK . SHARMA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010
"Whether the action of the management of PGI in not awarding financial upgradation to Shri Rajesh Kumar as per ACP scheme w.e.f. 09-08-1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
After receiving the reference parties were informed .
का.आ. 3039, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पी.जी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल -42012/ 259/ 2005- आईआर(सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 18th November, 2010
S.O. 3039. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 28/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, inthe Industrial dispute between the Management of PGI and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 18-11-2010 .
[No. L-42012/259 /2005 - IR( CM - II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
Parties appeared and represented through learned counsels as per the provisions of the law. The statement of claim and written statement were filed respectively by the parties . On perusal of the pleadings of the parties , the main issue for adjudication before this Tribunal is whether a workman has right to get higher pay scale in Assured Car- rier Progression Scheme pending enquiry for misconduct against him ? The case of the workman in nut shell is that he was appointed as clerk by the management of Post Graduate institute of Medical Research ( PGI ) , Chandigarh in the pay scale of Rs . 260-400 ( revised ) . Because of the . stagnation in promotions of the employees , on the basis of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission , the Government of India issued Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (ACP) w.e.f 09-08-1999 providing the benefit of two financial upgradation where the employees have not been promoted on completion of 12 year of service . The same memorandum is on record . It is the claim of the work 8768
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010/AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
that even after completing 12 years of service on 09-08-1999, he was denied the lawful benefit ofhigher pay scale in Assured Carrier Progression Scheme . The work- man has requested for an order for his higher pay scale in the said scheme w.e.f. 09-08-1999 .
The management of PGI appeared and opposed the contention of the workman by filing written statement. The only reasons shown by the management for denying the higher pay structure in Assured Carrier Progression Scherme is the enquiry pending against the workman for various misconducts . It is the contention of the management that workman was punished thrice for different misconducts . On two occasions he was punished for unauthorized absent and on third occasion he was punished for embezzlement of Rs . 3982.62 . It is further contended by the management that in the year 1999 there was a departmental enquiry pending against the workman for criminal offence . Respective criminal cases were also pending in the criminal co . of competent jurisdiction . There is a mention on tw . iminal cases against the workman . The one case was under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which he was punished by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and punishment was confirmed by the appellate Court (Sessions Judge) . Thereafter , Hon'ble High Court was kind enough to acquit the workman on 08-04-1999 . The workman was further charged for his involvement in criminal activities on the basis of a case registered under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Because of the FIR, and his detention to the judicial custody, he was suspended and during the period in ques- tion he remains suspended. The grant of higher pay sale cut down under ACP scheme could not be considered because of his involvement in criminal case and a department proceedings pending against him .
Both of the parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Oral evidence was recorded . All the documents regarding the punishment awarded to the workman in different disciplinary proceedings and the documents relating to the ACP ( Assured Carrier Progression Scheme ) are also on record.
I have heard the parties at length . Workman was also heard in person. It has been stated that on the day when he became eligible for the higher scale under ACP Scheme w.e.f 09-08-1999 , there was no punishment in operation. His suspension has already been revoked by subsequent order of the management and all the benefits for the suspension period and absence period have been awarded to the workman . Under such circumstances , there shall be no affect of any punishment awarded to him prior to the date on which his claim for higher pay scale under ACP Scheme became due. Learned counsel for the workman has also drawn my attention on the relevant rules .
Learned counsel for the management has argued that on relevant day there was an enquiry pending against the workman, so , his case was not considered . Thereafter , learned counsel for the management has argued that his case was taken up by the committee constituted for considering the claim of every employees who have com- pleted 12 years of services and have not been promoted for grant of higher pay scale under the said scheme . His case was considered and the result was kept in sealed envelop because of pending enquiry against him .
I have also gone through the concerned rules . Annexure- I of ACP Scheme is also relating to the condi- tions for grant of benefits under the ACP scheme . For the purpose ofanswering this reference , I am mentioning only three rules for the purpose of answering this reference .
Rule 4 reads as under :-
" The first financial upgradation under the ACP scheme shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second upgradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of financial upgradation subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions . In other words , if the first upgradation gets , postponed on account of the employee not found fit or due to departmental proceedings , etc. , this would have consequential effect on the second upgradation which would also get deferred accordingly" .
Rule 8 reads as under:-
" The financial upgradation under the ACP scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position . As such , there shall be no additional financial upgradation for the senior employee on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got higher pay scale under the ACP Scheme" .
Rule 11 reads as under :-
" In the matter of disciplinary /penalty proceedings , grant of benefits under the ACP scheme shall be subject to rules governing normal promotion. Such cases shall , therefore , be regulated under the provisions of relevant CCS (CCA) Rules , 1965 , and instructions thereunder . " The plain readings of Rule 4 to enquiry relating to the conditions of grant of benefits under ACP scheme makes it eventually clear that the benefit of this scheme can be given to the employees who has completed 12 years of regular services from the date of the first financial upgradation subject to the fulfillment of the prescribed conditions . The rule further speaks that if the first upgradation gets postponed on account of the employee not found fit or due to departmental proceedings etc. This would have a consequential effect on the second upgradation which would also get differ , accordingly. The second part of this rule 4 makes it clear that right to get the higher pay scale in the ACP scheme is not an absolute and vested right of any employee . It is subject to the certain conditions laid down in relevant rules . It is also subject to [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
the decision of the authority concern to found or not to found fit any employee on account of the departmental proceedings or similar other cause . Thus , not to found fit any employee on account of disciplinary proceedings and on such the grounds is inherent in Rule 4 of Annexure- I. Rule 4 also speaks that if first benefit to the ACP scheme is preferred because of the above reason the second will pay consequently be differ.
Rule 8 speaks about the nature of grant higher pay scale in theACP scheme . Rule 8 speaks that benefit under the scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevant to his seniority decision . Under this rule, it is not open to any employee to claim that his juniors have been granted higher pay scale under ACP scheme. Rule 8 specifically provides that grant of higher pay scale under ACP scheme has no concern with the seniority of the employee. , Likewise Rule 11 also provides that the benefit of higher pay scale under ACP scheme shall be contributed to any of the employee on the same terms and conditions on which he is given the benefit of the promotion.
It isclear from the evidence adduced by both of the parties that in the year 1999 there was a departmental enquiry pending against the workman and he was rightly not given the benefit of higher pay scale under the ACP scheme . Thus , the management was justified on account of the pending department proceedings because the workman for grant of higher pay scales under the ACP as soon as the departmental proceedings over, he was afforded the benefit of the scheme. As per the rule 4 the benefit was delayed due to the pending department pro- ceedings . Accordingly there is no force in the claim of the workman. He is not entitled for any relief. The industrial dispute is accordingly answered . Let Central Government be approached for publication of the award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.
GK. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 18 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3040, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 41/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-10 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं एल -22011 /6/2010- आईआर ( सीएम - Ⅱ ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th November , 2010 S.O. 3040.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central
8769
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/ अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 41/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 18-11-2010 .
[No. L - 22011 / 6/2010- IR( CM - 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. 41/2010
Registered on 18-06-2010
Sh . P.K. Nayak, Organizing Secretary, FCI Workers ' Union , 8585 , Arakashan Road , Pahar Ganj , New Delhi - 110055 .
Applicant
Versus
The General Manager , Food Corporation of India , Punjab Region , B. No. 34 to 38 , Sector 31 - A, Chandigarh .
Respondent APPEARANCES
:
For the workman
None .
None .
For the Management :
AWARD
Passed on 4 November , 2010
Central Government vide Notification No. L - 22011 / 6/2010 - IR( CM - II ) Dated 08-06-2010 , 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 FCI in recovering the demurrage charges pertaining to the period 1992 to 1997 from the handling workers of FCI Depots at Patiala and Amloh without holding domestic inquiry and without affording the workers an opportunity to defend their case is legal and justified? To what reliefs are the workers of the above mentioned Depots entitled? " 8770
[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 11 , 2010 / AGRAHAYANA 20 , 1932
=
Party no.3 of the reference Shrj P. K. Nayak , Organizing Secretary , FCI Workers ' Union , 8585 , Arakashan Road, Pahar Ganj , New Delhi - 110055 failed to put in his appearance and file claim statement despite notice dated 23-06-2010 , 26-07-2010 and registered notice on26-08-2010 . Party no . 2 also did not put in his appearance despite notices . In the absence of claim statement the reference is answered against party no . 3 ofthe reference. The action of the management of F.C.I. in recovering the demurrage charges pertaining to the period from 1992 to 1997 from the handling workers of F.C.I. Depots at Patiala andAmloh without holding domestic enquiry and without affording the workers an opportunity to defend their case is held legal and justified in the absence of claim statement and evidence. The workers of the above- mentioned Depots are not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. Let two copies of the award be sent to the Central Government after due compliance .
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 19 नवम्बर , 2010
का.आ. 3041 ,-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 100/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-11-10 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल -22012/87/2002- आईआर( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th November, 2010 S.O. 3041. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 100/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of SECL, GevraArea and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 19-11-2010 .
[No. L- 22012/87/2002- IR(CM - II)) D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/ 100/2003
PresidingOfficer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan Shri Deepak Kapoor , Area Secretary, Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) , Qtr.No. M/598 , Dipika Colony, PO Gevra Project, Distt . Korba
Workman/Union (Chhattisgarh)
Versus
The Chief General Manager, SECL, Gevra Area, PO Gevra Project ,
Distt. Korba ( Chhattisgarh)
AWARD
Passed on this 21st day of October , 2010 1. Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 22012/ 87/2002 - IR( CM - II ) dated 26-5-03 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -
" Whether the demand of Samyuktha Koyla Mazdoor Sangh from the management of SECL , Gevra Area to refund the amount deducted on account ofA.P. Cyclone Relief Fund but not sent to theGovernment is justified ? If so , to what relief are the workmen entitled? "
2. The Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) did not appear in the reference inspite of notice by registered post . Lastly the then Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the Union on 16-8-05 .
3. The case of the management in short is that the particulars ofthe beneficiaries , the particulars of deduction , date of deduction and claim of refund are not clear and therefore the reference is vague . The further case is that on6-11-96 , the joint Advisory Committee discussed about the contribution by the employees towards the Prime Minister's Relief fund for victim of National Calamity and Cyclone . All the unions were signatories of the meeting and it was decided to donate one day wages to the relief fund . The donation received is said to have been remitted to the victims of Gujarat Earth Quake in April 2001 . Therefore the question to refund the donation doesnot arise . It is submitted that the reference be answered .
4.The point for issue is as to whether the demand of the union from the management of SECL to refund the amount is justified ?
5. The management has adduced oral and documentary evidence in the case . Shri J.S.Prasad is Chief General Manager in SECL, Gevra Area. He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that the joint Advisory Committee ( in short IAC) had taken a decision todonate one day pay to the victim of the natural calamity . The copy of the said decision is filed which is Annexure MA and M/2 . He has further stated that such donation was remitted for helping the victims of Gujarat Earth Quake in April 2001. His evidence is unrebutted . There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence . This shows that the claim of the Union is not justified when the amount was remitted to the victim . Accordingly the reference is answered.
6. In the result , the award is passed without any order to costs .
7. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .
Management
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8771 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 11 , 2010/अग्रहायण 20 , 1932
नई दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर , 2010
probationary period whose services were utilized as watch and ward , Grade- H. It is stated that the workman was officiating the higher post w.e.f. 4-7-96 and she is entitled to receive wages of Chowkidar Grade - H . It is submitted that the management be directed to confirm the workman with difference ofback wages from the date of officiating onhigher post.
का.आ. 3042.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 41/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-11-10 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/ 124/2001- आईआर(सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 19th November, 2010
S.O. 3042.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the Management of Western Coald- fields Ltd. , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-11-2010 .
[No. L-22012/ 124/2001 - IR( CM- II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC /R/41/03
Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan
3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management , interalia , is that admittedly Smt . Shamsunnisha was appointed on 12-1-91 as canteen cook helper. Subsequently she was deployed to work in watch and ward cadre for security nature job at VTC Barkui of Pench Area . The case of this workman on her request was forwarded to the competent authority by the General Manager, Pench Area for Lady Security Guard. The competent authority directed her to appear before the Chief Security, WCL, Nagpur on 11-10-99 where she appeared and was screened as per the norms and condition of the Security Personnel but she did not fulfill the selection and was declared unfit for the post of Lady Security Guard . The decision was communicated to all concerned . The Union thereafter raised to confirm her as chowkidar. The management expressed its inability to regularize her as chowkidar because no such post exist as on the date as per cadre scheme. Moreover there was restriction to regularize the employee on the post of Chowkidar. On the above ground , it is submitted that the action of the management isjustified and award be passed in favour of the management.
TheGeneral Secretary, BKKMS ( BMS ) , PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara ,
4. The Union/ workman subsequently absented. The then Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the workman, Smt . Shamsunnisha on 26-7-07.
Chhindwara
...Workman/Union
Versus
5.Now the important issue for determination is asto whether the action of the management in not regularizing Smt . Shamsunnisha as Chowkidar is justified?
The General Manager , Western Coalfields Ltd. , Pench Area, PO Parasia, Distt . Chhindwara (MP) Chhindwara
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of October , 2010
1. TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 22012/ 124/2001 - IR (CM - II ) dated 11-2-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Pench Area of WCL , PO Parasia, Distt . Chhindwara (MP) in not regularizing Smt. Shamsunnisha as Chowkidar w.e.f. 4-7-1996 at V.T.C. Barkui is legal andjustified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
6. To prove the case , the management has examined one witness in the case . Shri Abdul Hakeem is Area Personnel Manager in WCL, Pench Area . He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that she was appointed as canteen cook helper on 12-1-91 and was deployed to work as Chowkidar. Her case was forwarded but she was found unfit in the screening as she was not fulfilling the norms and condition ofthe Security Personnel. He has stated that she was never promoted on higher post and the post of Chowkidar did not exist as on date as per cadre scheme. His evidence is unrebutted and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence . His evidence shows that she was never promoted and there was no post of Chowkidar in the cadre scheme and therefore the question to regularize on the post does not arise . I find that the workman Smt . Shamsunnisha is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .
7. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .
8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
MOHD. SHAKIR HAŞAN , Presiding Officer 2. The case of the Union/ workman in short is that Smt. Shamsunnisha was appointed as General Mazdoor Cat - I at V.T.C Barkui . Thereafter she was promotedto the post of chowkidar Grade - H on 4-7-96 but the wages of Category - I was being paid . The service conditions is governed under the provisions of Certified Standing Orders.Accordingly the concerned workman is entitled to beconfirmed on the post after completion of six months
Printed by the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi- 110054 .