Servants of Knowledge
Weekly Gazette of India · Government of India

This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

Published 08 January 2011

Ministry
This Gazette may contains Multiple Ministry / Organization
Department
This Gazette may contains Multiple Departments
Office
This Gazette may contains Multiple Offices
Gazetteid
NOT available ( 33126 )
Identifier
in.gazette.central.w.2011-01-08.33126
Languages
English, Hindi
Published at
Original source ↗

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

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 2

No. 21

नई दिल्ली, जनवरी 2 जनवरी 8 , 2011 , शनिवार/पौष 12 पौष 18 , 1932 NEW DELHI , JANUARY 2- JANUARY 8 , 2011 , SATURDAY/PAUSA 12-PAUSA 18, 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 11-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 , 28 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 75.-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 कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार , कर्नाटक सरकार सचिवालय , विधान सौध , बंगलौर की अधिसूचना सं. एचडी 147 सीआईडी 09 दिनांक 22-12-2009 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से धोखाधड़ी व जालसाजी के संबंध में श्री मनमोहन मल्होत्रा, प्रोप्राईटर महाराज सिल्क, बंगलौर के विरूद्ध भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 419 ,420, 468 तथा 471 के अधीन पुलिस स्टेशन उप्परपेट, बंगलौर में दर्ज आपराधिक मामला सं. 14/2009 दिनांक 10-01-2009 तथा प्रयत्नों , दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों अथवा उपर्युक्त अपराधों के संबंध में या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध या अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के 4894 G1/2010

( 125)

सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/8/2010- एवीडी- II ]

आर. के. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training ) New Delhi , the 28th December, 2010 S.O. 75. 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 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent ofthe State Government of Karnataka, Karnataka Government Secretariat , Vidhana Soudha , Bangalore vide Notification HD 147 CID 09 dated 22-12-2009, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of Criminal Case No. 14/09 dated 10-01-2009 126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

under sections 419 , 420 , 468 and 471 of the India Penal Code, 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860) registered at Upparpet Police Station , Bangalore against Shri Manmohan Malhotra, Proprietor of M/ s Maharaj Silks , Bangalore relating to cheating and forgery and attempt , abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228 / 8/2010-AVD - II ] R. K. GUPTA , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 76. केंद्रीय सरकार दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 (1974का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा डॉ. ए. के. गौतम तथा श्री नरेंद्र मान को दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो ) के विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[ सं. 225/41/2009 - एवीडी- II ] आर. के. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th December, 2010 S.O. 76. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 8 ) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. A. K. Gautam and Shri Narender Mann , Advocates as Special Public Prosecutor ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment ( Central Bureau of Investigation ) in the Delhi High Court, New Delhi .

[No. 225 /41/2009 -AVD -11 ] R. K. GUPTA , Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय

(आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

(पूंजी बाजार प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 77.-भारतीय प्रतिभूति एवं विनिमय बोर्ड अधिनियम, 1992 ( 1992 का 15 ) की धारा 15 ( ढ़ ) के साथ पठित धारा 15ठ द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा श्री एस.एस.एन. मूर्ति , अध्यक्ष, केंद्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड , राजस्व विभाग , वित्त मंत्रालय को 19-01-2011 से पांच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके बासठ ( 62 ) वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त करने तक , जो भी पहले हो, प्रतिभूति अपील अधिकरण , मुंबई का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 3/6/2010- आर ई ] उज्जवल कुमार , अवर सचिव

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Economic Affairs) (Capital Market Division)

New Delhi , the 28th December , 2010 S.O. 77. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15L read with Section 15N of the Securities and Exchange Board of IndiaAct , 1992 ( 15 of 1992) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. S. N. Moorthy, Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes , Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance as Member of the Securities Appellate Tribunal , Mumbai for a period of five years with effect from 19-1-2011 or till he attains the age of sixty two (62) years , whichever is earlier .

[F.No. 3/6/2010 - RE] UJJWAL KUMAR, Under Secy कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

जयपुर , 27 दिसम्बर , 2010 सं. 20/2010-11

का.आ. 78. आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड (23 सी ) की उप - धारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एतद्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2011-12 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " मै स्कोलर्स एजुकेशन ट्रस्ट आफ इण्डिया जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सीए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उप- खण्ड (23सी) की उप - धारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे । [क्रमांक: मुआआआआआ ( मु )/जय/ 10 ( 23सी ) ( vi ) /10-11 / 5752 ]

मुकेश भान्ती , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Jaipur , the 27th December , 2010 No. 20/2010-2011

S.O. 78. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - clause (vi ) of clause (23C ) of Section 10 of the Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income- tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income - tax , Jaipur hereby approves " Scholar's Education Trust of India , Jaipur " for the purpose ofsaid section for the A. Y. 2011-12 and onwards .

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

[ No. CCIT/JPR/AddI . CIT ( Hqrs .)/ 10 (23C ) (vi )/2010-11 /5752 ] MUKESH BHANTI , Chief Commissioner of Income - tax [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

जयपुर , 27 दिसम्बर , 2010 सं. 21 /2010-11

का.आ. 79. - आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उप - धारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एतद्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-11 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उ‌द्देश्य से " बाल भारती विद्यापीठ संस्थान , सुजानगढ़ , जिला- चुरू" को स्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उप - खण्ड ( 23 सी) की उप - धारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे । [क्रमांक: मुआआआआआ ( मु ) /जय/ 10 ( 23 सी ) ( 6 ) / 10-11 / 5751 ]

मुकेश भान्ती , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त Jaipur, the 27th December , 2010 No. 21 /2010-11

S.O. 79. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -clause ( vi ) of clause (23C ) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income - tax , Jaipur hereby approves " Bal Bharti Vidhyapeeth Sansthan , Sujangarh Distt . Churu " for the purpose of said section for the A. Y. 2010-11 & onwards .

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

[ No.CCIT / JPR/Addl . CIT ( Hqrs . ) / 10 ( 23C) ( vi )/2010-11 /5751 ] MUKESH BHANTI , Chief Commissioner of Income -tax जयपुर , 27 दिसम्बर , 2010 सं, 22 / 2010-11

का. आ. 80,-आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उप - धारा ( iv ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एत‌द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-11 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " सेंट पीटर्स सामाजिक सेवा संस्था, जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सी के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उप - खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उप - धारा ( iv ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[क्रमांक: मुआआआआआ ( मु )/जय/ 10 ( 23 सी ) ( iv ) / 10-11/ 5753 ]

मुकेश भान्ती, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

127

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

Jaipur , the 27th December , 2010 No. 22/2010-11

S.O. 80. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- clause ( iv) of clause (23C ) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2C of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income -tax , Jaipur hereby approves " Saint Peters , Samagic Sewa Sanstha , Jaipur " for the purpose of said section for the A. Y. 2010-11 & onwards .

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

[ No. CCIT/ JPR/Addl . CIT (Hqrs . )/ 10 (23C ) ( iv)/2010-11/5753 ] MUKESH BHANTI , Chief Commissioner of Income -tax (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 28 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 81.- भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्द्वारा , मोहम्मद सोहराब ( जन्म तिथि : 02-07-1932 ) को उनकी नियुक्ति की अधिसूचना की तिथि से चार वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , जो भी पहले हो , श्रीमती किरन घई के स्थान पर भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के पूर्वी स्थानीय बोर्ड में सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9 /17/2008- बी ओ -1 ] सुमिता डावरा , निदेशक (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , the 28th December , 2010 S.O. 81. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Md . Sohrab (DoB : 02-07-1932 ) , to be a Member of the Eastern Area Local Board of the Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years from the date of notification ofhis appointment or until further orders whichever is earlier vice Smt . Kiran Ghai .

[F. No. 9/ 17/2008 -BO . I ] SUMITA DAWRA , Director

विदेश मंत्रालय (सीपीवी प्रभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 82.- राजनयिक और कोंसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के 128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

अनुसरण में, केंद्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा श्री प्रेम चन्द , निम्न श्रेणी लिपिक को 13-12-2010 से भारत के कौंसलावास , दुबई में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी 4330/1/2006 ] आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव ( कोंसुलर ) MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (C. P.V. Division ) New Delhi , the 13th December , 2010 S.O. 82. In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees ) Act , 1948 ( 41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Prem Chand , Lower Division Clerk in the Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officers with effect from 13th December , 2010.

[No. Τ. 4330/1/2006] R. K. PERINDIA , Under Secy. ( Consular ) स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 1 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 83.- केन्द्र सरकार, दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा ( 10 ) की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करके , उक्त अधिनियम के अनुसूची के भाग 1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामत:-

2. राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, बंगलौर द्वारा प्रदान की जा रही दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के बारे में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 49 के सामने कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की मौजूद प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा :

"XXXXI नवोदय दंत चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अस्पताल , रायपुर ।

राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य

विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , ( i ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा स्नातक (यदिदिनांक 13-7-2010 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई । ) बंगलौर"

[फा. सं. वी. 12017 /43 / 2005 -डी ई ]

अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE New Delhi , the 1st December , 2010

3.0 . 83.-- In exercise of the powers conferredby sub - section (2 ) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] of 1948 ) , the Central Government , after consultation with Dental Council of India , hereby, makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 49, in part - 1 of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences ( RGUHS ) , Bangalore , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder

" XXXXI Navodaya Dental College & Hospital , Raichur

(i ) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (if granted on or after 13-7-2010)

BDS , Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore"

[No. V- 12017 /43/2005 - DE] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर , 2010

का, आ. 84, केन्द्र सरकार , दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 16 ) की धारा ( 10 ) की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके, उक्त अधिनियम के अनुसूची के भाग 1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामतः-

2. राजस्थान स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर द्वारा प्रदान की जा रही दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के बारे में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में क्रम संख्या 72 के सामने कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की मौजूद प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा :-

मास्टर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी

" VIII . दर्शन डेंटल कॉलेज एंड हास्पिटल , उदयपुर , राजस्थान मास्टर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी

(ix ) ओरल पैथोलोजी एंड साइक्रो बी डी एस ( ओरल बायोलाजी ( यदि दिनांक 12-06-2010 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई । ) पैथेलोजी एंड माइक्रो- बायोलाजी ) राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्व- विद्यालय , जयपुर । "

[फा. सं. वी. 12017 /60 /2005 - डी ई ]

अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 3rd December , 2010

S.O. 84. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government , after consultation with Dental Council of India , hereby, makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely: -

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 72, in part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences Jaipur , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder : -

" VII Darshan Dental College & Hospital , Udaipur , Rajasthan

Master of Dental Surgery

( ix) Oral Pathology & Microbiology ( ifgranted on or after 12-6-2010

MDS, ( Oral Pathology & Microbiology ) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur"

[F. No. V- 12017 /60/2005 - DE ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 3 दिसम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 85.-केन्द्र सरकार, दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा ( 10 ) की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके , उक्त अधिनियम के अनुसूची के भाग । में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामतः

2. के एल ई मानद विश्वविद्यालय , बेलगाम द्वारा प्रदान की जा रही दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के बारे में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 86 के सामने कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की मौजूद प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा : -

" के एल ई दंत शल्य चिकित्सा संस्थान , बेलगॉम

बैचलर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी

बी.डी.एस. , के एल ई मानद विश्वविद्यालय , बेलगाम"

( यदिदिनांक 4-8-2010 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई )

[फा. सं. वी. 12018/ 1 / 2002 -डीई ]

अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 3rd December , 2010 S.O. 85. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2 ) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government , after consultation with Dental Council of India , hereby, makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely:-

129

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष18 , 1932

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 86 , in part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by KLE Deemed University, Belgaum, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder : -

" KLE Institute of Dental Sciences , Belgaum . Bachelor of Dental Surgery (ifgranted on or after 4-8-2010 )

BDS , KLE Deemed University, Belgaum "

[ F. No. V- 12018 / 1 /2002 - DE ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 86.-केन्द्र सरकार , दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 16 ) की धारा ( 10 ) की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके , उक्त अधिनियम के अनुसूची के भाग । में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामतः

2. देवी अहिल्या विश्वविद्यालय , इंदौर द्वारा प्रदान की जा रही दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के बारे में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग- I में क्रम संख्या 26 के सामने कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की मौजूद प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा: - 44

" I दंत शल्य चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय , इंदौर

मास्टर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी ओरल एंड मैक्सिलोफेसियल सर्जरी

एम.डी.एस. , ( ओरल एंड ) मैक्सिलोफोसियल सर्जरी ) , देवी अहिल्या विश्वविद्यालय , इंदौर " (यदि दिनांक 25-5-2010 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई ) ।

[फा. सं. वी. 12017 / 5 /2005 -डीई ] अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 6th December , 2010 S.O. 86. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government , after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely: -

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 26 , in part - 1 of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Devi Ahilya Vishwavidayala , Indore , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

" I College of Dentistry, Indore

Master of Dental Surgery

Oral& Maxillofacial Surgery (if granted on or after 26-5-2010)

MDS , ( Oral & Maxil- lofacial Surgery), Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyala , Indore"

[ F. No. V- 12017 / 5 /2005 - DE ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 7 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 87.-केन्द्र सरकार , दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 16 ) की धारा ( 10 ) की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके , उक्त अधिनियम के अनुसूची के भाग । में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामतः

2. राजस्थान आयुर्विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, जयपुर द्वारा प्रदान की जा रही दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के बारे में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 72 के सामने कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की मौजूद प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा: - " VI जयपुर दंत चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय , जयपुर । ( II ) मास्टर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी

एम डी एस ( कन्जर्वेटिव डेन्टिस्ट्रो एंड इंडोडोंटिक्स)

राजस्थान स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्व- विद्यालय , जयपुर ।

( viii ) कन्जर्वेटिव डेन्टिस्ट्री एं इंडोडोंटिक्स (दि दिनांक 9-6-10 का या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई । )

एम डी एस ( ओरल पैथोलोजी एंड माइक्रोबायोलोजी)

राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्व- विद्यालय , जयपुर" ।

( ix ) ओरल पैथोलोजी एंड माइक्रोबायोलोजी (यदिदिनांक 9-6-10 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई । )

[ फा. सं. वी -12017/ 63 / 2005 - डी ई ]

अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 87. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2 ) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government, after consultation withDental Council of India , hereby , makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely:-

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 72 , in part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertainingto recognition of dental degrees awarded by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences . Jaipur , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder : - "VI Jaipur Dental College , Jaipur ( ii ) Master of Dental Surgery

( viii ) Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics ( if granted on or after 9-6-2010

MDS , ( Conservative Dentistry and Endodon- tics ) , Rajasthan University ofHealth Sciences , Jaipur ( ix) Oral Pathology & Microbiology ( ifgranted on or after 9-6-2010)

MDS , ( Oral Pathology & Microbiology ) , Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur "

[ F. No. V- 12017/63 /2005 - DE ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 88. -केन्द्र सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में , आकाशवाणी महानिदेशालय , नई दिल्ली ( सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय ) के निम्नलिखित अधीनस्थ केंद्रों/कार्यालयों , जिनके 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है : -

1. आकाशवाणी , झालावाड़

2. आकाशवाणी , हासन

[फा. सं. ई -11017/6/2010 - हिंदी] प्रियम्वदा , निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING

New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2010 S.O. 88. In pursuance of Sub - Rule ( 4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages ( Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under Directorate General of All India Radio , New Delhi ( Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) , more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :-

1. All India Radio , Jhalawar

2. All India Radio , Hassan

[ F. No. E- 11017/ 6/2010 - Hindi ]

PRIYAMVADA, Director (O. L. ) 131 [भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 29 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 89. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी गई अधिसूची में यथा उल्लिखित तारीखों की संख्या का.आ. द्वारा उन अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया था ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त भूमियों में , सभी विल्लगंमों से मुक्त उपयोग का अधिकार भारत ओमान रिफाईनरीज लिमिटेड में निहित किया था ।

और जबकि सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दी है कि कच्चे पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत ओमान रिफाईनरीज लिमिटेड के गुजरात राज्य के जिला जामनगर स्थित वाडीनार संस्थापन से मध्य प्रदेश राज्य के जिला सागर स्थित बीना संस्थापन तक उपर्युक्त भूमियों में पाइपलाइन बिछाई जा चुकी है , अतः ऐसी भूमि के बारे में जिसका विवरण इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची से विनिर्दिष्ट हैं, प्रचालन समाप्त किया जाए;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के स्पष्टीकरण -1 के अधीन अपेक्षानुसार उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 7 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को जिला रतलाम मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख के रूप में घोषित करती है ।

अनुसूची

तहसील

जिला

राज्य

का.आ. नं. व तारीख ग्राम का नाम

क्र सं.

प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख

रतलाम

21-08-2009

मध्यप्रदेश

रतलाम

1

सुजलाना

525-दिनांक 05-03-1998

[ फा. सं. आर -31015 /13/ 10- ओआर- II ]

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

New Delhi , the 29th December , 2010

S.O. 89. Whereas by Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas , S. O. Nos . and dates as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under Sub- section ( i ) of Section ( 6 ) , Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ), the Central Government acquired the Right of ser in the said lands specified in the schedule appended to those Notification ;

And Whereas , in exercise of powers conferred by Sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government vested the right of user in the lands , free from all encumbrances in the name of Bharat Oman Refineries Limited ;

And Whereas , the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose oftransportation of crude oil from Vadinar , District : Jamnagar in the State of Gujarat to Bina , District : Sagar , in the State of Madhya Pradesh has been laid in the said lands and hence the operation may be terminated in the said lands which in brief are specified in the schedule annexed to this Notification ;

Now, therefore , as required under explanation 1 of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules 1963 , the Central Government hereby declares the dates mentioned in Column 7 of the said Schedule as the dates of termination in District: Ratlam in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

SCHEDULE

Sr. No. S. O. and date Name ofVillage Tehsil 1

Ratlam

Sujalana

525 dated 05-03-1998

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

District

Dateof Termination Ratlam

M. P.

21-08-2009

[ F. N. R. - 31015/ 13 / 10 - OR - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 29 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 90.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी गई अधिसूची में यथा उल्लिखित तारीखों की संख्या का. आ. द्वारा उन अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया था ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त भूमियों में , सभी विल्लगंमों से मुक्त उपयोग का अधिकार भारत ओमान रिफाईनरीज लिमिटेड में निहित किया था ।

और जबकि सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दी है कि कच्चे पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए भारत ओमान रिफाईनरीज लिमिटेड के गुजरात राज्य स्थित वाडीनार संस्थापन से मध्य प्रदेश राज्य स्थित बीना संस्थापन तक उपर्युक्त भूमियों में पाइपलाइन बिछाई जा चुकी है , चूँकि गुजरात राज्य के जिला आणंद में पाइपलाईन बिछाई जा चुकी है , अतः ऐसी भूमि के बारे में जिसका विवरण इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची से विनिर्दिष्ट हैं , प्रचालन समाप्त किया जाए;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के स्पष्टीकरण -1 के अधीन अपेक्षानुसार उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 7 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को जिला आणंद , गुजरात राज्य में प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख के रूप में घोषित करती है ।

अनुसूची

का.आ.नं. व तारीख

क्र.सं.

ग्राम का नाम

तहसील 1

वणसोल

उमरेठ 2125-दिनांक 22-10-1998

पणसोरा

उमरेठ

घोरा

उमरेठ

धामणा

उमरेठ

उमरेठ

उमरेठ

लिंगडा

उमरेठ 2

वणसोल

उमरेठ 1593-दिनांक 25-06-2010

पणसोरा

उमरेठ

थामणा

उमरेठ

उमरेठ

उमरेठ

प्रचालन समाप्ति की जिला

राज्य

तारीख

आणंद

19-09-2010 गुजरात

आणंद

19-09-2010 गुजरात

19-09-2010 आणंद

गुजरात

आणंद

19-09-2010 गुजरात

19-09-2010 आणंद

गुजरात

आणंद

19-09-2010 गुजरात

19-09-2010 आणंद

गुजरात

आणंद

19-09-2010 गुजरात

आणंद

19-09-2010 गुजरात

आणंद

19-09-2010 गुजरात

[फा. सं. आर-31015 /13/10 - ओआर -11 ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

133

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011/ पौष 18 , 1932

New Delhi , the 29th December, 2010

S.O. 90. Whereas by Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas , S. O. Nos . and dates as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under Sub- section ( i ) of section (6) , Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Userin Land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government acquired the Right of User in the said lands specified in the schedule appended to those Notification;

And Whereas , in exercise of powers conferred by Sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government vested the right of user in the lands , free from all encumbrances in the Bharat Oman Refineries Limited;

And Whereas , the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose of transportation of crude oil from Vadinar, in the State of Gujarat to Bina, in the State of Madhya Pradesh has been laid in the said lands and hence the operation may be terminated in District Anand in the State of Gujarat in respect of the said lands which in brief are specified in the schedule annexed to this Notification;

Now, therefore , as required under explanation 1 of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Rules 1963 , the Central Government hereby declares the dates mentioned in Column 7 of the said Schedule as the dates of termination in District Anand in the State ofGujarat.

SCHEDULE

Sr. No. S. O. No. and date Name of Village Taluka

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

Umreth 1

Vansol

2125 Date 22-10-1998

Pansora

Umreth

Umreth

Ghora

Umreth

Thamna

Umreth

Umreth

Umreth

Lingada

Umreth 2

Vansol

1593 Date 25-06-2010

Pansora

Umreth

Thamna

Umreth

Umreth

Umreth 4894GI/2011-2

State

District

Date of Termination ofOperation

(7)

(6)

(5)

19-09-2010

Anand

Gujarat

19-09-2010

Anand

Gujarat

19-09-2010

Anand

Gujarat

19-09-2010

Anand

Gujarat

19-09-2010

Anand

Gujarat

19-09-2010

Anand

Gujarat

19-09-2010

Anand

Gujarat

19-09-2010

Anand

Gujarat

19-09-2010

Anand

Gujarat

19-09-2010

Anand

Gujarat

[ F. No. R. - 31015 / 13 / 10-OR - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8, 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

(1) नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर , 2010

गन्जरा का.आ. 91. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 673 तारीख 23 फरवरी , 2010 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उड़ीसा राज्य की तहसील : हिन्दोल, जिला ढेन्कानाल की भूमि में , पारादीप सम्बलपुर -रायपुर-राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना के कार्यान्वयन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से रायपुर (छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं रांची ( झारखंड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और , उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 28 अप्रैल , 2010 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

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

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : हिन्दोल जिला: ढेन्कानाल राज्य: उड़ीसा

गाँव का नाम

प्लॉट नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

(2)

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

ब्राह्मणिआपाल 736

गन्जरा

00

17

58

735

02

00

03

698

00

18

16

01

1968

00

00

35

697

01

00

696

08

00

59

695

00

06

46

687 00

02

28

623

00

87

16

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(2)

(5) (3)

00

02

98 1824

622

28

00

33

00

621

82 00

37 620

00

09

618

00

01 80- 617

00

13

91 613

00

00

14 129

01

00

50 122

04

86 00

ΟΙ

99

00

53 00

01

56 98

00

03

30 96

05

00

95

49 94

00

01

11 00

04

11 85

87

00

11

78 86

00

00

13

05

88

00

18 63

00

00

96 62

00

04

50 89

19 00

00

00

66 64

00

05

61

00

08 00

01

85 7

8

00

00

56 00

03

9

26 60

00

00

20

05

60 58

00

00

04

56

70

01

1902

00

25 00

16

15

57

00

14

00

53

02

30 16

00

77 17

00

02

19

00

00

11 00

01

10 27

00

12

17 1901

03

89 00

1905

00

04

1906

33

35

00

00

1917

00

12

1939

72 00

10 08 1955

00

07

04

1958

00

09

61 1959

00

00

1961

12

48 1962

00

05 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

(2)

( 1)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

00

ब्राह्मणिआपाल

1963

03

60

135 (2)

(5)

(4)

(3)

00

200

03

ब्राह्मणिआपाल

00

67

1964

04

00

05

1965

08

00

1966

02

25

1967

00

43

03

74

1968

00

05

00

25

1976

14

00

2054

89

01

2038

00

16

19

2039

00

11

32

1133

00

08

12

00

1134

68

03

00

01

79

1132

300

00

00

89

00

2188

00

30

00

322

10

85

325

00

50

00

00

07

62

489

00

2173

10

48

286

00

05

26

00

23

284

01

54

287

00

04

00

04

283

23

00

282

00

14

00

280

01

08

00

33

275

02

276

00

60

04

00

277

70

01

00

00

278

10

270

00

06

75

00

263

01

84

262

00

00

58

261

00

00

27

260

00

46

09

00

258

00

10

00

2135

11

90

00

00

223

41

222

00

05

03

00

221

01

49

00

22

208

05

00

207

18

77

206

00

10

37

00

07

92

205

00

204

00

10

00

77

202

05

00

06

05

201

28 00

05

198

40 00

197

01

92

00

196

00

36 00

195

00

33 00

185

00

10 184

00

20

02

00

183

07

47

00

180

00

10

67 186

00

03

182

02

00

80 178

00

06

21 177

00

07

02 146

00

07

84 145

00

00

57 00

63 147

04

148

00

94

10

00

04

74 149

150

00

03

42

00

2184

00

15 00

02

81 135

00

134

62

02

00

122

02

26

01

133

00

52

03

20 132

00

00

01

131

11

67 124

00

00

125

00

02

60 126

00

00

10 123

00

00

10 100

00

02

34 00

02

71 101

104

00

00

03

103

00

02

56 102

00

02

03 58

00

00

28 60

00

06

25 61

00

11

03

00

27

00

59

00

07

55

91 54

00

09

87 53

00

05

32 00

00

50

87

00

51

00

56 52

00

00

TI

21

44

00

88 136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

(5)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

(1)

36

बम्फा

00

13

29

ब्राह्मणिआपाल

30

00

17

17

00

05

17

24

09

82

00

2205

00

10

67

20

00

07

30

2187

00

10

77

12

28

00

11

02

95

00

60

1

74

00

42

2063

बम्फा

00

41

18

2060

10

00

04

2048

10

2050

00

00

00

11

26

2039

16

06

.00

1934

00

25

15

1935

12

00

04

1941

45

1937

00

04

17

1940

05

00

00

01

35

1939

85

00

01

2328

42

00

01

1945

00

00

10

1850

42

00

01

1849

00

59

1848

01

भिन्गिरा

00

03

1847

04

80

1853

00

14

00

00

10

1854

00

80

1844

00

00

37

1825

02

00

75

1824

08

00

01

03

1823

02

00

07

1829

48

1833

00

02

14

00

09

1832

00

34

00

1831

00

13

02

1811

00

71

1788

00

00

80

1713

04

00

43

1712

03

00

09

05

1711

41

00

03

1710

00

59

1707

04

00

75

1709

02

00

56

09

313

00

10

3

311

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(5) (3)

(2)

00

13

70

53

00

71

00

29

01 00

01

2291

10 75

00

00

00 00

03

68

67

00

42

11

66

43 00

00

00

08

35 83

04

50 00

90

86

00

97

10

00

06

85

10 59

00

00

87

00

25 00

55

07

94

04

00

55 54

00

00

50 50

36

00

10

00

12

00

07

20

35

00

65 2333

2334

00

02

31

67

84 00

10

00

41

37 2285

47

2284

00

48 2265

00

02

09

10 00

00

2271

531

00

08

93

04 530

00

06

00

06

25 529

00

528

15

34 526

00

04

54 00

525

01

41

00

10 524

00

11

523

00

%

00

06

34 519

00

03

94 517

00

29 515

14

96 00

10

514

00

03

513

39 00

512

07

92 00

03

83 901

19 00

01

511

494

00

08

22

01

495

43 00

94 490

00

00

447

06 00

19

445

34

00

20 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(4)

(1)

(3)

(1)

(2)

00

65

02

444

भिन्गिरा

137

(5)

(4)

(2) (3)

01

95 3308

00

खण्डतिरि

03

443

00

21

442

10

00

00

06

00

433

02

00

05

54

434

22

00

03

427

90

00

435

03

00

78

406

00

85

04

00

426

24

425

00

02

00

02

95

407

08

00

16

422

22

00

408

03

00

35

04

421

64

04

420

00

27

409

00

04

00

98

410

02

80

00

02

411

21

01

00

881

00

39

02

817

10

00

915

00

45

00

02

310

02

00

11

146

20

00

00

145

00

12

27

147

21

36

00

135

25

00

137

00

41

01

00

136

08

00

01

118

71

07

117

00

93

00

21

116

04

24

00

112

08

04

00

114

00

01

44

3

21

00

01

2

21

00

01

3057

ब्रह्मपुर

05

00

02

2670

45

00

02

3095

07

00

2671

26

00

03

2672

00

10

00

2669

79

00

13

3101

51

00

03

2668

06

2661

03

00

24

02

00

2659

00

00

3309

खण्डतिरि

08

15 3307

00

00

10

65 3305

00

05

52 3295

00

00

17 3296

04

17 00

3297

89 00

03

3299

10 00

00

3300

39 00

00

3291

3290

00

87 00

76 00

01

3289

26 00

05

398

98

04

399

00

00

19 391

00

25 00

21

3738

99

01

295

00

00

01

78 371

62 00

19

368

00

05

27 369

01

67 00

3715

00

04

54 370

00

01

83 576

49 575

00

03

04

32 573

00

17

02

574

00

98 00

13

569

86

00

00

564

10 00

00

565

04

92 566

00

98 00

14

548

10

00

543

00

01

545

00

73

01

546

00

56 00

02

547

19 00

00

696

70

04

00

698

84 00

697

04

10

00

00

699

00

10 00

700

91

04

00

690

12

01

00

689

27 00

686

07

19 00

687

06

81 00

707

10

00

00

680

29

07

708

00 138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(4)

00

04

84

खण्डतिरि

709

[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (2) (3) (4) (5) 524

00

01

83

गिरिधरप्रसाद

714

00

36

02

3807 00

04

35

00

713

06

09

00

775

02

72

781

00

94

02

780

00

05

48

778

00

01

33

05

779

00

04

776

00

07

14

1103

00

09

58

00

1104

01

48

198

00

01

गिरिधरप्रसाद

199

00

24

47

कारन्दा 228

00

02

02

00

01

80

227

00

229

24

07

226

01

31

00

230

00

72

05

00

225

01

48

272

00

02

70

00

435

08

71

00

67

438

03

436

00

02

71

00

430

01

37

437

00

58

03

429

00

64

00

428

00

01

03

426

00

03

30

427

00

10

02

425

00

43

00

451

00 03

81

450

00

10

00

452

00

02

54

454

.00

00

10

00

453

03

62

421

00

06

07

457

00

00

16

00

44

460

459

00

43

05

00

45

480

00

00

10

481

13

520

02

23

00

00

521

00

70

00

00

72

522

523

00

02 83

00

00

46 519

517

00

00

10 516

74 00

03

74 514

00

05

495

00

00

10 00

03

513

02 512

00

00

10

05

496

00

58

01

498

00

41 500

00

14

66 00

00

3646

96 501

00

88

03

1

00

04

32 00

3831

05

10

96 3802

00

02

3804

00

06

61 3805

00

01

71

70 3803

00

00

3808

02

00

95 3807

00

00

10 3809

00

02

63 3797

00

00

82 00

03

3815

41 00

30 3796

00

3817

00

04

37 00

01

00 3816

3837

Of

65 00

3864

00

06

79

00

3867

00

52 3865

00

02

11 3866

35

01

00

3861

00

02

25 3862

00

86 3859

00

04

98 00

00

20 3858

00

71 3857

03

00

3913

03

65 14305

01

35 00

00

04

06 3909

3910

00

02

37 00

3911

65

05

00

3926

02

22 00

3927

17

98 00

02

78 3933

00

3932

07

15 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

( 1)

(2) (3)

(5)

(4)

(1) 4279

कारन्दा

00

03

64

कारन्दा

00

3931

01

56

4278

00

00

68

4280

00

04

20

4276

00

01

85

4275

00

05

22

4272

00

05

71

4289

00

00

29

4273

00

88

06

00

4270

70

15

4271

00

04

89

4267

00

00

52

14222

00

04

38

4246

00

02

34

4253

00

07

57

4247

00

36

04

4252

00

05

98

4251

00

00

89

4248

00

74

19

00

5285

05

79

5238

00

00

27

00

5284

82

03

00

36

5287

00

5281

00

00

24

00

22

92

5283

00

00

5288

67

00

5282

06

66

5312

00

02

58

00

5323

17

34

5329

00

21

04

5327

00

08

44

00

07

5326

67

5368

00

03

27

5367

00

03

24

5361

00

02

37

00

5365

49

00

5371

00

17

02

5366

00

04

60

5372

00

05

30

5373

00

00

29

5374

00

00

10

5377

00

00

03

5378

00

01

39

5379

00

01

88

5380

00

01

34

5381

00

02

86

139 (2) (3) (4) (5)

00

5382

02

01 5385

00

00

70

00

5386

01

49 5387

00

00

88 5400

00

03

26 00

14302

02

61 5393

00

02

02 00

00

14303

32 00

14294

00

93 5394

00

07

20 00

5419

29

01

5423

00

09

88

00

5433

00

14 5432

00

04

50 14236

00

00

21

00

5429

00

12 5428

00

04

16 5427

00

04

33 5426

00

01

94 5425

00

11

74 00

14221

00

10 5902

00

00

60 00

5901

02

90 00

10

5813

63 13877

00

00

75 5812

00

07

95 00

5811

07

68 5810

00

06

89 5805

00

02

67 5557

00

01

36 5586

00

01

83 5558

00

03

08 5802

00

04

80 00

5803

00

40 00

5559

02

60 5563

00

07

71

07

5543

25 00

5564

46 00

00

5542

00

00

58 5740

00

00

10 5562

00

00

10

10

5565

38 00

5737

26 00

05

5568

03

78 00

5736

00

40

01

5738

00

02

93 5718

00

00

20 140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

(2)

(5) ( 1 )

(3) (4)

(1)

00

कारन्दा

5719

07

63

ठोकर 5720

00

02

82

00

5712

13

03

00

5713

00

37 5710

00

92

11

5709

00

12

00

5716

00

21

02

5706

00

00

88

00

71

13863

01

5704

00

08

91

5705

00

00

25

00

5703

27

01

ठोकर

00

3913

05

03

00

3905

07

35

3910

23

00

00

00

3906

06

87

00

3907

27

00

00

3899

10

88

00

01

30

3855

00

3900

06

01

00

3942

10

00

00

30

3941

11

4176

00

02

11

00

00

10

3831

3830

00

05

00

3829

32

03

3828

00

01

18

00

3827

10

00

3621

00

00

10

05

00

70

3622

3623

00

37

00

3624

00

Π

00

00

04

3620

58

3617

00

00

10

3618

00

09

40

3616

00

01

42

3615

00

01

28

3631

00

07

02

00

70

3613

00

3612

64

00

04

3610

00

01

78

00

71

3611

01

3767

00

01

65

320

05

00

42

319

00

02

29

318

00

00

10

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

(4) (5) ( 3 )

321

00

01

41 323

00

10

00

314

06 00

01

322

00

07

04 00

332

00

10 345

00

00

14 333

00

02

53 -00

334

00

63 3926

00

02

04 335

00

01

20 00

343

01

11 336

00

68

01

344

00

01

16 00

3993

01

62 342

00

10

03

341

18

03

00

340

00

04

74 356

00

02

14 272

00

00

55

87 271

00

01

268

00

37

02

267

00

01

01 266

00

01

30 00

263

00

19 264

02

02 00

00

10 265

00

00

42 261

00

260

00

02

02 238

00

00

77 259

00

01

50 258

00

00

69 257

00

02

32 255

00

00

10 256

00

02

97 240

00

96

02

242

00

03

88 241

00

02

71 243

00

03

70 233

00

04

87 229

00

10

45 228

00

00

10 00

227

10

76 00

225

00

78 224

00

07

33 150

00

04

39 152

00

10

47 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011/पौष 18 , 1932

(1)

(2) (3) (4)

(5)

( 1) ठोकर

153

00

05

17

नुआ 4194

00

04

02

137

00

31

91

133

00

00

10

138

00

01

00

3970

03

51

63

00

98

11

00

64

07

25

65

00

00

15

00

66

02

19

70

00

05

78

67

00

05

74

3959

00

00

10

00

3958

01

69

47

00

00

19

46

00

32

03

29

00

03

70

27

00

10

00

43

00

00

10

00

30

06

36

31

00

00

34

3828

00

नुआ

01

65

3825

35

00

00

3826

00

02

94

3824

00

00

23

3821

00

05

46

3822

00

08

09

3823

00

00

10

00

3677

04

98

3678

00

02

44

3679

00

35

03

3680

00

01

39

3681

00

02

20

3682

00

01

41

3700

00

04

00

3699

00

42

04

3696

00

32

02

3697

00

02

41

00

3636

67

01

00

3635

01

14

00

3637

02

70

00

3634

13

11

3652

26

00

00

3632

00

02

06

3631

00

04

15

3621

00

00

91

4894GI /2011 3

141 (2) (3) (4)

(5) 3602

00

00

10

00

3605

03

86 3604

00

03

70 3607

00

00

50 3608

00

00

89 5456

00

01

43 3609

00

01

83 3617

01

00

83 3615

00

04

18 3614

00

00

36 2823

00

10

24 3015

00

00

10 3014

00

00

12 00

2824

04

07 3011

00

00

38 3012

00

02

95 3010

01

00

50 3036

00

02

84 3008

00

01

16 3037

00

03

64 3007

00

00

24 5339

.05

00

12 3038

00

00

10 3039

00

04

08 3040

05

00

19 00

3043

06

85 3044

00

05

11 3256

00

01

53 00

3059

02

80 00

3060

05

28 3092

00

00

63 00

3091

00

80 3090

00

07

01

3255

00

00

10 3088

00

01

87 3095

00

02

03 3087

00

79

01

00

00

3096

12 00

3097

04

73 00

3086

01

87 3098

00

01

81

01

00

3130

16

01

3085

00

45 00

3131

01

31 3132

00

42

03

3150

00

06

64 142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(1)

07

तर्काबेडा

04

00

3151

नुआ

05

69

00

3148

10

00

00

8147

00

42

02

3166

00

23

00

3165

06

05

00

3167

83

00

05

3168

3169

00

50

00

40

00

10

3170

00

39

5442

02

01

38

758

00

00

51

तर्काबेडा

3252

03

00

05

79

3251

67

00

3244

11

10

00

3247

00

00

00

32

3245

00

00

50

4337

00

00

30

3243

3242

00

04

61

06

01

3238

00

00

3237

06

68

95

09

3236

00

22

00

00

3234

00

87

00

3231

00

09

3233

59

02

3232

00

02

80

00

02

3192

20

00

00

3181

99

3180

00

00

00

07

09

3182

33

00

00

3178

00

11

62

3179

06

98

00

3176

00

01

87

3174

03

81

3175 00

10

00

00

3171

26

00

05

3170

00

50

03

3146

10

00

00

3147

46

06

3145 00

00

47

00

3151

00

10

3152

00

07

48

00

3139

04

12

4275

00

73

10

4276 00

04

00

3128

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

(4) (5) (2) (3)

45 00

09

3127

00

26 3123

00

45

02

00

3122

39

04

00

3415

38

03

00

3121

10

00

00

3120

00

00

50 3416

02

61 00

3417

78 00

03

4291

00

72 3418

09

12 00

01

3419

00

01

43 3435

00

34

06

3434

00

95 00

4288

47 3426

00

10

00

86

19

3038

05

79 00

3034

02

62 00

3035

20

04

00

2795

00

10 2794

00

25

03

00

2798

95 00

01

2797

05

19 00

2803

00

10 00

2807

00

00

44 2802

07

50 00

2804

03

16 2805

00

00

10 00

2806

93

03

2768

00

00

01

51 2766

30 00

02

2765

34

03

2767

00

73 00

04

2764

38

01

2761

00

41 00

00

2754

03

TI 00

2755

58 00

2756

03

02

28 00

2753

06

06

00

2750

42

00

01

2751

29

01

00

2748

33 00

00

2747

75

04

2746

00

01

44

00

2744

88

02

00

2905

47

00

02

2906 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

84

तर्काबेडा

00

00

2908

तर्काबेडा

01

72

00

2907

54

00

01

2909

22

00

02

2912

50

00

01

2913

18

15

00

2922

00

53

00

2924

23

00

02

2929

06

00

08

2928

88

02

00

2932

01

13

00

2927

00

22.

00

2933

47

01

00

2926

09

59

00

2524

35

00

07

2523

00

.15

00

2518

89

00

09

2520

33

00

00

2521

54

01

00

2519

02

15

00

2190

24

00

03

2189

00

10

00

2191

10

00

00

2173

55

00

00

2177

18

00

00

कडला 2174

23

00

00

2185

48

00

00

2184

98

04

00

2183

00

22

12

2179

06

31

00

2178

00

81

00

2181

04

00

01

2180

10

00

00

1563

00

00

02

1565

47

02

00

1566

73

00

02

1567

10

00

00

1570

94

00

05

1569

21

03

00

1572

63

04

00

1573

00

00

1574

36

04

00

1555

94

03

00

1553

65

00

00

1461

16

13

00

1469

05

08

00

1462

143

(4) (5) (3)

(2)

27

04

00

1463

03

72 00

4384

00

71 00

1464

04

79 00

1532

33 00

02

1529

32 00

04

1528

21 00

03

1522

75

02

00

1519

20

03

00

1518

10 00

00

1516

29

02

00

1515

42

09

1514

00

10

00

00

1507

10

00

00

1499

12 00

05

1506

00

51

00

1500

09

03

00

1501

48

05

00

1505

10 00

00

4373

06

34

00

1504

18

00

00

1503

06

40

00

1486

00

79

00

1488

69

00

10

1487

23

09

00

2147

31

00

10

2179

85

00

04

2180

22

09

00

2178

00

24

00

2187

00

23

00

2173

58

03

00

2191

04

75

00

2190

41

00

00

2192

06

00

2193

00

51

00

2194

24

00

04

2201

54

04

00

2200

07

03

2198

00

00

03

00

2199

02

36

00

2139

80

00

02

2084

10

00

00

2085

10

00

00

2083

74

00

13

2067

06

03

00

2069

24

01

00

2070 144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(5)

(3) (4)

(1) कहला

00

2068

04

01

बडमुण्डा

00

2021

01

21

00

04

2011

61

2019

00

66

04

2020

00

06

65

00

86

1992

03

00

2030

57

07

89

2029

00

00

00

2031

01

41

1991

00

00

32

2032

00

37

02

00

2035

93

03

2036

00

04

13

26

00

05

1973

1923

00

03

28

1972

00

06

07

1927

00

00

27

00

45

1928

00

00

1931

92

00

64

1971

00

1932

00

02

37

00

1935

04

03

00

1936

41

03

00

1937

10

33

00

85

04

1940

1942

00

65

03

1944

00

85

01

50

1943 00

01

1945

00

16

00

1946

00

00

10

1872

00

86

22

00

04

1873

65

00

00

63

917

बडमुण्डा

1442

00

07

75

00

10

915

00

00

42

1441

01

00

1440

04

62

00

05

76

1439

1506

06

18

00

00

914

00

15

913

00

94

05

00

04

912

38

911

00

03

01

00

40

970

02

39

966

00

00

971

00

40

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] (2) (3) (4) (5) 972

00

06

35 00

03

76 1493

973

00

05

29 981

01

00

01 00

01

979

59 00

978

01

49 980

00

39

02

977

00

01

86 00

976

35

02

467

00

04

12 466

00

04

93 464

00

04

29 1501

00

01

55 463

00

04

95 462

05

00

25 461

00

09

06 00

1298

06

78 475

00

04

00 459

00

10

11

476

00

08

73 477

02

00

96 1365

00

00

85 1364

00

003

18 453

84

00

00

00

452

00

10 00

07

451

80 491

00

00

45 1554

00

02

14 1380

00

00

10 00

141

11

61 142

00

88

12

139

00

00

78 00

143

04

30 145

00

02

47 158

00

03

52 157

00

05

20 124

00

01

36 00

126

00

40 131

00

01

47 125

04

00

79 00

00

1388

20 122

00

26

90 97

00

01

41 96

00

04

72 95

00

08

72 00

91

08

51 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

( 1 )

(2) (3)

(5)

( 1)

(4)

00

92

13

78

बडमुण्डा

145 (2)

(4) (5) (3 )

00

1470

00

10

पाइकपुरुणाकोट

39

03

00

92

25

10

00

00

26

00

04

48

00

88

38

00

27

00

07

28

29

00

00

97

00

18

02

18

00

30

40

03

31

00

70

03

00

00

46

32

24

9

00

06

8

00

14

04

7

00

00

61

2

00

00

03

6

00

00

10

00

20

335

03

नरहरिपुर

00

336

05

58

00

398

00

10

333

01

87

00

00

59

03

394

334

00

02

30

00

58

393

01

00

392

00

81

00

00

391

97

00

07

313

56

00

314

04

60

312

00

01

49

311

03 83

07

310

00

86

00

01

309

40

00

308

02

58

00

408

02

63

00

1553

02

09

पाइकपुरुणाकोट

00

10

1554

00

00

1568

05

17

1559

00

01

02

00

1567

81

04

00

1560

02

06

00

02

12

2069

00

1562

03

88

00

65

1561

05

00

04

23

1500

1498

00

04

1497

00

06

04

00

1496

04

59

00

05

65 1471

1472

00

92

03

00

03

1463

85 1473

00

03

14 00

01

1474

05

07

40 1461

00

1409

42

02

00

00

11 1408

01

1407

00

00

16 00

02

12 1410

00

1411

00

10 1459

00

05

97 1458

00

01

08 1457

00

07

98 1432

00

00

10 1424

00

00

10 1422

00

16

03

00

00

1423

28 00

1421

11

54 1395

α

02

10

06

1396

00

58 00

16

00

2095

01

00

45 1393

00

1385

00

21 00

01

1384

13 00

03

85 1883

00

00

10 1381

00

01

42 1382

00

1380

00

1378

00

68

03

00

1377

00

23

00

00

65 1375

1376

00

05

33 00

1122

00

10 00

03

17 1128

1129

06

00

04 1130

00

05

38 00

03

80 1131

00

1243

02

42 1244

00

54

00

00

00

10 1241

1242

00

04

07 2056

00

00

22 1245

00

02

42 00

2055

03

55 146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

(5)

(1)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

1234

00

08

54

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

(4)

(5) (2) (3)

00

17

02

68

पाइकपुरणाकोट

पाइकपुरुणाकोट

00

78

00

1233

40

00

03

1406

10

1247

00

00

30

00

09

1249

01

52

00

1248

00

52

02

67

69

00

02

95

46 00

70

03

00

14

28 840

00

73

10

1616

ब्राह्मणपुरुणाकोट

01

59

1252

00

08

82

00

1251

10

00

00

2125

52

1262

00

01

12

00

2110

02

10

253

00

00

52

2108

00 02

40

00 01

2109

00

25

259

11

10

00

00

298

43

00

01

260

28

00

04

297

91

00

02

261

64

01

00

262

12

00

265

06

00

10

00

267

17

00

00

268

00

01

13

208

07

33

00

269

87

270

00

01

79

00

271

15

20

00

01

272

00

40

273

02

62

00

22

156

10

00

00

157

53

01

00

2115

95

00

155

00

47

00

09

153

41

01

2206

00

12

00

16

91

04

50

00

96

16

00

02

92

95

00

98

03

60

01

00

57

00

10

00

89

04

00

37

58

85

03

59

00

07

21

00

61

19

00

05

64

56

01

00

63

1

10 00

00

313

03

49 314 00

22 00

04

1693

60

12

315

00

65 00

02

317

05

45 318

00

21

18 00

316

98 00

10

329

00

06

330

54 00

06

350

90

00

00

10 328

10 00

00

332

10

00

00

327

15 00

04

1646

01

63 00

1647

88

08

349

00

00

50 334

30

10

00

335

00

06

57 00

176

35 00

02

175

08

00

94 177

73 174

00

04

00

12

66 172

40

13

00

171

00

03

57 1618

01

00

47 167

00

09

30 166

53

18

119

00

10

00

121

00

02

08

00

122

00

13

85 1825

76 118

00

08

01

00

80 129

00

65

00

117

00

65

19

114

41

14

00

113

06

82

00

1653

07

00

16 1654

47

00

18

50

00

72 51

03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

ब्राह्मणपुरुणाकोट

44

1014

नण्डेइलो

217

218

210

224

209

208

202

204

205

206

203

147

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

(4)

(5)

(2) (3)

(1)

नण्डेइला

980

3311

सन्जपडा

3377

3310

3378

3312

3375

3316

3317

3421

3318

3322

3323

3315

3352

3334

3335

3332

3330

3329

3340

800

पाणधुरुधुडा

172

178

177

150

149 00

148 00

146 00

153

979

111

293

292

110

105

102

126

128

129

130

131

252

52 00 03 08 75 00 03 14 00 08 62 74 00 05 63 37 00 07 51 00 00 15 38 00 04 89 00 01 45 35 00 04 08 00 00 70 39 00 00 20 00 00 10 40 00 08 00 00 00 87 00 01 28 00 03 04 251 00 00 32 3376 00 02 39 00 01 43 00 02 02 00 07 85 00 03 50 220 00 09 18 00 01 00 221 00 00 89 00 05 26 222 00 07 23 00 03 73 223 00 08 57 00 06 47 00 05 85 00 00 10 00 00 10 00 03 13 00 06 12 00 00 10 00 06 04 3324 00 04 38 207 00 00 41 00 06 49 00 00 29 00 08 78 00 01 57 00 01 50 00 02 82 00 08 66 00 01 22 00 10 98 00 01 82 00 04 29 170 00 00 11 00 04 19 171 00 01 18 00 07 84 00 04 34 00 11 23 00 06 70 36 00 08 84 00 02 46 111 00 00 49 00 05 89 00 00 48 04 93 00 01 26 02 04 106 00 07 40 147 00 03 18 107 00 00 80 145 00 00 10 104 00 00 39 03 82 103 00 00 21 00 03 90 00 02 28 00 01 59 122 00 06 34 00 08 83 00 01 80 84 00 ΟΙ 19 127 00 02 66 85 00 04 81 00 01 99 86 00 04 64 00 06 15 88 00 03 84 00 01 43 87 00 00 73 00 00 10 89 00 06 26 251 00 02 51 90 00 00 15 00 00 60 148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

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

(3) (4)

(2)

(5)

New Delhi , the 30th December , 2010 253

00

00

45

पाणधुडुद्युडा

00

250

75

03

249

00

00

10

248

00

02

84

134

00

06

43

00

00

82

35

00

881

10

00

00

136

01

37

135

00

69

02

00

137

00

65

00

880

25

01

S.O. 91. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 673 dated 23-02-2010 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil Hindol , District -Dhenkanal , in Orissa State , specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products from Paradip ( Orissa ) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh ) and Ranchi ( Jharkhand ) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

00

26

00

138

81

43

00

02

And whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 28th April 2010 ;.

00

80

20

02

15

00

139

01

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

140

07

00

02

00

14]

79

07

79

00

00

97

00

00

95

143

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

142

00

01

46

00

00

145

04

146

38

00

00

00

147

68

07

181

00

00

10

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;

00

182

05

53

00

45

183

03

00

00

185

03

186

00

03

54

00

03

193

02

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

00

76

194

02

SCHEDULE

360

00

02

86

Tehsil : Hindol

State : Orissa

District : Dhenkanal 359

05

00

38

00

366

42

03

Area

Name of the Village Plot No.

00

89

357

02

Hectare Are Sq . mtr 00

356

00

42

( 1 )

(2) (3) (4) (5) 801

00

00

34

736

00

17

58

06

367

00

Ganjara

03

735

00

03

02 369

00

00

10

00

18

16

698

2385

आमना

00

10

02

1968

01

00

00

00

2217

02

17

697

00

01

35 2210

00

26

60

08

696

00

59 00

2192

09

39

695

06

00

46 2190

00

26

27

687

28

00

02 2182

00

26

88

623

2179

00

16

87 00

01

88

626

00

1824

98 00

39

02

65

622

00

28 33 [ फा. सं. आर -25011/ 1/2010- ओ. आर. - 1 ]

621

00

00

82 बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011/पौष , 1932

(1)

(2) (3)

(5)

(1)

(4)

00

620

09

37

Ganjara

(3)

(2)

(5)

(4)

1966

00

02

25

Brahmaniapal

00

01

08

618

00

617

13

91

00

613

00

14

00

01

129

50

00

04

86

122

00

99

01

53

98

00

01

56

96

00

03

30

95

00

05

49

94

00

01

11

85

04

00

11

87

00

11

78

86

00

00

13

05

88

00

18

00

00

63

96

62

00

04

50

89

00

00

19

66

64

00

00

61

00

05

08

7

00

85

01

8

00

00

56

9

00

03

26

60

00

20

00

00

58

60

05

00

70

04

56

00

1902

01

25

00

15

57

16

00

14

00

53

00

30

16

02

17

00

02

00

19

00

11

27

00

01

10

1901

00

12

17

Brahmaniapal

89

00

03

1905

04

1906 00

33

1917

00

00

35

00

1939

12

72

00

1955

10

08

00

1958

04

07

1959

00

61

09

00

1961

00

12

1962

00

05

48

1963

60

00

03

00

1964

67

04

00

05

1965

08

4894GI /2011-4

1967

00

03 43

74

00

05

1968

25

00

14

1976

00

01

89 2054

2038

19

16

00

2039

00

32

11

08

1133

00

12

00

1134

68

03

00

79 1132

01

300

00

89

00

2188

00

00

30 322

00

10

85

00

00

50 325

62 489

07

00

2173

00

48

10

05

26

00

286

00

23 284

01

04

287

00

54

23

00

283

04

00

282

00

14 280

00

01

08 275

00

33

02

276

00

04

60

70 277

00

01

278

00

10

00

00

75 270

06

263

00

01

84 262

58

00

00

261

00

00

27 260

46 00

09

10 00

00

258

2135

00

90

11

41 00

00

223

05 00

03

222

00

01

49 221

00

05

22 208

00

207

18

206

10

37 00

205

00

07

92 204

00

00

10 202

05

00

Π 00

06

05

201

28 200

00

03

00

198

05

40

01

92 197

00 150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(1)

00

36

00

196

Brahmaniapal Brahmaniapal

33

00

00

195

10

00

00

185

20

184

00

02

47

00

07

183

00

10

00

180

67

00

186

03

Bampha

00

80

02

182

00

21

178

06

00

07

02

177

84

00

07

146

57

145

00

00

00

04

63

147

94

00

148

10

00

04

74

149

42

150

00

03

00

00

15

2184

81

00

02

135

00

62

134

02

26

122

00

02

00

01

52

133

20

00

132

03

00

ΟΙ

11

131

00

67

124

00

00

60

02

125

00

00

10

126

00

00

10

123

34

100

00

02

00

71

02

101

00

00

03

104

00

56

02

103

00

03

102

02

00

00

28

58

00

25

60

06

11

61

00

03

00

27

00

59

00

07

91

55

87

00

09

54

05

32

00

53

00

50

00

87

00

00

56

51

00

00

77

52

44

00

21

88

36

00

29

13

00

17

30

17

00

24

05

17

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

(5) (3) (4)

(2)

00

09

82 2205

67

10

20

00

07

00

30 2187

10

12

00

00

02

28 11

60

95 1

00

00

42

74 2063

18

00

41 2060

10

04 2048

00

00

00

10 2050

26 00

2039

11

06

16 .00

1934

25 00

1935

15

12 00

04

1941

00

04

45 1937

00

17 1940

5

35

01

00

1939

85 2328

00

01

01

42 00

1945

00

1850

10

00

42 00

01

1849

01

59 1848

00

04 1847

00

03

1853

00

14

80

00

10 1854

00

00

00

80 1844

00

02

37 1825

75

00

08

1824

00

01

03 1823

07

00

02. 1829

02

48

00

1833

09

14

00

1832

00

34

00

1831

13 1811

00

02

00

71

00

1788

04

80

00

1713

03

00

43 1712

05

1711

00

09

41 1710

00

03

00

04

59 1707

02

75 1709

00

56

00

09

313

00

00

10 311

53

00

13

70

00

29

00

71

01

01 2291

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

(1)

(2) (3)

(1)

(4)

(5)

75

00

00

10

Bampha

151 (2) (3) (4) (5) 433

00

02

06

Bhingira

00

00

68

03

67

00

42

11

43

66

00

00

00

83

08

35

90

00

04

50

00

86

10

97

00

85

06

59

00

00

10

00

87

01

25

55

00

07

94

54

00

04

55

00

50

00

50

36

00

00

10

00

20

12

07

00

65

2333

35

2334

00

31

02

00

10

67

84

00

37

2285

41

00

47

2284

48

00

2265

09

02

2271

00

10

00

00

531

08

93

Bhingira

00

06

04

530

529

00

06

25

00

15

528

34

526

00

04

54

01

41

525

00

00

00

524

10

00

523

11

96

00

06

519

34

00

94

517

03

00

515

29

14

434

00

05

54 00

22 427

03

435

90 00

03

406

00

00

78 426

00

04

85 425

00

02

24 407

02

00

95 422

00

08

16 00

03

408

22 421

00

04

35 00

04

420

64 409

04

27 00

410

00

02

98 411

00

02

80 881

00

01

21 817

00

02

39

00

915

00

10 310

02

45 00

146

00

11

02 145

00

00

20 147

00

12

27

21

00

135

36 137

00

00

25 136

00

01

41 118

00

01

08 117

07

00

71 00

116

21

93 112

00

04

24 114

00

08

04 3

01

00

44 2

00

01

21 3057

00

01

21

Bramhapur

00

96

514

10

00

39

513

03

512

00

07

92

00

901

03

83

01

19

511

00

494

00

08

22

00

43

495

01

00

94

00

490

00

19

06

447

445

00

20

34

2670

00

02

05 3095

00

45

02

2671

00

07

2672

00

26

03

2669

00

10 00

3101

00

79

13

2668

00

03

51

06 2661

00

03

2659

02

24 00

Khandatiri

444

00

65

02

443

21

03

00

00

442

00

10

3309

00

00

3308

00

01

95 3307

08

15 00

00

10

3305

65 152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

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

(2) (3) (4) (5)

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5) Khandatiri

3295

00

05

52

Khandatiri

713

00

06 09 3296

17

775

00

00

00

02

72 00

04

17

3297

00

02

94

781

00

89

3299

780

00

05

03

48 3300

00

10

00

ΟΙ

00

778

33

00

00

3291

779

39

00

04

05 3290

00

07

00

776

87

00

14 00

76

3289

01

1103

00

09

58 00

05

26

00

398

1104

01

48 00

399

04

98

198

00

01

11

Giridharaprasad

00

00

19

391

199

00

24

47 00

21

25

228

00

02 3738

02 00

01

99

295

227

00

01

80 00

01

78

229

371

00

07

24 00

368

19

62

01

226

00

31

05

369

00

27

230

00

05

72

01

00

67

00

3715

225

48 00

370

04

54

00

02

70

272

576

00

435

00

01

83

08

71 575

00

49

438

00

03

03

67 00

04

573

32

436

00

71

02 00

02

17

430

574

00

01

37 569

00

13

98

437

00

03

58

00

564

00

86

429

00

00

64

00

10

565

428

00

03 00

01

426

00

04

92

03 566

00

30 00

00

548

14

98

427

02

10

10

00

00

425

00 543

00

43 00

545

"77

01

00

451

03

81 00

01

73

450

00

546

00

10 02

56

452

00

547

00

54

02 696

00

00

19

454

00

.00

10 00

698

04

70

453

00

62

03

84

07 00

04

421

00

06 697

00

10

699

00

00

00

16

457

00

700

00

10

460

00

01

44 00

690

04

91

459

00

05

43

12

00

00

01

480

45 689 00

00

00

27

686

01

10

481

13

00

687

07

19

00

520

23

02 00

81

707

521

06

00

00

70 00

00

10

680

522

72

00

00

07

523

708

00

29

02

00

83 709

00

04

84

524

00

01

83 714

00

00

46 02

36

519

00 3807

04

35

517

00

10

00

00 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(3) (4)

(2)

(5)

(1)

74

00

03

Karanda 516

Giridharaprasad

00

05

74

514

00

10

495

00

00

03

02

513

512

00

00 10

58

05

496

00

00

41

01

498

66

00

14

500

96

3646

00

00

00

501

88

03

00

04

32

1

00

10

3831

05

Karanda

3802

96

00 02

00

06

3804

61

3805

00

01

00

70

3803

00

95

02

00

3808

00

3807

10

00

00

63

3809

02

00

82

00

3797

00

00

41

3815

30

00

3796

00

04

37

3817 00

00

01

00

3816

65

00

01

3837

00

79

06

3864

52

3867

00

00

00

02

11

3865

00

01

35

3866

00

25

02

3861

86

00

3862

01

00

98

04

3859

00

00

20

3858

71

3857

00 03

03

65

00

3913

01

35

00

14305

06

00

04

3909

00

37

02

3910

65

00

05

3911

22

02

3926

00

3927

00

17

98

78

00

3933

02

07

00

15

3932

64

4279

00 03

01

56

3931

00

68

00

00

4278

153

(4) (5) (2) (3)

4280

04

20 00

ΟΙ

85 4276

00

00

05

22 4275

71 4272

00

05

00

29 4289

00

06

88 4273

00

15

70 4270

00

04

89 00

4271

00

52 00

4267

04

38 14222

00

02

34 4246

00

57 00

07

4253

04

36 4247

00

4252

00

05

98

00

4251

00

89

74 4248

00

19

5285

00

05

79

00

27 00

5238

82 5284

00

03

00

36 5287

00

24 5281

00

00

22

92 5283

67

00

00

5288

66

06

00

5282

00

58

02

5312

17

34 5323

00

00

04

21 6329

08

00

44 5327

00

07

67 5326

00

27

03

5368

24 5367

00

03

02

5361

00

37

49 00

00

5365

17 00

02

5371

00

60

04

5366

30 5372

00

05

00

29 00

5373

00

10 5374

00

00 00

03

5377

01

39 00

5378

00

88

01

5379

00

01

34 5380

86 00

02

5381

01 00

02

5382

70 00

00

5385

01

49 5386

00 154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

(2)

(5)

(3)

(1)

(4) (1)

00

Karanda

Karanda

5387

00

88

26

5400

03

00

61

14302

02

00

00

02

02

5393

Thokara

00

00

14303

32

93

00

14294 00

00

07

20

5394

00

29

5419

01

88

5423

00

09

00

14

5433 00

50

04

00

5432

00

21

14236

00

12

00

00

5429

00

16

5428

04

04

33

5427

00

94

5426

00

01

74

00

5425

11

00

00

10

14221

60

00

5902

00

00

90

5901

02

00

63

10

5813

00

75

13877 00

95

00

07

5812

00

68

07

5811

00

89

5810

06

67

00

02

5805

36

00

01

5557

5586

01

83

00

08

5558

00 03

80

00

5802

04

00

40

00

5803

60

00

02

5559

00

71

5563

07

07

00

25

5543

46

00

00

5564

58

5542

00

00

00

00

10

5740

00

5562

00

10

00

10

38

5565

26

05

5737

00

78

03

5568 00

40

00

01

5736

00

02

93

5738

20

00

5718

00

00

07

63

5719

00

82

5720

02

00

13

5712

03

00

37

5713

00

92

00

11

5710

00

00

12

5709

21

00

02

5716

5706

00

00

88

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] (2) (3) (4) (5) 00

71

01

13863

5704

08

91 00

25

00

00

5705

00

01

5703

27 00

03

05

3913

00

3905

07

35 00

00

23 3910

06

87 00

3906

00

00

27 3907

00

10

88 3899

3855

00

01

30

06

01

00

3900

3942

10 00

00

00

3941

11

30 4176

00

02

11 00

3831

00

10 00

05

3830

03

32 00

3829

00

3828

01

18

00

3827

00

10 3621

00

00

10 00

05

70 3622

00

3623

00

37 3624

00

Π

00

3620

00

04

58 00

10 3617

00

00

09

3618

40 3616

00

42

01

00

01

28 3615

3631

00

02

07 00

00

70 3613

64 00

3612

04

78 3610

00

01

00

71 3611

01

3767

01

00

65 00

320

05

42

29 319

00

02

10

00

318

00

00

41 321

01

323

10 00

00

06 00

314

01

04 00

07

322

00

00

10 332

00

345

14 00

333

00

53

02

63 334

00

-00

00

04

02

3926

335

20

00

01

00

11

01

343

00

68 336

01

00

16

01

344

62 00

01

3993 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ⅱ) ]

(1)

(4) (5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

10

Nua

00

342

03

Thokara

18

00

341

03

74

04

340

00

00

14

02

356

00

55

00

272

00

01

87 271

37

02

268 00

01

01 267

00

00

01

30 266

19

00

00

263

00

02

02

264

10

00

00

265

42

00

00

261

00

02 260

02

00

77 238 00

50

01

259 00

69

00

258

00

32 257

00

02

10

00

255

00

97

00

256

02

96

00

240

02

00

88 242

03

71

00

241

02

00

70 243

03

87

00

04

233

45 229

00

10

10

00

228 00

76

00

10

227

00

00

78

225

00

07

33 224

39

04

00

150

10

152

00

47

17

00

05

153

00

04 4194

02

91

00

137

31

10

00

00

133

00

01

138

00

51

03

3970

11

00

98

63

07

25

64

00

00

19

65 00

00

66

02

19

00

05

78

70

00

74

67

05

10

00

00

3959

01

69

00

3958

19

47

00

00

46

00

32

03

70

29

00

03

00

00

10

27

00

00

10

43

36

30

00

06

34

31

00

00

155

(5)

(4)

(2) (3)

00

01

65 3828

00

00

35 3825

94 00

02

3826

00

23 3824 00

46

05

3821

00

08

09 00

3822

00

10 00

3823

00

04

3677

98 00

44

02

3678

3679

00

35

03

00

39

01

3680

20 00

02

3681

41 3682

01

00

00

04

3700

00

04

42 00

3699

00

02

3696

32 00

02

41 3697

67

01

3636

00

14 3635

00

01

00

70 3637

02

00

3634

11

13

00

00

26 3652

00

02

06 3632

15 00

04

3631

91 00

3621

00

10 00

100

3602

00

3605

86

03

00

70

B

3604

50 00

00

3607

00

00

89 3608

00

01

43 5456

83 00

01

3609

83 00

01

3617

04

00

3615

18

36 3614

00

00

00

24

10

2823

10 00

00

3015

12

00

00

3014

07 00

04

2824

38 00

00

3011

95 00

02

3012

50

01

00

3010

84 00

02

3036

16

01

00

3008

64 00

03

3037

00

24 00

3007

12

.05

5339

00

00

10 00

3038

08 00

04

3039

05

00

19 3040

06

85 00

3043

00

05

11 3044 156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

(1)

00

Nua

3256

01

53

Tarkabeda

00

3059

02

80

3060

00

28

05

3092

00

63

00

00

00

80

3091

3090

00

01

07

3255

00

00

10

3088

00

87

3095 00

03

02

00

3087

01

79

3096

00

12

00

00

3097

04

73

00

3086

01

87

81

3098 00

01

3130

00

01

16

00

45

3085

01

3131

00

01

31

00

3132

42

03

00

3150

06

64

3151

00

07

04

3148 00

05

69

3147

00

10

00

3166

00

02

42

00

23

3165

00

3167

06

00

05

3168

00

05

83

00

3169

00

50

3170

00

10

40

5442

00

39

02

758

00

01

38 Tarkabeda

00

51

3252

03

3251

00

79

05

00

3244

67

11

10

3247

00 00

3245

00

00

32

4337

00

00

50

00

30

3243

00

3242

00

61

04

00

01

06

3238

3237

00

06

68

3236

00

09

95

3234

00

00

22

00

00

87

3231

3233

00

09

59

3232

00

02

02

00

3192

02

80

00

20

3181

00

99

3180

00

00

3182 00

07

09

3178

00

00

33

3179

62

00 11

3176

06

98

00

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

(5)

(4)

(3)

3174

00

01

87 3175

00

81

03

3171

00

10 00

00

26 3170

05

3146

00

50

03

3147

00

00

10

06

3145

46 00

3151

00

00

47 3152

00

10 00

3139

07

48 00

04

4275

00

12

10

4276

00

73 3128

00

04

3127

09

45 00

3123

00

00

26 3122

02

45 00

3415

39 00

04

3121

00

03

38 3120

00

10

00

00

3416

00

50 3417

02 61 00

4291

00

03

78 3418

00

09

72

01

3419

00

12 00

01

3435

43 3434

00

06

34 00

4288

00

95 3426

00

10

47 00

3038

19

86 00

3034

05

79 00

3035

02

62 2795

00

04

20 00

00

2794

10 00

2798

25

03

2797

00

01

95

05

2803

19 00

00

00

2807

10 00

00

2802

44 2804

00

07

50 2805

00

03

16

10 00

00

2806

03

93 2768

00

2766

00

01

51 2765

00

02

30 2767

00

34

03

2764

04

00

73 2761

01

00

38 2754

00

41 00

2755

00

03

00

58 2756

03

00

28 2753

02

2750

00

06

06 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011/पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

(1)

157

(5) (3)

(2)

(4)

08

05 1462

00

Tarkabeda

01

42

00

Tarkabeda

2751

29

01

00

2748

33

00

00

2747

04

75

00

2746

44

01

2744

00

88

00

02

2905

47

00

02

2906

84

00

00

2908

72

00

01

2907

54

01

2909 00

22

00

02

2912

50

00

01

2913

15

00

18

2922

00

53

00

2924

23

00

02

2929

06

00

08

2928

88

00

02

2932

13

2927

00

01

22

00

00

2933

47

00

01

2926

59

00

09

2524

35

00

07

2523

15

00

00

2518

89

00

09

2520

33

00

00

2521

Kadala

54

00

01

2519

00

15

02

2190

24

03

2189 00

00

10

00

2191

10

00

00

2173

00

55

00

2177

18

2174

00

00

00

23

2185

00

48

00

00

2184

2183 00

04

98

00

12

22

2179

00

06

31

2178

81

00

00

2181

04

00

01

2180

10

00

00

1563

02

00

1565

00

47

00

1566

02

73

00

1567

02

00

10

00

1570

94

05

1569

00

21

03

00

1572

00

04

63

1573

00

00

1574

04

00

36

1555

94

00 03

1553

65

00

00

1461

16

00

13

1469

4894 Gl/2014-5

04

00

27 1463

03

72 00

4384

00

71 00

1464

79

04

1532

00

02

00

33 1529

32 1528

00

04

21 00

03

1522

75

02

1519

00

00

20 1518

03

00

10 00

1516

02

00

29 1515

42 00

09

1514

00

00

10 1507

10 00

00

1499

05

12 1506

00

00

51 00

1500

03

09 1501

00

48 00

05

1505

10

00

4373

00

34 00

06

1504

00

00

18 1503

06

40 00

1486

79

00

00

1488

69 00

10

1487

00

09

23 2147

10

31 00

2179

00

85

04

2180

22

09

2178

00

24

00

00

2187

23

00

00

2173

00

03

58 2191

75 00

04

2190

41

00

2192

00

06

00

2193

51

00

2194

00

24

04

00

2201

04

54 00

2200

07

03

00

2198

00 00

03

2199

36 00

02

2139

80

02

00

2084

10

00

00

2085

00

10

00

2083

74

13

00

2067

06

03

00

2069

24

01

00

2070

01

04

00

2068

21

01

00

2021

04

61 00

2011

66

04

00

2019

65

06

00

2020 158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

( 1)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

(1) Kadala

86

1992

00

03

Badamunda 2030

00

57

07

2029

00

00

89

2031

00

41

01

1991

00

00

32

2032

00

37

02

00

2035

93

03

2036

00

04

13

1973

00

05

26

00

1923

03

28

1972

00

07

06

1927

00

27

00

00

1928

00

45

1931

00

01

92

1971

00

00

64

00

1932

02

37

00

1935

03

04

1936

00

03

41

1937

00

10

33

00

1940

85

04

1942

00

03

65

00

1944

01

85

00

1943

01

50

1945

00

00

16

1946

10

00

00

1872

86

00

22

1873

00

04

65

00

Badamunda

917

00

63

1442

00

07

75

915

00

00

10

00

01

1441

42

1440

00

04

62

1439

00

05

76

1506

00

06

18

914

00

00

15

00

913

94

05

912

00

04

38

911

00

03

01

970

00

02

40

966

00

39

00

971

00

05

40

972

00

06

35

1493

00

03

76

973

00

05

29

981

00

01

01

979

00

01

59

978

00

01

49

00

980

02

39

00

977

86

976

00

02

35

467

00

04

12

466

00

04

93

Naraharipur

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] (2) (3) (4) (5) 464

00

04

29 1501

00

01

55 463

95 00

04

462

25 00

05

461

00

09

06 00

1298

06

78 475

04

00

00 00

459

10

11

00

476

08

73 00

477

02

96 1365

00

00

85 1364

00

03

18 453

00

00

84 452

00

00

10 451

00

07

80 00

491

00

45 00

1554

02

14 1380

00

00

10 141

00

11

61 00

142

12

88

00

00

78 139

143

00

04

30 145

00

02

47

03

158

00

52 157

00

05

20 124

00

01

36 00

00

126

40 00

131

01

47

79 125

00

04

1388

00

20 00

122

00

26

90 00

97

41

01

96

00

04

72 95

00

72

08

91

00

08

51 92

00

13

78 39

00

03

92 25

00

00

10 26

00

04

48 38

00

00

88 27

00

07

28 00

29

00

97 00

18

02

18

30

00

03

40 31

70 00

03

32

00

46 00

9

06

00

24

04

8

00

14

61 00

7

00

2

00

00

03

88

6

00

10

00

335

00

03 159 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

( 1 )

(2) (3) (4) (5)

00

01

45

1393

336

00

05

Paikpurunakota

58

Naraharipur

00

1385

00

21

00

10

398

00

00

01

13

1384

00

333

01

87

1883

00

03 85

59

00

394

03

1381

00

00

10 00

334

02

30

1382

00

42

01 00

393

01

58

00

10

00

1380

392

00

00

81

00

03

68

1378

391

00

00

97

23

00

1377

00 313

00

07

56

1375

00

00

65 00

60

04

314

1376

00

05

33 00

312

01

49

00

00

10

1122

00

311

83

03

1128

00

17

03 00

310

07

86

00

06

1129

04 00

309

40

00

05

1130

38 00

308

02

58

1131

00

80

03 408

00

63

02

00

42

1243

02 00

09

1553

02

Peikpurunakota

1244

00

00

54 1554

00

10

00

00

00

10

1241

1568

00

05

17

04

1242

07

00

00

01

02

1559

00

00

22

2056

00

81

1567

04

00

1245

42

02 1560

00

06

02

2055

00

55

03 2069

00

02

12

00

1234

54

08 00

1562

03

88

00

00

78

1233

00

05

65

1561

1406

00

03

40

23

1500

00

04

1247

00

00

10 1498

00

04

00

09

1249

30 00

04

06

1497

1248

00

01

52 00

04

1496

59

1252

00

01

59 00

10

1470

00

00

08

82

1251

00

65

1471

05

00

2125

00

10 1472

92

00

03

00

52

1262

01 1463

00

03

85

2110

00

02

12

14

1473

00

03

253

00

00

10

05

01

1474

00

2108

52

00

02

40

07

00

1461

2109

00

01

40 00

42

1409

02

25

259

00

11

01

00

1408

11

00

00

298

10 00

1407

00

16

260

00

01

43 1410

12

00

02

00

28

297

04

10

00

00

1411

261

00

02

91 1459

00

05

97

262

00

01

64 00

08

01

1458

00

06

12

265

00

98

07

1457

00

10

267

00

1432

00

10

00

268

00

00

17

10

00

1424

00

00

13

208

01 00

03

16

1422

00

07

33

269

00

00

1423

28

00

87

270

01 00

1421

11

54

79

00

15

271

00

10

02

1395

00

272

01

20 00

06

58

1396

00

273

02

40

00

16

2095

00 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

160

(5)

(2) (3) (4)

(5)

(1)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

00

02

08

62

122

00

22

156

Brahmanpurunakot

Paikpurunakota

85

13

1825

10

00

00

00

157

76

00

08

118

53

00

01

2115

00

95

01

80 00

00

129

155

65

117

00

00 00

47

09

153

19

65

00

01

41

114

00

2206

14

41

00

113

12

00

91

16

06

00

82

1653

04

50

96

00

07

16

00

1654

16

00

02

92

47

00

18 00

95

50

98

03

72 00

60

00

03

51

57

01

08

00

10

52

00

03 89

00

08

62

00

37

00

04

44

58

00

07

51

85

37

00

03

59

89

00

21

38

04

07

61

00

08

04

35

00

00

19

05

64

20

56

00

00

39

00

01

63

00

00

17

08 00

02

40

68

01 00

52

1014

00

28 67

Nandeilo

02

32

00

00

95

251

69

00

02

43

00

01 70

46

217

00 03

07

85 00

218

00

14

28

840

18

09

00

73

00

10

220

1616

Brahmanpurunakot

00

10

00

89

00

221

00

313

07

23

00

49

222

00

03

314

57

22

223

00

08 00

04

1693

05

85

210

60

00

00

12

315

00

00

10

02

65

224

317

00

06

00

45

12 00 05

209

318

06

18

00

04

21

08

316 00

41

98

207

00

00 00

10

329

00

29

54

06

00

202

00

330

01

204

90

00

06

00

57 350

00

02

82

205

10

328

00

00

206

22

10

01

00

00

332

00

01

10

82

203

00

00

327

00

00

15

170

11

04

00

1646

00

00

18 00

01

01

63

171

1647

00

04

08

88

172

34 00

349

70

06

178

00

50

30

334

00

00

02 46

00

10

177

335 00

150

05

89

57

06

00

00

176

149

35

04 93

02

00

00

175

08

94

00

04 00

02 177

148

03

147

00

18 00

04

73

174

145

12

66

10 00

00

00 172

40

82

146

00

03

13

171

00

00

03

57

153

03 90 1618 00

979

01

59 00

01

47

00

167

00

08

09

00

30

83

111

166

01

53

84

00

19 00

18

119

10

81

04

85

00

00

121 161 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

(4)

(2) (3)

(5) (3) (4)

(1)

(2)

(5)

(1)

00

60 00

04

00

86

64

Nandeilo

Panaghudughuda 252

45 00

00 88

03

84

253

00

00

75

250

87

00

73

00

03

10 89

06

26

00 00

00

249

00

84 90

00

15

02

248

00 00

06

43

14

75

03

00

134

05

63

00

00

35 74

00

82

00

00

10 00

15

980

00

881

01

45

00

37 00

01

136

3311

Sanjapada

00

70

69 00

00

02 3377

135

00

00

00

65

137

10

00

3310

00

25 00

87

880

00

01 3378

26

00 00

3312

04

138

00

03

00

43 3376

39

81

02

00

02

20 00

02

3375

02

80

00

02 00

15

139

50

03

01 3316

00 00

00

07

01

3317

140

00

02 00

79

26

3421

05

00

07

141

00

73

00

79

97 3318

03

00

47

3322

95 00

00

143

06

00

46 00

3323

10

142

00

00

01

00

α

04 00

13

145

3315

03

00

00

10

38 3352

146

00

00 3324

38

00

04

00

68

07

147

00

06

49

00

10

00 3334

181

53

05 00

00

78

3335

182

08

00

45 3332

01

50

00

03

183

00 00

03

66

08

185

3330

00

54 3329

00

00

03

98

186

10

29

03 3340

00

04

00

193

02

04

00

76 800

19

02

194

Panaghudughuda

84

86 00

07

00

02

360

293

38

05

23

00 00

292

11

359

36

84

42

366

00

08

03

00

00

49

111

00

00

02

89

357

48

00

00

110

00

42

356

00

26

105

00

01

00

34

00

801

40

106

00

07

367

00

03

06

80

00

00

107

10

00

00

369

00

00

39

104

10

2385

02

00

Amana

21

00

00

103

17

02

00

2217

28

102

02

00

26

2210

00

60

34

06

122

00

00

09

39

2192

126

01

80

00

27

00

26

2190

66

00

02

127

00

26

88

2182

99

128

00

01

00

01

2179

88

15

06

129

00

39

626

65

00

43

130

01

00

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

00

10

00

131

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

251

00

02

51 162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 92.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का.आ. 162 तारीख 11 जनवरी , 2010 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उड़ीसा राज्य की तहसील : ओडपड़ा, जिला : ढ़ेन्कानाल की भूमि में, पारादीप- सम्बलपुर- रायपुर-राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना के कार्यान्वयन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 26 जनवरी , 2010 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जित किया जाना है;

केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त हो कर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील-ओडपडा जिला- ढेन्कानाल

राज्य-उड़ीसा गांव का नाम प्लाट नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 2

3

4

5 1

1048

00

04

कोरेहिगाडिआ

97

34

00

832

04

00

00

31 1046

833

00

00

90

94 831

00

05

01

63

00

830

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 1

2

4

5

3

00

835

00

56 कोरेहिगाडिआ

836

02

60 846

00

03

52

00

844

05

843

00

03

56 842

00

00

29

00

858

00

32

12 861

00

04

862

00

00

96

00

04

09 860

00

00

868

55 867

00

05

93

01

866

00

57

00

870

03

39 871

00

02

35

00

67 646

03

645

00

00

99

00

08

644

00

0!

75 651

642

00

07

57

04

00

05 641

00

02

638

49

06

25 632

00

635

00

05

00

634

01

00

05

421

636

00

00

01

422

00

22 423

00

01

05 424

15

00

06

00

1100

00

00

427

02

33 425

00

00

426

00

01

16

00

90 419

01

418

00

01

430

00

01

76

00

14

34 1065

00

05

145

78

40 146

00

00

41

00

03

144 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

163

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5 कोरेहिगाडिआ 143

00

01

00

160

00

00

13

पालसुधा

142

00

02

53

200

00

02

05 138

00

11

55

163

00

02

31 134

00

00

91

192

00

00

20 133

00

04

37

164

00

02

59 1049

00

05

03

162

00

00

10 385

00

02

पालसुधा

166

95

00

00

87 441

00

00

165

10

00

00

76 337

00

00

167

10

00

21 336

00

05

179

33

00

00

20 335

00

03

168

38

00

00

22 442

00

178

02

00

93

03

76 316

00

01

177

00

27

02

54 393

00

00

182

00

22

02

09 314

00

397

00

10

00

01

73 306

00

00

02

175

45

00

10 307

00

04

183

00

00

30

92 312

00

184

00

00

42

08

92 308

00

13

69

4331

00

इन्दिपुर

02

43 310

00

10

00

2515

00

00

20 309

00

03

72

4332

00

04

80 251

00

01

88

2407

00

02

52 246

00

00

10

2405

01

00

32 250

00

64

4328

00

02

00 252

00

00

46

2512

00

00

10 249

00

00

16

2419

00

02

35 253

00

11

34

2420

00

00

10 260

00

00

10

2418

00

13

55 254

00

B

87

2421

00

12 258

00

00

82

2422

00

00 00

392

01

20

2426

00

01

53 256

00

02

28

2427

00

02

00 204

00

03

09

2439

00

04

35 209

00

00

10

2434

00

02

43 205

00

02

84

2433

00

01

45 206

00

00

54

4447

00

03

21 202

00

00

96

2463

00

04

86 207

00

03

15

2435

00

03

61 199

00

00

2462

39

00

00

10 201

03

2442

00

05 00

68

42 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

164

1

5

4

3

2

1

07

36

00

2441

इन्दिपुर इन्दिपुर

87

01

00

2377

48

00

01

1153

36

00

1154

02

06

02

00

4236

34

03

00

1155

07

44

00

1160

40

00

00

1161

03

00

78 1159

21

06

00

1175

36

06

00

4047

48

01

00

1217

06

84

00

1218

40

00

00

1219

00

60

00

4302

00

10

00

4301

00

00

06

1220

42

02

00

1221

37

01

00

1222

63

00

1224

07

12

00

4205

01

21

00

00

1231

86

00

01

1223

79

00

02

1232

00

19 1236

00

92

04

1235

00

24

00

00

1234

00

38

00

1266

55

04

00

1265

02

02

00

4435

0.0

51

04

1268

10

00

1267

00

00

30

00

1269

80

00

00

1284

25

00

00

1270

40

00

02

1283

95

00

00

1285

12

02

00

1282

21

04

00

1286

48

00

00

1330

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

4

5 3

2

46

03

00

1331

27

05

00

1329

00

52 1328

00

70

03

00

1336

00

10 00

1340

25

05

00

1339

00

94 00

1338

02

39 00

1386

00

75 00

124

02

02 00

1387

46 00

00

1367

47

00

00

125

10

00

00

4233

61

01

00

123

20

00

00

122

00

26 120

00

00

60 00

126

06

17 00

119

00

40 00

135

00

10 00

121

55 00

00

4417

20

03

00

118

72

00

4429

00

02

54 4209

00

75 00

00

137

04

87 00

84

12 00

02

83

71

05

00

82

43

00

00

22

25

04

00

24

10 00

00

23

90

00

03

74

48

04

25

00

31

02

00

34

00

50

00

33

63

03

00

35

03

01

00

39

01

00

01

36

34

00

09

38

10

00

00

37 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (i ) )

भारत का राजेंपंत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

4

2

3

5

1 12

00

14

73 नुणि इन्दिपुर

13

00

00

30

00

00

82

नुणि

53 81

00

00

10

00

83

05

15

00

86

00

4 85

00

02

59 84

00

01

4]

00

03

92

01

00

93

11

00

100

01

37 96

00

00

44 99

00

01

2 97

00

00

10 98

00

02

09

00

109

01

66

00

108

00

87

00

110

00

111

00

00

10 107

00

01

97

00

112

05

77 113

00

01

71 116

00

00

10 114

00

01

11 115

00

80 133

00

00

10 132

00

04

15

00

131

02

42

00

129

00

10 130

00

00

70

00

134

00

10 135

00

05

17 125

00

00

66 139

00

01

13 138

00

00

79

00

140

02

06 डेंगबोरेइ 141

00

00

10

00

148

02

92 142

00

01

21 144

00

02

53 4894 GI/2016

165

4

2

3

5

00

01

1121

49 00

00

146

39 145

02

00

77 155

00

03

89 157

00

01

85 156

01

48

00

167

00

00

17

02

168

00

02 1131

00

00

48 100

00

164

48 252

00

00

41 169

00

02

02 170

00

02

3,1 250

00

02

171

00

Ot

66 00

249

02

248

00

00

ID 247

00

00

14 00

00

187

83 00

01

185

33 00

01

186

00

188

00

19 00

192

02

31 00

00

[9 ]

31 216

00

01

89 00

08 217

02

213

00

00

98 206

00

00

10 00

207

69 00

02

208

28 00

212

01

43 00

02

211

02

00

41 209

00

00

01

62 210

00

00

82 220

00

1473

00

10 00

02

93 1472

00

02

33 1469

00

32 1468

00

00

56 1471

00 166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

2

1

3

4

5 1470

00

02

02 डेंगबोरेइ

1467

00

02

01 1461

00

73

03

1460

00

00

10 बेडा

328

00

05

45 327

00

02

99

00

321

01

17 727

00

02

40 325

00

01

32 728

00

00

14 324

00

00

84

19 294

00

05

00

333

01

11 289

00

01

63 293

00

01

25 290

00

01

17 291

00

01

20 292

00

00

33 283

00

01

32 284

00

02

87 285

00

01

99 387

00

00

71 385

00

01

23 388

00

00

46

00

389

01

33 391

00

01

76 393

00

00

10 392

00

79 399

00

02

02 400

00

01

21 401

00

21

00

402

00

78

02

421

00

01

87 422

00

01

16 423

00

02

00 424

00

00

29 461

00

00

10 460

00

03

02 459

00

01

70

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

2

3

4

बेडा

00

463

00

18 458

00

01

16 464

00

01

478

00

00

93 477

00

00

479

00

06

574

00

00

480

00

25

03

00

573

01

1 572

00

02

50 486

00

00

10 485

00

01

18 484

00

10

12

00

487

00

489

00

دیو

00

490

00

05

96

00

491

00

55 496

00

02

91 495

00

00

53 494

00

02

13 493

00

00

20

00

530

02

529

00

01

528

00

02

527

00

02

31 526

00

00

24 525

00

10

50 524

00

07

88 539

00

00

16 523

00

08

51 1822

56 काण्डबिन्धा

00

03

1826

00

03

68

00

1825

01

45 1827

00

02

1824

00

00

81

00

1829

02

42 1842

00

02

00

1843

03

48 1840

00

00

17 1844

00

2.1

00 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2

3

4

5 काण्डबिन्धा

00

1839

01

77 1837

00

01

30 1838

00

08

37 1834

00

00

42 1836

00

08

09 5338

00

00

10 5337

00

03

78 5339

00

00

19 1874

00

01

55 1875

00

02

63 1879

00

05

41 1881

00

00

80 1882

00

04

80 1883

00

55

03

5728

00

00

82 5729

00

03

89 5312

00

00

61 1955

00

03

76 1961

00

00

18

00

1954

03

33 1949

00

00

88 1953

00

01

90 1950

00

02

34 1948

00

00

10 1952

00

03

47

00

1951

03

65 1965

00

00

67 5678

00

02

22

00

1931

00

86 2517

00

04

29 2518

00

64 2519

00

00

62 2520

00

01

08 2522

00

06

36 2523

00

00

21 2498

00

00

71 2496

00

03

23 2497

00

02

10 2486

00

00

10 2487

00

00

86

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

167 1

2

3

4

5 काण्डबिन्धा 2495

00

00

52

00

2488

02

2494

00

00

13 2489

00

01

10 2490

00

01

62 2492

00

00

10 5786

00

00

20 2491

00

00

71 2469

00

00

46 2468

00

03

21 2447

00

01

19 2467

00

Of

21 2466

00

02

10 2534

00

03

14 2663

00

00

66 2464

00

02

42 2465

00

01

21 2721

00

00

58 2722

00

00

40 2723

00

00

20 2463

00

00

48 2724

00

04

23 2228

00

01

43 2727

00

01

98 2726

00

00

90 2729

00

03

83 2730

00

01

03 2731

00

02

37 2710

00

00

72 2709

00

02

57 2732

00

00

90 2734

00

00

28 2745

00

02

08 2749

00

01

01 2750

00

00

42 2762

00

00

34 2748

00

00

16 2801

00

02

58 2800

00

31

02

2802

00

00

23 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

168

1

4

5

3

2

1

75

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

4

5 3

2

02

03 00

5552

काण्डबिन्धा

00

02

2799

काण्डबिन्धा

08

01

00

2798

12

00

2796

00

10

00

2784

28

00

00

2797

01

62

00

2795

61

00

00

2811

62

00

2794

10

00

2793

00

00

10

2812

45

00

12

2818

07

00

04

2828

88

00

2829

100

43

00

2833

05

51

00

2836

400

50

00

00

2835

26

00

ot

5548

22

00

2834

50

29

00

2855

13

00

02

5722

31

01

00

5721

59

00

00

5723

50

00

02

2846

38

00

2845

64

00

00

2842

06

00

05

2843

41

00

02

2844

21

01

00

3294

06

3295

00

08

92

3296

00

03

01

65

00

3538

00

02

45

5357

00

00

10

3549

17

00

04

3548

00

59 5356

00

06

00

51

3539

00

00

52 3540

01

18

5550

00

ΟΙ

62

00

5551

00

01

66 3512

00 00

01

3510

10 00

00

3513

00

03

81 3509

15

89 00

3508

00

46 00

3504

00

02

99 3505

05

82 00

3507

76 00

01

3497

08

53 00

3551

18 3588

00

00

00

94

00

5997

00

01

60 3593

00

01

41 3594

02

00

01 3595

00

02

21 3604

70 00

00

3603

36 3605

00

02

00

00

10 3602

40 00

3606

03

65 3607

00

01

04

01

3608

00

ΟΙ

20 00

3669

81 00

00-

3656

00

00

10 3609

00

31 3610

48

00

00

3657

22

00

3658

00

00

03

23 3655

00

00

37 3611

00

00

10 3613

04 00

3612

00

22 00

3621

64

03

00

3654

00

%

03

3622

48

00

3624

00

58 00

03

3623

00

00

10 3642

00

75

09

3643

69 00

01

3647 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

169

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

4

3

5

1

2

4

3

काण्डबिन्धा 3644

00

42

00

4228

00

00

काण्डबिन्धा

65 00

3645

01

4240

62

11

07

00

3646

00

01

4245

04

09

00

15 00

3745

07

43

4246

00

08

86 3746

00

00

63

4247

00

02

09 3744

00

02

86

4263

00

00

35 00

00

5238

57

00

06

00

4254

5237

00

03

85

4248

02

00

74 3728

01

00

00

49

4250

02

09 3742

00

66

00

4251

00

02

26 6029

00

02

4252

79

00

08

49 00

3727

00

4253

72

00

01

18 3725

00

00

23

00

2882

03

40

बलरामपुर

3790

00

03

68

2812

15

00

08 3791

00

03

56

2813

00

09

03 3722

00

03

07

2862

00

03

47 5605

00

04

53

00

2863

06

80 5604

00

86

05

00

09

2861

,82 00

3799

01

11

00

2865

00

78 00

5608

02

74

2866

00

05

25 5603

00

00

10

00

2857

00

62 00

5609

00

62

2868

00

39

06 3838

00

02

03

00

2870

13

54 00

3563

00

20

2878

00

02

27 00

3858

20

76

00

2877

07

16 3847

00

00

13

07

2876

00

03 00

3846

50

97

2875

00

09

15 4196

00

00

10

2874

00

08

20 4197

00

12

34

2873

00

09

00 4200

00

06

34

2872

00

05

27 00

4199

01

47

00

05

2904

41 4198

00

06

08

2905

00

04

28 4181

00

01

63

2909

00

35

68 4235

50

00

08

2910

00

03

37 00

4234

02

27

00

2911

01

55 4232

00

45

2912

00

96

15 00

4233

00

20

2937

00

26

70 00

4231

01

43

2934

00

13

13 4227

08

00

13

2932

00

32

06 4230

00

03

58

[फा. सं. आर-25011/24/2009-ओ आर-1 ] 4229

00

06

56

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव 170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

1 New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

Korehigadia

S.O. 92. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and NaturalGas number S.O. 162, dated 11-1-2010 issuedunder sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil- Odapada , District-Dhenkanal , in Orissa State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa ) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi ( Jharkhand) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 26th February, 2010;

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

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Odapada District : Dhenkanal State : Orissa Name of the Plot No.

Area

Hectare Are Sq. mtr .

Village

4

5 2

1

3

97

00

04

Korehigadia 1048

04

832

00

34

00

31 1046

00

00

90 833

00

05

94 831

00

63 830

00

01

56

00

00

835

60

02

836

00

03

00

52 846

844

05

87

00

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

4

2

3

5 00

03

56 843

29

00

842

00

32 CO

00

858

04

12 861

00

00

96 862

00

09

04

860

00

00

55 868

00

93

05

867

00

00

01

57 866

00

03

870

39 00

02

35 871

646

00

67

03

00

00

645

99

08

86 644

00

00

76 651

01

00

57 642

07

00

641

04

05 00

638

49

02

25 632

00

06

00

05

57 635

00

01

24 634

00

05

92 421

636

00

00

19

22 00

422

00

06 423

01

424

06

15

00

00

1100

00

19 427

00

33

02

00

00

25 425

426

00

01

10 00

419

01

90

12 418

00

01

430

00

01

76 00

14

34 1065

145

00

05

78 146

00

00

40 00

41

03

144

143

00

01

00 142

00

02

53 00

11

55 138 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

171

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

2

1

4

3

5

1

2

3

4

5 134

00

00

91

Korehigädia

192

00

Palasudha

00

20 133

00

04

37

00

164

02

59 00

1049

03

05

162

00

00

10 Palasudha 385

00

02

95

166

00

00

87 441

00

00

10

00

165

00

76 337

00

00

10

167

00

01

21 336

00

05

33

00

179

00

20 335

00

03

38

168

00

00

22 00

442

02

93

178

00

03

76 316

00

01

27

177

00

02

54 393

00

00

22

182

00

02

09 314

00

00

10

00

397

01

73 306

00

02

45

175

00

00

10 00

307

04

30

00

183

00

92 312

00

00

42

00

184

08

92 308

00

13

69

4331

00

02

43

Indipur

310

00

00

10

2515

00

00

20 309

00

72

03

4332

00

04

80 251

00

01

88

2407

00

02

52 246

00

00

10

2405

00

01

32 250

01

00

64

00

4328

02

00 252

00

00

46

2512

00

00

10 249

00

00

16

2419

00

02

35 253

00

11

34

2420

00

00

10 260

00

00

10

2418

00

13

55 254

00

03

87

2421

00

12

05 258

00

00

82

2422

00

00

10 00

392

01

20

2426

00

01

53 256

00

02

28

2427

00

02 204

00

03

09

2439

00

04

35 00

00

209

10

2434

00

02

43 00

205

02

84

2433

00

01

45 206

00

00

54

4447

00

03

21 00

202

00

96

2463

00

04

86 207

00

03

15

2435

00

03

61 199

00

00

39

00

2462

00

10 201

03

00

68

2442

05

00

42 160

00

00

13

2441

00

07

36 200

00

02

05

2377

01

00

87 163

00

02

31

1153

00

01

48 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

172

1

4

5

3

1

2

36

00

02

1154

Indipur Indipur

06

00

02

4236

34

03

00

1155

44

07

00

1160

40

00

00

1161

78

00

03

1159

21

06

00

1175

36

06

00

4047

01

48

00

1217

84

06

00

1218

40

00

00

1219

60

00

00

4302

10

00

00

4301

00

06

00

1220

42

00

02

1221

37

00

01

1222

63

07

00

1224

12

01

00

4205

21

00

00

1231

86

01

00

1223

79

02

00

1232

19

00

00

1236

92

04

00

1235

24

00

00

1234

38

00

00

1266

55

04

00

1265

02

00

02

4435

04

51

0.0

1268

00

10

00

1267

30

00

00

1269

80

00

00

1284

25

00

00

1270

40

00

02

1283

95

00

00

1285

12

00

02

1282

21

04

00

1286

48

00

00

1330

46

03

00

1331

27

05

1329

00

52

00

00

1328

[PART 11- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

5

4

2

3

70

03

00

1336

10 00

00

1340

25

05

00

1339

00

94 00

1338

39

02

00

1386

75

00

124

00

02

02

00

1387

00

46 00

1367

00

47 00

125

00

00

10 4233

01

00

61 123

00

00

20 122

00

26 00

120

60 00

00

126

06

17 00

119

00

00

40 135

00

10 00

121

00

55 00

4417

03

20 00

118

72 00

00

4429

02

54 4209

00

00

75 00

137

04

87 84

00

00

02

12 83

05

71 00

82

00

43 00

22

04

25 24

00

00

10 00

23

90 74

03

00

48 00

04

25

00

02

31 34

50

00

00

33

63 00

03

55

01

03 00

3ॐ

01 00

01

36

09

34 00

38

00

10 00

37

73 00

14

12

00

20 00

13 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

173

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष18 , 1932

2

1

3

4

5

1

2

4

3

5 00

Nuni

82

00

Nuni

145

00

53

02

77 81

00

00

00

10

155

03

89 05

83

00

157

00

15

01

85 86

00

00

156

00

94

01

48 85

00

02

167

00

00

59

17 84

01

00

00

41

168

02

02 92

00

03

00

77

1131

00

48 93

164

01

11

00

00 00

48 100

00

00

01

252

00

41

37

96

00

00

00

44

169

02

02 99

00

01

170

00

02

72

31 97

10

250

00

00

00

02

58 98

00

02

00

09

171

01

59 109

00

00

01

66

249

02

02 108

00

00

248

00

87

00

10 00

110

247

00

00

00

79

14 00

00

00 111

10

187

00

83 107

00

01

185

00

01

97

33 112

00

186

00

05

77

01

62 113

00

01

188

71

00

00

19 00

116

00

00

192

10

02

31 114

00

01

00

11

191

00

31 00

115

01

80

216

00

89 133

00

00

217

00

10

02

08 132

00

213

04

00

00

15

98 00

131

02

42

00

00

206

10 129

00

00

10

207

00

01

69 130

00

00

70

00

02

208

28 00

00

134

00

10

212

01

43 135

00

05

211

00

17

02

02 125

00

00

66

209

00

00

41 00

139

01

210

00

13

01

62 138

00

00

00

220

00

79

82 140

02

00

06

1473

00

00

10

Dengaborei

141

00

00

1472

00

10

02

93 148

00

02

1469

00

92

02

33 142

00

01

21

1468

00

00

32 144

02

00

00

53

1471

00

56 1121

00

01

49

1470

00

02

02 146

00

00

1467

00

39

02

01 4894Gl /2010-7 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

174

4

5

3

2

5

1

3

4

2

1

00

93

00

478

Beda

73

00

03

1461

Dengaborei

34

00

00

477

10

00

00

1460

06

53

00

479

45

05

00

328

Beda

91

00

00

574

02

99

00

327

26

17

01

00

00

03 321

480

94

40

ΟΙ 00

02

00

727

573

50

82

02 00

01

00

325

572

10

00

14

486

00

00

00

728

18

00

01

84

485

00

00

324

12

10

00

00

484

19

294

.66

00

00

487

00

01

11

333

22

00

00

489

63

00

01

289

96

05

00

490

25

00

01

293

55

00

00

491

01

17

00

290

02

91

496

00

01

20

00

291

53

00

00

495

00

33

00

292

13

02

00

494

01

32

00

283

00

00

20

493

00

02

87

284

59

02

00

530

00

01

99

285

01

91

00

529

00

71

00

387

80

02

00

528

00

23

01

385

51

00

02

527

00

46

00

388

24

00

00

526

00

01

33

389

50

10

00

525

01

76

00

391

88

07

00

524

00

00

10

393

00

16

00

539

00

01

79

392

51

00

08

523

02

00

02

399

56

03

00

1822

Kandabindha

21

00

01

400

68

03

00

1826

00

00

21

401

45

00

01

1825

78

00

02

402

73

02

00

1827

00

01

87

421

84

00

00

1824

16

422

00

01

42

02

00

1829

00

00

02

42 423

02

00

1841

00

00

29

24 424

02

00

1842

00

00

10

48 461

03

00

1843

17

03

02

00

00 460

00

1840

70

24

00

01

00

459

00

1844

01

00

00

84

00

463

1839

20

01

10

01 00

00

458

1837

17

08

01

00

00

464

1838 175 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

4

2

3

5

2

4

1

3

5 00

00

42

00

10 Kandabindha 1834

01

Kandabindha 2489

00

1836

08

09

01

2490

00

62 00

10

00

5338

00

2492

00

10 00

5337

03

00

00

78

5786

20 00

5339

00

19

00

00

2491

71 00

55

1874

01

2469

00

00

46 00

1875

02

63

00

03

2468

21 1879

00

41

05

00

01

2447

19 00

00

1881

80

01

00

2467

21 00

80

04

2466

00

1882

02

10 1883

00

2534

00

03

55

03

14 00

5728

82

00

00

2663

00

66 5729

00

03

89

00

2464

42

02 5312

00

00

61

2465

01

00

21 00

1955

03

76

2721

00

00

58 00

1961

00

18

00

00

2722

40 00

33

1954

03

2723

00

00

20 1949

00

00

88

00

00

2463

48 00

01

1953

2724

04

90

00

23 1950

00

02

34

00

01

2228

43 00

00

1948

2727

00

01

10

98 1952

00

03

2726

00

00

47

90 00

1951

2729

00

03

03

65

83 1965

00

00

2730

67

03

00

01 5678

00

02

00

22

2731

02

37 1931

00

00

86

2710

00

00

72 00

2517

04

2709

00

02

29

57 2518

00

00

01

2732

00

64

90 2519

00

00

62

00

2734

00

28 2520

00

01

08

2745

00

02

08 2522

00

06

36

00

01

2749

01 2523

00

00

21

2750

00

00

42 2498

00

00

71

2762

00

00

34 00

2496

03

23

2748

00

00

16 2497

00

10

02

2801

00

02

58

00

2486

00

00

10

02

2800

31 00

00

86

2487

2802

00

00

23 2495

00

00

52

2799

00

75

02 2488

00

02

00

01

2798

08 2494

00

00

00

13

2796

01

12 [ PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

4

3

5

2

4

1

2

5

3

1

81

03 00

10 Kandabindha 3509

00

00

2784

Kandabindha

15

89

00

3508

00

00

28

2797

46

00

00

3504

62

01

2795

00

02

00

99

3505

61

00

00

2811

82

00

05

3507

62

01

00

2794

76

00

01

3497

00

10

01

2793

00

08

53

3551

10

00

00

2812

18

00

00

3588

00

45

12

2818

94

00

00

5997

00

07

04

2828

60

00

01

3593

00

00

88

2829

00

41

01

43

3594

00

05

2833

02

01

3595

00

51

00

00

2836

02

21

00

3604

50

00

00

2835

00

70

00

3603

26

00

01

5548

36

02

3605

00

22

00

05

2834

10

00

00

3602

00

01

29

2855

00

40

03

3606

00

13

5722

02

01

65

3607

00

31

5721

00

01

04

01

3608

00

00

00

59

5723

01

20

00

3669

50

00

2846

02

00

81

3656

00

38

00

01

2845

00

10

00

3609

64

00

2842

00

00

01

31

3610

06

00

05

2843

00

48

00

3657

41

00

2844

02

22

00

00

3658

21

00

01

3294

23

00

03

3655

06

00

08

3295

00

00

37

3611

92

3296

00

03

00

10

00

3613

65

00

01

3538

00

01

04

45

3612

02

00

5357

00

22

3621

00

10

00

00

3549

64

00

3654

03 04

17

00

3548

96

00

03

3622

59

00

00

5356

3624

00

48

00 00

06

51

3539

58

00

03

52

3623

00

00

3540

10

00

00

3642

18

00

01

5550

75

00

09

3643

01

62

00

5551

69

01

3647

00

66

01

00

3512

00

42

00

3644

03

5552

00

02

01

00

3645

00

00

01

3510

01

00

3646

10

00

3513 177 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

4

5

1

2

3

2

3

4

5

1

00

15 00

07

43

04

Kandabindha 4245

Kandabindha 3745

08 00

4246

00

63

00

86 3746

00

02

86

4247

00

02

09 3744

00

00

5238

57

00

4263

00

35 00

03

85

5237

00

4254

06

00 3728

00

01

49

00

02

74

4248

00

00

66

3742

09

00

02

4250

00

02

79

6029

26

4251

00

02

72

00

00

3727

08

49

4252

00

00

00

23

3725

01

18

00

4253

00

68

03

3790

00

2882

03

40

Balarampur

00

03

56

3791

15

08

2812

00

00

3722

07

03

09

03

00

2813

04

53

00

5605

00

03

47

2862

00

05

86

5604

06

00

2863

80 01

3799

00

11

09

2861

00

82

74

02

5608

00

00

00

78

2865

10

00

5603

00

00

05

25

2866

00

00

62

5609

00

00

62

2857

00

3838

02

03

00

2868

39

06 3563

00

00

20

2870

00

13

54 20

00

76

3858

00

02

27

2878

00

00

3847

13

07

16

2877

00

3846

00

50

97

00

07

03

2876

00

00

10

4196

15

2875

00

09 00

34

4197

12

20

00

08

2874

00

06

34

4200

00

2873

00

09

47

00

01

4199

05

27

00

2872

06

08

00

4198

00

05

41

2904

00

4181

01

63

04

28

00

2905

00

08

50

4235

35

68

2909

00

00

02

27

4234

37

00

03

2910

01

45

4232

00

00

01

55

2911

20

4233

00

00

96

00

15

2912

00

01

43

4231

70

26

00

2937

00

08

13

4227

13

00

13

2934

00

58

03

4230

00

06

32

2932

06

4229

00

56

[F. No. R-25011 /24/2009 -OR - 1 ]

65

00

4228

00

07

00

11

4240

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर , 2010

(1)

ऐडेगा-78

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

(4) (5) (3)

2263

00 03 33

00

10 2264

00

2256

33

86 00

12

5145

00

14

लचड़ागढ़-81

का. आ. 93. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा ) से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियम ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप- सम्बलपुर-रायपुर- राँची पाईपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाईन बिछाए जाने के लिए , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के संबंध में श्री प्रेम चन्द वर्मा, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप - सम्बलपुर- रायपुर राँची पाईपलाइन परियोजना , ग्राउंड फ्लोर , बी-ब्लॉक , शाहदेव टावर , पी. पी. कम्पाउन्ड , राँची -834001 (झारखण्ड) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला : सिमडेगा

अंचल: कोलेबीरा

राज्य : झारखण्ड

गाँव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट सं.

वर्ग मी.

हेक्टेयर. एयर

(3)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(4)

00

02

21

2281

ऐडेगा-78

00

28

99

2280

00

00

95

2279

25

00

05

2270

66

00

04

2278

00

01

19

2272

00

07

69

2273

95

00

00

2275

05

00

13

2267

90

00

00

2274

08

00

65

2261

00

2262

26

00

00

00

44

2260

00

10

60

2259

44 5171

12

00

00

5149

02

90 5209

31 00

04

5210

00

06

33

21 5212

00

03

00

31 5214

12

90 00

01

5207

53 5208

00

00

5206

35

03

00

5204

00

30

16

15 5256

00

05

00

01

92 5255

00

5258

05

90

00

79 5257

00

5261

04

12 00

79 5259

00

01

5260

00

03

40 5266

00

02

19 5267

00

01

73

64 5268

00

08

00

10 5269

04

37 5271

00

01

33 5277

00

04

5278

00

08

12 00

04

74 5284

04

00

5282

09

73 5283

00

15

00

06

78 5338

10 00

00

5290

66

00

02

5337

5336

00

12

02

13 00

06

5333

47 5334

00

08

02

5335

00

03

05 03 4896

00

01

87 4794

00

06

4793

52 00

4790

00

09

44

00

13

4797

32

03

15

00

4788

00

01

4756

22 4757

83 00 03 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(5)

(4)

(2) (3)

(1)

06

05

179

(5) (3) (4)

(2)

02

81 1540

00

लचड़ागढ़ -81

4759

00

लचड़ागढ़-81

58

17

00

4764

10

00

05

4763

20

00

00

4760

26

65

00

1093

05

04

00

1092

00

05

48

1090

33

03

1089

00

10

00

00

1084

39

00

00

1088

00

00

92

1087

42

00

00

1085

02

05

00

1086

06

78

00

1079

01

00

02

1078

00

00

10

1132

16

03

1076

00

42

00

1075

00

00

07

11 1591

00

04

02 1648

00

15 1646

11

00

12 00

1604

00

51 00

1606

01

16 1605

00

72 00

02

1607

23 00

02

1608

52 00

00

1610

20 00

02

1600

21 00

01

1609

06

00

94 1617

10

00

1618

09

49 00

1619

06

56 1620

00

00

00

15 5221

00

10 00

5222

10

0

00

5223

19

91 901

00

कुदाबेड़ा-104

01

38

1077

00

03

54

00

1169

41

00

04

1201

26

00

1199

02

36

00

01

1198

00

45

06

1197

00

07

18

1196

63

00

02

1205

02

11

00

1195

99

00

09

1207

00

03

69

1453

10

00

00

1454

00

01

92

1460

07

1452

00

10

85

00

01

1451

00

92

14

1471

00

03

57

1479

10

96

1478

00

06

39

00

1472

00

26

00

1477

57

00

02

1476

25

00

01

1475

24

02

1474

00

53

03

1494

00

29

1495

13

00

71

00

09

1498

00

18 62

1500

05

00

34

1538

76

00

21

1537

44

06

00

891

06

20 00

890

00

08

13 966

01

87 00

965

00

05

83 962

02

22 00

985

14 00

22

986

00

51 987

00

17 00

995

13

02

36 00

996

10 00

18

800

85 00

00

1001

00

67

05

1002

94 00

01

1004

12

74 1012

00

00

00

10 1011

00

00

10 1013

00

00

1015

83

95 00

05

1016

00

11

50 1023

00

02

ΟΙ

1027

05

40 1028

00

00

11

43 1044

44

07

00

1166

06

94 00

1164

11 00

07

1169

01

11 419

00

00

05

93 418

16 61 416

00

91 00

00

415 180

(2) (3) (1)

414

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

(5)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(1)

कुम्बाकेरा-105

कुदाबेड़ा-104

413

412

352

703

सिजांग -108

357

318

314

312

702

05

670

397

बड़केतुंगा-107

409

410

411

519

कुम्बाकेरा -105

518

516

514

515

512

531

499

497

493

503

460

483

457

456

396

394

390

392

383

379

376

288

261

279

280

139

100

(4) (5) 00 06 86 52 00 00 71 00 00 34 51 00 03 78 00 07 60 40 00 10 13 353 00 00 49 41 00 06 01 00 01 66 00 13 05 354 00 16 13 00 12 03 00 04 96 683 00 07 94 317 00 22 25 685 00 23 06 00 09 55 671 00 05 00 13 33 00 19 62 00 18 72 00 14 23 00 05 47 00 01 22 00 06 01 00 03 87 407 00 00 68 393 00 15 58 00 00 89 389 00 00 19 00 00 51 00 04 10 00 01 12 391 00 03 07 513 00 05 03 00 02 73 00 03 10 385 00 03 79 00 02 10 00 04 59 517 00 00 12 00 18 91 00 03 68 00 16 67 00 09 34 258 00 03 40 511 00 02 43 00 02 28 505 00 06 15 260 00 08 57 500 00 02 00 284 00 06 13 00 00 90 00 00 10 501 00 07 88 276 00 00 37 00 01 73 277 00 03 40 498 00 02 01 278 00 07 38 00 01 68 00 12 26 496 00 00 94 00 06 52 495 00 01 83 225 00 05 97 00 00 10 229 00 01 94 502 00 00 89 228 00 07 51 00 00 42 00 05 66 00 00 27 158 00 04 20 00 03 06 154 00 03 81 461 00 03 36 156 00 17 02 462 00 07 09 155 00 00 13 00 00 84 00 04 80 00 07 16 99 00 02 38 64 00 18 02 98 00 12 82 58 00 09 62 97 00 00 59 00 06 35 93 00 00 10 57 00 02 64 94 00 03 62 56 00 07 12 95 00 01 15 55 00 00 74 90 00 07 21 54 00 00 97 15 53 00 02 02 76 00 11 181 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

(1)

a " Paradip Sambalpur - Raipur ---Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

10

78

00

00

बड़केतुंगा-107

01

18

1320

00

678

00

02

66

00

00

37

679

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

10

40

677

00

12

82

676

00

675

00

55

02

00

19

07

651

16

00

00

653

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

00

01

22

652

00

08

65

673

74

672

00

14

00

40

670

00

671

50

00

00

669

48

00

22

10

00

802

87

00

10

95

801

00

21

08

811

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the General Public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Prem Chandra Verma , Competent Authority, indian Oil Corporation Limited , Paradip Sambalpur Raipur--- Ranchi Pipe Line Project , Ground floor , B- Block , Shahdeo Tower, P. P. Compound, Ranchi - 834001 ( Jharkhand )

10

00

812

00

SCHEDULE

10

785

00

00

District : Simdega State: Jharkhand

Anchal : Kolebira

00

19

98

814

Area

10

00

00

Name ofthe Village Plot No.

813

Are 00

03

67

815

Hectare

Sq. mtr.

08

06

00

826

(2) (3)

(5)

(4)

(1)

825

00

39

07

02

21

2281

00

Aidega-78

41

00

00

824

2280

00

28

99 00

51

823

03

00

00

95

2279

816

05

79

00

05

25

2270

00

44

00

02

821

00

04

66 00

62

2278

00

820

00

19

00

01

19

09

827

2272

00

48

832

12

07

00

2273

69 00

866

01

19

00

95

2275

00

33

865

00

14

05

13

00

2267

00

847

00

54

00

90

2274

00

61

00

848

00

00

08

65

2261

850

00

10

00

26

00

2262

00

40

05

00

864

00

00

44

2260

12

00

01

851

00

10

60

2259

844

00

24

01

00

03

33

2263

00

852

00

03

10

00

00

2264

736

05

00

13

86

00

33

2256

[फा. सं. आर. - 25011/48/2010-ओ . आर. -1 ]

00

12

14

5145

Lachragarh -81

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

44

00

12

5171

New Delhi , the 30th December, 2010

00

02

90

5149

00

04

31

5209

00

06

33

5210

21

00

03

5212

S.O. 93. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation ofpetroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) ,

4894 GI/2011-8 182

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

(5)

(2)

(5)

(1)

(3) (4) 00

12

31

5214

1087

00

00 Lachragarh-81

92

Lachrangarh-81

5207

00

01

90

42

1085

00

00 00

53

5208

00

1086

05

00

02 00

03

35

5206

06

1079

00

78 00

30

5204

16

00

1078

02

01 00

5256

05

15

1132

00

00

10 00

5255

01

92

00

1076

03

16

05

5258

90

00

1075

00

00

42 5257

00

00

79

00

38

1077

01 00

04

5261

12

00

1169

03

54 00

01

79

5259

00

04

1201

41 5260

00

40

03

00

26

1199

02 00

5266

02

19

1198

01

00

36 5267

01

00

73

06

00

1197

45 00

5268

08

64

1196

00

07

18 5269 00

04

10

1205

00

02 63 5271

00

01

37

02

1195

00

11 5277

00

04

33

1207

99

00

09 5278

00

12

08

1453

00

03

69 5284

00

04

74

1454

00

00

10 00

5282

09

04

1460

00

01

92 5283

00

15 73

1452

00

10

07 00

5338

06

78

1451

00

01

85 00

5290

00

10

14

1471

00

92 00

66

5337

02

1479

00

03

57 5336

00

02

12

1478

10

00

96

06

5333

00

13

1472

00

.06

39 5334

00

08

47

1477

26

00

00 00

5335

02 03

1476

00

02

57 00

4896

05

03

1475

01

25

00

00

4794

01

87

1474

00

24

02 00

4793

06

52

1494

00

03

53 00

44

4790

00

09

1495

13

29 4797

00

13

00

32

1498

09

71

1500

00

62

18 4788

00

03

15

1538

00

05

34 4756

00

22

01

1537

00

21

76 4757

00

83

03

1540

00

02

81 00

05

4759

06

00

1591

07

11 4764

58

00

17

1648

00

04

02 4763

00

05

10

1646

00

11

15 4760

00

00

20

1604

00

00

12

65

26

00

1093

1606

00

00

51

05

04

1092 00

16

1605

00

01

05

48

1090

00

1607

00

72

02 00

1089

03

33

00

23

1608

02 00

1084

00

10

1610

00

00

00

00

1088

39 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

183

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(4)

(5)

(3)

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5) 1600

00

20

02

00 Lachragarh -81

317

25

Kudabera-104

22 1609

01

21

00

55

318

09 1617

06

00

94

00

314

33 1618

00

10

77

00

312

18

72 1619

00

09

49

409

00

47

05

06

1620

00

56

06

00

410

01 5221

00

00

15

407

00

68

00

5222

00

00

10

00

411

89

00 5223

10

0

00

Kumbakera- 105

519

00

51

00

19

91

Kudabera 104

901

00

518

00

12

06

891

00

44

513

00

05

03 00

06

890

20

10

516

00

03 966

00

08

13

514

10

00

02 965

00

01

87

00

00

12

517

962

00

05 83

515

00

03

68 985

00

02

22

09

512

00

34 00

986

22

14

511

00

43

02 987

00

00

51

505

00

15

06 995

13

17

00

00

500

02

00 00

996

36

02

00

00

90

531

00

800

18

10

88

501

00

07

00

85

1001

00

00

73

01

499

1002

05

00

67

00

01

02

498

1004

00

01

94

00

01

497

68 1012

12

00

74

00

94

496

00

10

1011

00

00

00

01

495

83 1013

00

00

10

493

00

00

10 00

1015

00

81

502

00

00

89 1016

00

05

95

00

503

00

42 00

11

1023

50

00

00

27

460

1027

00

01

02

06

483

03

00

00

05

1028

40

00

36

03

461

00

43

1044

11

00

462

07

09 1166

00

07

44

00

457

00

84 00

06

94

1164

456

00

07

16 00

07

11

1169

00

18

64

02 00

01

419

11

62

00

58

09 418

00

93

05

35

00

05 00

16

416

61

00

57

64

02 415

00

00

91

07

56

12

00

414

06

86

00

74

00

00

55

00

413

34

00

54

00

00

97 00

07

412

60

00

02

53

02

00

00

353

49

52

00

00

71 352

01

00

66

78

00

03

51

354

16

00

13

40

00

13

10 00

04

96

357

06

41

00

01 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] 184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

(5)

(4)

(5) (2) (3)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(1)

00

13

05

703

18

00

01

1320

Sijang-108

Baraketunga-107

12

702 00

03

00

678

02

66

07

94

00

683

00

00

679

37

06

00

23

685

00

10

40

677

671

00

05

05

00

82

676

12

62

00

670

19

00

55

02

675

23

00

14

397

00

07

19

651

Baraketunga-107

01

00

22

396

653

00

00

16 00

87

03

394

00

01

22

652

58

15

393

00

65

00

673

08

19

00

00

389

74

14

00

672

10

00

04

390

40

00

00

670

07

391

03

00

00

00

50

671

02

73

392

00

48

00

22

669

00

03

79

385

00

10

87

802

00

04

59

383

95

00

10

801

18

91

00

379

811

00

08 21

16

376

67

00

00

10

00

812

258

03

40

00

00

10

785

00

02

28

288

00

00

98

814

19 00

08

57

260

00

00

10

813

06

13

00

284

67

815

03

00

00

10

261

00

06

08

00

826

00

37

00

276

00

07

825

39 00

03

40

277

824

00

00

41 278

00

07

38

00

03

823

51 279

12

26

00

79

00

816

05

06

280

00

52

00

02 44

821

225

97

00

05

00

00

62

820

01

94

229

00

00

19

827

09 228

00

51

07

00

12

48

832

66

00

05

139

01

00

866

19 00

04

20

158

00

14

33

865

03

154

00

81

00

54

00

847

17

02

156

00

848

00

00

61

00

13

155

00

00

00

850

10 00

80

100

04

05

864

00

40 00

02

99

38

00

01

12

851

12

98

00

82

844

00

01

24

00

59

00

97

00

00

852

03

00

00

10

93

05

00

13

736

00

62

94

03

[F. No. R-25011 /48 /2010-OR- I ]

15

01

95

00

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

07

21

90

00

नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर, 2010 00

15

59

87

76

40

11

00

का, आ. 94, केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक 78

10

00

प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा ) से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

(1)

टाटी -7 राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप- सम्बलपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाईन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाईन बिछाए जाने के लिए, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के संबंध में श्री प्रेम चन्द वर्मा, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पारादीप - सम्बलपुर - रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाईन परियोजना , ग्राउंड फ्लोर , बी- ब्लॉक , शाहदेव टावर , पी . पी . कम्पाउन्ड , राँची-834001 (झारखण्ड ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

अंचल : कामडारा

राज्य : झारखण्ड

जिला: गुमला

गाँव का नाम

प्लॉट सं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मी.

एयर

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

02

टाटी -7

3382

00

39

3383

00

02

06

01

39

3385

00

3387

00

00

63

08

00

3388

54

00

3627

00

10

3628

44

00

35.

3653

14

39

00

3673

00

36

00

3657

00

50

3658

00

02

63

3660

04

00

32

3661

02

00

95

3665

08

00

54

3669

02

00

57

185 (2)

(5) (3) (4)

3711

00

76

01

3700

50 00

01

25 3701

00

01

3702

00

60

04

3694

00

81

00

3705

00

50

03

3590

00

01

16 3703

00

61

09

2850

00

00

10 3704

00

01

57 3707

00

00

38 3706

81 00

02

2847

00

09

82

40 2846

00

04

00

2845

09

69 2843

00

00

39 3732

00

04

20 3731

01 00

11

3735

00

00

95 3737

00

40

05

00

3738

58

02

3746

75 00

09

3760

00

05

88 3747

00

02

03

3748

00

12

05

00

90 3758

00

3759

00

43

05

3783

00

29

02

3784

00

02

12 3782

00

32

00

09 3781

00

07

00

70 3812

11

00

04 3811

10

00

17

38 3814

3810

02

00

14 3807

00

01

38 00

3806

04

28

01

3815

00

92 3805

00

05

99 00

3804

11

68 00

01

29 3823

3822

00

01

34

21 00

3803

00

1503

00

05

02

कुलबुरू-4

3668

00

15

83

3698

00

05

34

00

1489

76

15

1455

00

58

02 186

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

1454

कुलबुरू-4

1386

1383

1393

1391

1395

1396

1400

1403

1404

1401

2260

2259

2258

2249

2254 00

2255

2247

2250

2251

2245

2257

2238

2239

2227

2226

2225

2220

2221

2217

2212

2213

2214

2203

2215

2201

2195

2191

1392

1381

2619

2620

2192

2623

2650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) )

(2)

(5) (1)

(3)

2649

कुलबुरू-4

2634

2631

2630

3738

3739

3737

3733

3732

खिजरी -3

572

578

2475

585

587

2132

2152

2151

2133

2134

2135

2136

2118

2141

2128

2126

2124

2123

1651

1663

2091

1665

1666

2090

1667

1672

1668

2084

2478

1698

1697

1696

1695

(5) 00 07 17 (4) 00 13 20 1385 00 03 19 00 05 71 00 00 53 00 00 10 00 01 04 08 18 1394 00 00 26 00 02 46 00 03 72 00 25 07 00 00 10 00 00 13 00 05 28 00 00 64 00 00 88 00 04 11 00 06 70 574 00 00 45 00 01 38 575 00 00 10 00 00 57 573 00 10 80 00 02 08 00 06 48 00 65 85 571 00 07 45 00 02 87 00 00 25 00 08 64 00 03 08 2256 00 03 24 00 01 75 00 00 71 00 07 34 00 10 00 03 48 00 01 64 00 00 10 00 07 00 00 16 64 00 06 38 00 02 00 00 10 00 02 56 00 03 62 00 01 88 00 01 21 00 00 62 2244 00 02 14 00 38 08 00 00 10 00 00 17 00 10 78 00 02 39 00 41 00 03 35 00 05 35 2125 00 07 31 00 00 14 00 00 60 00 03 86 00 01 46 00 00 74 00 18 82 00 08 25 00 00 10 00 08 89 00 01 43 00 00 10 00 02 90 00 07 79 00 01 12 00 02 29 00 01 53 00 03 39 00 05 58 00 13 67 00 00 86 00 03 46 00 07 97 00 10 15 1671 00 00 10 2180 00 19 38 1669 00 06 65 00 00 80 00 01 54 00 00 10 00 00 96 00 00 42 00 05 46 00 00 10 00 01 34 00 00 33 00 07 21 00 15 95 00 00 93 00 07 18 00 08 26

1694 187 [ भाग II -खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(2) (3 ) (4)

(5)

(1)

00

1714

59

खिजरी -3

02

खिजरी-3

09

1297

00

10 00

00

1716

10

00

1304

00

77 00

1715

35

09

00

1303

08

03 00

1718

00

10

1266

15

84

00

1717

56

00

07

4883

सरिता-1

00

09

92 1824

00

00

11

4884

16

00

82 1817

00

05

93

[फा. सं. आर.- 25011/49/2010- ओ. आर. - 1 ]

04

1819

00

08

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव 00

00

13

1818

Π

New Delhi , the 30th December , 2010 1820

00

00

1815

00

01

79

00

78

1816

08

00

66

1813

03

10

1812

00

06

1871

00

64

08

S.O. 94. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh ) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) , a" Paradip Sambalpur- Raipur- Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

00

43

1872

03

00

90

1807

03

12

00

01

1805

50

1804

02

00

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

30

00

00

1803

00

04

1881

08

1882

00

00

22

00

33

05

1885

00

12

91

1886

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

00

1887

05

98

00

01

1888

05

1366

14

10

00

90

1367

03

00

1364

00

07

17

00

00

10

1365

10

00

77

1346

1359

00

00

58

00

29

1345

06

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the General Public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Prem Chandra Verma, Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Paradip Sambalpur Raipur- Ranchi Pipe Line Project, Ground floor , B -Block, Shahdeo Tower , P. P. Compound , Ranchi - 834001 (Jharkhand)

00

1344

00

03

SCHEDULE

00

00

1343

81

Anchal: Kamdara District : Gumla State : Jharkhand 1347

15

63

00

01

00

20

1335

Area

Name of the Village Plot No.

00

1334

33

02

Hectare Are Sq. mtt .

92

01

00

1336

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

06

71

00

1333

00

02

3382

39

TATI - 7

00

09

69

1332

00

02

06 00

41

3383

1331

02

10

01

50

00

39 1323 00

3385

00

27

00

00 1327

63

3387

00

36.

1325 00

03

3388

00

08

54 1324

00

08

26

00

00

10

3627

00

1282

10

27

3628

00

44

35 00

04

1302

87

00

39

14

3653

45

00

08

1301

36

3673

00

01

92

1300

00

08 188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

(1)

KULBURU -4

00

50

00

3657

TATI - 7

63

3658

00

02

00

32

04

3660

00

02

95

3661

54

00

08

3665

00

57

02

3669

83

00

15

3668

34

00

05

3698

76

01

3711

00

01

50

3700

00

00

25

01

3701

04

60

00

3702

81

00

00

3694

50

00

03

3705

16

01

00

3590

61

09

00

3703

10

00

00

2850

00

01

57

3704

38

3707

00

00

81

00

02

3706

00

09

82

2847

40

2846

00

04

69

00

09

2845

00

39

00

2843

00

20

04

3732

01

00

3731

11

95

00

3735

00

05

00

40

3737

58

00

3738

02

75

09

00

3746

88

00

05

3760

02

03

3747 00

12

00

05

3748

00

90

00

3758

05

43

3759

00

29

02

3783

00

12

3784 00 02

00

32

3782

00

09

07

00

3781

70

11

3812

00

04

00

10

3811

38

00

17

3814

00

14

02

3810

38

01

3807

00

28

3806

00

04

00

92

01

3815

99

00

05

3805

68

00

11

3804

29

01

00

3823

00

34

01

3822

00

00

3803

21

05

02

00

1503

KULBURU -4

76

15

00

1489

00

02

58

1455

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(5) (2) (3)

17 00

07

1454

03

00

19 1385

00

53 1386 00

04

01

00

1383

00

26 00

1394

03

72 1393

00

10

00

00

1391

28

05

00

1395

00

88 1396

00

06

70 1400

00

38

01

1403

00

00

00

57 1404

08

02

1401

00

65

85 2260

00

87

02

2259

00

64

08

00

2258

24 2256

03

00

71

00

00

2249

10

00

2254

00

64

01

2255

00

00 2247

07

00

06

38 2250

00

10 00

00

2251

62 2245

00 03

21 00

01

2257

14

02

00

2244

10

00

2238

00

78

10

2239 00

01

41

00

2227

35

05

2226

00

00

14 2225 00

86 2220

00

03

74

00

00

2221

00

25

08

2217

89

08

00

2212

00

10

00

2213

79

07

2214

00

00

02

29 2203

39

03

00

2215

13

00

67 2201

46.

03

00

2195

10

15

00

2191

38

19

2180

00

00

00

80 1392

10

00 00

1381

00

42

00

2619

00

00

10 2620

00

00

33 2192

95

15

00

2623

07

18

00

2650

20

13

00

2649

00

71 2634

05

00

10

00

2631

18

00

08

2630 [ भाग II- खण्ड Mii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011/पौष 18 , 1932

(1)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(5)

(1) KULBURU-4

00

3738

46

02

189

(4)

(2)

(5) (3)

1817

00

KHIJRI-3

00

3739

07

25

00

00

3737

13

00

3733

00

64

00

3732

04

11

KHIURI -3

574

00

45

00

575

00

00

10

573

00

80

10

572

00

06

48

571

00

07

45

578

00

00

25

2475

00

03

08

585

00

75

01

587

07

00

34

2132

00

48

03

2152

00

00

10

00

2151

16

64

00

2133

77

02

00

2134

02

56

00

2135

01

88

2136

00

62

00

00

2118

38

08

2141

00

00

17

2128

00

02

39

2126

35

00 03

00

2125

31

07

2124

00

00

60

2123

00

01

46

1651

00

18

82

1663

00

00

10

2091

00

01

43

1665

00

02 90

1666 00

12

01

2090 00

01

53

1667

00

05

58

1672

00

00

86

1668

00

07

97

1671

00

00

10

1669

00

06

65

2084

00

01

54

00

2478

00

9%

1698

00

05

46

1697

00

01

34

1696

00

07

21

00

1695

00

93

1694

00

08

26

00

1714

02

59

1716

00

00

10

1715

00

09

35

05

93

08

04 1819

00

1818

00

13

00

1820

00

00

1815

ΟΙ

00

79 1816

00

08

78 1813

00

03

66 1812

00

06

10 1871

08

64

00

1872

03

43

00

1807

03

00

90 1805

00

12

01

1804

00

02

50 1803

00

30 00

1881

00

08

04 1882

00

00

22 00

1885

05

33 1886

00

12

91 00

1887

98

05

1888

00

05

01

1366

14

00

10 1367

00

03

90 1364

00

07

17 1365

00

00

10 1346

00

10

77

00

00

58 1359

1345

00

06

29 00

1344

03 .00

00

1343

00

81 1347

00

15

1335

00

20

01

00

1334

02

33 1336

00

01

92 00

06

71 1333

1332

00

09 69 00

1331

41

02

00

1323

10

50 1327

00

00

27 00

1325

03

36 00

26 1324

08

00

1282

10

27 1302

00

04

87 00

1301

45

08

00

1300

92

08

00

1297

09

10 1304

00

00

1303

00

08

03

1266

00

15

84 4883

00

92

SARITA- 1

00

1718

00

10

1717

00

07

56

1824

00

00

11

4894G1 /20-9

09

4884

82 00

16

[F. No. R-25011 /49/2010-OR- I ] B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

[Part II-Séc. 3 ( i ))

नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 95.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गैसर्स रिलाएन्स इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेवपुर -हावड़ा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और, भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि, उस भूमि में, जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन 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 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोपणा करती है;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपायोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री ब्रज किशोर पंडा, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, प्रथम मंजिल, फोर्चुन टावर, चन्द्रशेखरपुर, भुवनेश्वर 751023, ओडिशा राज्य को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: ओडिशा

जिला:खोरडा

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:वेगुनीया

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

2 1

1123

1 ) बोटालामा

1136

1137

1138

1139

1140

1141

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146

1147

1154

1153

1152

1151

1150

1149

1148

1071

1072

1070

आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर एयर सिएयर

4

5

3

58

46 00

00

45 00

02

00

88 05

75 00

06

94 00

07

13 00

07

00

36 07

70 00

66 06

00

03 06

00

78 03

00

02

18 00

10 00

00

63 00

00

56 00

04

56 00

08

72 09

00

07

20 00

64

14

00

33 09

00

23 08

00

01

06 00

10

65 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

1069 1) कोटालामा (निरंतर)

1064

1065

1066

1058

1067

1057

1068

1056

1053

1054

1052

1047

880

881

1037

882

884

886

885

1265

892

891

893

899

898

895

904

920

019

918

017

016

913

675

676

1684

677

674

672

1228

673

671

547

646

528

548

527

191 3

4

5

00 10

65 00 00

54 00

10

36 00

17

23 00

00

73 00 08

43 00

03

83 12

75 00

00

04

35 00 09

09 02

00

55 00 07

26 00

27

75 00

26 06

00 06

29 00

01

51 00

07

63

36 0.0 00

00

14

96 00

04

63 00

10 00

14

06 00

02

42 00

Q5

47 00

28

53 0.0

11

24 0.0 03

51 00

05

04 00 00

10 00 00

56 00

03

04 00 08

83 00 01

80 00

53 37

00

2

74

00 01

72

00

00

10

00

01

23 00

05

39

00

01

30

07

00

63 00 09

32

00

20

00

00 06

51

620

04

85

00 16

02

840 09

98

19

75

00 192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

1

2

550

1 ) बोटालामा (निरंतर)

520

568

1247

561

567

569

1234

566

573

572

571

495

574

494

601

600

591

1225

1226

590

592

593

589

1266

588

594

587

586

627

630

629

70

2) छत्रापाडा

74

69

103

37

36

[Part II- Soc. 3 ( i )) 4

5

3

00 00 13

03

00

78 05

00

99 00

01

90 00

04

53 09

00

11

44

00

00

02

00

04 00

03

39 00

75 01

00

05

01 00

00

74

00 06

95 00 02

98 00

46 01

00

01

80 00

07

41

27 00 05

00

65 00

10 00

00

02

84 00

00

46 00

00

46 03

00

16 06

00

00

57 02

00

85 00 02

08 00 00

61

37

00

02

00

07

08

00

39 08

00

24

71

01

11

27

08

OND

88 00

39

45

00

01

56 00

04

85 00

13

23 00

00

10

122/1557

123

34

124

00

00

19

40

00

01

00 08

07

07

37

00

125/1556

2093

3) अठारंग

2104

2105

65

00

09

00

47

00

14

00

9:0 { भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

2110

3) अठारंग (निरंतर)

2111

2112

2113

2309

2119

2120

2308

2121

2126

2125

2128

2145

2146

2144

2149

2152

2166

2165

2164

2157

2156

2155

2158

2159

2160

1770

1769

1768

1743

1745

1744

1742

1741

1631

1632

1633

1736

1737

1635

193 4

5

3

00

23 00

07

93 00

00

01

94

52 00

00

02

68 00

02

39 00

75 00

01

26 00

00

00

03

61 00

78 02

10 00

08

10

85 00

18 00

05

00

14

77 00

28 02

00

72 09

00

03

42 00

06

31 00

01

71 06

85 00

00

07

16

26 00

00

01

17 01

20 00

04

00

99

74 00

05

01

16 00

32 09

00

31 00

01

06

00 00

00

01

97

70 00

01

63 02

00

05

48 00

00

57 00

53 00

06

01

74 00

00

06

41

27 00

00

16 00

03 194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

2 1

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

5

3

00

29 04

1646

3) अठारंग (निरंतर)

00

05

31

1637

1645

1638

1639

1641

02

00

63 00 01

09 00

05

74 00

11

22 00

05

01

1580

02

1579

1582

1576

1575

00

55 00

02

46 04

00

10 00 05

96 00 00

45

1564

1567

1574

1571

1568

02

00

70 00

02

85 00

05

40 00

04

64 00

00

10

1569

1570

1479

2523 00

07

08 00

25

64

75 00

06

00

1456

1454

1443

1444

1445

04

67

10 00

00

25

83 00

00

07

11 00

55 06

00

18 00

1398

00

04

1409

1412

1413

1414

2525

1406

1404

1405

46 03

00

78 06

00

71 00

10 00

00

00

10

05 03

00

10 00

00

47 00 04

09

1944

4) रामचन्द्रपुर

00

19 00

74

1942

1941

1943

1797

1799

00

00

00

19 04

00

46 00 03

91 00

03

88 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

1801

4) रामचन्द्रपुर (निरंतर)

1800

1798

1795

1805

1794

1806

1793

1807

2000

1808

1809

1811

1810

1814

1815

1817

1816

1818

1820

1834

1821

1822

1823

1833

1831

1832

1830

605

603

2038

600

604

427

428

429

430

431

433

434

195 3

4

5

00

00

58 00

01

26 02

00

61 00

04

02 00

06

71

00

01

33 00

04

21 00 02

07

00

03

99 00

61 04

05

00

20 00

11

25 00

06

50

00

20 08

00

02

75

00

04

30

00

07

87

00

01

10

00

03

19

00

07

52

00

08

43

00

03

56

00

01

66

00

01

48

00

07

81

00

06

34

00

03

77

00

04

16

00

00

59

00

00

74

00

00

95

00

02

95

00

42

31

00

01

74

00

00

59

00

00

49

00

05

48

00

05

86

00

02

89

00

06

67 196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

2 1

407

4) रामचन्द्रपुर (निरंतर)

406

405

435

383

384

382

380

2023

381

357

368

369

371

370

365

367

366

360

364

362

361

363

313

312

311

310

663

665

2008

666

667

662

309

973

5 ) कपिलेश्वरपुर

978

974

975

977

1108

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

5

3

4

00

00

51

00

04

92 00

04

15

00

03

51 00

40 05

00

06

80 00

72 08

00

00

57 00

00

72 00

13 03

00

25 00

00

45 01

00

02

32 00

04

38

55 00

00

08

32 00

12 00

01

00

00

87 02

43 00

00

04

10 00

13 01

00

00

10

01

00

10 00

03 01

00

76 05

00

03

45 00

00

92 00

01

77 00

40 16

00

80 04

00

03

84 00 07

73 00

10 00

00

00

95 00

01

83 04

64 00

04

00

28 00

01

89 03

00

34 00

05

88 [भाग II- खण्ड3(il ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जमवरी 8 , 2011/पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

1109

5) कपिलेश्वात्पुर (निरंतर )

1107

1100

1101

1097

1095

109

1091

1093

10'92

1083

1082

1038

1033

1036

1137

1035

1172

1181

1131

1175

1177

1178

1176

1378

6) बालीब्रेराजी

1377

1376

1375

1372

1373

1369

1327

1328

1329

1338

1330

1331

1332

1229

1333

4894GD

197 3

4

5

00

02

89 00

07

91 00

05

65 00

01

89 06

00

26 00

02

83 03

00

13 00

03

33 00 01

22 00 03

92 00 01

34 00

23 15

00

89 06

00 02

47

04

77

00

40 00

00 04

10

00 02

09 00

00

19

00

00

80

00

05

60

00

16

50

00 02

28 00

03

46

0.0

01

03

00 02

67

00

20 24

00

00

99

00

03

79

11

00

49

00

00

18

10

00

00

00

00

97

04

00

64

00

00

89

00

02

06

00

01

84

01

24

00

00

00

63

00

01

74 198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

2 1

1337

6) बालीबेरानी (निरंतर)

[ Part 11 -Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 4

3

5

00

50 00

69

1336

1335

1334

1348

00

00

11 00 00

90

22 00

00

00

11

84

1228

1225

1227

1226

1230

1224

1220

1232

1143

1145

00

01

01 02

00

88 00

01

84 00

17

95 00

01

25 00

61 01

00

05

84 00

10 00

66 00 18

10 00

00

1194

1196

1197

1677

1198

1172

00

02

78 02

00

39 00

10 00

00 00

18 00 09

00 03

25 00

1199

1200

1201

1202

1205

1681

1682 00 02

18 00 01

42 00 00

12 00 00

10 00

02

05 00 00

91 02

1166

1164

1167

00

86 00

10 09

01

33

1168

1171

1170

1173

1174

00

76 08

00

97 02

62 00 00

00 00

42 00 00

10

21 00 03

1169

1158

1157

02

52 00

00 05

06

1159

00

86 16 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

1105

6) बालीबेरानी (निरंतर )

641

647

646

644

645

655

662

643

625

624

571

570

569

568

567

566

572

563

360

361

362

363

364

365

358

354

1623

350

353

1671

351

348

1700

3610

7) राउतपारा

3602

3603

3604

3605

3601

199 3

4

5

00

42

89 00

52

11

00

00

67 00

00

87 00

17

22 00

13

80 00

03

69 00

07

61 00

08

65 00

00

69 00

01

09 00

00

14

00

01

30 02

00

35 00

01

35 00

00

53 00

00

50 00

03

90 00

34

16 00

84

02 00

01

13

01

00

76 00

19

39 00

05

57

00

27

29

00

66

99

00

09

69

00 09

02

01

47

80

00

04

23

00

05

31

00

01

64

00

02

20

00

13

44

00

34

36

00

04

89

00

04

85

00

02

62

00

00

37

00

08

26 200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

2 1

3599

7) राउतपारा (निरंतर)

3600

3593

3589

3584

3580

3578

3579

3575

3574

3573

3571

3569

4144

3552

3551

3550

3540

3531

3532

3533

1693

1694

1695

2042

2043

2040

2045

2046

2039

2033

2032

2034

2035

2016

2015

2014

2036

4133

2017

[Part II-Sec . 3( ii)]

5

3

4

01

81

00

00

13

47

30

00

00

00

68

23 00

34

59

11

10

00

28 00

21

02

00

17

00

89

09

00

03

48

00

37

00

00 18

52 00

01

69

77

00

01

62

00

03

00

04

64

00 06

59

00

00

10

00

16

29 02

00

35

00

11

59

00

38

84

00 02

66 32

61

00

02

00

01

00

12

43

00

03

99

00

76

17

00

04

34

00 26

78

10

11

00

01

65 00

00

18

71

00 06

96 00

04

24 00

06

42

00 02

67 00

00

10

01

33

00

02

00

25 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

2011

7 ) राउतपारा (निरंतर )

2010

2012

2013

4083

2076

2077

2079

2081

2082

2083

2080

2943

4079

2816

2815

2084

1288

1285

1284

1280

1281

1282

1045

1044

1043

1027

1047

1026

1052

1053

1055

1056

1274

1060

1061

1059

1058

965

954

3

4

5 00 92

92 00

00

12 00

04

32 00

02

42 00

18

86 00

06

43 00

36

37 00

28

57 00

00

44 00

00

45 00 00

83 00

01

64 00

01

80 00

00

76 00

00

44 00

00

55 00

12

41 00

35

78 00

01

95 00

66

13 00 18

58 00

12

09 00

01

61 00

00

40 00

11

23 00

06

58 00

14

08 00

01

48 00

18

27 00

11

66 00

04

45 00

14

53 00

08

82 00

01

82 00

02

18 00

00

55 00

17

13 00

06

52 00

35

41 00

00

10 202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

2 1

953

7) राउतपारा (निरंतर)

949

948

950

951

952

433

944

434

432

440

439

445

438

435

446

437

436

447

448

453

452

451

450

449

455

462

461

460

459

456

458

484

483

445

8) लेहंग

444

447

459

460

469

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

5

3

03

49 00

01

45 00

75 00

00

03

43 00

04

04 00

71 00 11

96 00 04

57 00

00

00

14

53 02

00

22

10 00 00

00

86 00

00

00

15 07

32 00

26 00

00

01

50 00

00 04

51 02

73 00

00 05

04 00

10 00

00

03

91 03

14 00

00 02

25 04

00

43 00

00

92

89

12

00

04

43 00

00 00

88

05

00

80

12

07 00

10 00

00

08

48 00

16

01

00

00

10 00

00

10

00

13

56 00

64

01

00

18

22 00

75 00

01

10

00

95 [ भांग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011/पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

471

8 ) लेहंग (निरंतर)

1402

472

140.1

473

1979

1378

1380

1377

1976

1375

1372

1373

479

772

768

7276

72414

758

775

77

777

7万 员

7170

71868

784

78

747

783

784

788

785

786

787

71896

711

710

709

712

203 3

4

5

00

46

33

00 00

10 00

00

83 00

01

16 00

01

81 00

05

42 00

03

51 00

07

94 00 19

44 00

10 00 89 90 00

13

80 00

03

19 00

10 00

16

61 00 00

30 000

01

44 00 03

81 00 10

35 00

10 00

66 00

05

09 00

97

04

07

00

47

00 00

31

00 07

12

00

03

30

00 03

54

00 03

87

00 06

35

00

00

56

00

01

22

00

02

45

00

2

18

00 01

45

000

64

06

00

01

73

00

02

64

00

00

10

00

01

62 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

204

2 1

713

8) लेहंग (निरंतर)

708

714

707

706

703

659

660

702

7011

663

661

662

700

67,0

668

669

671

649

648

647

646

634

635

645

636

1833

622

628

623

621

624

960

994

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

5

3

19 00 08

57 00

00

11

00

84

61 00

00

00

53 00

73 00 00

07 00

03

00

64 09

14 00 00

00

11 00

03 15

0:0

00

01

22 00 00

10 00

25 00

05

66 00

91 00

00

00

03

61

95 00 03

28 00

05

00

06

97

40 09

00

13 00 12

00

62 01

10

45 00

68 00

01

59 0.0

08

94 00 09

07

39 00

10 00

00

74 00

04

93 00 09

00

57

03

27 00 00

04

26 00

00

03

91

620

993

998

992

991

989

08

38 60

07

10 00

10 00

00

00

24

05

20 00

05 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

205

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011/पौष 18, 1932

1

2

990

8) लेहंग (निरंतर)

988

987

986

1003

1004

1010

1009

1008

1021

1022

1024

1023

1025

1084

1037

1083

1082

1085

1081

1075

1076

1074

1066

1067

595

9 ) चुटीपलंग

672

671

669

663

659

657

660

656

655

625

651

626

650

627

4894Gl /2010-11

3

4

5

00

80 06

00 03

31 00

00

93 00

57 05

00

04

11 00

13

04 00 02

81 10

00

36 00

05

08 00

07

21 00

11 03

00

72 04

00

00

91 00

20 05

00

10

83 00

03 08

00

00

96 07

00

23 00 00

22 00

00

22 04

00

48 00

10

46 00

15

99 03

00

06 00 08

89 00

00

17 00

09

52 00

10

49 00

29

02 00

12

20 00

03 11

08

32 00

00

44 00

06

00

55 00 02

71

13

00

01 00

01

93

11

00

04

00

27 10

00

11

00 206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

628 9) चुटीपलंग (निरंतर)

713

355

354

175

340

341

338

339

315

337

336

317

319

300

301

241

296

247

248

255

253

254

252

267

706

268

266

265

269

270

272

271

698 10) पनसाबस्ता

699

[Part II -Sec . 3

4

3

5 00

12

19

00

87 00

00 11

58 00

08

68

45 00

00

04

00

23 00

03

98

02

00

84 00

08

60 00 00

98 00 08

89 00 00

10

96 00

13

00

19

24 00

00

10 00 05

28 00

07

94 00

04

87 00

01

81 00 12

89 00

01

04 00

04

72 00 03

89 00 03

85 00

11

88 00

10

18 00

01

30 00

04

06 00

17

04

00 00

10 00

03

47

14 00

05

00

06

12

00

00

25 00

07

76

14

291/700

00

23 00 07

14

299/711

02

00

297/707

709

710

30 00

10

59 00

04

90 [भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011/पौष 18 , 1932

2

298/708 10 ) एनसाथस्ता (निरंतर)

233/607

230/604

229/603

220/591

219/590

181/538

207/575

206/574

182/539

183/540

198/566

197/565

184/541

186/543

135/475

134/474

131/471

132/472

133/473

125/465

126/466

130/470

185/542

207 3

4

00

08

12 00

62

11

00 00

27 00 13

32 00 00

12 00 09

66 00

00

21 00

17

96 00

44

08

00 06

55 00 00

14

00

04

49 11

00

18

00

97

10

00

21

46 00

39

01

00

24

91

00

00

10

00

07

66 00

07

65

00

10

00

00

14

91

00

10

38

00

07

80

[फा सं. एल.- 14014/68 /2010 - जी.पी.

स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st December, 2010

S. O. 95.-Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country , Kakinada Basudebpur Howrah pipeline should be laid by M/ s Relogistics infrastructure Limited;

And whereas , it appearsto 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 1. proposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri Braja Kishore Panda, Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, 1st Floor , Fortune Tower , Chandrasekharpur , Bhubaneswar 751023 , Orissa State .

208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

Schedule

District: Khorda Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Begunia

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division 1

2

1123 1 ) Botalama

1136

1137

1138

1139

1140

1141

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146

1147

1154

1153

1152

1151

1150

1149

1148

1071

1072

1070

1069

1064

1065

1066

1058

1067

1057

1068

1056

1053

1054

1052

1047

880

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )] State: Orissa

Area to be acquired for

Hec

Are

C-Are 3

4

5

00

58

46

00

00

45

02

00

88

00

05

75

06

00

94

00

07

13

00

07

36

00

07

70

00

06

66

00

06

03

00

03

78

00

02

18

00

00

10

00

00

63

00

04

56

00

08

56

00

72

09

00

07

20

14

00

64

00

09

33

00

23

08

00

01

06

00

65

10

00

10

65

00

00

54

00

10

36

00

17

23

00

00

73

00

08

43

00

03

83

00

12

75

04

00

35

00

09

09

00

02

55

00

07

26

00

27

75

00

06

26 [ भाग II --- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

1

2 1 ) Botalama ( Conid)

881

1037

882

884

886

885

1265

892

891

893

899

898

895

904

920

919

918

917

916

913

675

676

684

677

674

672

1228

673

671

547

546

528

548

527

550

520

568

1247

561

567

209 4

3

5

00

06

29

00

01

51

00

07

63

00

00

36

00

14

96

00

04

63

00

00

10

00

14

06

00

42

02

00

05

47

00

28

53

00

11

24

00

03

51

00

05

04

00

00

10

00

00

56

00

03

04

00

83

08

00

01

80

00

37

53

00

02

74

00

01

72

00

0

10

01

00

23

00

05

39

00

01

30

00

07

63

00

09

32

00

00

20

00

06

51

00

04

85

00

16

02

00

09

98

00

19

75

00

13

00

00

03

78

00

05

99

00

01

90

00

04

53

00

09

11 210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

2 1

569

1 ) Botalarna ( Contd)

1234

566

573

572

571

495

574

494

601

600

591

1225

1226

590

592

593

589

1266

588

594

587

586

627

630

629

70

2) Chhatrapada

71

69

103

37

36

122/1557

123

34

124

125/1556

2093 3) Atharang

2104

2105

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

4

5

00

44

00

02

00

04

00

03

39

00

75

01

00

01

05

74

00

00

06

00

95

00

02

98

00

01

46

01

00

80

41

00

07

00

05

27

00

65

00

00

10

00

84

00

02

00

00

46

03

00

46

00

06

16

00

00

57

00

02

35

02

08

00

61

00

00

00

37

02

00

08

07

39

00

03

71

00

24

27

01

11

88

00

08

39

45

00

01

56

85

04

00

23

00

13

00

10

00

00

19

00

00

01

40

07

00

08

00

07

37

00

65

00

00

00

47

00

14

90 [ भाग il- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

1

2 3 ) Atharang ( Contd )

2110

2111

2112

2113

2309

2119

2120

2308

2121

2126

2125

2128

2145

2146

2144

2149

2152

2166

2165

2164

2157

2156

2155

2158

2159

2160

1770

1769

1768

1743

1745

1744

1742

1741

1631

1632

1633

1736

1737

1635

211 4

3

5

00

00

23

00

07

93

00

01

94

00

00

52

02

00

68

00

02

39

00

01

75

00

00

26

00

03

61

00

02

78

00

08

10

00

10

85

00

05

18

14

00

77

00

02

28

00

09

72

00

03

42

00

06

31

00

01

71

00

06

85

00

07

16

00

00

26

00

01

17

00

20

01

00

99

04

00

05

74

00

01

16

00

09

32

00

01

31

00

06

00

00

01

97

00

01

70

00

02

63

00

05

48

00

00

57

00

06

53

00

01

74

00

06

41

00

00

27

00

03

16 212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

2

1

1646 3) Atharang ( Contd)

1637

1645

1638

1639

1641

1580

1579

1582

1576

1575

1564

1567

1574

1571

1568

1569

1570

1479

2523

1456

1454

1443

1444

1445

1398

1409

1412

1413

1414.

2525

1406

1404

1405

1944 4) Ramachandrapur

1942

1941

1943

1797

1799

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ]

5

3

4

29

00

04

05

00

31

00

02

63

00

01

09

74

00

05

22

11

00

01

05

00

00

02

55

46

00

02

00

04

10

00

05

96

00

00

45

02

70

00

02

00

85

00

05

40

00

04

64

00

00

10

08

00

07

25

64

90

00

75

06

67

00

04

00

10

00

25

00

83

00

07

11

06

00

55

00

00

18

00

04

46

00

03

78

06

71

00

00

00

10

00

00

10

00

03

05

00

00

10

00

04

47

00

09

19

74

00

00

19

00

00

46

00

04

00

03

91

00

03

88 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2 4) Ramachandrapur (Contd)

1801

1800

1798

1795

1805

1794

1806

1793

1807

2000

1808

1809

1811

1810

1814

1815

1817

1816

1818

1820

1834

1821

1822

1823

1833

1831

1832

1830

609

603

2038

600

604

427

428

429

430

431

433

434

4894G201-12

223 3

4

5

00

00

58

00

01

26

00

02

61

00

02

04

00

06

71

00

01

33

00

04

21

00

02

07

00

03

واو

00

04

61

05

20

00

25

00

11

00

06

06

08

20

00

00

02

75

04

30

00

87

07

00

10

아

03

00

19

00

07

52

00

08

43

56

03

00

00

66

01

00

48

01

07

00

81

34

00

06

00

03

77

16

00

04

00

00

59

74

00 00

00

00

95

00

02

42

00

31

74

00

00

19

00

00

00

49

48

05

00

00

05

80

02

89

00

06

67

00 214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

2 1

407

4) Ramachandrapur (Contd)

406

405

435

383

384

382

380

2023

381

357

368

369

371

370

365

367

366

360

364

362

361

363

313

312

311

310

663

665

2008

666

667

662

309

973

5) Kapileswarpur

978

974

975

977

1108

[Part II Sec . 3 (ii) ] 4

5

3

00

51

00

00

04

92

04

15

00

03

00

51

05

00

40

06

80

00

08

72

00

00

00

00

00

72

03

00

13

25

00

00

00

45

01

00

02

32

04

00

38

55

00

00

32

00

08

12

00

01

87

00

00

00

02

43

00

04

10

01

13

00

10

00

00

00

01

10

03

00

01

76

00

05

45

00

03

00

92

00

77

01

00

16

40

00

80

00

04

84

00

03

07

73

00

00

00

10

95

00

00

83

01

00

00

04

64

00

04

28

01

89

00

00

03

34

88

05

00 [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

1109 5) Kapleswarpur ( Contd )

1107

1100

1101

1097

1095

109

1091

1093

1092

1083

1082

1038

1033

1036

1137

1035

1172

1181

1131

1175

1177

1178

1176

1378

6) Baliberani

1377

1376

1375

1372

1373

1369

1327

1328

1329

1338

1330

1331

1332

1229

1333

215 4

3

5

00

02

89

00

07

91

00

65

05

00

01

89

00

26

06

00

83

02

00

03

13

00

03

33

00

01

22

00

03

92

00

34

01

00

23

15

00

06

89

00

02

47

00

04

77

00

00

40

00

04

10

00

02

09

00

00

19

00

80

00

00

05

60

00

50

16

00

28

02

00

03

46

00

01

03

00

67

02

00

20

24

00

00

99

00

79

03

00

11

49

00

18

00

00

00

10

00

00

97

00

64

04

00

00

89

00

06

02

00

84

01

24

00

01

00

00

63

00

01

74 216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

2

1

1337 6) Bafiberani (Comd)

1336

1335

1334

1348

1228

1225

1227

1226

1230

1224

1220

1232

1143

1145

1194

1196

1197

1677

1198

1172

1199

1200

1201

1202

1205

1681

1682

1166

1164

1167

1168

1171

1170

1173

1174

1169

1158

$157

1159

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

4

5

00

00

50

00

69

00

00

00

11

00

90

00

00

00

22

00

11

84

00

01

01

00

02

88

00

01

84

17

95

00

00

01

25

00

01

61

84

100

05

00

00

10

00

18

66

00

00

10

00

78

02

00

02

39

00

00

10

100

00

18

00

09

00

00

03

25

00

02

18

00

42

01

00

00

12

00

00

00

02

05

00

00

91

86

00

02

00

00

10

33

00

01

00

00

76

02

00

97

00

01

62

00

00

42

00

00

10

00

03

21

00

02

52

00

05

06

16

00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2 6) Baliberani (Contd)

1105

641

647

646

644

645

655

662

643

625

624

571

570

$69

568

567

566

572

563

360

361

362

363

364

365

358

354

1623

350

353

1671

351

348

1700

3610

7) Rautpara

3602

3603

3604

3605

3601

217 4

5

00

42

89

00

11

52

00

00

67

00

00

87

00

17

22

00

13

80

00

03

69

00

07

61

00

65

08

00

00

69

00

01

09

00

14

00

00

01

30

00

02

35

00

01

35

00

53

00

00

00

50

00

03

90

00

34

16

00

84

02

00

01

13

00

01

76

00

19

39

00

05

57

00

29

27

00

66

99

00

09

69

00

09

02

01

47

80

04

00

23

00

31

00

01

64

00

02

20

00

13

44

00

36

34

00

04

89

00

04

85

00

62

02

00

00

37

00

08

26 218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

2 1

3599 7) Rautpara (Contd)

3600

3593

3589

3584

3580

3578

3579

3575

3574

3573

3571

3569

4144

3552

3551

3550

3540

3531

3532

3533

1693

1694

1695

2042

2043

2040

2045

2046

2039

2033

2032

2034

2035

2016

2015

2014

2036

4133

2017

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

5

4

81

00

01

00

47

13

00

00

30

00

23

68

59

00

34

10

00

11

21

28

00

00

02

17

00

09

89

00

03

48

00

00

37

00

18

52

00

01

69

77

00

01

62

00

03

00

04

64

06

59

00

00

10

00

00

16

29

02

35

00

59

00

11

84

00

38

02

66

00

00

61

32

00

02

01

00

12

43

00

03

99

00

17

76

00

04

34

00

26

78

00

10

11

65

00

01

00

18

71

96

00

06

00

04

24

06

00

42

67

00

02

00

10

00

00

01

33

25

00

02 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत की राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2 7) Rautpara ( Contd)

2011

2010

2012

2013

4083

2076

2077

2079

2081

2082

2083

2080

2943

4079

2816

2815

2084

1288

1285

1284

1280

1281

1282

1045

1044

1043

1027

1047

1026

1052

1053

1055

1056

1274

1060

1061

1059

1058

965

954

219 4

3

5

00

92

92

00

00

12

00

04

32

00

02

42

00

18

86

00

06

43

00

36

37

00

28

57

00

00

44

00

00

45

00

00

83

00

01

64

00

01

80

00

00

76

00

00

44

00

00

55

00

12

41

00

35

78

00

01

95

00

66

13

00

18

58

00

12

09

00

01

61

00

00

40

00

23

11

00

06

58

00

14

08

00

01

48

00

18

27

00

11

66

04

00

45

00

14

53

00

08

82

00

01

82

02

00

18

00

00

55

00

17

13

00

06

52

00

35

41

00

00

10 220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

2

953

7) Rautpara ( Contd)

949

948

950

951

952

433

944

434

432

440

439

445

438

435

446

437

436

447

448

453

452

451

450

449

455

462

461

460

459

456

498

484

483

445 8) Lehangh

444

447

459

460

469

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

5

3

03

49

00

01

45

00

75

00

00

03

43

00

04

00

04

71

11

00

96

00

04

00

57

00

00

14

53

22

02

00

00

10

00

00

86

00

00

00

15

07

00

32

00

00

26

50

01

00

51

04

00

00

73

02

04

00

05

10

00

00

91

03

00

14

00

03

25

00

02

43

00

04

00

92

00

00

12

89

43

00

04

88

00

00

05

00

80

07

12

00

00

10

00

48

00

08

00

01

16

10

00

00

00

00

10

00

13

56

00

01

64

00

18

22

75

00

01

95

10

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का सजपत्र : जमवरी 8 , 2011 मैष 18 , 1932

1

2 8) Lehangh (Contd)

471

1402

472

1401

473

1379

1378

1380

1377

1376

1375

1372

1373

479

772

769

770

771

758

774

775

776

777

778

779

780

781

782

717

783

784

788

785

786

787

789

711

710

709

712

4894GI/2010-13

221 3

4

5

46

00

33

00

10

00

00

00

83

01

00

16

01

00

81

00

05

42

00

51

03

94

00

07

00

44

19

00

10

00

00

09

90

13

00

80

00

03

19

00

00

10

00

16

61

00

00

30

44

01

00

00

03

81

00

10

35

00

00

10

00

00

66

00

09

05

00

97

04

00

07

47

00

00

31

00

07

12

00

30

03

00

54

03

00

87

03

35

06

00

00

00

56

00

22

01

02

00

45

00

02

18

00

01

45

00

04

06

00

01

73

00

02

64

00

00

10

00

62

01 222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

2 1

713

8) 1.enangh ( Contd )

708

714

707

706

703

659

660

702

701

663

661

662

700

670

668

669

671

649

648

647

646

634

635

645

636

1833

622

628

623

621

624

960

994

620

993

996

992

991

989

[ Part 11-Sec. ( i ) 4

3

5

19

00

08

00

00

57

84

00

11

00

00

61

53

00

00

00

73

00

07

00

03

00

09

64

00

00

14

11

00

00

00

03

15

00

01

22

00

00

10

00

25

00

00

05

66

00

00

91

03

00

61

00

03

95

05

00

28

97

00

06

00

40

09

12

00

13

62

01

00

10

00

45

68

01

00

59

08

00

09

00

94

07

39

00

00

10

00

00

04

74

09

00

93

03

57

00

27

00

00

04

00

26

03

00

91

00

08

38

07

00

10

00

00

10

00

05

24

00

05

20 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

I

2 8 ) Lehangh ( Contd)

990

988

987

986

1003

1004

1010

1009

1008

1021

1022

1024

1023

1025

1084

1037

1083

1082

1085

1081

1075

1076

1074

1066

1067

595

Chutapalang

672

671

669

663

659

657

660

656

655

625

651

626

650

627

223 3

4

5

00

06

80

00

03

31

00

00

93

00

05

57

04

00

00

13

04

00

02

81

10

00

36

00

GS

08

00

07

21

00

03

11

00

04

72

00

00

91

00

05

20

00

10

83

00

08

03

00

00

96

00

07

23

00

00

22

00

00

22

00

04

48

00

10

46

00

15

99

00

03

06

00

08

89

00

00

17

00

09

52

00

10

49

00

29

02

00

12

20

00

11

03

00

08

32

00

44

00

00

55

06

00

02

71

00

13

01

00

01

93

00

04

00

10

27

00

00

11 224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

2

1

628 9) Chutipakang (Contd)

713

355

354

175

340

341

338

339

315

337

336

317

319

300

301

241

296

247

248

255

253

254

252

267

706

268

266

265

269

270

272

271

698 10) Panasabasta

699

[Part 11-Sec. 3 ( ii ) )

5

4

3

12

19

00

00

87

00

11

58

00

08

68

00

00

45

00

04

23

00

03

00

98

84

00

02

08

00

60

00

00

98

00

08

89

00

00

10

00

13

96

24

19

00

00

00

10

00

05

28

94

00

07

00

87

04

00

01

81

12

00

89

00

01

04

00

04

72

00

03

89

00

03

85

00

11

88

00

10

18

00

30

01

00

06

04

00

04

17

00

00

10

00

03

47

00

05

14

00

06

12

00

00

25

76

00

07

14

00

23

291/700

299/711

297/707

709

710 00

07

14

00

02

30

00

10

59

04

00

90 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2 10) Panasabasta ( Contd)

298/708

233/607

230/604

229/603

220/591

219/590

181/538

207/575

206/574

182/539

183/540

198/566

197/565

184/541

186/543

135/475

134/474

131/471

132/472

133/473

125/465

126/466

130/470

185/542

26 4

5

3

00

12

08

00

62

11

00

00

27

00

13

32

00

00

12

00

66

09

00

00

21

00

17

96

00

08

44

00

06

55

00

00

14

00

04

49

00

11

18

00

97

10

00

21

46

00

01

39

00

24

91

00

00

10

00

07

66

00

07

65

00

00

10

00

14

91

00

3

10

00

07

80

[F. No. L-14014/ 68 /2010-GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 21 दिसम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 96. भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएन्स इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा - वासुदेवपुर - हावड़ा 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, 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 कीं उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलव्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपायोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री व्रज किशोर पंडा, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, प्रथम मंजिल , फोर्चुन टावर , चन्द्रशेखरपुर, भुवनेश्वर - 751023 , ओडिशा राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

226

अनुसूची

[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

जिला:खोग्डा

मंडल / तेहसिल/ तालुक: वेगुनीया

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

2 1

गज्य: ओडिशा

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

एयर सि एयर हेक्टेयर

3

4

5

00

00

82

1789

1) अट्री

56 00

10

1788

00

26

50

1761

00

2032

02

86 00

04

05

1760

66 00 05

1762

00

14 02

1758

00

08

37

1763

12

73 00

1764

28

04

00

1754

00

01

81

1752

1753

14 00

03

00 06

08

1746

07

56 00

1732

00

78

05

1733

37 00 06

1727

00

59

05

1726

00

32

07

1719

00

12

08

2119

00

1217

947

944

943

934

951

928

927

926

925

921

955

956

957

962

961

960

11

94 00

95

00

00

24

05

76

03

00

31 00 02

03 00

11

00

11

44

01

26 00

47 00

00

00

17

74 00 04

24 00

34

09

00

15

01

00

93

02

64 00 08

01

12 00

84 00

04

16 00 06

2118

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

968

1 ) अटी (निरंतर )

971

970

979

2087

982

987

988

1631

1630

1633

1632

2078

1624

1625

1623

1622

1619

1588

1587

1568

1569

1571

1572

1550

1547

1548

1546

2057

1539

1540

1514

1485

1515

1513

1512

1511

1510

1065

1509

1506

1446

227 3

4

5

05

00

15 02

00

60 03

14 00

00

55 09

05

36 00

00

04

22 00

04

31 00

10

28 01

00

96

33 00

00

00 04

84 02

72 00

00

01

41 00

04

36 01

00 00

00 07

54 00

10

39 03

00

08 03

45 00

00

14

06

90 00

00

00 00

14

10

33 00

58 00 09

65 00

13

66 00 09

00

25 00

00

02

99 00 12

91 00 09

65 00 01

94 00 10

38 00 04

07 00 00

82 00 03

00 09 30 00 03

76 00 04

17 00 02

73 00

00

10 00

14

91 00

27

75 228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8, 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

2 1

[Part If-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

5

4

3

00

65 02

1450

1 ) अटी (निरंतर)

08

00

94

1449

1443

1448

1447

2132

03

10 00

30 00 04

00

01

42 00

91 09

00

06

03

1445

1431

72 00

03

00 22

96

1432

06

00

81

1385

07

00

50

1383

1384

1433

1382

76 00 01

10 00 00

13

55 00

14

00

55

2971

2) क्यापरी

04 00 03

2899

252

3 ) लोकनाथपुर

66 00 04

23 00 02

1391

334

390

332

331

329

321

320

319

318

322

342

316

317

310

315

314

313

511

512

526

525

527

523

529

07

86 00

00 00

10

16 00 06

03 08

00

00

71 08

00

11 08

02

00

14

78 00 03

04

00

99 05

49 00

00

01

03

66 00 08

27 00

03

10 00

00

58 00

01

05

56 00

00 01

66 00

01

08 00

34 02

79 00 05

02

52 00

02

38 00

00

14

89 00

01

02 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

2

I

530

3) लोकनाथपुर (निरंतर)

1321

545

1322

546

544

235

235/1446

233

234

232

229

224

225

227

223

220

219

209

208

207

206

181

179

166

176

172

170

171

169

168

167

583

180

543

4) सरूआ

544

547

546

548

549

571

570

4894Gl /201-14

229 3

4

5

00

05

74 02

10 00

00

04

69

30 00

00

11

45 00

51

00

51 00 01

83

31 05

00

00

01

56 04

67 00

00

03

89 00 05

18 00

01

36

31 00 06

00

03

15 02

00

25 00 02

62 00

26 00

73 00

23

00

47 16

59 00

00

00

11 06

00

73 09

00

11 15

00

01

74 00 00

10 00

32 13

00

03

09 02

00

82 05

00

91

07 00

03

03

00

37

69 00

03

00

00

10

00

02

81

00

07

70 00

09

15

62 00

00

02

01

00

10

50 00

00

00

14

00

01

28 230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

2 1

568

4) सरूआ (निरंतर)

567

555

566

562

563

560

559

583

584

587

585

2142

586

2103

418

419

416

424

426

425

427

428

429

274

272

276

273

271

270

268

267

278

266

259

257

258

208

209

244

223

232

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

5

3

00 03

48

61 04

00

00

00

92

13 00

06

02

23 00

00

00

70 00 12

39

10 00 08

32 00

02

13

70 00

00 00

18

11 00 01

02

68 00

00 03

56

91 01

00

00

80 08

00

75 06

07

00

44

14 00 00

10 00

01

00

00

34 00 01

11

47 00 00

07

00

98

03 00 02

00 05

77

28 00

00

67 00

01

03

00

92

22 00

01

03

20 00

01

04 00

02

00

85 00

01

90 26

27 00

00

49 01

00

07

40 00

17 01

00

03

19 00

19

11

15 00

11

08

25 00 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1

2

226

4) सरूआ (निरंतर )

229

228

106

105

2060

104

107/2168

21

109

108

110

111

97

117

98/2020

98

613/2101

33

34

32

35

36

31

30

29

27

28

24

23

7

5 ) कथखुंटीया

8

6

1

2

5

13

537

6) पटनीबार

543

538

539

542

231 3

4

5

24 00 20

00 04

38 14

93 00

00

25

83 01

00

37 00 02

40 01

01 00

04

00

26 07

00

96

51 00 04

06

21 00

00 00

10 00 10

35 00

28

32 00

00

18 00

00

10 00 00

70 00

00

55

42 05

00

00

05

62

13 00

05

57 00 06

02

00

24 00

04

03 00

00

56 00 02

82

60 00

01

00

02

56 00

00

10 00

10 00

00

11

20

27 00

11

00

66 10

00

72 09

00

71

04

00

01

74

53 00

00

03

00

94

72 00 02

77 00

07

46 00

11

00

95 00 232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

1

2

540

6) पटनीबार (निरंतर)

535

534

533

752

541

526

511

510

509

508

491

507

506

505

504

501

500

493

499

502

503

483

494

498

495

469

470

471

468

465

747

464

453

451

435

452

449

450

446

441

439

[ Part II Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] 3

4

5

00

03

34 00 02

38 00

01

05 00 06

19 00

12

27 00

00

40 00

10

09 00

09

81 00 01

02 00

01

02 00

01

06 00

03

90 00 02

64 00 02

13 00 02

18 00

02

38 00

03

17 00

01

96 00

02

56 00 02

87 00

00

14 00

00

10 00

09

58 00

02

98 00

01

12 00

01

84 00

05

22 00

16

82 00

11

15

00

03

72 00 00

27 00

07

56

00

16

05

00

08

11

00 04

97

00

00

10

00

04

22

00 04

42

00

10

51

00

00

10

00 46

86

00 00

10 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

259

6 ) पटनीबार (निरंतर )

379

378

351

353

367

355

366

368

369

370

365

372

373

375

374

122

123

126

127

128

121

129

130

140

139

135

131

132

134

133

136

138

137

160

98

102

101

105

106

87

86

233 4

5

3

09

00

97 03

04 00

35 00 18

00

10 00

93 05

00

83 00 10

10 00

00

02

00 00

00

03

59

33 00

03

00.

33 13

10 00

00

00

39 00

25 07

00

29 00

21

20 00

00

34 00

04

90 05

00

13 00 00

12 02

00

60 04

00

30 00

00

91 00

01

09 02

00

39 05

00

90 03

00

04 13

00

01

13 00

93 01

00

71 03

00

10 00

00

78 00 00

10 00 00

20 00

00

15 20

00

05

69 00

54 00 00

03

50 00

41 00

04

06 00 05

13 10

00

12 03

00 234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

1

2

84

6) पटनीवार (निरंतर)

83

82

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

4

5

00

03

44

00 09

86 00

14

68

जिला:खोग्डा

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:खोरडा

2071

1 ) कुंभीलो

2073

2074

2076

गज्य:ओडिशा

00

03

73

00

66

04

00

03

80 00 02

09 00

03

58

560/2068

00

15

26

561/2069

2070

21

00

14

00

07

54

554/2059

00

10

552/2057

69

553/2058

2015

00 08

93

23

19 00

00

05

29

610/2166

2167

2023

2022

2025

2026

2021

2020

2016

2018

2017

2027

2028 00 02

47 00 00

48 00 02

03

01

00

22 00

01

43 00

06

81 00

75

03

00

13

23 00 01

99 00 06

21 00 00

10

00

00

10

00

22/860

02

57 00

20/858

10

56 00

11

80

23/861

00

28/867

14

17

27/866

00

23

09 00

10

43

31/874

14

13/839

00

13 00

34/877

06

98

17

00

11/837

86 00 00

24

10/836

3/828

829

1/825

817

815

00

11

84 00

05

81 00

66

10

00

24

47 00

17

96 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

820

1 ) कुंभीलो (निरंतर )

821

1158

1157

1156

1155

1154

1171

1188

1187

1196

1195

1197

1186

1202

1185

1177

1184

1203

1182

1183

1204

1181

1180

1205

1206

440

441

442

439

438

417

2019

30/870

265

2) बसंता

296

287

284

286

288

294

293

235 4

5

3

02

35 00

36 10

00

10 00

00

66 02

00

59 03

00

82 14

00

25 10

00

61 00

17

70 00

00

09 12

00

38 06

00

45 00

00

43 01

00

89 05

00

10 00

00

18 02

00

40 00

00

01 00 02

46 00

00

20 00 01

68 03

00

01

39 00

71 02

00

60 01

00

20 01

00

82 00

00

02

54 00

52 00

00

52 00

00

75 00 02

00

90 00

48 00

04

96

03

00

53

10

00

66

01

00

33

13

00

97

13

00

17

01

00

65

13

00

05

30

00

27

00

00

95

05

00 236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

2

292

2) बसंता (निरंतर)

289

291

306

308

307

310

311

312

314

313

1047

317

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

4

5

04

00

89

82 00

00

00

07

86 12

00

65 01

95 00

04

13 00

00

00

73 00

72 16

00

01

89

13 00

01

00

02

29 01

77 00

76 00

06

00

00

96

1043

318

1042

64 00 00

56

23 00

01

45 00

1022/2107

1022

1021

1023

2110

01 00 02

04

78 00

00

10 00

00

00

10 05

62 00

1020/2111

1020

1018

1007

00

00

29 00

05

30 03

00

24

67 03

00

1006

00 09

74

351/1008

21 00

03

350/1005

00

02

56

351/1009

00

10 00

341/995

996

04

33 00

10

27 00

343/998

25 07

00

342/997

00 06

15

337/991

989

10 00 00

63 00

04

336/990

332/981 05

00

55 00 11

330/979

00

88

10

317/966

44

318/967

04 00

10

316/964

965

17 00 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2

313/960 2) बसंता (निरंतर )

953

952

302/947

939

301/912

942

298/941

927

288/926

287/923

5/429

286/922

430

7/432

15/444

445

16/446

447

842

17/449

71/546

72/547

843/2096

70/545

75/557

551

79/556

80/557

78/555

77/554

85/563

84/562

86/566

89/569

90/570

91/571

247/816

246/815

99/587

100/588

101/589 4894GI /2011-15

237 4

3

5

00

52 05

00 03

79

73 00 03

00

37 05

00

00

10 00

07

90 00 01

98 04

00

09 00

34 03

00

03

17 07

00

33 03

00

89 00 00

10

10 00 05

00

09

74 00 06

17 00

04

36 00

03

08 00

00

85 21

00

85 01

00

78 07

56 00

00

46 02

00

53

09

00 02

45 07

00

05 00

01

38 03

90 00

00

01

78 00

01

35 00

00

59 00

00

10

00

11

57

00

07

09 00 02

64

00

08

14

00

03

45

00

00

35

00

01

92

00

03

36

77

00

04

63

00

09 238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

2

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

4

5

01

87 00

245/814

2) बसंता (निरंतर)

00

37

183/727

813

12

00

00

64 02

00

43

243/811

10

29 00

185/731

00

08

89

186/732

06

00

195/742

23 01

91 00

194/740

743

00

11

04 00

03

193/739

01 00

10

48

224/787

00

01

76

228/292

00

15

40

226/790

789

00

47 05

00 00

221/783

39 00 01

00

220/782

781

00

00

10

217/778

00

28

78 00

43

211/769

03

00

01

62

210/768

767

818

3 ) ब्रहम्णाबेरेनी

819

820

821

825

822

827

826

837

835

832

836

881

880

879

841

847

848

849

846

852

07

00

75 00 07

09

06 00

05

00

54 04

00 06

69 03

00

60 00 00

78 00 01

49 00 02

30 00

00

45 03

00

70 00 11

84 00 02

41

00

02

62 05

87 00

00

04

18

00

00

24 00

03

43

00

09

73 00 06

46 02

00

70 00

87 13 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2

857

3 ) ब्रहम्णाबेरेनी (निरंतर )

856

855

854

711

932

707

710

709

339

340

341

342

346

347

350

349

336

335

375

334

33.2

333

331

330

321

322

323

329

390/1496

328

390/1495

305

4) हतासाही

307/966

304

303

302

310

311

313

299

299/976

239 4

5

3

32 05

00

04

57 00

02

00

48

21 12

00

46 02

00

20 01

00

91 00 06

01

00 00

04

89 00

61 00

00

06

88 00

94 00 06

00

10 00

15

45 00

03

85 00

03

06 00

56 00 08

73 00

07

01

04 00

43 10

00

00

00

96

31 00 09

06

00

33

27 00 09

23

18 00

92 00

00

00

01

15 00

04

84 00

17 19

94 00

00

00 00

43

72 02

00

01 00 08

20 00

00

50 00 12

00

38 06

05

00

54

13 00

03

79 00

24

01

08 00

00

00

11

00 01

00 240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

1

2

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

5

3

00

00

83

299/975

4) हतासाही (निरंतर )

00

00

28

298/974

312

405

406

407

424

408

423

421

416

417

418

412

505

502

501

500

494

490

495

488

487

486

481

480

482

483

3087

5) कुआपुत

3088

3089

3092

3093

3094

3095

3099

3098

3100

3102

3103

3104

3105

00

12

03

02

00

32

00

20

08

05

00

21

00

17

00

00

10

23

00

11

45

00

03

75

00

01

18

02

00

46

00 00

31

00

02

76

00 08

79

60

00

11

00

08

87

00

71

03

00

05

88

00

10

00

00

04

31

00

00

34

00

13

00

00

00

22

00

03

22

00

50

04

00

16

89

00

06

92

00

17

69

00

22

03

00

01

41

00

01

13

00 03

22

00

04

36

00

57

00

00

07

03

00

00

10

00

90

07

00

67

08

61

00

01

00

03

68

00

02

50 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

3116

5) कुआपुत (निरंतर)

3117

3118

3119

3160

3161

3172

3286

3162

3163

3287

3165

3164

3166

3171

3180

3231

3230

3232

3229

3226

3233

3234

3225

3235

3236

1724

1723

1721

1725

1726

1720

1767

1795

1796

1803

1804

1805

1806

1688

1888

1886

241

5

4

3

64 11

00

49 01

00

09 04

00

10 00 00

46 00 09

68 00

05

95 00

00

34 00 11

78 00 00

00

82 00

00

27 00

79 06

00

63 01

00

49 02

00

83 14

00

20 01

00

18 00

09

51 00

00

64 08

00

00

21 00

72 01

00

83 05

00

01

90 00

70 00

00

04

24 00

41 00 09

74 09

00

74 00 01

04

93 00

02

86 00

14 00

00

05

56 00

92

01

00

10 00

00

00

14

00

73 00

14

51 00

11

28 00

11

66

07

00

94

04

00

02

88 00

21

08

00 242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011/ PAUSA 18 , 1932

2

1687

5) कुआपुत (निरंतर)

1683

1684

1682

1327

1328

1322

1326

1323

1334

1325

1324

1319

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

5

3

00

00

10 00 02

77 00

92 06

00

28 16

00

70 00

10 00

00

00

28 04

00

03

51 00

67 00

00

66 00

00

04

51 00

05

13 00

00

51 00

35

1318

1317

1237

1238

1263

1240

1239

1241

1242

1227

1243

1226

1154

05

00

00

10 00

01

74 00

13

08 00

00

14 00

01

30 00

27 04

00

04

70 00

03

86 00

06

77 00

07

37 00

04

55 00

07

83

1244

1155

1153

1156

1152

1151

1083

1108

1109

1088

1089

1090

1107

1106

1110

1105

00

00

31 00

00

22 00

10

21 00

01

31 00

08

77 00

41 09

00 01

98 00

03

52 00

00

10 00

01

14 00

00

73

36 00

00

00

01

90 00

03

13 00 00

85 03

00

53 243 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4 1

2

3

5

01

00

95

1091

कुआपुत (निरंतर)

5)

1104

00

10

04

02

1103

00

05

1098

35

00

07

1102

00

06

00

1101

02

00

83

27

1100

00 02

1099

00 00

58

[फा सं. एल. - 14014/69/2010- जी.पी. ]

स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st December , 2010

S. O. 96.- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country , Kakinada - Basudebpur - Howrah pipeline should be laid by M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited ;

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

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty -one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri Braja Kishore Panda, Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , 1st Floor , Fortune Tower , Chandrasekharpur , Bhubaneswar 751023 , Orissa State .

244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

Schedule

District: Khorda Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk:Begunia

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division

1

2

1789 1) Atri

1788

1761

2032

1760

1762

1758

1763

1764

1754

1752

1753

1746

1732

1733

1727

1726

1719

2119

1217

947

944

943

934

951

928

927

926

925

921

955

956

957

962

961

960

2118

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] State: Orissa

Area to be acquired for

Hec

C-Are 3

Are 4

5

00

00

82

00

10

56

00

26

50

00

02

86

04

05

00

05

00

66

02

00

14

00

08

37

00

12

73

00

04

28

00

01

81

00

03

14

00

06

08

07

00

56

05

00

78

06

00

37

00

05

59

07

00

32

00

12

08

11

00

94

00

00

95

05

00

24

00

03

76

00

02

31

00

03

11

00

11

44

00

01

26

00

00

47

17

74

00

00

04

24

00

09

34

00

01

15

00

02

93

00

08

64

00

01

12

00

04

84

00

06

16 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

968

1) Atri ( Contd )

971

970

979

2087

982

987

988

1631

1630

1633

1632

2078

1624

1625

1623

1622

1619

1588

1587

1568

1569

1571

1572

1550

1547

1548

1546

2057

1539

1540

1514

1485

1515

1513

1512

1511

1510

1065

1509

1506

1446 4894Gl/2011-16

245 4

5

3

15

00

05

00

60

02

03

14

00

00

09

55

36

05

00

04

22

00

04

31

00

28

00

10

96

01

00

33

00

00

04

84

00

00

72

02

41

00

01

04

36

00

01

00

00

54

00

07

39

00

10

03

08

00

45

03

00

14

06

00

00

90

00

00

00

14

33

10

00

58

09

00

65

00

13

09

66

00

25

00

00

99

00

02

91

12

00

65

00

09

94

00

01

38

00

10

07

00

04

00

00

32

76

00

03

30

00

09

76

03

00

00

17

04

73

00

02

10

00

00

00

91

14

75

27

00 246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

1

2 1) Atri ( Contd)

1450

1449

1443

1448

1447

2132

1445

1431

1432

1385

1383

1384

1433

1382

2971 2) Baghamari

2899

252

3) Loknathpur

1391

334

390

332

331

329

321

320

319

318

322

342

316

317

310

315

314

313

511

512

526

525

527

523

529

[Part II Sec . 3 (ii ) ] 4

3

5

00

02

65

00

94

08

00

10

03

00

04

30

00

01

42

00

91

09

00

06

03

00

72

03

00

22

96

00

06

81

00

07

50

00

01

76

00

00

10

00

13

55

00

14

55

00

04

03

00

04

66

00

02

23

00

07

86

00

00

10

00

06

16

00

08

03

00

08

71

00

08

11

00

02

14

00

03

78

00

04

99

00

05

49

00

01

03

00

08

66

00

03

27

00

00

10

00

58

01

05

00

56

01

66

00

00

01

08

00

02

34

00

05

79

00

02

52

00

02

38

00

14

89

00

01

02 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) )

2 1

530

3) Loknathpur ( Contd)

1321

545

1322

546

544

235

235/1446

233

234

232

229

224

225

227

223

220

219

209

208

207

206

181

179

166

176

172

170

171

169

168

167

583

180

543 4) Sarua

544

547

546

548

549

571

570

247

5

3

4

74

05

00

10

02

00

69

04

00

30

00

00

45

00

11

51

00

51

83

01

00

31

05

00

56

00

01

67

04

00

03

89

00

18

05

00

01

36

00

06

31

00

15

03

00

25

02

00

62

02

00

26

00

00

73

23

00

47

16

00

00

00

59

06

11

00

73

09

00

11

00

15

01

74

00

10

00

00

32

00

13

09

03

00

82

02

00

91

05

00

07

03

00

37

03

00

69

03

00

10

00

00

02

81

00

07

70

00

15

09

00

62

00

00

01

02

00

50

00

10

14

00

00

01

28

00 248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

1

2

568

4) Sarua ( Contd)

567

555

566

562

563

560

559

583

584

587

585

2142

586

2103

418

419

416

424

426

425

427

428

429

274

272

276

273

271

270

268

267

278

266

259

257

258

208

209

244

223

232

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( i) ) 4

3

5

00

48

03

00

04

61

00

00

92

06

00

13

23

00

02

00

00

70

00

12

39

00

08

10

00

02

32

00

13

70

00

18

00

00

01

11

00

02

68

03

00

56

91

00

01

00

08

80

00

06

75

00

07

44

14

00

00

00

01

10

00

00

34

00

01

11

00

00

47

00

07

98

02

00

03

00

05

77

00

00

28

00

01

67

00

03

92

00

01

22

00

03

20

00

01

04

00

02

85

00

01

90

00

26

27

00

01

49

00

40

07

01

17

00

03

00

19

00

19

11

00

11

15

00

08

25 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

226

4) Sarua ( Contd)

229

228

106

105

2060

104

107/2168

21

109

108

110

111

97

117

98/2020

98

613/2101

33

34

32

35

36

31

30

29

27

28

24

23

7

5 ) Kathkhuntia

8

6

1

2

5

13

537

6) Patnibar

543

538

539

542

249 4

5

3

00

20

24

00

04

38

00

14

93

25

83

00

01

37

00

02

00

40

00

01

01

26

00

04

00

07

96

00

51

04

06

00

21

10

00

00

10

35

00

28

32

00

00

00

18

00

00

10

00

70

00

00

00

55

05

42

00

05

62

00

00

13

05

00

06

57

02

24

00

03

00

04

00

00

56

00

82

02

00

01

60

02

56

00

00

10

00

00

00

10

00

20

11

00

27

11

00

66

10

09

72

00

04

71

00

74

00

01

00

00

53

00

03

94

00

02

72

77

00

07

46

00

11

00

00

95 250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

1

2 6) Patmbar ( Contd)

540

535

534

533

752

541

526

511

510

509

508

491

507

506

505

504

501

500

493

499

502

503

483

494

498

495

469

470

471

468

465

747

464

453

451

435

452

449

450

446

441

439

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) ] 4

3

5

00

34

03

00

02

38

00

05

01

00

06

19

00

12

27

00

00

40

00

10

09

00

09

81

02

00

01

00

02

01

00

01

06

90

00

03

00

02

64

02

00

13

00

02

18

00

02

38

17

00

03

00

96

01

00

56

02

00

02

87

00

00

14

00

10

00

00

58

09

00

02

98

00

12

01

00

84

01

00

05

22

00

16

82

00

15

11

00

03

72

00

27

00

00

07

56

00

16

05

00

08

11

00

04

97

00

00

10

00

22

04

04

00

42

00

10

51

00

00

10

00

46

86

00

00

10 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

259

6) Patnibar ( Contd)

379

378

351

353

367

355

366

368

369

370

365

372

373

375

374

122

123

126

127

128

121

129

130

140

139

135

131

132

134

133

136

138

137

160

98

102

101

105

106

87

86

251

5

4

3

97

00

09

04

00

03

35

18

00

10

00

00

93

05

00

83

10

00

10

00

00

00

02

00

59

03

00

33

03

00

33

00

13

10

00

00

39

00

00

07

25

00

29

21

00

20

00

00

34

04

00

05

90

00

13

00

00

12

02

00

60

04

00

30

00

00

01

91

00

09

02

00

39

05

00

90

03

00

04

13

00

13

01

00

01

93

00

03

71

00

10

00

00

00

78

00

00

10

00

20

00

00

20

15

00

05

69

00

54

00

00

50

03

00

41

04

00

06

05

00

13

10

00

12

03

00 252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011/PAUSA 18, 1932

2

84

6) Patnibar ( Contd)

83

82

District : Khorda Mandal/ Tehsil / Taluk: Khorda

2071 1) Kumbhilo

2073

2074

2076

560/2068

561/2069

2070

554/2059

552/2057

553/2058

2015

610/2166

2167

2023

2022

2025

2026

2021

2020

2016

2018

2017

2027

2028

22/860

20/858

23/861

28/867

27/866

31/874

13/839

34/877

11/837

10/836

3/828

829

1/825

817

815

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

3

5

44

00

03

00

09

86

14

00

68

State:Orissa

03

00

73

04

66

00

00

03

80

02

00

09

00

03

58

15

00

26

21

14

00

00

07

54

00

10

69

00

08

93

00

23

19

00

05

29

02

47

00

00

00

48

02

00

03

00

22

01

00

01

43

06

00

81

00

03

75

13

23

00

00

01

99

00

06

21

00

10

00

00

00

10

00

02

57

00

10

56

00

80

11

14

17

00

23

00

09

00

10

43

00

14

13

98

00

06

86

17

00

00

24

00

00

84

11

05

00

81

10

66

00

47

00

24

00

17

96 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष18 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

2 1

820

1) Kumbhilo (Contd)

821

1158

1157

1156

1155

1154

1171

1188

1187

1196

1195

1197

1186

1202

1185

1177

1184

1203

1182

1183

1204

1181

1180

1205

1206

440

441

442

439

438

417

2019

30/870

265

2) Basanta

296

287

284

286

288

294

293

4894GI /2011-17

253 4

5

3

35

00

02

36

00

10

10

00

00

66

00

02

00

03

59

82

14

00

10

00

25

17

61

00

70

00

00

12

00

09

06

38

00

45

00

00

00

43

01

89

00

05

10

00

00

02

18

00

40

00

00

01

02

00

46

00

00

20

00

01

03

68

00

39

00

01

71

00

02

60

00

01

20

00

01

82

00

00

54

02

00

00

52

00

00

00

52

75

00

02

90

00

00

48

04

00

96

03

00

53

00

10

01

66

00

33

00

13

13

97

00

17

00

01

65

00

13

30

05

00

27

00

00

95

05

00 254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

1

2 2) Basanta (Contd)

292

289

291

306

308

307

310

311

312

314

313

1047

317

1043

318

1042

1022/2107

1022

1021

1023

2110

1020/2111

1020

1018

1007

1006

351/1008

350/1005

351/1009

341/995

996

343/998

342/997

337/991

989

336/990

332/981

330/979

317/966

318/967

316/964

965

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

3

5

04

00

89

00

00

82

00

07

86

00

12

65

00

01

95

00

04

13

00

00

73

00

16

72

00

01

89

00

01

13

00

02

29

00

01

77

00

06

76

00

00

96

00

00

64

00

56

23

00

01

45

00

02

01

00

04

78

00

00

10

00

00

10

00

05

62

00

00

29

00

05

30

00

03

24

00

03

67

00

09

74

00

21

03

00

56

02

00

00

10

00

04

33

00

27

10

00

07

25

00

06

15

00

00

10

00

04

63

00

05

00

00

55

11

00

10

88

00

00

44

00

10

04

00

00

17 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

313/960 2) Basanta ( Contd)

953

952

302/947

939

301/912

942

298/941

927

288/926

287/923

5/429

286/922

430

7/432

15/444

445

16/446

447

842

17/449

71/546

72/547

843/2096

70/545

75/557

551

79/556

80/557

78/555

77/554

85/563

84/562

86/566

89/569

90/570

91/571

247/816

246/815

99/587

100/588

101/589

255 4

5

3

00

05

52

79

03

00

73

00

03

05

00

37

00

10

00

07

00

90

01

98

00

04

09

00

03

34

00

17

00

03

07

00

33

03

00

89

10

00

00

05

10

00

74

00

09

06

17

00

04

36

00

08

00

03

00

00

85

85

00

21

00

01

78

07

00

56

02

46

00

09

53

00

02

00

45

07

05

00

38

00

01

00

90

03

00

78

01

00

35

01

59

00

00

10

00

00

57

00

11

00

09

07

00

02

64

14

00

08

00

03

45

00

00

35

01

92

00

03

36

00

00

77.

04

63

09

00 256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

2 2) Basanta (Conid)

245/814

183/727

813

243/811

185/731

186/732

195/742

194/740

743

193/739

224/787

228/292

226/790

789

221/783

220/782

781

217/778

211/769

210/768

767

3) Brahmanabereni

818

819

820

821

825

822

827

826

837

835

832

836

881

880

879

841

847

848

849

846

852

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

4

5

00

01

87

00

12

37

00

00

64

00

43

02

00

10

29

00

08

89

06

23

00

00

ΟΙ

91

00

11

04

00

03

01

00

10

48

01

76

00

00

15

40

05

00

47

00

00

39

00

01

00

00

00

10

28

00

78

00

03

43

00

01

62

00

07

75

00

07

09

00

05

06

00

04

54

06

00

69

00

03

60

00

00

78

00

01

49

00

02

30

00

00

45

00

03

70

00

11

84

00

02

41

00

62

02

00

05

87

00

04

18

00

00

24

00

03

43

00

09

73

00

06

46

00

02

70

00

13

87 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

1

2 3) Brahmanabereni ( Contd)

857

856

855

854

711

932

707

710

709

339

340

341

342

346

347

350

349

336

335

375

334

332

333

331

330

321

322

323

329

390/1496

328

390/1495

305

4) Hatasahi

307/966

304

303

302

310

311

313

299

299/976

257 4

5

3

05

32

00

57

00

04

02

48

00

00

12

21

00

02

46

00

01

20

06

00

91

00

01

00

00

04

89

00

00

61

00

06

88

00

06

94

00

00

10

00

45

15

85

00

03

00

06

03

00

08

56

00

07

73

00

01

04

00

10

43

00

00

96

00

09

31

00

06

33

00

27

09

00

23

18

00

00

92

00

01

15

00

04

84

00

19

17

00

00

94

00

00

43

00

02

72

00

01

08

00

00

20

00

12

50

00

06

38

00

05

54

00

03

13

00

24

79

00

01

08

00

00

11

00

01

00 258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

2 1

299/975 4) Hatasahi ( Contd)

298/974

312

405

406

407

424

408

423

421

416

417

418

412

505

502

501

500

494

490

495

488

487

486

481

480

482

483

3087 5) Kuaput

3088

3089

3092

3093

3094

3095

3099

3098

3100

3102

3103

3104

3105

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ]

5

4

3

00

83

00

00

00

28

12

00

03

02

00

32

00

08

20

00

05

21

00

00

17

23

00

10

00

45

11

75

00

03

18

00

01

00

02

46

00

00

31

00

02

76

00

79

08

60

00

11

08

87

00

00

03

71

00

05

88

00

00

10

04

00

31

00

00

34

00

00

13

00

00

22

00

22

03

00

04

50

00

16

89

00

06

92

69

00

17

22

00

03

00

01

41

00

01

13

00

03

22

04

36

00

57

00

00

03

00

07

00

00

10

07

00

90

00

08

67

00

01

61

00

03

68

00

02

50 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

3116 5) Kuaput ( Contd )

3117

3118

3119

3160

3161

3172

3286

3162

3163

3287

3165

3164

3166

3171

3180

3231

3230

3232

3229

3226

3233

3234

3225

3235

3236

1724

1723

1721

1725

1726

1720

1767

1795

1796

1803

1804

1805

1806

1688

1888

1886

259 4

5

3

64

11

00

49

01

00

09

04

00

10

00

00

46

09

00

68

05

00

95

00

00

34

11

00

78

00

00

00

82

00

27

00

00

06

79

00

63

01

00

49

02

00

14

83

00

20

01

00

09

18

00

51

00

00

64

00

08

21

00

00

72

00

01

83

05

00

90

01

00

70

00

00

24

04

00

41

09

00

74

09

00

74

00

01

93

04

00

86

02

00

14

00

00

56

05

00

92

01

00

10

00

00

00

00

14

73

14

00

51

11

00

28

00

11

66

07

00

94

04

00

88

00

02

21

08

00 260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

1

2

1687 5) Kuaput ( Contd )

1683

1684

1682

1327

1328

1322

1326

1323

1334

1325

1324

1319

1318

1317

1237

1238

1263

1240

1239

1241

1242

1227

1243

1226

1154

1244

1155

1153

1156

1152

1151

1083

1108

1109

1088

1089

1090

1107

1106

1110

1105

1091

1104

1103

1098

1102

1101

1100

1099

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

4

5

00

00

10

77

00

02

00

06

92

16

28

00

70

00

00

00

00

10

00

04

28

00

03

51

00

00

67

00

00

66

00

51

04

00

05

13

00

00

51

35

00

05

00

00

10

74

00

01

00

13

08

00

00

14

00

01

30

04

27

00

04

00

70

00

03

86

00

06

77

00

37

07

00

04

55

00

07

83

00

00

31

00

00

22

00

10

21

00

01

31

00

77

08

00

41

09

00

01

98

00

03

52

00

00

10

00

14

01

00

00

73

00

00

36

00

01

90

00

03

13

85

00

00

00

03

53

00

01

95

00

10

04

00

02

05

00

35

07

00

06

00

00

02

83

00

02

27

00

00

58

[ F. No. L -14014/69/2010-GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy .

[ भाग 1 ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 9 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 97.-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 , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/2005 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/ 156/1996- आईआर( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 9th December , 2010 S.O. 97.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.83/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 7-12-2010.

[No. L- 12012/ 156/ 1996- IR (B- 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR PRESENT : N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

I.D.83/05

Reference No.L- 12012/ 156/ 1996 - IR( B - I ) dated:6-7-2005 Shri Hari Om Rathore

S/ o Shri Kalyan Lal C/ o Joint Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha , Bengali Colony, Chhawani , Kota(Raj.)

V/ s

The Manager, State Bank of India LICBuilding, Chhawani Chouraha Kota (Raj .)

4894G1/2011-18

261

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011/पौष18 , 1932

AWARD 26-11-2010

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-sections 1 & 2( A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication which runs as under :-

"Whether the action ofthe management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Hari Om Rathore S/ o Shri Kalyan Lal w.e.f. 1-3-94 is justified? Ifnot, what reliefhe is entitled to ? " 2. Pursuant to the receipt of reference order, the registered notices were issued to both the parties . From the record, it appear that Shri Arun Sharma , Advocate appeared on behalf of the workman and Shri Yashpal Garg , Advocate appeared on behalf of the management on 7-9-05. Claim statement was filed on 16-9-05 and its reply wasfiled on 9-1-06 . The rejoinder was filed on 17-3-06 . It also appears that an application for summoning documents was filed on behalf of the workman on 24-2-06 and at the stage of filing reply of the said application , legali representative on behalf ofthe workman Shri Arun Sharma , Advocate withdrew his authority letter.

3. In above factual background fresh registered notice was issued to the workman . Upon perusal of the record , it appears that acknowledgement receipt of the registered notice is on the record which shows that notice has been served upon the workman concerned . Despite service of registered notice , the workman did not appear . Therefore , ex - party proceedings were drawn against him on 24-11-10.

4. Heard the learned representative on behalf of the management & perused the record .

5. The learned representative on behalf of the management contends that since the workman has not adduced any evidence and in absence of any evidence in support ofthe claim , the claim of the workman deserves to be rejected.

6. In reference , the question under consideration is whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is justified?

7. The initial burden was on the workman to substantiate his case in the claim by adducing evidence . It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an action the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the action and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail . It was incumbent for the workman to have appeared and substantiate his allegation that the action of the management was not justified but the workman has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim . It appears that the workman is not willing to contest the case further.

262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8, 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

8. Under these circumstances , "No Claim Award" is passed in this matter . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

9. Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 9 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 98. औद्योमिक 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 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011 /78/2008 - आईआर( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th December, 2010

S.O. 98. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.2/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 9-12-2010 .

[No. L - 12011 /78/2008 -IR (B-1)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-1/02 OF 2010 Parties: Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India .

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES:

Shri .Nadkarni , Advocate For the Management :

For the Union :

Absent.

State :

Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 18th day ofNovember , 2010

AWARD

Thisis a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub- section 1

[PART II- SEC . 3( ii ) ] of Secton 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi Order No. L- 12011 / 78 /2008 - IR ( B - I ) dt.30-6-2009- The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in imposing the punishment of bringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages vide order dated 20-2-2008 on Shri Babarao Kondiba Bendrikar , Sr. Hd . Messanger , APMC Nanded Branch , isjust, proper and in proportion to the alleged charges . If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?

2. Mr.Nadkarni . learned advocate for the Management is present . Nobody is present on behalf of the Union .

3.A letter dated 18th October, 2010 has been received in the office of this Court on 21-10-2010 from General Secretary, State Bank of India , Staff Union ( Mumbai circle) wherein it has been stated that the employee Shri B.K.Bendrikar has already retired from his services and , therefore , the case be treated as withdrawn .

4. Since the Union is no more interested in prosecuting the case as the workman has retired from his services , therefore , this Tribunal allows the Union to withdraw the case .

5. The matter thus stands disposed of as withdrawn . 6. An Award is made accordingly. JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 99.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार साउथ इंडिया कॉरपोरेशन ( ए) लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , पणजी-गोवा के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई. टी. 4/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-36011/10/2004- आईआर( बी -11 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December, 2010 S.O. 99.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. IT/04/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court - I , Panji -Goa now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-12-2010 .

[No. L -36011 /10/2004- IR ( B - II ) ) RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- I AT PANAЛ

BEFORE B. P. DESHPANDE, PRESIDING OFFICER

REF . NO . IT/4/05

Smt . Thereza Fernandes , Rep . by Gen. Secretary , Transport and Dock Workers Union , Pt. D - Kosambe Building , C/8, II Floor, Swatantra Path , VascodaGama .

Workmen/Party 1 V/ s

Vasco da Gama .

M/ s. South India Corporation (Agencies ) Ltd. , Joshi Building , ...Employer /Party II Party I / Workmen are represented by Adv. Miss Sonia Redkar.

Party II Employer is represented by Adv. A. Kundaikar .

AWARD

(Passed on this 13th day of October , 2010) In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) and Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, the Government of Goa referred the dispute vide No. - L - 36011 / 10 / 2004 - IR ( B - 11 ) dated 11/1/2005 for adjudication of this Tribunal .

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . South India Corporation ( Agencies ) Ltd. , Goa in terminating the employment of Mrs. Thereza Fernandes , typist/Telex Operator w.e.f. 30/6/2004 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for ? "

2. On receipt of the said reference , it was registered as Industrial Dispute No. IT/4 /05 and notices were issued to both paries . Party 1 / workmen filed statement of claim videExb . 4 thereafter Party II filed written statement at Exb . 10. The rejoinder is filed at Exb . 12.

3. In nut shell it is the contention of the Party 1 that she was employed with Party II since 1984 as a typist and was confirmed in the year 1985. Suddenly, on 9-6-2004 notice was served on the Party 1 stating that her services shall stand terminated with effect from 30-6-04 since her services are found to be surplus . The Party I further claimed that junior employees to her were retained by the company and there is non compliance of " last come first go " . The Party I was doing work diligently and she continuously worked for twenty years and suddenly employer terminated her services without any proper reason . The Party I then claimed that she is a widow and having minor son and she even took loan for the house and she was

263

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

repaying it through her salary received from Party II . Due to sudden termination from the service , she has lost her only earning source . Therefore , she claimed reinstatement with full back wages .

4. The Party II filed written statement at Exb.10 claiming that there is suppression of material facts by Party I and on that count itself she is not entitled for any relief. It is claimed by Party II that the services of Party I were terminated by following due process of law as she was found surplus in the category of typist and she has been paid entire compensation , one months notice pay, leave encashment as well as gratuity amount which she has received without any protest . It is further claimed by Party II that in the year 2004 there was sudden decline in the business activities of Party II due to depression and Party !! was not incurring good restraints from the business activities and accordingly there was no much work to be given to Party I and hence her services became surplus and the same were retrenched by giving compensation Rs . 1,21,400 with gratuity Rs.45,692 and Provident Fund of Rs . 2,39,073 . Notice pay was also given to the Party I which she accepted without any protest . In the rejoinder at Exb.12 . the Party I admitted receipt of compensation of their amount as stated by Party II in their written statement but claiming that her retrenchment is illegal and she is entitled for reinstatement with back wages .

5. Issues were framed by my learned predecessor vide Exb . 14 which reads as under together with my findings against it .

1 . Whether the Party I proves that action of the Party II in terminating her services is illegal and unjust ? Not Proved.

2. Whether the Party II proves that the services of the Party I were lawfully retrenched due to compelling operational exigencies of the company? Partly Proved .

3. Whatrelief?

4. What Award ?

6. The Party I stepped into the witness box and filed affidavit in support of her evidence at Exb . 15. One witness was examined in support of the case of Party 1. The affidavit of the witness of Party Il was filed on record but no one remained present and therefore evidence of Party II was closed . Notice was also issued to Party II but no one appeared . Written submissions have been filed by Party I vide Exb.28 . I have perused the entire record as well as evidence brought on record on that basis i propose to discuss the issue on merits .

7. Issue no.1 & 2 : Both these issues are taken for joint discussion since the same are interconnected . The 264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

main contention of Party I is that she was removed from the service without following the general principles of " last come first go " and that she was not paid her dues . The written statement filed by Party Il clearly show in para 10 that the compensation and other dues were duly paid to party I and she did not raise any protest . It is also rightly pointed out by Party II in their written statement that there is suspension of material facts by Party I with regard to the notice pay, compensation , gratuity and other dues . This fact is further clarified in the rejoinder filed by Party I wherein she admitted the conditions of para no.9 and 10 of the written statement . Thus, it is proved that Party I has suppressed material facts in her statement of claim with regard to the receipt of compensation , one month notice pay, and other dues from the employer . Thus , by suppressing such material facts , Party I tried to misguide the authorities including this Tribunal and hence she is not entitled for any relief.

8. Evenotherwise the evidence of Party I specified in the cross examination clearly prove that she received a notice of termination of her services and thereafter the compensation along with the gratuity and other dues were paid which she accepted was without any protest . The entire evidence brought on record of Party I regarding contravention of the principles of " last come first go " is not supported by any material . The details of the workers / employees appointed after appointment of Party | in her category as typist , have not been given by her or by the witness examined in support of her case . The burden is certainly on Party I to show that the junior to her is still working with the company. There are only bare words without any details and specifically the categories in which other employees were working , would not justify the contention of Party 1 in proving the said aspects , I have already mentioned that the Party I has received the compensation along with the gratuity which is proved by Exb.22 and 23 respectively and thus Party II has discharged the burden that the retrenchment of Party I was after due compliance of the payment of compensation . It is equally true that Party II failed to prove the compelling circumstances for retrenching the services as claimed in their written statement since no evidence was led on behalf of Party II . However, one thing is clear that the retrenchment of Party II is only after payment of due compensation as disclosed in para 10 of the written statement . No other employee who is working with Party II and junior to Party I , was examined to prove the contention raised in the claim statement .

9. The witness examined by Party I has raised certain aspects in his affidavit which are not disclosed by Party I and therefore such aspects cannot be taken into account for deciding the present reference . The said witness also failed to disclose names and other details of the employees who were retained by Party II and were junior to Party 1. No reliance can be placed on such witness who was

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] working as Jr. Manager in the said company . Thus , it is clear that Party I failed to prove the issue no . I whereas the Party II has partially proved issue no.2 and therefore the same are answered accordingly.

10. Since the Party I has suppressed material facts and she failed to discharge the burden regarding issue no.1 , she is not entitled for any relief. Hence issue no.3 is not answered as not proved . After considering the above discussion , I pass the following order .

ORDER

The action of the management is legal and justified . The workman is not entitled for any relief.

No orders as to cost . Inform the Government accordingly. Panaji Dated: 13-10-2010

B.P. DESHPANDE , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 100.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार विशाखापटनम पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-34011 / 21 / 2004- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 100. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No.23 /2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9-12-2010 .

[No. L - 34011 /21 /2004- IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

PRESENT:

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 6th day of September , 2010 Industrial Dispute No. 23/2005 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary,

Rama Padma Nilayam, 145-25-32 - A

Port and Dock Employees Association , Dandu Bazar , Maharanipeta ,

Petitioner Visakhapatnam - 530002.

AND

The Chairman , Visakhapatnam Port Trust , PortArea , Visakhapatnam - 530 005. Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

M/ s . G. Vidya Sagar , K. Udaya Sri , P. Sudheer Rao & B. Shiva Kumar , Advocates For the Respondent: M/ s. D.V. Subba Rao & D.V.S.S. Somayajulu , 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 - 34011 / 21 / 2004 - IR ( B.II ) dated 9-11-2004 under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 to adjudicate the dispute between workman Sri N. Suryanarayana Rao and the management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust . The terms of reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Visakhapatnam Port Trust in terminating the services of Shri N. Suryanarayana Rao , Ex- Operator Gr . I ( Sr. ) by way of compulsory retirement as a punishment w.e.f. 23-9-2002 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the concerned union is entitled to ? "

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 23/2005 and notices were issued to the parties .

2. From the side of the workman the General Secretary of Port and Dock Employees Association , Visakhapatnam has filed claim statement wherein he has alleged that Sri N. Suryanarayana Rao Operator Grade - 1 ( Sr ) joined in Visakhapatnam Port Trust organization as Operator Grade - Ill about 34 years back and he was promoted to the post of Operator Grade - I . He rendered unblemished service . His work was commended by every one in the organization . He earned appreciation by then Chief Mechanical Engineer at Paradeep Port Trust . He was shouldering heavy responsibilities in keeping the plant and machinery in operation and awarded major breakdowns in the plant .

3. Sri N. Suryanarayana Rao was unanimously elected as General Secretary of Trade Union for Port and

265

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

DockEmployees Association on 9-3-2001 . Ever since he was elected as General Secretary he was representing the grievances of the workers in the plant and resolved the problems . Thus , he became instrumental for maintaining harmonious relations between workers and management , even as a trade union leader . Sri N. Suryanarayana Rao as General Secretary of the trade union with the solidarity and help of all other unions got the proposal of the management to induct " Engineering Trainees " in the plant depriving the legitimate promotions / elevations of incumbents because the employees in the plant were frustrated due to lack of promotions and long stagnation in the same cadre . Sri Suryanarayana Rao also resisted the illegal activities of the management as General Secretary of Trade Union such as off- load of plant work to private contractors instead of getting them done by port workers , unilaterally without consulting the trade unions , the Respondent management resorted to illegal activities . The action of Sri Suryanarana Rao become unpalatable to the management and the management vehemently determined to send him out from the organization on one pretext or other . As a part of that sinister design , the management issued a charge sheet dated 12-2-2002 for major penalty under regulation 10 of VPE ( CC & A ) Regulations , 1968 levelled the following charges:

"That the said Sri N. Suryanarayana Rao , while functioning as Operator grade - I , SR in Ore Handling Complex has reported at the Ore Handling Complex premises on 5-1-2002.

In connection with the revision of incentive scheme the Marine staff of the Port Trust went on strike with effect from 23-12-2001 onwards .

Sri N. Suryanarayana Rao , in connection with the aforesaid strike has assembled the other Ore Handling Complex employees in the tirst shift on 5-1-2002 and stopped the loading and of the tippling operations from 06.00 hrs . to 07.30 hrs . The Senior Time Keeper and the Time Keeper of O.H.C. vide letter dated 5-1-2002 have also reported that the OHC employees including the operators did not sign in the muster upto 07.00 hrs on 5-1-2002 .

The Plant Manager /OHC has also confirmed vide letter dated 5-1-2002 that the tippling operations were stopped under the leadership of Sri N. Suryanarayana Rao .

Subsequently , Sri N. Suryanarayana Rao has released a pamphlet stating that the OHC employees have participated in the agitation for two hours .

From the above it is clearly evident that Sri N. Suryanarayana Rao has unauthorizedly resorted to stop the loading and the tippling operations even though the issue in question is in no way connected to the OHC employees . By the above act , he exhibited gross misconduct , sheet negligence and unbecoming of a public servant and in as much as he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.

266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

Thus he violated Regulation 3 ( 1 ) ofV.P.E's(Conduct) Regulations , 1964."

4. Sri N. Suryanarayana Rao has submitted his detailed explanation dated 6-3-2002 bringing it to the notice ofthe Disciplinary Authority that on 5-1-2002 two trains were operated in tippling section in first shift , the third tippler train placed at 05.40 hrs . and the operations started at9.30 hrs and completed at 10.30 hrs for the second part and the train was dispatched one hour earlier to the schedule time .At the twin wagon tippler train placement was given at 7.30 hrs and the work was completed by 9.30 hrs . Similarly loading operations were dime from 6.00 hrs to 8.00 hrs to the tune of 3000 MT of pellets to the vessel " M.V. MAHAVIR" with only one bucket wheel reclaimer. This matter was published by the management in the newspapers on 6.1.2002 , that a record loading of 72000 MT was done by OHC on 5-1-2002 [ from4-1-2002, 14.00 hrs to 5-1-2002 , 14.00 hrs ] which itself evident that there was no stoppage of work on that particular shift and day.

5. It was further submitted that not satisfied with the explanation domestic enquiry was ordered by the appointing authority. Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted domestic enquiry and a Junior Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer before whom a senior officer was produced as management witness . The Enquiry Officer submitted his report which was prejudicial because theEnquiry Officer was junior to the management witness, Enquiry Officer was biased and prejudiced against the workman. He concluded the enquiry and submitted that the charges against the Petitioner workman was proved. The Disciplinary Authority without applying his mind and without considering the violation of principles of natural justice , passed the order of compulsory retirement which is illegal , arbitrary and discriminative in nature and deserves to be quashed .

6. Respondent filed their counter. They have denied the submission made in the claim statement . They have further denied the statement made in the claim statement . They have further stated that the employee of the plant did not sign the muster upto seven hours on 5-1-2002 though the first shift commenced at 6 AM and the Plant Manager reported that the Port and Dock Employees Association have stopped loading , tippling operations in view ofthe strike by Marine Employees and Port and Dock Employees Association under the leadership of Sri N. Suryanarayana Rao . The Respondent has stated that another representation was made on 17-1-2002 by the Plant Manager that the Petitioner workman has released a pamphlet in the capacity of the Union General Secretary confirming that the employees participated in the agitation for two hours on 5-1-2002 in connection with the stopping of loading of the tippling operations . Thus , he was issued with the charge sheet dated 12-2-2002 for his gross

[PART II-SEC.3 ( ii)] misconduct , i.e. , for instigating the employees to go on strike . The explanation given by the Petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Enquiry was ordered. Petitioner workman participated in the enquiry. Management witnesses were examined in presence of the Petitioner. They were cross examined by the Petitioner and Petitioner has examined himself in his defence . Since the Petitioner has committed the act of gross misconduct of resortingto the unnecessary and unnoticed strike , the said misconduct was proved by the management witnesses and the Disciplinary Authority has passed a lenient punishment order, retiring the workman compulsorily. He was neither dismissed nor terminated from service . Thus , the contention of the Petitioner that he . has been punished disproportionately to the misconduct or that misconduct is neither correct nor based on evidence is baseless . The claim is misconceived based on incorrect facts and hence , deserves to be dismissed .

7. Parties were directed to produce their evidence . Management side has produced as many as 17 documents in the form of departmental proceeding book and the evidence etc. produced before the Enquiry Officer. No separate evidence has been produced by the workman . Petitioner workman has challenged the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management . Hence, the question of legality and validity of domestic enquiry was considered by my Learned Predecessor by his order dated 1-3-2007 which is available on this record holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was legal and justified and valid in nature, this order of my Learned Predecessor shall form part of thisaward .

8. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman because Respondent has not appeared on the date of argument . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman has filed written arguments wherein he has asserted that the charges were framed on the basis of mis- reading of the pamphlet issuedby Petitioner union . The pamphlet does not disclose any averment that first shitt employees have participated in the OIIC agitation. The pamphlet reflects the solidarity expressed by members of the Petitioner union which can not be said to be strike by workman who were on duty. I have considered this argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman .

9.This tribunal has to consider the following points:

(1 ) Whether the Petitioner workman called upon the workmen or employees of the first shift of ore handling complex to stop work for two hours on 5-1-2002 and whether the workers has struck down the work for two hours?

( 11 ) Whether the action of the management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust in retiring the services of Sri N. Suranarayana Rao by way of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 23-9-2002 is legal and justified or not ?

267 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

(III ) Whether the workman is entitled for any relief? If so , to what relief?

of the Petitioner and gravity of the misconduct committed by the Petitioner . The Petitioner has committed gross misconduct by striking work and asking other employees also to strike the work in the morning shift or the first shift of the working . The management has not committed any illegality in ordering compulsory retirement of the Petitioner by way of punishment because the action of the Petitioner was ofgrave nature of misconduct . Hence , the punishment imposed by the management is neither illegal nor unjustified . The Petitioner has acted in violation of Visakhapatnam Port Employees Conduct and Regulations , 1964. He himself participated in the agitation for two hours . Heunauthorizedly reported to stop the loading and tippling operations which was a gross misconduct and it show that his conduct is not being of a public servant . He failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duty as such , the order of compulsory retirement is justified in the present case . Question Nos . ( 1 ) & ( 11 ) are decided accordingly .

11. Point No. ( III ) : The management has not committed any illegality or arbitrariness in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner workman . The Petitioner workman is not entitled for any relief. Claim petition deserves to be dismissed . Question No. (III ) is decided accordingly.

12. From the above discussion , this tribunal has come to the conclusion that the action of the management of M / s . Visakhapatnam Port Trust in terminating the services of Sri . N. Suranarayana Rao , Ex - Operator , grade- I (Sr.) by way of compulsory retirement as a punishment with effect from 23-9-2002 is legal and justified and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence , this award .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowari , Personal Assistant Transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 6th day of September , 2010 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 101. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , 10. Point Nos. (I & (11) : The question whether the Petitioner workman has resorted to strike or has called uponthe strike on 5-1-2002 for the first shift of Ore Handling Plantbetween 6-8 AM was done by the Petitioner workman or not . It is a question of fact on which Respondent management has produced Sri N. Rama Rao , Time Keeper as management witness No. 1 , Sri GD.P.R.G. Reddy, Sr. Time Keeper , OHC who was time keeper of Shift No.1 from 6hrs to 14 hrs on 5-1-2002 as management witness No.2 , Sri P.V. Muralai Mohan Rao , Plant Manager , Incharge of OHC first shift between 6 hrs to 14 hrs on 5-1-2002 as management witness No.4 . The workman has also produced four defence witnesses . However , the witnesses of the management has stated that Sri N. Suranarayana Rao , the General Secretary and the employees of OHC including operators have not signed in the muster books upto 7 hrs on 5-1-2002 from the time of commencing of the first shift . All the three management witnesses have stated that the employees have not signed the muster between 6-8 AM. Moreover, there is printed pamphlet which is marked as PE3 issued by Sri N. Suranarayana Rao , General Secretary wherein it is written that the OHC employees has struck the work on 5-1-2002 for two hours to show the solidarity with other striking employees of Port Trust . This pamphlet was issued in the name of Sri N. Suranarayana Rao who has not denied that he has issued this pamphlet , basing his finding on the material placed before the Enquiry Officer , the Enquiry Officer concluded that Srí N. Suranarayana Rao being a general secretary of the union has resorted to the strike for two hours in the first shift on 5-1-2002 . This action of Sri N. Suranarayana Rao goes to show that he committed misconduct within the meaning of the standing order of the company . This material fact has already been discussed by my Learned Predecessor who has given cogent finding that the Enquiry Officer has discussed the evidence and the finding arrived at by Enquiry Officer was based on material on record and he has given reason for his conclusion . Thus , this question can not be reiterated again under Sec . 11A of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The pamphlet was misread by the by the Enquiry Officer or that does not prove the misconduct ofthe Petitioner workman can not be reassessed . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that management has issued a statement that on 5-1-2002 more loading was done by the employees will not absolve the Petitioner from the misconduct he committed by calling the employees to go on strike and striking the work for two hours in the first shift . From the evidence on record it is proved that Petitioner being general secretary of the union called their employees of the first shift to strike the work for two hours , his misconduct was proved . Even if the loading in excess was done by the other employees of the management on that date will not absolve the misconduct 268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/ 2007) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12011 / 112/2006- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December, 2010 S.O. 101. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 9-12-2010 .

[No. L- 12011 / 112/2006- IR(B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 12 of 2007

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank

AND

Theirworkmen

Present:

Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar PresidingOfficer

Appearance:

:None

Onbehalf of the Management

On behalf of the.

:None.

Workmen

State: West Bengal . Industry : Banking Dated: 30thNovember , 2010 .

AWARD

ByOrder No. L- 12011 / 112/2006- IR( B - II) dated 1-5- 2007 the Government of India, Ministry oflabour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1 )(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bankby not regularizing Shri Prfull Halder, Part- time sweeper who claimed to have been working for more than 12 years continuously in UCO Bank isjustified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

2.On call today, none appears for either of the parties . On scrutiny ofthe order sheet ofthis reference , it is revealed thatthe matter is pending for filing rejoinder by the workmen

[ PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] union since 16-6-2008 . But , neither the rejoinder has been filed nor any one was present on behalf of the workmen on all the dates from 16-06-2008 till today. The workmen union did not appear on 10 occasions among the 11 dates fixed for the same , excepting on one occasion on 12-02-2009. Inspection of the records shows that fresh notice was issued to both the parties on 28-06-2010 after notification of my appointment and the notice is found to have been served in view of the acknowledgment cards received back from both the sides with due endorsement of receipt by the respective parties. In case ofthe workmen union the notice was served on 9-7-2010 while the notice of the management was found to have been served on 10-7-2010.

3. The conduct of the workmen union shows that it is reluctant from appearing in the present reference , though the reference has been initiated on the claim by the workmen union .

4. So, it is presumed that no ' industrial dispute ' is prevailing at present in the present reference and I find no reason to proceed with the same any more . The present reference is thus disposed of treating non - existence of any ' industrial dispute ' .

AnAward is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

30thNovember, 2010 .

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 102. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल. आई.सी. ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी /एनजीपी / 157/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -17012/02/1994- आईआर ( बी- [ ] ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 102. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.CGIT/NGP/ 157/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of L.I.C. of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9-12-2010.

[No. L- 17012/02/ 1994 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 02-12-2010.

CaseNo.CGIT /NGP / 157/2002

Petitioner / Party No.1 TheGeneral Secretary, Amravati Divil . L.I.C. Employees Union , C/ o Accounts Deptt . , Divisional Office, Jayant Complex, V.M.V. Road, Amravati .

Versus

Respondent/ Party No.2 The Sr. Divisional Manager , L.I.C. of India, Divisional Office, Jayant Complex , V.M.V. Road, Amravati .

AWARD (Dated: 2nd December, 2010 )

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( "the Act " in short) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of L.I.C. of India and their workman , Shri R.R.Bawankar ( " the workman " in short ) for adjudication to the CGIT, Jabalpur vide letter No.L- 17012 /02/94 - IR (B - II ) dated 16-8-1994 , with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India , Amravati in not promoting Shri R.R.Bawankar , Asstt . , as cashier is justified? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to ? " Subsequently, the case was transferred to this Tribunal for disposal according to the law.

2. The petitioner filed his statement of claim through his union , " the Amravati Divisional L.I.C. Employees Union" before the CGIT, Jabalpur claiming that the Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India , Amravati illegally denied the cashier - ship to him and appointed one Shri Nitin Arun Vaidya , against the instruction issued by the CentralOffice from time to time . The petitioner prayed for an order to the effect that he be deemed to have been appointed cashier from the date the post was filled up and all consequential benefits of cashier's allowance.

3. The management filed the written statement , denying the allegations and claiming that the petitioner was not entitled for appointment to the post of cashier and he was not eligible for selection to the said post .

4. After receipt of the reference on transfer on 9-12-2002 , the case was fixed for argument on merit . However, both the parties did not appear before this Tribunal till 23-9-2010 . On 23-9-2010 , as the parties did not appear before this Tribunal , the case was posted to 30-11-2010 for argument and in the interest of justice , simultaneously, order was passed to intimate the parties 4894GI/2010-19

269

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

about the date of the case by issuing notice by registered post with AD. Accordingly on 27-9-2010 , notices were sent to both the parties by registered post with AD intimating them that the case has been fixed for argument on 30-11-2010 . In spite of issuance of such notices , as the parties did not appear on 30-11-2010 , the case was closed and posted for orders .

5.On perusal of the record , even though it is found that the parties have filed the statement of claim and written statement , they did not adduce evidence in support of their respective claims . It appears from the record that they did not want to proceed with the case and therefore, defaulted in attending the Tribunal . In view of the above facts and materials on record , there is no other go than to pass the order of no award in this case . Hence , it is ordered.

ORDER

The reference may be treated as " no dispute award " due to the default of the parties .

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 103. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी /एनजीपी/26/ 1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/224/1992- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 103. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/ 26 / 1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 9-12-2010.

[No. L- 12012/224/ 1992 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT- CUM - LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 11-11-2010 .

Case No. CGIT /NGP/26/ 1999

Petitioner / Party No.1 The Regional Secretary, Bank of India Bankers Organisation , Shriram Ward , Ram Mandir, Chandrapur 270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

Versus

Respondent / Party No.2 The Regional Manager , Bank of India, Regional Office , 13 , Mul Road , Chandrapur

AWARD

(Dated: 11th November , 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 Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employer in relation to the management of the Bank of India and their worker , Shri Prakash Meshram ( " workman " in short ) for adjudication to the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur , as per letter No.L - 12012/224/ 92- IR ( B - II ) dated 28.10.1992 , with the following schedule: - "Whether the action of the management of Bank of India , Chandrapur is justified in dismissing the service of Sh . Prakash Meshram w.e.f. 20.5.1990 ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled to ? יי

It is necessary to mention here that after establishment of CGIT at Nagpur , the case was transferred from CGIT, Jabalpur to CGIT, Nagpur for disposal according to law. It is also necessary to mention here that during the pendency of the reference , the workman , Shri Prakash Meshram expired and in his place , his legal heirs , namely, Smt . Shobha , Shri Deepak and Ku . Sundari Prakash Meshram , widow, son and daughter of the deceased Prakash Meshram respectively were substituted .

2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file the statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman filed his statement of claim , through his union , " Bank of India Workers Organisation " and the management of Bank of India filed their written statement .

Itwas pleaded by the workman in his statement of claim that he was appointed in the Bank of India as a part time permanent sub - staff on 1 / 3rd pay of scale on 1.1.86 and was posted in Sasti Extension Counter of Rajura branch in Chandrapur district and he was a confirmed and permanent employee and the service conditions of the Bank employees are governed by the provisions of Shastri Award and Bipartite Settlement and while he was working as such , he was suspended from service w.e.f. 31.10.88 in contemplation of initiation of a departmental enquiry against him and charge sheet containing two charges was issued against him after a period of about one year on 20.9.89 and enquiry was conducted against him and the enquiry report was submitted on 6.3.90 and the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and issued show- cause notice for the punishment of dismissal and he submitted his reply to such show - cause , but the Disciplinary Authority confirmed the punishment

[PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] and passed the order of dismissal and he preferred an appeal against the order of his dismissal from service before the Appellate Authority, but his appeal was also rejected . It was further pleaded that the enquiry conducted against him was not proper and principles of natural justice were not followed by the Inquiry Officer during the course of enquiry and the Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry with undue haste and without giving reasonable time to his defence representative to study the case and on the date of enquiry i.e. 19-12-89 , the defence representative . Shri Vinayak Joshi was not relieved by his Branch Manager. on the ground that he was not instructed to relieve Shri Joshi and as such , the defence representative was not able to attend the enquiry proceedings in the initial stage and the defence representative requested the Inquiry Officer to give sufficient time to him to conduct the enquiry meaningfully, but his request was turned down by the Inquiry Officer and the evidence of nine witnesses examined on behalf of the management was recorded in absence of the defence representative and that too in English and the proceedings were sent to the defence representative by post and after receipt of such proceedings , the defence representative requested in writing on 10-1-90 to the Inquiry Officer to allow him atleast to cross - examine the nine witnesses already examined on behalf ofthe management exparte , but the Inquiry Officer refused permission to cross - examine the witnesses and posted the case for defence evidence and as such , the principles of natural justice were violated and the enquiry was unfair and was not proper .

It is also pleaded by the workman that the charges framed in the charge sheet against him do not come within the ambit of Para 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement and his involvement is obviously after thought and he had no concern whatsoever to indulge in the activity and it was not proved by evidence about his direct involvement in the alleged misappropriation of the amount of Rs . 1500 and the Inquiry Officer failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is also erred in law and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse and there was violation of principles of natural justice and as such , the entire enquiry was vitiated . The workman had prayed for setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service and for his reinstatement in service with back wages and all consequential benefits .

4. In their written statement , the management have pleaded that the enquiry was conducted against the workman properly and following the principles of natural justice and the defence representative was given reasonable time to study the case and the defence representative was denied permission only on 19-12-89 to attend the enquiry by his Branch Manager , since the Branch Manager was not aware regarding the said enquiry and no important proceedings or step was taken on that [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

date and the proceedings were adjourned on the very ground and the next date of the enquiry was fixed after about nine days i.e. 28-12-89 and the copies of the documents supplied to the defence representative were all within the knowledge of the workman and the defence representative made a belated request on 10-1-1990 for cross -examination of the witnesses of the management, who had already been discharged and as such , the request was not acceded to , for the reason that no proper ground was given as to why the cross- examination was not done on the date , when the evidence of the witnesses was recorded in the enquiry and the enquiry was not conducted in a haste and the misconduct committed by the workman comes within the ambit of Clause 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement and the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority , after taking into consideration the materials on record and findings the charges to have been proved , passed the order and the departmental proceeding was legal and proper and the same was conducted by following the principles of natural justice .

5. As this is a case of dismissal from service , the validity of the departmental enquiry was taken as a preliminary issue for consideration and as per order dated 9.4.96 , it was held that the departmental enquiry was not legal and proper on account of breach of principles of natural justice . However , permission was granted to the management to prove the misconduct of the workman by leading evidence before the Tribunal .

6. The management examined as many as five witnesses before this Tribunal to prove the charge against the workman . Out of them , witnesses , namely, H.R. Uikey and T.S.Raut are the two Bank employees of Sasti Extension Counter of Rajura Branch of Bank of India and were working in the Bank at the time of the alleged occurrence . The Management also examined Shri Baburao Balakrishna Bandi , Kisan Laushman Pimpalkar and Shri Ramdas Govindrao Giradkar . All the above witnesses were cross -examined by the advocate for the workman .

In support of his defence , the workman besides examining himself , examined two witnesses , namely Tushar Vasantrao Deopujari and Dr.Trimbak Arjun Pandilwar. It is necessary to mention here that though the two witnesses examined on behalf of the workman were cross-examined , the workman could not be cross -examined , firstly as except Marathi , he did not know Hindi or English and thereafter , as he expired before his cross - examination . It is also necessary to mention here that as cross- examination of the workman could not be done , the management filed writ petition No. 1085/2002 before the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench and the Hon ' ble Court while disposing the writ have been pleased to direct that , " In our opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in the eventuality of respondent No.2 having died , the Trial Court while deciding the matter has to take into consideration the fact that the version of

271

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

respondent No.2 has gone unchallenged because permission to cross -examine was refused . The Presiding Officer should not treat that the version of respondent No.2 went unchallenged . With these observations , the petition stands disposed of. In view of the direction of the Hon'ble Court , the statement of the workman cannot be takento be unchallenged , even though there was no cross- examination for testing the veracity of his statement .

After the death of the workman , the wife of the workman , Mrs. Shobha Prakash Meshram was also examined as a witness in support of the defence .

7. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that even though the Tribunal held the domestic enquiry to be not legal and proper, permitted the management to lead evidence to prove the charges levelled against the workman and accordingly five witnesses have been examined including Shri Baburao Bandi the customer from whose account , the amount of Rs . 1500 was withdrawn , Shri Kisan Laushman Pimpalkar and Shri Ramdeo Giradkar and for their evidence it can be found that the management has been able to prove beyond doubt that at the instance of the workman , Giradkar received the amount of Rs . 1500 withdrawn from the account of Shri Bandi and after receipt the amount , he handed over the said amount to the workman , but the workman did not hand over the same either to Shri Bandi or to Shri Pimpalkar and as such the charge against the workman has duly been proved. It was also submitted that the rebuttal evidence adduced by the workman has no evidentiary value and the same also in no way disproves the charge levelled against the workman and in view of the serious misconduct committed by the workman , the order of termination of service of the workman is legal and proper and there is no ground to interfere with such punishment .

8. On the other hand , the learned advocate for the workman submitted that it is clear from the evidence adduced by the management that the cash of Rs.1500 withdrawn from the account of Shri Bandi was received by Shri Giradkar and not by the workman and Shri Giradkar had signed on the back of the withdrawal slip in token of receipt of the cash of Rs.1500 and the workman had no role to play in the matter of withdrawal or receipt ofthe money and the allegations against the workman that he instigated Shri Giradkar to receive the money and that Giradkar handed over the money to the workman are false and such a false story was created by Shri Giradkar , who in fact fraudulently received the amount of Shri Bandi and the workman was unnecessarily involved by Shri Giradkar in his attempt of self exculpation . It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that there is no evidence on record to show that the workman received the amount of Rs . 1500 from the bank or that Shri Giradkar paid the amount to the workman and the workman was a part time Sweeper in the branch and he had no nexus with 272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

the clerical or cashier job and management has failed to bring any evidence on record to substantiate the charges against the workman.

8. In view ofthe submissions made by the parties , it is necessary to evaluate the evidence adduced by the parties and to find out as to whether the management has been able to substantiate the charges levelled against the workman or not .

It is the admitted case of the management that cash ofRs.1500 withdrawn from the account of Shri Bandi was paid to Shri Giradkar by the cashier of the bank and Shri Giradkar signed on the back ofthe withdrawal form in tokenof receipt of the said amount. It is not the case ofthe management that cash of Rs . 1500 was directly paid to the workman by the cashier and the workman received the same from the cashier . According to the charge sheet submitted by the management against the workman , on 12-9-88, one Shri K.L.Pimpalkar, an employee of Western Coalfields Ltd. came to the Bank's Sasti Extension Counter with the passbook of Saving Account No.1055 of Shri B.B.Bandi alongwith a withdrawal slip for withdrawal of a sum of Rs.1500 and as there was heavy rush , Shri Pimpalkar kept the passbook and withdrawal form on the counter requesting the workman to look after the passbook and withdrawal form , with the intention to come back after some time to collect the cash and when Shri R.G.Giradkar, another employee of WCL came to the bank for withdrawal of his own salary, the workman approached him with the passbook of Saving Account No.1055 and the withdrawal slip for Rs . 1500 and got his signature on the withdrawal slip and also issued token to Shri Giradkar and after the payment of Rs . 1500 was made to Shri Giradkar, the workman received the amount of Rs.1500 from Shri Giradkar but he did not hand over the said amount to Shri Pimpalkar, who came to the Bank to collect the said amount subsequently and misappropriated the same. In view of the charge mentioned above , it is only to be considered as to whether the workman had approached Shri Giradkar to receive the amount of Rs.1500 by signing the withdrawal form of Shri Bandi andwhether he received the said amount from Shri Giradkar and misappropriated the same.

Shri B.B.Bandi in his statement has stated that on 12.9.88, he gave his passbook and the withdrawal slip duly filled in by him to Shri Pimpalkar for withdrawal of Rs . 1500 from his account of Bank of India , Sasti Extension Counter and Shri Pimpalkar came to him at about 2.30 to 3.00 PM and informed him about somebody else of taking away the amount of Rs . 1500 by signing the withdrawal form , so he went to the bank and informed the staff of his not receiving the payment of Rs . 1500 and the staff members showed him the withdrawal form, which was signed by Shri Ramdas Govind Giradkar at the reverse and he was informed by the bank staff that the payment was given to Shri Giradkar and on the next day i.e. 13-9-1988 , he went withShri Giradkar to the bank and at the bank, Shri Giradkar stated that he signed on the back side of the withdrawal

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) form and received the payment , as asked by the workman. Shri Prakash Meshtram and later on handed over the said amount to the workman and when he threaten Shri Giradkar to launch a police complaint in case of his not getting back the money, Shri Giradkar borrowed Rs . 1500from others and gave the same to him in the bank premises , in presence of the staff. The evidence of Shri Bandi that Shri Giradkar informed in the bank that he signed on the withdrawal form and received the amount of Rs.1500 as per the direction of the workman and that he handed over the sum of Rs . 1500 to the workman has not at all been challenged in the cross - examination.

9. Shri Pimpalkar, who was entrusted with the passbook and withdrawal form by Shri Bandi to withdraw the amount of Rs.1500 has categorically stated that on 12-9-1988, Shri Bandi gave a duly filled in withdrawal form and his-pass - book to him , for withdrawal of money from Bank of India, Sasti Extension Counter and he went to the Bank with the pass - book and the withdrawal form and as there was rush in the bank, he kept the withdrawal form and the pass -book near the counter , where pass -books of other customers were kept and he asked the workman to keep watch on the pass - book and the withdrawal form and due to the rush in the bank , he left the bank and again returned to the bank at about 12.30 to 1.00PM to receive the payment and he was informed by the cashier that the payment of Shri Bandi had already been made , so , he met Shri Bandi and informed him about somebody signing and taking away the payment and thereafter, he alongwith Shri Bandi again went to the bank and peruse the withdrawal slip and found the same to have been signed by Shri Giradkar at the back and he enquired from the workman about the passbook but the workman denied of having any knowledge about the same and told that the passbook might be lying near the counter window and the cashier informed them that the payment was received by Shri Giradkar and on 13.9.88 , he was called for to the bank and in the bank Shri Bandi , Shri Giradkar and the staff members werepresent and Shri Giradkar asked the workman about the payment and passbook of Shri Bandi , which he had given to the workman and the workman admitted to have received the amount of Rs . 1500 from Shri Giradkar and to have handed over the same to another person . The evidence of Shri Pimpalkar that the workman had admitted to have received the cash of Rs . 1500 from Shri Giradkar has not been challenged in the cross - examination.

10. The evidence of Shri Giradkar is more or less to the same effect . Shri Giradkar had stated that on 12-9-88, he went to the bank to withdraw money and he tendered hispassbook at the counter and received the token and at that time, the workman who was standing there asked him to sign on the back of one withdrawal forin of Rs . 1500 of Shri Bandi , stating that he himself should not sign on the same and accordingly, he signed on the withdrawal form and returned the same alongwith the passbook to the workman and he tendered the token of Shri Bandi's account to the cashier and received an amount of Rs . 1500 and the 273 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

two bank employees had no axe to grind against the workman , so as to falsely implicate him . So , it is clear from the evidence of the witnesses examined from the side of the management that the workman asked Shri Giradkar to sign on the withdrawal form of Shri Bandi and to receive the amount of Rs . 1500 and after Shri Giradkar received the amount of Rs . 1500 from the cashier , he took the same and did not give it either to Shri Bandi or Shri Pimpalkar.

passbook and handed over the amount of Rs . 1500 and the passbook to the workman , as asked by him and left the branch and on 13-9-88 , Shri Bandi came to his house and enquired about the payment of Rs . 1500 and he explained Shri Bandi of his signing on the withdrawal form and receiving the amount of Rs . 1500 at the instance of the workman and that he handed over the said amount and the passbook to the workman and then he went to the bank alongwith Shri Bandi , where staff of the bank and the workman were present and he questioned the workman why he did not give Rs . 1500 and the passbook to Shri Bandi , but the workman stated that the amount of Rs.1500 taken by him was given to another person and when Shri Bandi threatened him ( Shri Giradkar ) for lodging complaint with the police , he borrowed the cash of Rs . 1500 from others and gave the same to Shri Bandi . The evidence of Shri Giradkar in respect of his assertion that the workman admitted to have received the amount of Rs . 1500 and the passbook of Shri Bandi from him and that the workman told to have handed over the said amount to another person has not been challenged in the cross -examination .

12. So far as the evidence adduced on behalf of the workman is concerned , it is found that the evidence of the witnesses , Shri Tushar Vasantrao Deopujari and the wife of the workman has no evidentiary value . Shri Deopujari has stated about the mismanagement in the bank, but in the cross -examination , he has admitted that he has no knowledge about the occurrence that happened on 12-9-88 in the Sasti Branch Extension Counter . Likewise , wife of the workman has denied to have any knowledge about the occurrence on 12-9-88 . So far as the evidence of the workman and the witness Dr. Trimbak Arjun Pandilwar is concerned , it is found that the workman while adducing evidence tried to introduce the plea of alibi . The workman has stated that on 12-9-88 , he left the branch at about 10.30 AM to reach Dr. Pandilwar's dispensary and he was not present in the bank premises after 10.30 AM, on that day. Dr. Pandilwar has also stated that , on 12-9-88 , Shri Prakash Meshram was in his dispensary from 10.45 AM onwards till 4.00 PM and 13-9-88 evening , he heard about the incidence happened in the bank . However , no reliance can be placed on such evidence , because in the statement ofclaim , no such plea of alibi was taken by the workman . Moreover , in view of the clear evidence of the five witnesses examined on behalf of the management including two employees of the bank , who had no reason to depose falsely against the workman , it is clear that the workman admitted before the witnesses to have taken cash ofRs . 1500from Shri Giradkar , after Shri Giradkdar received the same from the cashier and Shri Giradkar signed on the withdrawal form of Shri Bandi and received the amount from the cashier in good faith being asked by the workman . I find that even if, it has been held that the enquiry was not proper, still then , management has been able to prove the charge against the workman . The charge proved against the workman is very serious in nature . The workman was an employee of the bank and bank is a public financial institution , where the element of honesty and integrity is ofparamount importance . The workman was found lacking on that aspect and as such , punishment of dismissal from service against the workman is found to be not shockingly disproportionate . Hence , it is ordered :-

ORDER

The action of the management of Bank of India , Chandrapur is justified in dismissing the services of Shri Prakash Meshram w.e. f. 28-5-90 and the workman was not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer 11. The evidence of Shri Bandi , Shri Pimpalkar and Shri Giradkar has been fully corroborated by the evidence ofthe two employees of the bank , who have been examined by the management in support of its case . Shri H.R.Uikey has stated that he was a staff of the Bank of India of Sasti Extention Counter and on 12-9-88 , at 2.30 PM , a customer came to the branch and enquired about withdrawal of Rs.1500 and his passbook, which had been kept near the window counter and they searched for the passbook but would not able to trace out the same , so they asked the customer to wait for some time and when the cashier was writing the cash payment book , he found the withdrawal form and that the payment was made to one Shri Giradkar, who had signed at the back of the withdrawal form and the customer was advised to bring Shri Giradkar to the bank and on 13-9-88 , at 12.00 noon , the customer , Shri Bandi brought Shri Giradkar to the bank and when Shri Giradkar was questioned about the withdrawal , he admitted to have received the amount of Rs . 1500 but said that he handed over the said amount to the staff Sweeper , Shri Prakash Meshram and being questioned , Shri Prakash Meshram admitted in front of all the staff member that he had taken the cash of Rs . 1500 from Giradkar and gave the same to another person . The evidence of the other bank employee , Shri T.S.Raut is to the same effect . He has also categorically stated that when the workman was asked about the payment , he admitted in presence of all staff members of the bank that he had taken the cash from Shri Giradkar and gave it to some other person and Shri Giradkar told them that the workman asked him to sign on the back side of the withdrawal form and in good faith , he signed on the same. The two bank employees have been cross- examined at length , but their statement that the workman admitted to have received the cash of Rs . 1500 from Shri Giradkar have not been challenged. It is found that the 274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Dated, the 29-11-2010 नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

AWARD

By Order No. L - 20012 / 489 / 94 - IR ( Coal - 1 ) dated 3-11-95 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

का.आ. 104.-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 129/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -20012 /489/1994 - आईआर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of North Tisra Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.L. in dismissing from service of Shri Bishun Poldar is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? " New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010

S.O. 104.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 129/1995 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , 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 workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010.

[No. L- 20012/489 / 1994-1R ( C -J ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I. AT DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U /S . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) ( 2A ) of 1.D. Act .

REFERENCE No. 129 of 1995

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of North Tisra Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C. Ld .

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Shri H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

APPERARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri H. Nath , Advocate .

For the Workman : Shri N. G. Arun ,

Authorised Representative .

State: Jharkhand Industry: Coal

2. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the concerned workman stating that the concerned workman was working as minor / loader at IUJ Pit of North Tisra Colliery of M/ s . BCCL . On 15-12-92 the manager of North Tisra Colliery issued a chargesheet to the concerned workman alloging that on 14-12-92 in the night at about 2.50 P.M. he was caught red handed while indulging in theft of cables from the store . A letter was handed over to the Police for necessary action by the CISF. A reply was submitted by the concerned workman denying the allegation levelled against him. The reply was not found satisfactory by the management and Sri . A. B. Sinha was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry . The enquiry was held perfunctory and the concerned workman was not given full opportunity to defend his case . On the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer the concerned workman was dismissed from service vide letter No.BCCL / UTC/93 / Per /78 dated 3-7-93 . Thereafter as industrial dispute was raised before the A.L.C. ( C ) vide letter dated 15-9-93 regarding the illegal dismissed of the concerned workman and the present reference is outcome ofthisdispute. On the basis of the Police report a case was filed before the Trial Court at Dhanbad . On filing the case against the concerned workman , the workman moved the District Sessions Judge for bail and by order dated 13-1-93 the Sessions Judge granted him a bail and this case is still pending in the Labour Court . It is alleged that the concerned workman was said to have been caught at colliery site in the night of 14/ 15-12-92. In the seizure list which was prepared at 4 P. M. on 15-12-92 at Tisra Police Station there was no signature of the concerned workman over the document prepared by the Police Station . The enquiry was not conducted by the Enquiry Officer according to the rules of natural justice . He was suspended alongwith charge- sheet vide order dated 15-12-92 but inspite of repeated requests he has not been paid any suspension allowance since the date of the suspension i.e. 15-12-92 till the date of dismissal i.e. 3-7-93 which is illegal and he is entitled to get this suspension allowance . Reasonable opportunity was not given to the concerned workman to defend himself in the enquiry. Since the charges were not [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt , the dismissal ofthe concerned workman is illegal , arbitrary and unjustified and malafide , hence it is liable to be set aside .

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman w.e.f. 3-7-93 is unjustified and the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages .

3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the management stating that the concerned workman was working as minor / loader at North Tisra Colliery. In the night of 14-12-92 at about 2.15 A. N. when Petrolling party of CISF during their petrolling seized 250 ft . Cable which was dragged out of Store by miscreants . On the request of CISF party when Hari Narain Singh , Store Keeper opened the lock of the gate of store they caught are thief sitting inside the store who was recognised as Bishan Holdar , the concerned workman . The F.I.R. was lodged with the Local Police and the concerned workman was issued a chargesheet vide letter dated 15-12-92 . The reply dated 19-1-93 was not found satisfactory and enquiry was held against the concerned workman by Shri A. B. Sinha , Dy. P. M. , North Tisra Colliery. During enquiry the concerned workman was given full opportunity to defend himself and he was also given opportunity to take assistance of any co- worker . But he declined to take assistance of any co- worker . The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry according to the rules of natural justice and the concerned workman fully participated in the enquiry . The Enquiry Officer held that the change levelled against the concerned workman in the chargesheet dated 15-12-92 fully established. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Superintendent/ Mine Manager who in turn a marked the same to the Dy. CME, North Tisra Colliery. The General Manager approved the dismissal order and the concerned workman was dismissed from his service vide dismissal order dated 3-7-73 with immediate effect . In view of the seriousness of the offence the action of the management of North Tisra Colliery in dismissing the concerned workman is fully justified.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to and the award holding that the action of the management of North Tisra Colliery of M / s . BCCL in dismissing from service of the concerned workman is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying some contents of same of the paragraphs of each other's written statement .

5. The management produced MW- 1 , H. Yadav and proved documents as Exts . M - 1 to M - 8 . The concerned workman has not adduced any evidence .

275

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

6. The concerned workman was removed from service by the management on the ground that he committed theft on 14-12-92 at 2.45 A.M. and he was caught red handed by C.I.S.F. and 250 ft . Cable was recovered from him . An F.I.R. was also lodged against the concerned workman to the local police . Reply to the chargesheet of the concerned workman was not found satisfactory by the management and the enquiry was conducted . He was allowed to produce documents and the adduce evidence . After enquiry he was dismissed from service .

7. The concerned workman's representative argued that he was bailed in theft case , but by getting bail from CivilCourt it cannot be presumed that he was not caught red handed in the night of 14-12-92 at about 2-15 while indulging in theft of cables from the store of the colliery . Such a person who has been caught red handed cannot claim any right to be employed in the management of M/ s . BCCL and is not entitled any sympathy by the management to get service . Publication was made and notices were sent to him by past but he has not cared . In the criminal case the concerned workman was acquitted, but no paper has been filed which may show that he was acquitted by Civil Court so that it may be shown that he was innocent . The enquiry was held not fair and proper by orderdated 29-8-2009 .

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances , 1 hold that the action of the management of North Tisra Colliery of M / s . BCCL in dismissing from service of Shri Bishan Haldar is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

This is my Award .

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 105. औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं रिगोनेल इन्स्यूटीट ऑफ ऐजुकेशन 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 29/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012 / 15/2005- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 105. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Regional 276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

Institute ofEducation and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 10-12-2010.

No. L -42012/ 15/2005- IR(CM- II)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR PRESENT:

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.GI.T. - cum -Labour Court , Bhubaneswar .

Industrial Dispute Case No. 29/2005 L-42012/15/2005- IR (CM - 11), dated 8-11-2005 Date ofPassing Order- 26th November, 2010 BETWEEN :

TheManagement of the Principal , Regional Institute ofEducation , P.O. R.I.E. Campus, Sachivalaya Marg , baneswar - 751022

.... 1st Party- Management

AND

Their Workmen represented through the President , Regional Institute of Workers Union , At- 2RA- 50 , Road No. 4, Unit - IX, Bhubaneswar - 751007

...2nd Party-Union APPEARANCES

Forthe 1st Party - Management

Shri U. K. Nanda, Principal

None :

For the 2nd Party - Union .

ORDER

Case taken up today before Lok Adalat . The 1st Party - Management is present through its Principal , who has filed hazira. None is present on behalf of the 2nd Farty- Union .

The case is fixed for further orders today. The 2nd Party-Union has sent a withdrawal petition dated 25-1-2010 to this Tribunal by post stating that the Management is taking some steps to consider the matter of the disputant- workmen as same posts are lying vacant.

The 1st Party-Managements represented through the Principal has filed a memo that the cases of all disputants involved in this case have already been considered and they were given temporary status as per

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] letter dated 8-6-2010 copy of which has been enclosed. Therefore the case may be closed.

The 2nd Party-Union has not been attending the Tribunal after sending the withdrawal petition . Therefore it seems that the 2nd Party-Union is no more interested in pursuing the case. Several notices to the 2nd Party-Union were also sent but no response has been received. As such it will be expedient in the interest ofjustice to allow the withdrawal petition of the 2nd Party-Union .

Reference is decided as withdrawn and no dispute award is passed accordingly.

Dictated& Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 106.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12011 /14/2010- आईआर( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December, 2010 S.O. 106. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.30 /2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court- 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 9-12-2010.

[No. L- 12011 / 14/2010- IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX DELHI

1. D. No. 30/2010

TheGeneral Secretary, PNB Workers Organisation C/ o Arunanshu Bhardwaj , 2004, Housing Board Colony, Sector - 4, Konsiwas Road, Rewario.

Workman [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Versus

The General Manager (HRD) ,

Punjab National Bank,

Bhikaji Cama Place ,

NewDelhi .

......Management

AWARD

On 16th of January, 2008 , Shri Arunanshu Bhardwaj , who was working as Clerk-cum -typist at Kund (Rewari) branch ofPunjab National Bank ( hereinafter referred to as the Bank) , was placed under suspension for misconducts committedby him . Charge sheet dated 24th ofApril , 2008 , was served upon him on 12th of May, 2008 calling upon him to submit written statement of his defence. When he failed to submit reply to the charge -sheet, vide order dated 22-7-2008 an enquiry was initiated against him , During the course of enquiry he was paid subsistence allowance initially for first three months @ 1 /3rd of his pay and allowances and thereafter one half of his pay and allowances . The enquiry lasted till 15-10-2009 and thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted his report before the Disciplinary Authority. Punishment was awarded to Shri Arunanshu Bhardwaj . He opted to raise a dispute before the Conciliation Officer that subsistence allowance , paid to him by the Bank, was not in consonance with provisions of settlement dated 8th of September, 1983. The Bank dispelled his claim , which resulted in the failure of conciliation proceedings . On consideration of failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this tribunal for adjudication vide order No. L - 12011 / 14/2010 - IR (B- II ) New Delhi dated 30-3-2010 , with following terms: - "Whether the delay in conduction of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer is due to the act of the workman orthat of the management and whether non payment offull pay and allowances to the workman after one year from the date of suspension as provided under Bipartite Settlement is just, fair and legal? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled to and from which date? "

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Arunanshu Bhardwaj pleading therein that he was appointed clerk- cum-typist with the Bank , which institution he served for 20 years . In October, 1993 he was posted at Kund branch ofthe Bank. On 16-1-2008 he was placed under suspensiori by the Branch Manager. Details leading to his suspension, were brought to his notice on 12-5-2008, when charge sheet dated 22-4-2008 was served . The Bank had deliberately prolonged to his suspension for a period of four months. Bank was under an obligation to provide all documents alongwith list of witnesses who were to be examined before the Enquiry Officer. He demanded documents vide letters 4894GI/2011-20

277

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष18 , 1932

dated 15-5-08, 31-5-08 and 15-7-08 for marking a statement ofdefence to the charge sheet . On 22-7-08 the enquiry was initiated which could commence on 23-8-2008 . He intimated the Enquiry Officer about his inability to attend the proceedings on 8-9-08 since he was unwell . On 22-9-2008 he alongwith his defence representative participated in the enquiry while proceedings were adjourned to 10-10-2008, on account of non participation of the presenting officer. Biased and prejudiced attitude of the Bank resulted in deliberately disallowing his defence representative to attend the proceedings on 22-10-2008 , which action was challenged by him . He requested the Enquity Officer to unfold reasons of disallowing his defence representative to participate in the enquiry on various dates that is on 1-11-2008, 8-11-2008 , 15-11-2008 , 24-11-2008 ,5-12-2008 and 24-12-2008. However the Enquiry Officer did not proceed with the matter on account of illegal and unjustified stand taken by the Bank. He presents that the enquiry was conducted for a period of more than one year , on account of reasons attributable to the Bank,

3. Claimant agitates that he was entitled to subsistence allowance @ 1 /3rd of his pay and allowances for first three months of his suspension and thereafter one half of his pay and allowances . After one year he was entitled to full pay and allowances as subsistence allowance , in case the enquiry was not delayed for reasons attributable to him or his defence representative . As projected above the enquiry was delayed on acount of reasons attributable to the Bank, hence after expiry of period of one year from the date of his suspension he was entitled to full pay and allowance as subsistence allowance . He claims that he is entitled to full pay and allowances as subsistence allowance since 16-1-2009 . He made request to the Bank through letters dated 27-11-08 , 30-12-08 , 14-1-2009 ,.5-1-2009 and 10-6-2009 besides legal notice dated 2-5-2009 for payment ofhis subsistence allowance in accordance with Bipartite Settlement but to no avail . In May, 09 a sum ofRs. 58554.24 was credited to his bank account by the Bank when it was realized that an illegality was committed in payment of subsistence allowance to him. He claims that subsistence allowance paid to him was in violation of Bipartite Settlement and he was entitled to full pay and allowances as subsistence allowance , after expiry of one year from the date ofhis suspension . He seeks an award in that regard in his favour.

4. Contest was given to the claim pleading that dispute raised by the claimant is not an industrial dispute for want of espousal by a recognized trade union of the establishment of the Bank. It has been projected that service conditions of the award staff are governed by Sastry Award, Desai Award and various Bipartite Settlements arrived at industry leval . Clause 5 of Bipartite Setlement dated 8-9-83 deals with payment of subsistence allowance. A suspended employee is to get one third of pay 278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

and allowances as subsistence allowance for first months of suspension and thereafter one half of his pay and allowances . After one year he is to get full pay and allowances as subsistence allowance , if enquiry is not delayed for reasons attributable to him or his defence representative . Subsistence allowance was paid to the claimant in acordance with the provisions , referred above. The enquiry was delayed for reasons attributable to the claimant and his defence representative. Hence he was entitled to full pay and allowance as subsistence allowance after one year of his suspensions . Factum of his suspension on 16-1-2008 has not been disputed . It has also not been disputed that charge sheet dated 22-4-2008 was served on the claimant . The Bank presents that since the enquiry was delayed for reasons attributable to the claimant, his claim for subsistence allowance equal to full pay and allowance is not maintainable .

5.On pleadings of the parties following issues were settled:

1. Whether dispute referred by the appropriate Government is not an industrial dispute for want of espousal by recognized registered union in the establishment of the management?

2. Whether delay in conduct of the enquiry can be attributed to the workman?

3.As in terms of reference.

4.Relief.

6. Claimant had tendered his affifdavit Ex . WW1 /A as evidence besides reliance on documents Ex. WW1 / 1 to Ex. WW1 /21 . He was cross examined at length on behalf of the Bank . The claimant opted not to examine any other witness . The Bank decided not to examine any witness in itsdefence.

7. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Manish Goomber, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant. Shri Rajat Arora, authorised representative, riased his submissions on behalf of the Bank . Written submissions were also filed on behalf ofthe claimant. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

Issue No. 1

8.At the outset it was argued by Shri Arora that he dispute raised by the claimant is an individual dispute . It does not fall within the ambit of Industrial dispute as defined by clause (k) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act ) , since it has not been espousedby aunion in the establishment of the Bank. Since an individual dispute has been refered for adjudication this Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction over the matter claims Shri Arora.According to him no evidence worth name was laid

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii )] by the claimant before this Tribunal , relating to espousal of the dispute by a union . He agitates that in affidavit Ex. WW1 /A the claimant does not speak anything in respect ofespousal ofhis claim by Punjab National Bank Workers Organisation . Shri Arora argued that with a view to cover up the lacunas the claimant coined a story in that regard. To dispel submissions advanced by Shri Arora , Shri Goomber presents that case of the claimant was adapted by Punjab National Bank Workers Organisation , hence it had acquired status of an industrial dispute . Resolution dated 20-8-2009 was passed in that regard , presents Shri Goomber. He argued that though the said resolution has not been proved yet it has been placed over the record of the Tribunal by the claimant . According to him , the dispute referred for adjudication is an industrial dispute and it does not lie in the mouth of the Bank to assert that this Tribunal has nojurisdiction to entertain the reference.

9. For an answer to above proposition it is expedient to have a glance on provisions of the Act . Provisions of Section 10 of the Act , make it clear that the appropriate Government may refer an existing or apprehended dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication . Industrial dispute has been defined by clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act . Definition given in the said sub - section encompasses within its sweep any dispute or difference between the employer and employers , or between employer and workmen or between workmen and workmen , which is connected with the employment or non employment or terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person. The Act is a legislation relating to what is known as " collective bargaining " in the economic field. Thispolicy ofthe legislature is also implicit in the definition ofthe industrial dispute .

10. The Apex Court in Bombay Union of Journalists ( 1961 ( II ) LLJ 436) has observed that in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the test is whether at the date of reference , the dispute was taken up as supported by the union ofthe workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an appreciable number of workmen . In order therefore to convert an " individual dispute " into an " industrial dispute" , is has to be established that it had been taken up by the union of employees of the establishment or by an appreciable number of the employees of the establishment . As far as union of the workmen of establishment itself is concerned the problem of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty as the workmen who are members of such unions generally have a continuity of interest with an individual employee who is one of their fellow workman . Butthe difficulties arise when the cause of a workman in a particular establishment , is sponsored by a union which is not of the workmen of that establishment but is one of which membership is open to workmen of their [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

establishment as well in that industry . In such a case a union which has only microscopic number of the workmen as its member cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen and the management . Representative character ofthe union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual number of co - workers sponsoring the dispute . The mere fact that a substantial number of workmen of the establishment , in which the concerned workman was employee , were also members of the union would not constitute sponsorship . It must be shown that they were connected together and arived at an understanding by a resolution or by other means and collectively supported the dispute.

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

12. It is not necesary that the sponsoring union is a registered trade union or a recognized trade union . Once it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored the workman's cause , it is sufficient to convert it into an industrial dispute . In Pardeep Lamp Works ( 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 507) complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were filed before the conciliation officer by the individual workmen themselves . But their case was subsequently taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co- workmen , if not a majority of them . Since this union was not registered or recognized , the workmen elected five

279

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed workmen . Thus the cases of the dismissed workmen were espoused by the new union , yet unregistered and unrecognized . The Apex Court held that the fact that these disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized union does not mean that they were not " industrial dispute " .

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

14. Now I turn to factual matrix. When testimony of Shri Arunashu Bhardwaj was purified by an ordeal of cross- examination , he projected a claim that his cause was espoused by Punjab National Bank Workers organisation on 20-8-09 . He concedes that copy of the resolution of the Organisation has not been relied by him . He also concedes that copy of the said resolution was not filed by him before the Conciliation Officer . According to him , the metting of the Organisation was not attended by him , which took place on 20-8-2009 . He had not gone through the contents of the said resolution admits Shri Bhardwaj . He does not dispute that copy of that resolution was never tendered to the Bank. Therefore , facts unfolded by the claimant make it clear that neither he attended meeting of the Organisation on 20-8-09 , or gone through the resolution which was passed adapting his cause . The resolution so passed was not relied by him before the Conciliation Officer , However he has had placed copy of the alleged resolution before this Tribunal for consideration . For convenience 280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

sake , contents of the resolution are reproduced hereinunder :

" It was resolved that Shri S. K. Rana. who is authorised defence representative in the case Shri Arunanshu Bhardwaj in the departmental enquiry. He will also defend Shri Bhardwaj in A.L.C. Faridabad, and CGIT, if required " .

15. On top of the document containing resolution , referred above it has been recorded that the contents are extract of the meeting held on 20-8-2009 , the Sunday of the Union . Therefore the claimant wants to persuade this Tribunal to believe that on 20-8-2009 a meeting of the Organization took place wherein the resolution adapting hiscause was passed . Whether there was an occasion for the Organization to pass the resolution , referred above on 20-8-09? For an answer to this proposition facts are to be scanned . Shri Rana was defence representative for the claimant beforethe Enquiry Officer, who defended him till 22-10-2008 , on which date the Enquiry Officer debared him to represent the claimant . The claimant insisted upon the Enquiry Officer to unfold reasons , which persuaded the latter to debar Shri Rana to act as defence representative . He raised issue before the Enquiry Officer on 1-11-2008, 8-11-2008, 15-11-2008,24-11-2008,5-12-2008 and 24-12-2008 . When the Enquiry Officer had debarred Shri Rana to represent the claimant that was opurtune time for the Organization to adapt a resolution and authorize Shri Rana to act as a defence representative on behalf of the claimant. At that juncture no such resolution was passed . Shri Rana was permitted to represent the claimant by the EnquiryOfficer, vide his order dated 24-12-2008 . Thereafter Shri Rana represented the claimant till the enquiry was concluded on 15-10-09 . It is not a matter of dispute that proceedings lasted before the Enquiry Officer till 15-10-09 and thereafter he recorded his findings and submitted it to the Disciplinary Authority. Hence it is evident that till 15-10-09 it was in the womb as to what would be the result of the domestic enquiry. No one could contemplate the ultimate result ofthose procedings . There was no occasion for the organization to pass resolution , referred above , authorizing Shri Rana to represent the claimant before the Conciliation Officer and the industrial adjudication .

16. There is other fact of the coin . When the case was listed for evidence before this Tribunal , Claimant sought time to file documents . At that juncture it was conceived by him to procure such a document from the President of the Organisation . Thereafter the aforesaid document was obtained and placed on the record . Claimant took no steps to prove it . Even otherwise the alleged resolution does not speak that the Organisation adapted the cause of the claimant . It is emerging over the record that with a view to fill in the gaps the aforesaid document was procured and placed over the record . To the knowledge

[PART II-SFC. 3 ( ii )] ofthe claimant it is a fabricated document , hence he had not tried to prove it . Consequently it is evident that the fact unfolded by the claimant relating to espousal of his cause by the Organisation are farther from truth . No reliance can be plaed on the facts , so projected by the claimant . Evidence produced is flimsy, which has no genuinness . Consequently ocular facts unfolded by the claimant are discarded. It is held that the claimant has miserably failed to prove that his cause was espoused by the Organisation before the Conciliation Officer. When case of the claimant was not espoused by the Organisation before the Conciliation Officer, it had not acquired a character of an industrial dispute . In view of the reasons detailed above , I am constrained to conclude that for want of espousal by a recognized registered union in the establishment of the Bank, there was no industrial dispute before the appropriate Government which could be referred to this tribunal for adjudication . Issue is , therefore answered in favour of the Bank and against the claimant .

Issue No. 2 and 3

17. Though material is available over the record for adjudication as to whether delay in the enquiry, conducted by the Bank , is attributable to the claimant or any of his defence representative , yet this Tribunal is not called upon to enter into the controversy since it has no jurisdiction to deal with it . Thus Tribunal can adjudicate any incidental issue , if an industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication . But the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction , since when dispute referred to it for adjudication nowhere partakes the character of an industrial dispute . In view of the findings recorded on issue No. 1 , this Tribunal refrains its hands from adjudication of the issues referred above .

Relief

18. Since the dispute referred , by the appropriate Government, for adjudication does not have a character of an industrial dispute , the claimant cannot seek adjudication of the issues raised in the dispute referred above . The appropriate Government was not competent to refer the dispute, for want of espousal by a recognized union of the establishment of the management bank . An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated:29-10-2010

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर, 2010

का.आ. 107.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. टी. सी. मूवर्स प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय 1 , मुंबई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

संख्या सीजीआईटी -1/14/ 2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -31011 / 1/2006- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 107. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT - 1 / 14/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . S.T.C. Movers Pvt. Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-12-2010 .

[No. L- 31011 / 1 /2006- IR (B - II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , MUMBAI JUSTICE Ġ S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 1 / 14 OF 2006 Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of M / s . S.T.C. Movers Pvt . Ltd. And Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

Shri B. K. Ashok , Adv .

For the Union

: Absent .

Maharashtra

For the Management : State :

Mumbai , dated the 19th day of November 2010.

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub - section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 vide Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi Order No. L -31011 / 1 /2006 - IR ( B - II ) dt . 14-6-2006 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . STC Movers Pvt . Ltd. dismissing the services of Shri Gurvinder Singh TLT Operator w.e.f. 6-10-2004 is justified? If not what relief the workman Shri Guruvinder Singh is entitled to ? "

281

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

2. The workman is not present.

3. Mr. B. K. Ashok learned counsel for the Management states that the matter has been settled between the workman and the Management . There is an application of the workman also in the file wherein he has said that he has acepted all his dues in full and final terms and as such, he does not want to pursue the matter and that he will not have any claim against the Company in future.

4. It is thus clear that the matter has been settled between the workman and the Management.

5. The case , therefore , stands disposed of.

6.An Award is made accordingly.

JUSTICE G S. SARRAF , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 108. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार न्यू इंडिया एश्योरेंस कं. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर/ 27/ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -17012/ 25 /2000 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 108. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC / R/ 27 / 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-12-2010 .

[No. L - 17012 /25 /2000 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

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

NO . CGIT /LC /R/27/ 2001

Presiding Officer Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan

Shri Dhannoo Lal , S/ o Shri Shankar Prasad Namdeo , Vill . Chendai , Tehsil Raghuraj Nagar , 282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

Workman/Union Satna(MP)

Versus

The Divisional Manager ,

NIAC , Head Office,

New IndiaAssurance Company Ltd. ,

Satna

.Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of November, 2010 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. - L- 17012 /25 /2000- IR (B - II ) dated 29-12-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :---

"Whether the action of the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd . Satna ( MP) in terminating the services of Shri Dhannoo Lal Namdeo S / o Shri Shankar Prasad Namdeo from 30-4-97 instead of regularizing him after taking from him work as Sub Staff is legal andjustified? If not, what relief the concerned workinan is entitled to?"

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was employed by the management on the post of Peon/Daftri orally and worked from 1-5-1991 to 30-4-1997 continuously. Thereafter he was terminated orally without assigning any reason or without any show cause. It is alleged that no compensation was paid as has been required under Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short Act, 1947) . It is stated that juniors to him are still working with the management. It is submitted that the workman be reinstated in the service .

3. The management appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement . The case of the management , inter alia, is that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the applicant . He was never employed on the post of Peon or Daftri . It is stated that he used to run a tea stall and supply tea to the staff members of the offices situated in the vicinity of the Divisional Office . He used to charge Rs . 1.50 per cup of tea and accordingly the charges towards the teawere directly paid in cash to him in company's vouchers . He was never on the rolls of the Insurance company. He was not workman as defined in Section 2( s) of the Act, 1947. The question of termination from employment does not arise . There is no merit in his case. It is submitted that the reference be , accordingly, answered .

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are formulated for adjudication :-

I. Whether the applicant/workman was in the employment ofthe management and there was any relationship of employee and employer between them ?

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] II. Whether the applicant/ workman is entitled to be reinstated in the employment of the management ?

III. What relief, if any, the applicant is entitled to?

5. Issue No. I

The applicant has adduced oral evidence in the case. He has stated in his evidence that there was a tea club of the employees and he supplied tea to them . He has further stated that he maintained accounts of tea ofthe employees . Hehas proved paper Nos . 9/2 to 9/25 which is filed by the management and is marked as Exhibit M/l . The said document clearly shows that there was an account of supplying tea . This fact corroborates the case of the management that the applicant was a tea supplier to the employees and was not employee ofthe management . The workman has also filed certain vouchers. The vouchers show that he was engaged for specific work for specific day on fixed charges for cleaning purpose . The vouchers do not show that he had worked 240 days in a calendar year and specially twelve calendar months preceding the date of reference . His evidence does not corroborate that he worked for continuous one year as in Section 25 - B of theAct, 1947 .

6. On the other hand , the management has examined Shri R. K. Dikshit who is Dy. Manager , New India Insurance Co. Ltd. , Satna . He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that the applicant was never employed as a Peon or Daftri . He was a tea vendor. He was paid tea expenses either in cash or in the name of pretty expenses under prevailing system in the company. He has not been cross -examined by the workman as the right to cross-examine the management witness was closed on his absence . His evidence is unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve this witness . Thus it is clear that there was no relationship of employer and employee and he was not workman under the Act , 1947. This issue is decided in favour ofthe management .

7. Issue Nos. II and III

On the basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the workman has failed to establish that he was in employment of the management and therefore he is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the reference is answered.

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

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 109.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय - Ⅰ, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/80/2008- आई आर( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 109. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 15/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9-12-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/ 80/2008 - IR ( B- II) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case 1. D No. - 15/2008

Shri Vijay Kumar Son of Ram Parshad , resident of House No.32 , Phase -II , Ram Darbar , Chandigarh.

283

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

management and Union of Bank of Baroda before the Dy. CLC (C) , Mumbai is legal and justified ? If so , whether Shri Vijay Kumar is entitled to be considered for absorption as regular peon in the employment of Bank of Baroda and from which date ?"

After receiving the reference parties were informed . Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The case of the workman in nut shell is that he was appointed as peon in the Bank of Baroda SC No. 62-63 , Sector 17 -B , Chandigarh on 3-4-1996 . He worked up to 30-4-2008 when his services were terminated without any notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation . He has worked with the bank continuously for 12 years and 27 days and his work and conduct during this period has been satisfactory. He had completed 240 days in every calendar year including the preceding year from the date of his termination , He is qualified for the appointment of class - IV employees in the bank.

It is also contended by the workman that with the active participation of Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Mumbai there was an agreement between All India Bank Federation and the management regarding the casual and temporary peons working in the said bank. As per the agreement, the services of the casual and temporary peonswere to be regularized in phased manner . The name of the workman was considered and forwarded by the manager of the branch concern to the Head Office for regularization of his services as per the memorandum of the agreement .

...Applicant

Versus

The Chief Manager , Bank of Baroda , Sector 17 , Chandigarh

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman :

Shri O.P.Batra .

Shri Pramod Jain .

For the Management :

AWARD

Passed on : 25-11-2010

Government of India vide notification No. L- 12012/ 80/2008 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 11-2-2009 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 demand of Shri Vijay Kumar son of Shri Ram Parshad for regular employment as a peon in Bank of Baroda as per the settlement dated 18-3-2008 arrived at between the Instead of given the benefit to workman in terms of memorandum of the agreement , his services were orally terminated . Juniors to him were retained in the services . Their services were regularized , whereas , the services of the workman were terminated illegally. On the basis of the above , the workman has prayed for an order setting aside the termination order , reinstating him into the services with consequential benefits and for his regularization of services in terms of the memorandum of agreement mentioned above .

The management appeared and opposed the claim of the workman by filing written statement . The employer and employee relationship between the management and the workman has been challenged . It is contended by the management that for special staff, conditions and the modes of recruitment have been mentioned in the rules of the department . Any person who is appointed on casual basis or on ad hoc basis without following the procedure mentioned in the said rules will not be considered as the employee of the bank as the due procedure for appointment was not followed . In its written statement , the management has termed this appointment as back door entry and has relied upon the principles laid down in the Secretary , State 284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

ofKarnataka and other versus Uma Devi. In Short , it is the contention of the management that initial appointment of the workman was not lawful . The management has cited as more as eight judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court on nature of initial appointment .

Onmerits , it is contended by the management of the bank that workman was never appointed as peon . The workman was never appointed/engaged in the bank services either as a casual worker or a temporary peon . He was coming to the bank to seek some work for cleaning of outdoor for which the bank used to pay the agreed amount on the work charged basis . It is further more contended that he has intermittently worked in the bank , thus , he was not protected under the provisions or the Industrial Disputes Act , accordingly, no notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation were required to be paid . As he has not worked with the bank, so no question for absorption arise . Regarding annexure 3 which is the letter written by the Manager of the bank to the head office for the regularization of the services to the workman in terms of the settlement dated 18-3-2008 , it is contended by the management that claimant is most clever and crafty man. In such activity he got his representation send to the respondent No. 2 though respondent No. 3 whose role is no more then a middle man between the claimant and the respondent No.2 .

The fact of sending of Annexure - 3 to the respondent No. 2 is a sheer outcome of the oversight on the part ofthe respondent No. 3. Annexure 3 is a false and fabricated document. Because of the back door entry, provisions of the settlement dated 18-3-2008 cannot be invoked .

The workman has filed certain documents to prove hisrelationship with the management . The management has contended that all the documents are false and fabricated. No such documents have been issued by the bank. Most of the documents as contended by the management have been prepared on letter head pad ofthe bank fraudulently.

Both of the parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Shri Vijay Kumar the workman filed his affidavit and he was cross- examined in detail on 3-8-2010 . On the other hand , Shri K.S. Shimar, Senior Manager, HRM , filed his affidavit on behalf of the management of the bank . He was cross - examined by learned counsel for the workman in detail . Some questions were also asked by this Tribunal during cross- examination.

Both of the parties also preferred to file the documentary evidence . Memorandum of agreement dated 11-2-2008 has been filed by both of the parties . This is marked as WI . W2 is the copy of the letter written by V. C. Nagar , Chief Manager of the bank to the Deputy General Manager on 24-4-2008 , regarding the forwarding the

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] application of Shri Vijay Kumar for his absorption in services as peon in terms of agreement dated 11-2-2008 .

Annexure 3 is an undertaking given by Shri Vijay Kumar in support of Annexure 2 for the absorption ofhis services as peon . In Annexure 3 the total number of years has been mentioned as 12 years . It is also mentioned that he was appointed on 3-4-1996 and was working till the forwarding of his application . Annexure 4 is the certificate issued by some officer of the bank regarding the terms of services and work and conduct of the workman while working with the bank. Annexure 5 is the letter written to the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Sector- 17 -B , Chandigarh asking some information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Annexure 6 is also the letter written by the workman to the bank . Annexure 7 is also the letter written by the workman to the bank .

W6 is the letter written by the management of the Bank to the Municipal Corporation , Chandigarh for issuing the passes to the vehicles belonging to the employees of thebank and the list of employees was also enclosed with the letter. It contains 24 names and the name of the workman figured at serial No. 14 , W7 , W8 , W9 and W10 are the documents to prove that workman was working with the management .

The management has also filed the documents M1 to M 26 which are the vouchers prepared in the name of the workman. Vide letter dated 17-9-2009 the management has also filed copy of peon delivery book as M29 . Rest of the documents which were directed to be filed by the management have not been filed .

Parties were heard at length . The workman argued that he has worked for more than 12 years in the bank . He was eligible for absorption in services as per the settlement . His name was considered for absorption in the services but reasons known to the management , without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , his services were terminated .

On the other hand , learned counsel for the management has argued that all the documents filed and relied upon by the workman are fabricated . None of the documents belongs to the management . It is further argued by learned counsel for the management that workman has never worked with the bank . He has sometimes worked for cleaning the computer table and such other work for which he was paid wages as per the vouchers Annexure M 1 to M 26. He has not completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination and not entitled for any relief. Learned counsel for the management has admitted the execution of memorandum of settlement between the parties as alleged . Thus , there is no dispute on execution and existence of MW2 , the memorandum of settlement , under which the workman is claiming for absorption of his services as peon . The dispute is the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

nature of work entrusted to and discharged by the workman and the period of services . The workman has claimed that he has worked for more than 12 years continuously, whereas , the management has challenged the very master and servant relationship on the contention that he was never appointed as temporary peon or casual worker.

The management has also stated that his initial appointment was unlawful and not according to the procedure mentioned in the rules . It is argued by learned counsel that on the principle laid down in Uma Devi ' case (supra) the workman is not entitled for any relief.

It ishereby made clear that the principle laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) is not applicable in the industrial dispute raised and referred under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . On the other hand, it is the settled principle of service jurisprudence that if a worker is appointed in any capacity to discharge some work of the bank and has substantially worked with the bank, he is entitled for the protection of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , and the nature ofhis initial appointment has no concern with such protection.

Now question arise whether the workman has worked with the management of the bank for 12 years plus as alleged? W3 and W4 are the copies of the letters written by officer of the bank to the Deputy General Manager. W3 is an undertaking signed and executed by Shri Vijay Kumar , the workman under clause 4 (b ) ofthe settlement, admitted to the parties . This undertaking was forwarded by the Chief Manager Shri B.K. Nagar to the Deputy General Manager for absorption of services as per memorandum of the settlement . The management has been termed these two letters as fabricated one . In para no . 9 of written statement it is contended by the management that the workman has got this letter in fabricated manner. It is further mentioned in para no . 9 of the written statement that W 3 is the outcome of oversight on the part of respondent no . 3. Meaning thereby, as per para no . 9 of the written statement these two documents W3 and W4 are result of oversight of the Manager concern and cannot be termed as fabricated document . As per the pleadings of the management , these two documents came into existence and were executed and transmitted by the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda to the Deputy General Manager for absorption of services of the workman as peon . In W3 the date of appointment of the workman is mentioned as 3-4-1996 and till the date of writing his undertaking, W3 , he continued in services and as per this letter he has completed 12 years of services . W5 which is certificate issued by the management of the bank on 2-9-2000 in which it is specifically mentioned that workman Vijay Kumar was working with the bank since April , 1996. W 6 is the letter written by the management of the bank to the Municipal Corporation regarding issue of passes to 4894G1 /2016-21

285

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

its employees . The name of the workman figured at serial no . 14. I am unable to understand how the workman can fabricate this document. There is no possibility and reason to fabricate the name of the other employees . How the workman fabricate the name of 24 persons along with him for getting the passes . Moreover, the name of the workman is in middle of the letter. Thus , it is beyond imagination that he has added his name in the list fraudulently. W7 , W8 and W10 are the documents which shows the nature ofwork entrusted hy the bank to the workman . Regarding all the documents , the management has taken a plea that all are the fabricated documents . W4 also bears the forwarding no. which is BR/ CHD / 17 / STF /2008-26 , dated 24-04-2008. The witness ofthe management in the middle ofthe para no . 1 of cross - examination, has stated that W4 was not forwarded by the manager of the bank Shri V.C. Nagar. He has specifically stated that the reference number mentioned in the letter is not mentioned in the concern register of the bank . The witness has also stated that he is deposing on the basis of the records . A question was asked by this Tribunal , whether he has seen the concern register ? The witr.ess replied that he has not seen the concern register nor register lying with him in the Court. The further question was asked by this Tribunal that if he has not seen the register how he has deposed on oath that reference no . on W4 is not entered in the concern register of the bank? On this question the witness kept mum for a minute and five seconds and then he replied that it is not in his knowledge whether the reference number ofthe letter has been entered in the relevant register ofthe bank.

Letter W3 was forwarded by the bank with the endorsement of the concern branch . The endorsement of the letter is also mentioned in the register maintained by the bank . The witness on oath has tell a lie that this endorsement does not figure in the concern register . Thereafter, when some questions were asked by the Tribunal , he replied that he did not know whether such entries figure in the concern register. On all the documents , it isthe behaviour of the Senior Manager of the bank . He has totally denied the existence of the documents by saying them false and fabricated . All the documents are on the letter head pad of the bank and originals of all the documents barring W5 are supposed to be in the custody of the bank. No original documents have been filed. In para no . 9 of the written statement , the management of the bank has admitted the execution ofW3 and W4 but original have not been filed in spite of directions .

Order dated 10-02-2010 passed by this Tribunal make it clear how the case of the workman was handled by the bank? The management denied the documents lying with it . The bank denied that no currency register has maintained by it . Regarding peon delivery book of the bank w.e.f. April 1996 to 30-04-2008 , the management of the bank informed this Tribunal in writing that peon 286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

delivery book prior to 31-12-2004 has been destroyed as per norms. The management of the bank further informed this Tribunal that peon delivery book from July 2006 to 1-07-2008 has been field by the management but no statement was given regarding the peon delivery book w.e.f. 1-01-2005 to June 2006. The peon delivery book for this one and halfyear was neither destroyed nor filed. No explanation was given why the management has not filed this peon delivery book? The bank was specifically directed to file the peon delivery book for this period but the management failed reason known to it. On, failure of the management of the bank for filing the documents , further order was passed by this Tribunal on 21-04-2010 that adverse inference according to law shall be taken against the management .

There is a socio-economic disparity between the position of the management and the workman. From the socio-economic point of the view, the workman is the member of the weakest class of the society and management is always in the position to dominate the will ofthe workman . It is specifically proved in this case that the management has dominated the will of the workman. W3 and W4 which are the documents of the bank specifically proved that workman has regularly worked with the management for 12 plus years . But he was denied his lawful right which accrued by the settlement of the memorandum. The certificate issued by the bank also proved that he had continuously worked with the bank . It isthe contention of the workman that he was paid monthly wages and apart from the monthly wages he was also paid by some vouchers for extra work which was entrusted to him . Meaning thereby, the contention of the workman is that he was paid fixed monthly wages as temporary peon and he was also paid daily wages by the vouchers for the work entrusted to him by the management of the bank. This contention of the workman finds favour because of failure of the management to file the relevant documents . It cannot be believed that management is not maintaining the currency attendance register in the branch which is mandatory for every branch of the bank . No order of destruction of peon delivery book between July 2005 to June 2006 has been filed by the management . In spite of the specific directions given by this tribunal , the peon delivery book from July 2006 to 1-07-2008 has not been filed . The peon delivery book from July 2006 to 1-07-2008 contains the name of the workman . Almost every page contains the name of the workman which shows that work was regularly entrusted to him .

By the management no documents have been filed. The copies of the documents filed by the workman are contended tobe forged and fabricated by the management which is not believable because of the contradictory statement in the cross -examination given by the witness of the management and its pleadings .

[PART I-SEC. 3(ii) ] From the evidence of the management witness it is clearly established that Shri K.S. Shimar has deposed falsely on oath before this Tribunal . Entire evidence of Shri K.S. Shimar and his demeanor which is recordedby thisTribunal proved that he has deposed falsely on oath . Asstated earlier under the situation of socio economic disparity between the workman and the management, whether such act of the senior officer deposing falsely on oath should be tolerated by the Tribunal? This is the example how the Nationalize Bank which is supposed to be a role model of the public appointment treats the workman who has worked continuously for more than 12 years plus with the bank by saying in garlanding words that the documents are forged and fabricated without any proof. In my view the witness of the management Shri K.S. Shimar is guilty of giving false evidence on oath before thisTribunal .

ThisTribunal as per the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act has got all the powers of civil court to dealt with such situation . The Presiding Officer ofthe Tribunal isempowered to lodged a complaint in the Court of appropriate criminal jurisdiction for giving false evidence on oath . Irrespective of the powers conferred on this Tribunal by the provisions ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 , for lodging a complaint against any witness for deposing falsely on oath , it is hereby made clear that proceedings of this Tribunal runs on the basis of justice , equity and good conscious. The phrase justice , equity and good conscious gives and confers powers on this Tribunal to lodge such complaint . This Tribunal is not only responsible for adjudication of cases but is accountable to the public at large and act of witness deposing falsely on oath should notbe tolerated . Ifit is tolerated , it will amount to facilitate the witness deposing falsely on oath which will be judicial conduct against the accountability of the court owned toward the public at large .

This cannot be done prior to publication of the award . The award is affected after its due publication in official gazette of the Central Government. Thus , necessary action against the witness Sri K.S. Shimar shall be taken for deposing falsely on oath before this Tribunal after publication of the award .

Vide order dated 21-04-2001 , it is specifically mentioned by this Tribunal that management has failed to file , the documents in compliance of the order dated 10-02-2004; hence , adverse inference shall be taken against the management . The nature of adverse inference shall be that it shall be presumed that from 1-01-2005 to June 2006, peon delivery book contains the name of the workman in the same manner and position as alleged by the workman . The documents filed by the workman are not fabricated but it is a false statement given by the witness of the management against the facts mentioned in para 9 of the written statement regarding W3 and W4 . The copies of [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8,2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

the documents filed by the workman specifically proved that he continuously worked for more than 240 days in every calendar year including the proceeding year from the date of his termination and one fine morning his services wereterminated without notice or without payment ofone month wages in lieu of notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation. It is also contended by the management that workman has worked temporarily for pettyjob such as cleaning of computer table for which he was paid through vouchers and such type of work is not protected under the Industrial Disputes Act . I am unable to accept this contention of the management because Industrial Disputes Act protects certain rights of every workman who has substantially worked with the management . As stated earlier , if a workman has substantially worked with the management the nature of his initial appointment is immaterial . The workman as per hisdocuments W3 & W4 has worked continuously for 12 years plus and the certificate W5 issued to the workman proves that he has continuously worked with the bank and has completed 240 days in every calendar year including in the preceding year from the date of his termination. If any workman has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination , his services cannot be terminated without procedure established by law. The Industrial Disputes Act does not bar the termination . This Act regulates the termination. The termination is regulated in the sense that if the services of any workman are no more required , the same can be terminated by giving one month notice or one month wages in lieu notice and by payment of retrenchment compensation . If it is not done , the termination will be illegal and void ab initio . Accordingly, the termination of the workman was illegal and void ab initio . He is entitled for the reinstatement into the services along with back wages.

Now the question arises whether the workman is also entitled for the benefit of the memorandum of settlement . As stated earlier , the execution ofthe memorandum of settlement is admitted to the parties . The dispute is whether the workman is entitled for the benefit of the terms and conditions of the settlement ? The conditions for absorption are mentioned in the settlement . The workman qualifies as per clause of the settlement Para 2 of the terms and conditions contains Phase- III for absorption of the services of every workman working as casual / temporary or as sweeper. Phase III reads as under :-

" Casual /temporary Peons / Sweepers who have worked for 240 days or more in consecutive - 12- months between 1-03-1996 and 28-07-2007 and are still working will be absorbed in Phase - III during the financial year 2009-10 .

3. Absorption of casual / temporary Peons / Sweepers will be in phases , as above , and will be subject to the following conditions:

287 (a) The casual /temporary Peon/Sweepers should fulfil the eligibility criteria viz . age and qualification as on the first date of engagement in theBank.

(b) Found medically fit for recruitment inBank's service

(c) Absorption shall be with prospective effect i.e. from the date mentioned in the letter of absorption to be issued by the Competent Authority.

(d) Such casual/ temporary Peons/ Sweepers will be absorbed in their respective wage scale and on their absorption shall be fitted in the first stage of full - time/ part - time scale wages , as the case may be , viz , casual/ temporary persons working as 1 /3rd. 1/2, 3 /4th, and Full- time Sweepers , shall be absorbed as 1/3rd . 1/2, 3/ 4th, and Full - time Sweepers , respectively. However, the casual/ temporary persons who are presently being engaged as peon but had earlier worked as full -time/Part -time Sweepers will be absorbed as " Sweeper -cum- Peon " as per - requirement and at the sole discretion of theBank.

(e) No arrears of wages/ salary, seniority or any other benefit shall accrue to such casual persons on their absorption and such casual/ temporary person shall not claim any such benefits for their past service/ engagement with the Bank as casual/ temporary person.

(f) Deployment / placement of such casual/ temporary Peons / Sweepers on their absorption in Bank's service shall be at the sole discretion of the Management depending upon its requirement , within the State . However, Bank will endeavor to keep such displacement to the minimum as per requirement .

(g) Seniority of such casual/temporary Peons/ Sweepers , on absorption , shall be reckoned in their respective cadre /scale wage from the date of their absorption in Bank's service .

(h) Absorption is subject to their good conduct and verification of their antecedents .

(1) The concerned casual / temporary persons and/or concerned employees ' Organizations/ Unions/Association shall withdraw all cases pending, before the Conciliation Officer/ Labour Court/ Central Government Industrial Tribunal/High Court/ Supreme Court or any other judicial authority.

288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

Meaning thereby, if any, workman has worked in between 1-03-1996 to 2-07-2007 and were still working they were entitled for absorption into the services . It is the contention of the management that on 28-07-2007 workman was not working with the bank, so he is not entitledfor any benefit of this memorandum of settlement . But the documents and the evidence adduced by the workman proved that on 28-07-2007 the workman was working with the bank . Moreover, his services were , thereafter, terminated illegally and for the purpose of this settlement , the workman shall be considered to be in services as his termination has been declared to be illegal and void ab initio by this Tribunal .

Government of India has recently adopted a litigation policy. The litigation policy has been adopted by the Ministry of Law and Justice , Government of India . As per the policy, every government department is barred for taking false and fabricated pleas . It is also mentioned in the policy that government department shall not resort to the litigation just for litigating. As mentioned in the body of the award , it is clearly established that the management has violated all the terms of the litigation policy. Not only the technical objections were raised but false and fabricated pleadings were filed . The management has not restrained by doing so but false evidence on oath was also adduced before this Tribunal . There may be a plea that at the time when the pleadings were filed the ! itigation policy ofthe Central Government was not in existence. In my view, it makes no difference . Suppose there was no litigation policy, it does not give any right to the management to raise the fabricated pleadings . Fabricated pleadings means fraud with the judicial proceedings . Moreover, the day witness was cross -examined this policy was in existence. It is the appropriate case to inform Hon'ble the Ministry of Law and Justice , how the Central Government Litigation Policy was dealt with by the Government Bank . Accordingly, a copy of this award be send to Hon'ble Ministry of Law and Justice for his kind information how the Government policy is being taken by the government department . The intention of sending the letter to Hon'ble Minister of Law and Justice is to suggest thatCentral Govemmert Industrial Policy should be backed by legislative sanction with punitive clause for its effective implementation.

On the basis of the above observation , I am answering this reference as follows :-

( 1 ) That the services of the workman were illegally terminated by the management of Bank of Baroda . His termination was illegal and void ab initio . He is entitled for the reinstatement into the services with all the consequential benefits . The management is directed to

[ PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] reinstate the services of the workman along with the consequential benefits within one month from the date of publication of this award.

(2) The workman is also entitled for absorption into the services vide terms and conditions of the settlement admitted to the parties . It is hereby once again made clear that the execution of the memoranJum of settlement is admitted to the parties . The only dispute was whether the workman was entitled for the benefits or the settlement . For the reasons mentioned in the body of the award, it is made clear that workman is entitled for the absorption of his services as peon as per the terms and conditions of the memorandum . Accordingly , the management of the respondent bank is also directed to consider and absorb the workman into the services vide application W4 & W5 within one month from the date of publication of this award . The absorption shall be effective from the date succeeding one month , W4 was executed .

(3) For the reasons mentioned in the body of the award, the witness of the management Shri K.S. Shimar is guilty of adducing false evidence on oath before this Tribunal . Appropriate action according to law shall be taken against this witness after publication of the award regarding lodging criminal complaint before the Criminal Court of Competentjurisdiction for giving false evidence on oath before this Tribunal .

(4) Copy of this award after its publication be send to Hon'ble Minister of Law and Justice for his kind information how the Central Government Policy was dealt with by a Government Bank , to the strature of Bank of Baroda? It is further to suggest that Central Government Litigation Policy must have the legislative sanction behind it along with punitive clause for its effective implementa- tion . It will also create mediation/ conciliation culture in the Courts .

The reference is accordingly answered . Let Central Govemmentbe approached for publication of award , and thereafter, file be placed before this Tribunal for necessary orders.

Chandigarh

Dated: 25-11-10 G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer 289 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

(B - II ) dated 4th February , 2005 for adjudication on the following schedule :-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank isjustified in dismissing the services of Shri L. Narayana Swamy ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "י

का. आ. 110.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/202/2004- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010

S.O. 110.-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, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 09-12-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/202/2004- IR (B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT BANGALORE

Dated: 18th November 2010

PRESENT

Shri S. N. Navalgund , PresidingOfficer

C. R. No. 15/2005

IParty

Shri Narayana Swamy

Re . by Shri M. Ramarao , General Secretary, Dharwad Dt .

Bank Employees Association ,

HUBLI - 580020

IIParty

HeadOfice,

The Chairman, Syndicate Bank, Manipal

Karnataka State

AWARD

TheCentral Government in exercise of the powers confered by clause ( d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L - 12012/202 / 2004 - IR

2. While the first party was working as Clerk at Hulkoti Branch of the Second Party bank through order dated 23-09-1997 issued by the Assistant General Manager was kept under suspension on the allegations that on 19-09-1997 after lunch time he started arguing with Smt . Jayashree H. Mudalgi , Asstt . Manager who was incharge ofthe Hulkoti Branch in the matter of charging commission on a DD issued to one of the customer of the branch and abused her in Kannada language and hit her on the head withSB ledger /binder at about 3.15 P.M. causing her to go into a state of semiconscious within the premises of the bank and thereby he resorted to riotous and disorderly behaviour. Thereafter the management getting the matter investigated through Shri S. G. Jagjeevandas , MW6 then working in zonal office , Bangalore issued charge sheet dated 02-02-1998 alleging that on 19-09-1997 while he was working inS. B. department of the Hulkoti branch and Smt . Jayashree H. Mudalgi , Asst . Manager was in charge of the branch after lunch time after she issued DD in favour of the customer, Shri P. Srikanth Reddy , a student from Rural Engineering College , Hulkoti on his behalf he aproached her arguing for the commission charged on the DD saying that when there is shortage of cash in the branch , the DD has to be issued without commission and when she did not agree and stated if at all he want to discuss more about in that regard to come to her after office hours at 5 P.M. but he insisted to discuss then and there only and when she did not agree he abused her in Kannada (Kannada Matter) and taking an SB Binder lying on her table assaulted on her head as a result of which she went to a state of semi - consciousness and it is unbecoming of a workman in the institution . The Management unsatisfied with the reply givenby the first party dated 29-04-1998 , by order dated 01-06-1998 appointed Shri K.V. Shenoy, Officer , Divisional Office, Belgaum as Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry in the charge sheet , then the said enquiry officer causing notice to the managemnet and the first party commenced the enquiry on 16-7-1998 at Divisional Office , Hubli and then atthe instance of first party workman continued in Hulkoti branch office and concluded on 17-12-1998 and submitted the impugned enquiry report holding the first party guilty of the charges leveled against him . During the course of enquiry on behalf of the management recorded the evidence of 10 witnesses inclusive of Smt. Jayasree H Mudałgi , complainant , some of the customers and the Doctor immediately examining the complainant and exhibited 18 documents , the details of which are narrated in the annexure 290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8, 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

enclosed. Interalia the first party besides examining himself examined one witness by name Shri Ghouse and got marked xerox copy ofthe medical certificate issued by Eye Specialist/ General Hospital, Hulkoti pertaining to the complainant dated 03-10-1997, the affidavit taken by him from Shri P. Srikant Reddy, the customer ofthe bank dated 28-7-1998 to the effect that the charges leveled against him are false at Ex. DEX. 1 and 2 respectively. The details of which are also narrated in the annexure to the award. The enquiry officer after recording the evidence of both sides concluding the proceedings before submitting his report dated 07-5-1999 gave opportunity to both sides to submit their written briefs to that the management representative submitted written brief on 07-01-1999 whereas the first party who in the first instance wrote a letter dated 30-1-1999 requesting to provide 20 days time to submit the written brief and the enquiry officer after waiting for his written brief till 07-05-1999 considering the evidence adduced by the management as well as the first party submitted his enquiry report on07-05-1999 . Then the Second Party while sending the copy of the enquiry report called for explanation from the first party and on receipt ofhis reply dated 20-05-1999, the management unsatisfied of the same by letter dated 04-6-1999 informed the first party that his explanations are not acceptable and issued another show cause notice proposing the punishment of dismissal . Then after giving personal hearing to the first party who appeared on 22-06-1999 the impugned punishment of dismissal was imposed vide proceedings dated 26-06-1999 and the same was served to the first party on 08-07-1999 . Subsequently in the year 2004 the first party initiated conciliation progeedings before the ALC(C) and on its failure report the Central Govt. vide order No. L- 12012/202/2004- IR(B - 11 ) dated 04-02-2005 made this reference for adjudication .

3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this tribunal the first party appeared through Shri M. Ramarao , General Secretary, Dharwad District Bank Employees Association , Hubli whereas the second party through its counsel , Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya and submitted their claim statement and counter statement respectively. The first party in his Clain Statement narrating the facts from the date of his suspension till the impugned punishment order contending that the attitude on the part of the management was unfair and he was not provided with fair and proper opportunity in the enquiry also contended the findings of the enquiry officer being perverse , arbitrary and not based on the evidence brought before him and it is one sided favouring the reanagement . Interalia in the counter statement filed by the second party; the action taken against the first party has been justified as proper and reasonable and it also supported the enquiry findings and requested for rejection ofthe reference .

4. With regard to the contention of the first party that he has not given fair and proper opportunity, my learned Predecessor while framing the Preliminary issue " whether

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party is fair and proper " after receiving the evidence of enquiry officer for the management and the first party after hearing the representatives of the both sidesby orderdated 5th May2008 answered the preliminary issue in favour of the management holding that the enquiry conducted was fair and proper. Thereafter, both sides were called upon to address their arguments . The representative representing the first party besides addressing his arguments also furnished the note of his arguments and the counsel appearing for the second party also addressed his arguments .

5. In view of the finding of this tribunal , the DE conducted by the second party against the first party as fair and proper, the questions now remain for consideration are-

1. Whether the finding of the enquiry officer in the affirmative of the charges against the CSE /first party is arbitrary and perverse ?

2. If not , whether the punishment of dismissal imposed by the management is disproportionate ?

6. On apreciation of the charges leveled against the first party, the evidence brought on record by both the sides and the report of the enquiry officer in the light of the arguments put forward on behalf of both the sides my finding on point Nos . 1 &2 are in the ' negative ' for the following reasons :

Reasons :

There is no dispute as on 19-09-1997 the first party was working as Clerk at Hulkoti branch of the second party bank and at that time Smt . Jayashree Mudalgi , the Assistant Manager was incharge of the branch and on that day at about 3.15 p.m an incident occurred between both of them in connection with charging of commission on the DD issued in favour of a college student , P. Srikanth Reddy. It is contended by the first party that since it was a practice ofthe bank not to charge commission when there used to be shortage of cash in branch and as on that day there was shortage of cash in the branch and commission was charged on the DD issued in favour of Shri P. Srikanth Reddy on his behalf he went to plead with incharge branch manager and at that time she hit herself over her head with the SB binder creating a scene and using her influence managed to keep him under suspension and to initiate Domestic Enquiry. At the outset it may be said when the first party was serving as Clerk in the Hulkoti branch at the most he could have asked on behalf of a customer as to why commission has been charged on his DD but he has no authority or right to question the propriety of charging the commission by the manager and if at all it was against the practice of the bank he could have brought it to the notice of the superiors and could not have indulged in quarrel of the nature alleged . The complainant [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Smt . Jayashree Mudalgi examined as MW 1 in the enquiry has deposed to the allegations made by her against the first party and in her cross - examination by the representative of the first party nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony. her evidence has also been substantially corroborated by some of the customers and the staff members said to be present at the time of alleged incident examined as MWs 2 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 & 10 and nothing has been elicited in their cross - examination to say that they have any reason / motive to favour the incharge branch manager or to depose against the first party workman . The evidence of the doctor examined as MW3 , Dr. S.S. Kulkarni corroborates the allegation made against the first party assaulting the incharge branch manager with the hard object like ledger file , as such the allegations against him that he behaved riotously with the incharge branch manager in connection with charging commission on the DD issued in favour of Shri P. Srikanth Reddy and also assaulted her with the LB file on the head has all the force . In the cross- examination of Shri P. Srikanth Reddy /MW7 that he sworn to an affidavit as per DEX - 2 wherein it was incorporated the charges made against the first party are false , when confronted to Shri P. Srikanth Reddy, he admitted his signature appearing on the affidavit and came out with the explanation that the first party giving him an understanding that the matter has been settled / compromised he may give this type of affidavit and taken his signature , but the incident as appearing in the charge sheet did occur on the alleged date i.e. 19-09-1997 . Therefore , absolutely I find no reason to say the finding of the enquiry officer either being arbitrary or perverse and I am of the opinion that the finding is proper based on the evidence placed before him by both the sides .

7. In view of my finding that the finding of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be either arbitrary or perverse and moreover the fact stated in the counter statement that on a separate complaint filed by Smt . Jayashree Mudalgi to the police in connection with this very incident , the police had filed charge sheet in CC.No. 848/97 on the file of II Addl . Civil Judge and JMFC II Court , Gadag and by judgement of that court dated 10-11-2000 he has been found guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and acquitted for the offences punishable under sectiion 504 , 506 & 509 of IPC being not denied , he having been also held guilty by the criminal court of assaulting the incharge manager of the branch on the date of incident , he / first party has no chance to escape from the charge leveled against him. The Criminal court for technical reasons might have held the attributes by the accused / first party to the branch manager as do not constitute the offence made punishable under section 504, 506 and 509 of IPC , but for the purpose of DE such attributes to a superior is enough .

8. The point that now remains for my consideration is whether the capital punishment of dismissal imposed by

291

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

the management is disproportionate to the charges proved against the first party . A subordinate i.e. a Clerk while questioning the superior i.e. incharge branch manager about thepropriety of she charging commission on a DD issued to a student customer of the bank indulging in act of abusing and assaulting her is of grave consequence and cannot be viewed leniently only because he is said to have come from Schedule Caste . Such an act on the part of the subordinate creating commotion in the bank premises on the official matter and going to the extent of assaulting the superior is a major misconduct and for such act of misconduct the punishment lesser than the dismissal is not justified . In other words in such cases of grave misconduct the capital punishment of dismissal in my view is proper and proportionate . Thus I have arrived at the conclusion of answering the points 1 & 2 in the ' negative ' and pass the following award :

AWARD

The action of the management of Syndicate Bank in dismissing the services of Shri L. Narayana Swamy / first party is justified and the first party is not entitle for any relief.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 18-11-2010 )

S. N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

List of witnesses examined by the management before the Enquiry Officer

MWI 1. Smt . Jayashree H Mudalgi , Officer Hulkoti branch

MW2 2. Shri M. A Nadaf, Clerk presently working at Hubli branch

MW3 3. Dr. S. S. Kulkarni of Sri Vinayak Acupuncutre clinic

MW4 4. Shri Vasudeva S Hanganakatti , Customer

MW5 5. Shri S. C. Hirenath , Customer

MW6 6. Shri S. G. J Das , Officer

MW7 7. Shri P. Srikanth Reddy , Student

MW8 8. Smt . Susheela Koppad , Clerk

MW9 9. Shri U. B. Shet Spl . Assistant .

MW10 10. Shri R. D. Savanur , RDO , Hulkoti branch

Documents exhibited for the Management before the EnquiryOfficer

MEX- 1 1 . Certified photo copy of the attendance register 292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

MEX-2 2. Certified photo copy of the officer order book

MEX-3 3. Ledgerextract

MEX-4 4. Certified photo copy of the withdrawal slip

5.

MEX-5 DD Slip

MEX-6 6. Withdrawal Slip

MEX - 7 7. Withdrawal Slip for Rs . 5000

MEX- 8 8. Cash Scroll Sheet

9. Medical Certificate

MEX-9 10. FIR

MEX- 10

MEX- 11 11. Oral statement of Sh . M. A. Nadaf

MEX- 12 12. Oral statement of Sh . Vasudev

MEX- 13 13. Oral statement of S. C. Hiremath

MEX - 14 14. Oral statement of Sh . Venkana Gowdar

MEX- 15 15. Oral statement of Shri U. B. Shet

MEX- 16 16. Oral statement of Smt . Susheela Koppad

MEX- 17 17. Oral statement of R. D. Savanur

MEX- 18 18 . Oral statement of Shri P Srikanth Reddy, student

List ofwitnesses examined by the first party before the EnquiryOfficer

1. Shri Ghouse Halbanni

DW- 1 List of Documents of 1st party marked in the Enquiry

DEX- 1 1 . Photo copy ofmedical certificate pertaining to Smt . Jayashree H. Mudalgi

DEX-2 2. Affidavit of Shri P. Srikanth Reddy dated 28-07-1998

नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 111 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय -2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट पार्ट- II ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी 2/52/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को09-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-31011 /9/2003- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 10th December, 2010 S.O. 111.-In pursuancesuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Part - II (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/ 52/ 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court - 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between theemployers inrelation to the management of M/ s . Mumbai Port Trust and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 09-12-2010.

[No. L-31011 /9/2003 - IR ( B - II ) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

SHRI K. B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer.

Reference No.CGIT- 2/ 52 of 2003 Employers in relation to the Management of Mumbai

Porttrust

The Chairman , Mumbai Port Trust , PortBhavan , Ballard Estate , Mumbai-400 038 .

And Their Workmen

The President, Transport and Dock Workers Union , P.D'mello Bhavan , Carnac Bunder , Mumbai .

Appearances:

Mr. Umesh Nabar , Advocate .

Forthe employer :

Forthe Workmen : Mr. A. M. Koyande , Advocate .

Mumbai , dated 1st November, 2010 AWARD PART - 11

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, by its order No. L - 31011 /9/2003 - IR (B - II ) dated 11-09-2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication : -

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in removing from service of Shri Pandharinath Lokande , Shore Worker , Docks [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Department, MBPT w.e.f. 9-5-2001 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief Shri Pandharinath Lokande is entitled to ? "

2. Claim Statement is filed at Ex - 11 by the Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers Union stating that the services of the concerned workman was terminated illegally w.e.f. 9-5-2001 . The said order was challenged before competent authority. However, the competent authority did not accept the claim of the workman who was removed from employment . The union has raised the dispute regarding the concerned workman's termination alleging that the chargesheetdt . 28-08-2000 served on the concerned workman alleging of habitual absenteeism was false one.

3. It was alleged by and on behalf of the management that the workman concerned remained absent unauthorisedly from 20-05-1998 to 31-12-1998 and thereafter continued to remain absent from 08-01-1999 to 28-08-2000. It was alleged that he violated regulation 3 ( 1A) ( ii ) and BPT Employees ( Conduct ) Regulations 1976. read with Regulation 8 & 12 of BPT Employees ( Classiffication , Control & Appeal ) Regulation 1976. Accordingto the union, concerned workman was already penalized for the period for 1994 to 1998. He also applied for regularization of his absence . Accordingly same was regularized . The workman has justified his absence from 8-1-99 to 12-10- 2000 as he was mentally disturbed. He was admitted in a hospital at Pune and was under treatment . He gave explanation to that effect . Inspite ofthat show cause notice was issued by the first party and after inquiry, proposed the penalty of removal from the services . Inspite of due reply, the said action was confirmed. The appeal filedthere against was also turned down .

293

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

6. My Learned Predecessor framed the issue in respect of perversity of findings of Inquiry Officer. He passed Award Part - I and held that the findings of Inquiry Officer are not perverse . He has also directed both the parties to appear in this reference on the point of quantum ofpunishment.

7. According to the Union , the punishment awarded to the employee of termination from the service is disproportionate . According to them , the period of absence can be regularized by treating it leave without pay . According to the Union , some lesser punishment would have served the purpose and it was not necessary to award the extreme punishment of termination of the service of workman.

8. As against this , it is case of the first party that, the workman was habitual in remaining absent . On earlier occasions his absence were regularized. However, the relevant period of absence is more than one and half year continuous absence . There is no justification for the said absence . Therefore according to first party, the punishment oftermination of services is quite just and proper.

9. Following are the points for my determination . I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Points

Findings

No.

1. Whether the punishment of termination of service is disproportionate ?

2.Whether any lesser punishment can be awarded to the workman concerned ?

No.

3.Whatorder ?

Asper final order.

REASONS

Point Nos . 1 & 2

4. According to the union , there were sufficient grounds before the Inquiry Officer to regularize the absenteeism of the workman , however the same were not considered . According to them very harsh and disproportionate punishment of removal was imposed against the workman , therefore , it is prayed that the finding of Inquiry Officer be declared perverse and punsiment of removal be set aside with direction to the first party to reinstate the concerned workman .

5. The First party resistedd the claim statement vide their written statement Ex - 15 . According to it , the second party i.e. the concerned workman was habitual in remaining absent from duty. On number of occasions he remained absent without even informing the concerned officer. His service record was not clean . He received number of warnings . However did not show any improvement . He also did not utilize the opportunity to explain his absenteeism to justify the same . Therefore , first party held inquiry. The Inquiry Officer held him guilty and also observed that the workman was not interested in work . According to them the action taken by the first party, is just and proper.

4894Gl /2014-22

10. In the case at hand, the workman was held absent for the period from 8-1-1999 to 12-10-2000. It is held in award part I that , the finding of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge of absenteeism is just and proper. Now the only question before me in this part II is whether the punishment of termination of service of the workman is disproportionate as has been alleged by the Union .

11. The Learned advocate for the Union on the pointsubmitted that first party could have imposed some lesser punishment . They have imposed the extreme punishment of termination of services of the workman . In support of his argument the Ld . Advocate for the union ressorted to the Apex Court ruling in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. V/s . Jeetendra P.D. Singh and Anr. 2000 III CLR 853 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the punishment of the respondent therein who was dismissed from service . However in that case Hon'ble Apex 294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

Court has not set aside the punishment of dismissal on the ground that the said punishment was disproportionate . On the other hand in that case the workman therein was dismissed from service for misconduct as he was involved in drunkenness and indecent behavior . In that case two others were also involved in the same incident . They were given lighter punishment . In the circumstances , Hon'ble Court observed that

" two others who were involved in the same incident were given lighter punishments , dismissal of the respondent would amount to denial of justice and as would mean he was singled out As such High Court Order is not interfered with in this appeal 12. The facts of the above cited case are all together different than the facts of the case at hand . On the other hand in the case at hand , workman is dismissed from the service for his habitual absenteeism . In this respect the learned advocate for the first party management resorted to Apex Court ruling in State of Rajasthan and Anr V / s Mohammed Ayub Naz 2006 I CLR 401 wherein workman was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence . Ino Writ Petition before High Court the Hon'ble Judge took lenient view and reduced the sentence to compulsory retirement with consequential retiral benefits . The Division Bench upheld the view of Single Judge . In appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that " Considering totality of circumstances , read with admissions of his unauthorized absence for 3 years , removal from service was not disproportionate . "

With this observation the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of High Court and restored the order of removal from service .

13. The Learned Advocate also referred to another Apex Court ruling in L& T Komatsu Ltd. V/ s N. Udayakumar 2008 I CLR 978 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that , it is well established that habitual absenteeism is gross violation of discipline . In the circumstances Hon'ble Court held that the Labour Court and High Court were not justified in directing the reinstatement of the employee who was terminated by the authority concerned , for habitual absenteeism .

14. The Ld. advocate also resorted to judgements of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in NRC Ltd. V / s . NRC Employees Union 2001 III CLR wherein the Hon'ble Court has referred the Apex Court ruling and held that the Labour Court was not judicious and proper and erred in interfering the punishment of dismissal of workman for habitual absenteeism.

15. In the light of the ratio laid down in the above rulings , it is clear that Hon'ble Apex Court treated absenteeism as one of the serious misconducts , for which no lesser punishment than termination can be awarded .

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Thus I come to the conclusion that the punishment of termination of service of the workman , by the Party No. 1 for habitual absenteeism is just and proper . It can not be called disproportionate . Acordingly I decide issues nos . 1 & 2 in the nagative . Thus the order :

ORDER

Action of the management of Mumbai Port trust in terminating the services of Shri Pandharinath Lokande is just , proper and legal .

Date : 01-11-2010 K. B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का, आ. 112. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार विजया बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -12011 / 1 / 2006- आईआर ( बी-2 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 5.O. 112. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 15/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court -1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industria ! Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Vijaya Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 09-12-2010 .

[No. L - 12011 / 1 /2006 - IR ( B - 11 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I MUMBAI

PRESENT

Justice G S. Sarraf , Presiding Officer . Reference No. CGIT- 1 / 15 of 2006 Parties : Employers in relation to the Management of Vijaya Bank And

Their Workmen [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

APPEARANCES :

Shri R. S. Pai , Adv.

For the Management :

For the Union :

Absent.

State:

Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 19th day of November , 2010

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of Sub Section ( 1 ) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi Order No. L- 12011 / 1 / 2006 - IR ( B - II ) dated 14-06-2006 . The terms of reference given in th schedule are as follows :-

" Whether the demand of S / Shri Sanjay Sakharam Tambe , Vijay Sakharam Kotle , Ravindra Tukaram Bogwalkar , Jayadrath Kudtarkar , Prakash Baliram Talekar , Sukumar Vishwanath Mane , Ranganath Ayare , Suresh Vasudeo Shinde , Suresh Sitaram Sawant , S.H. Devkar , Namdeo B. Koli , Mamkrishna Sahadev Shinde is justified and proper for permanent absorption in the services of Vijaya Bank as Peon ? If so , what are the relief the workmen are entitled to ? " 2. Notice issued as per the order dt . 01-10-2010 has been served upon the Union . However , neither the workmen nor any representative of the Union are present .

3. There is an aplicationdt . 03-7-2008 filed by the workmen wherein they have made a request to withdraw from the dispute as they have been appointed peons in the Bank.

4. Learned counsel for the Management also states that the workmen have been appointed as peons in the Bank .

5. The workmen are , therefore , allowed to withdraw from the case .

6. The case stands disposed of as withdrawn .

7. An Award is made accordingly. JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 113. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011 / 113 /2006- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

295

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 113.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 13/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 09-12-2010 .

[No. L- 12011 / 113 /2006- IR ( B - II) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 13 of 2007

Parties : Employers in relation to the Management of UCO Bank And

Their Workmen

Present : Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

None

On behalf of the Management :

Onbehalf of the Workmen :

None

State: West Bengal .

Industry : Banking .

Dated: 30th November , 2010

AWARD

By Order. No. L - 12011 / 113 / 2006 - IR ( B - II ) dated 1-05-2007 the Government India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of itspowers under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

" Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank by not regularizing Shri Gopal Dey, Part- time Sweeper who claimed to have been working for more than 16 years continuously in UCO Bank is justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

On call today, none appears for either of the parties . On scrutiny of the order sheet of this reference , it is revealed that the matter is pending for filing rejoinder by the workmen union since 16-06-2008 . But , neither the rejoinder has been filed nor any one was present on behalf 296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

ofthe workmen on all the dates from 16-06-2008 till today. The workmen union did not apear on 10 occasions among the 11 dates fixed for the same , excepting on one occasion on 12-02-2009 . Inspection of the records shows that fresh notice was issued to both the parties on 28-06-2010 after notification of my appointment and the notice upon the workmen union is found to have been served on 08-07-2010 in view of the acknowledgment card received back from it with due endorsement of receipt. The conduct of the workmen union shows that it is reluctant from appearing in the present reference , though the reference has been initiated on the claim by the workmen union , So, it is presumed that no ' industrial dispute ' is prevailing at present in the present reference and I find no reason to proceed with the same any more . The present reference is thus disposed of treating non- existence of any ' industrial dispute '

An Award is passed accordingly.

Dated , Kolkata , 30thNovember , 2010

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 114,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं मालवीय नेशनल इन्स्टीट्यूट ऑफ टेक्नोनोजी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 78/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -42012 / 118 / 2005 - आईआर( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 114. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 78/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Malviya National Institute of Technology , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010.

[No. L-42012/ 118/2005 - IR ( CM - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , JAIPUR

PRESENT : Shri N. K. Purohit , Presiding Officer I. D. No. 78 of 2006

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Reference No. L- 42012 / 118/2005- IR ( CM - II ) dated : 30-6-2006

Shri Rakesh Bhatnagar S/ o Shri Daya Saroop R/ o 453 , Bhopji Nathawat Ka Chowk , Bandi Ka Nasik , Subash Chowk , Jaipur V/s

TheDirector Malviya National Institute of Technology Jawaharlal Nehru Marg , Malviya Nagar , Jaipur. AWARD

DATED: 29-11-2010

The Central Government in exercise of the powers confered under clause ( d ) of Sub Section ( 1 ) and 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication which runs as under :-

" Whether the action of the management of Malaviya National Institute of Technology in terminating the services of Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatnagar w.e.f. 5-5-2000 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?יי

2. Pursuant to the receipt of reference order , the registered notices were issued to both the parties . On perusal of the proceedings of the case it appears that workman waspresent on 15-10-2009 , 24-11-2009, 12-1-2010 & 25-3-2010 , but he did not appear during subsequent proceedings from 29-4-2010 to 13-9-2010.

3. It also appears that on 7-6-2010 representative on behalf of the management side was present but none was present on behalf of the workman . Therefore , registered notices were again issued to the workman and registered notice issued for appearing on 8-10-2010 has beend served on the workman . The acknowledgement receipt on the same is on the record . Despite service of registered notice none apeared on behalf of the workman on 8-10-2010 nor any claim was filed . Therefore , ex - parte proceeding were drawn against the workman .

4. Since the workman has neither apeared nor filed any claim , therefore , there is no material on record to adjudicate the reference on its merit . Under such circumstances " No Claim Award " is passed in this matter . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly .

5. Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 115.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार 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 , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल-12012/91/92- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 115. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 31/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway and their workman , received by the Central Government on 9-12-2010.

[No. L- 12012/91 / 92 - IR (B - I) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/ R/31 /98

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Shri Balram Mishra ,

S/ o Shri Ram Pratap Mishra,

Village- Koniya , PO , Bargarh , Tehsil Mauganj ,

Workman/ Union Distt. Banda ( UP)

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager ,

Central Railway,

Management

Jabalpur

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of November , 2010 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 12012 / 91 / 92 - IR ( B - I ) dated 20-2-90 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

" Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager , Central Railway Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Balram Mishra is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. The case of the workman , in short , is that the workman was casual worker and worked under PWI ( R) ,

297

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

Bhopal in Jhansi Division . His service card was issued bearing No. 136113. He also worked for five months under PWI , Shankaragarh . Again he worked as casual labour from 3-11-1985 to 18-3-1986 under PWI ( R) Satna . Thereafter his service was terminated without notice and without any chargesheet . His service card was taken away. A letter was given to him which shows that the service card of the workman was with the management . He had worked more than 240 days and no retrenchment compensation was paid . The status of the workman is of temporary employee as per Railway established Manual and his service cannot be terminated without following the procedure . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages .

3. The non - applicant/ management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management , interalia is that the applicant / workman worked under PW ! (M) SRJ with effect from 2-8-85 to 19-9-85 ie. 48 days only. His service card was not genuine . He did not complete 5 months i.e. more than 120 days continuously under PWI , SRJand therefore he was not entitled for monthly Rated Casual Labour Status . Again he worked 51 days from 30-11-85 to 19-1-86 under PWI ( R) Satna . Thereafter he absented himself and never approached for further engagement . On the above grounds , the applicant/ workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. On the pleadings of both the parties , the following issues are framed-

I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri Balram Mishra is legal and justified ?

II . What relief the workman is entitled to ?

5. Issue No , I

On the pleading of the workman, it is clear that there is no specific pleading that the workman worked 240 days in continuous service during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference . The specific period as stated in the statement of claim did not show that the workman worked 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference as has been required under Section 25 ( B ) ( 2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short 1. D. Act 1947 ) . The pleading shows that he worked only from 3-11-85 to 18-3-86 preceding the date of reference. His service is not to be counted as continuous service of one year under the Act, 1947 .

6. Now let us examine the evidence adduced by the workman . The workman Shri Balram Mishra is examined in the case . He has admitted that he was engaged as casual labour. He has stated that he worked at Shankergarh for 298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8, 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

five months but he did not say the period in which worked . He has further stated that he worked from 3-11-85 to 18-3-86 at Satna . But this period did not complete 240 days continuously during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference . Moreover there is no document to prove that he worked five months at Shankergarh .

7. On the other hand , the management has also adduced evidence . The management witness Shri Bharat Bhushan Sharma was Time Keeper, Central Railway. He has stated that the Service Card of the workman was found not genuine. He had worked from 2-8-85 to 19-9-85 for 48 daysunder PWI ( SRJ) and again from 30-11-85 to 19-1-86 for 51 days under PWI ( R) Satna . Thereafter he had himself left the work . He has not worked continuously for more than120 days and therefore he cannot be kept under monthly rated labour. His evidence shows that he had not continuously worked for 120 days as such monthly rated casual labour status cannot be granted to him under the Railway circulars . The management has also filed the report to show that the alleged card was not issued to the place from where it is alleged to have been issued . This shows that it was obtained by illegal means . Considering the discussion made above , it is clear that the management is justified in his action. Thus this issue is decided in favour of the management .

8. Issue No. II

It is evident that the workman has not continuously worked for 120 days . As such he is not entitled to the status of monthly rated casual employee . It is also clear from the above discussion that the workman has not worked continuously for a period of 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding the date of reference as provided under Section 25 ( B ) (2) of the I.D. Act 1947. Thus the provision ofSection 25 - F ofthe Act , 1947 is not applicable.

9. It is also not out of place to say that the Industrial Dispute was initiated in the year 1992 and it was at a very belated stage. Considering the entire aspect of the case , the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly, answered.

10. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर, 2010

का.आ. 116.-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

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 76/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/217/2001- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 116. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.76/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court -Nagpuras shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 9-12-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/217 /2001 - IR ( B -I ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/ NGP/ 76 /2001

Date: 16-11-2010

Petitioner/Party No. 1

The General Secretary, State Bank of India and subsidiary Banks Employees Union, No.29 , Red Cross Road, Sadar, Nagpur.

Versus

Respondent/Party No. 2

The Asstt . General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Ofice, S. V. Patel Marg, Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 16thNovember, 2010)

1. The Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Asstt . General Manager/the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office and theirworkman, Shri G. K. Ninawe ( here - in - after referred to as the " workman" ) for adjudication in exercise of the powersconfered by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

299

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

section ( 2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " The Act " in short ) , as per letter No. L - 12012 / 217/2001 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 31-10-2001 , with the following schedule .

" Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Nagpur in awarding the punishment of reduction of pay by there stages to Shri G. K. Ninawe is justified ? If not , what relief the said workman is entitled ? "

2. The Union of the workman being noticed filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman pleading inter - alia that the workman was appointed by the A.G..M. , Bombay on 13-5-1986 and worked in different branches of the bank being transferred from one branch to the other by the authority and he never disputed his transfers and discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and the entire service record of the workman was clean and unblemish and while the workman was working at Loharisawanga Branch of the Bank as an Asstt . (ATN) , the management of the bank isued a charge sheet on 9-5-1996 leveling four charges against him and before conclusion of the enquiry , on 20-7-98 the management issued another charge sheet in addition to the earlier charge sheet, in which it has disclosed its intention that the workman is liable for punishment as prescribed under Para 521 ( 5 ) of Sastri Award read with Para 18-20 of Desai Award, which includes punishment of " Dismissal without notice " , which was prejudicial and biased attitude of the management towards the workman and the management had decided to dismiss the workman at any cost and the enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer , Shri J. C. Talnikar was without following the due procedure of law and in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and the management issued the second show cause notice to the workman on 8-6-1998 alongwith the copy of the enquiry report and the workman submitted his show cause on 24-6-98 and the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the reply properly and passed the punishment order of dismissal on 17-11-98 and against the order of dismissal from service , the workman filed an appeal on 4-12-98 and the appellate authority modified the punishment and imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by three stages stating the same would meet the ends of justice , but the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the workman and also not in accordance with the rules . Prayer made by the union to set aside the order of punishment imposed against the workman .

3. The management of State Bank of India in its written statement pleaded that on 8-1-96 , while the workman was working at Loharisawanga Branch , one Mr. B. M. Jodh , a valued customer of the bank came to the branch to

deposit some cash in his account and the workman while counting the cash , tore a note of Rs . 50 for which the customer became annoyed and was about to take back the cash , but the Branch Manager consoled the customer and retained the business and the customer exchanged the torn note and received his Rs . 50 after two to three days and the customer lodged a written complaint about such misconduct of the workman , with the Branch Manager on 9-1-96 and earlier to such incident also the workman while working in cash counter in Loharisawanga Branch , had made a hole in the notes and torn the notes of one of the customer , Mr. Lokpal Chample and on 10-1-96 the workman lodged a false and frivolous complaint in the Police Station , Jalalkheda against the Branch Manager and Mr. B. M. Jodh , alleging that the customer had presented a fake currency note of Rs . 100 and thereby lowered down the image of the Bank and the valued customer in the society and there were lot of oral complaints against the workman for quarreling with the customers , using disrespectful language and showing discourtesy towards the customers and Shri Sanjay S. Dhakne , Shri Manohar L. Pande , Shri Ramesh Chikhalkar and Shri Lokpal Chample etc. customers of Loharisawanga Branch had lodged complaints with the Bank against the workman and the workman was also in habit of remaining absent without intimation and this fact had been brought to the notice of the workman vide letter dated 7-1-95 , but in spite of such letter , the workman never showed any improvement and looking to the misconduct of the workman , the Bank was constrained to issue charge sheet for the various misconducts on 9-5-96 and the departmental enquiry against the workman started on 20-12-96 and ended on 13-11-97 and in the enquiry, the workman was duly represented by experienced union office bearer of his choice but subsequently he withdrew his representative and himself conducted the enquiry and seven witnesses were examined by the Bank , whereas two witnesses were examined on behalf of the workman and the workman was given fair and equal opportunity to defend his case and the enquiry was conducted following principles of natural justice in letter and spirit and after considering the entire materials on record , the Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 22-1-98 held the charges to have been proved against the workman and the Disciplinary Authority duly considered the enquiry report and after examining the entire material independently came to the conclusion to confirm the findings of the Inquiry Officer and on 3-6-98 issued show cause notice , for proposed punishment of " Dismissal without notice" , under Para 521 ( 5 ) ( a) of Sastry Award as amended by Desai Award and various Bipartite Settlement and the workman submitted his detailed reply to the show cause on 24-6-98 and before passing final orders , the workman was given personal bearing on 27-8-98 and after 300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

considering the facts and circumstances of the case evidence on record , the show cause filed by the workman and the reply given during personal hearing the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal from service without notice vide his order dated 7-11-98 and in the appeal preferred by the workman , the Appellate Authority on 2-12-98 by a reasoned order , showing leniency reduced the punishment from " Dismissal without notice " to reduction in pay by three stages and during the pendency of the enquiry, the workman misbehaved with Presenting Officer , Mr. Nagarkar and used abusive and threatening language , hence charge sheet dated 20-7-98 came to be issued against the workman , stating the gross misconduct committed during enquiry may attract the punishment of dismissal without notice and the workman with ulterior motive has tried to mislead the Tribunal .

4. Even though , it is not a case of dismisal discharge retrenchment or termination of service the question of the validity of the departmental enquiry was considered as a preliminary issue and by order dated 12-12-2006, the departmental enquiry was held to be legal and proper.

It is necessary to mention here that neither the workman nor his union appeared in the case from 3-4-2006 .

5. At the time hearing of argument from the side of the management , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that in a domestic enquiry, if there is some evidence to reasonably support the findings of the enquiring authority , the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not reverse the finding on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and where the Tribunal had not found any fault with the proceeding conducted by the enquiring authority, it had no jurisdiction to re - appreciate the evidence and set aside the order of punishment on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove the charges . In support of such contentions , reliance was placed on the decisions reported in ( i ) 1999 SSC ( LCS ) - 1424 (R. S. Saini Vs State of Punjab ) ( SC ) ; ( ii ) 1999 LAB I. C. - 3833 ( sc) = (2000) 1 SSC 416 (High Court ofjudicature of Bombay Vs V. S. Patil ; ( iii ) AIR 1974 SC = 555 ( E. P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ) ; ( iv) 1995 SCC ( L & S ) 292 (Government of Tamilnadu Vs. A Rajapandian ) ; (v ) 2005 SSC ( L & S ) - 298 ( Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs Uttam ) ; ( vi ) 1999 LIC - 2819 ( SC ) BOI Vs. D. Suryanarayana ; and (vii ) 2006 SCC ( L & S ) - 1573 SBI Vs Ramesh Dinkar Pande and some others .

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the management that if there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice , what punishment would meet the ends ofjustice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and if the penalty can lawfully

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct , the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own direction for that of the authority and the Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the Competent Authority is based on evidence , even if some of its found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter . Reliance was placed in support of such contentions on the decisions reported in ( i ) AIR 1989 SC -1158 ( Union of India Vs Parma Nanda ) ; ( ii ) AIR 1994 SCC ( L & S ) -687 ( SBI Vs Samarendra Kishore ) ; ( iii ) ( 2000 ) 2 SCC ( L & S ) 101 ( Administrator U. T. O. Dadar Vs Galabhai ) .

The further contentions raised by the learned advocate for the management was that interference in the quantum of punishment cannot be a routine matter and if the Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate it must record reasons for coming to such conclusion and failure to give reasons amount to injustice . In support of such contentions reliance was placed on the decisions ( i ) 2003 SCC ( L & S ) -468 ( UCO Bank Vs. P. C. Kakkar ) ; ( ii ) 2005 SSC ( 1. & S) -833 ( Canara Bank Vs. V. K. Awasthy) ; ( iii ) 1999 LJC 1224 ( Raj ) RSRTC Vs. I. N & L Tribunal Udaipur ) .

Keeping in view the principles enunciated in the above decisions now, the present case at hand is required to be considered.

Perused the documents relating the departmental enquiry including the charge sheet , show cause filed by the workman , enquiry report , the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the statement of claim and the written statement and found that the workman was given fair opportunity to defend his case and the enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice and the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer is after considering the entire materials and evidence on record and the reasons assigned for arriving at the findings are proper and the Disciplinary Authority has also duly considered the enquiry report and has examined the entire matters independently to come to the finding about the charges to have been proved against the workman . It is also found from the order of the Appellate Authority that the Appellate Authority heard the workman in person and after taking into consideration his submission during the personal hearing and mentioned in his show cause and the evidence on record and taking the young age of the workman and his domestic problems into consideration , showing leniency reduced the punishment from " dismissal from service without notice " to reductions in pay by three stages . It is found from the materials on record that the findings are not perverse and the punishment imposed is not shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against the workman. Hence it is ordered:-

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ORDER

The action of management of State Bank of India, Nagpur in awarding the punishment of reduction ofpay by three stages to Shri G. K. Ninawe is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 117.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स टिसको 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 338/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/342/2000- आईआर (सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th December, 2010 S.O. 117. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 338/2000 ) 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 . TISCO and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010 .

[No. L- 20012/342/2000- IR (C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

REFERENCE NO . 338 of 2000

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of M / s . TISCO Colliery.

AND

Theirworkmen

PRESENT : Shri H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate. For the Workman : Shri S. N. Goswami , Advocate .

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, the 30-11-2010

4894GI /2011-23

301

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012/342/2000 - IR ( C - 1 ) dated 29th November, 2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Sijua Colliery of M/ s . TISCO in dismissing Sri Raj Kumar Beldar from the services of the company w.e.f. 12-6-95 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman entitled ? "

2. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the concerned workman stating that he was initially employed at Sijua Colliery of M/ s . TISCO Ltd. w.e.f. 9-5-1977 as Line Mazdoor (Cat.II ) and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Asstt . Driller ( Cat.III ) and to the post of Drillor (Cat.IV) w.e.f. 21-10-85 and 21-1-1988 respectively. He was a permanent employee ofthe colliery. During the course of his employment the concerned workman fell seriously ill and caused him mental disturbance suffering from Psyclsis (mental agony) and due to till health he was undergone treatment of the Colliery'sHospital and beyond control the circumstances , he was to absent from the duty. The matter was duly informed to the management . He was referred at Mental Hospital , Ranchi Mansik Arogyasala , Kanke , Ranchi and he was admitted by his family members for his better treatment from 12-3-1995 to 28-1-1999 and after his recovery from illness , he was examined by Dr. A. K. Gupta , MBBS ( RAN ) MD ( PAT) Psychiatrist issued certificate dated 28-1-99 and found him fit to rejoin his duty. The concerned workman submitted the certificate to the management and requested to resume his duty and to allow him on duty. But the management reported that his service has been dismissed w.e.f. 12-6-1995 vide letter Ref. No. SC/A -14/ 1828 dated 5-6-95 . The management has taken major punishment in dismissing the concerned workman from service w.e.f. 12-6-95 without providing any opportunity to explain reasons for his absence . The management neither issued any charge-sheet nor show- cause notice to the concerned workman . The management has dismissed the concerned workman from his service without complying with provisions of Sec . 25 - F of the I.D. Act, 1947 which members dismissal invalid .

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously be pleased to pass an award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman in his service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

with the principles of natural justice . He was given full apportunity to cross- examine the management's witness , to give his own statements and to produce his defence witness. The chargesheeted workman did not raise any objection against the Enquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer and the procedure of enquiry followed in this case . The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The management after considering the enquiry report , enquiry proccedings and the past conduct dismised the concerned workman with effect from 12-6-96 , which is legal , valid and justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting or denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statement .

5. The concerned workman has produced WW- 1 who proved Ext .W- 1 .

The management has produced MW - 1 who has proved Exts . M - 1 to M -7 and M - 7 / 1 .

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that the enquiry report was not served to him and he was given only 3 days time and major punishment has been awarded to him . Moreover, 2nd show- cause notice was not given to him and prejudice has been caused to him and he was dismissed from service . He got treatment for his ailment and absented from duty which he informed the management . In this respect the charge-sheet Ext.M - 1 shows he remained absent for 3 days in 1974 and 3 days in 1995 and lastly he was absent for 5 days only from 6-4-95 to 10-4-95 . It shows that the management has not served notice to him and has not given time to file his explanation . The management has done this very hurriedly giving only 3 days time , though for giving 3 days time he was not given notice .

3. Written statement has been filed by the management stating that the concerned workman developed the habit of absenting from his duties without permission or authorised leave and without justifiable cause . In course of his service he was given several opportunities to reform and to refrain from committing such misconduct again and again . He was punished with the order ofsuspension for 5 days from 17-1-84 for commission of the misconduct under clause 19 ( 4) of the Certified Standing Order for the first time . He was punished with 5 days suspension from 28-5-90 under clause 19 (4 ) of the C.S.O. for commission of similar kind of misconduct on the 2nd occasion . No was again punished with 10 days suspension from 12-7-90 under clause 19 (4) of the C. S. O. for commision of the misconduct of habitual absence from duties without permission or information and without justifiable cause . This was the punishment imposed for the 3rd time . He was again punished with 5 days suspension fram 4-3-93 and then 10 days from 27-4-93 for commission ofsimilar misconduct on 2 occasions . It has been submitted that when he again committed similar misconduct under clause 19 (4) of the C.S.O. he was dismissed from his service with w.e.f. 14-6-93 by letter dated 8 /9-6-93 . It has been submitted that the recognised union raised an industrial dispute for review of the punishment imposed upon him and the management gave him another chance to serve the company and re - employed him w.e.f. 11-11-93 . The concerned workman again commited the same misconduct of habitual absence from his duties by remaining absent without information w.e.f. 8-12-93 to 9-12-93 , and from 17-12-93 to 20-12-93 . He again absented from duty from 18-12-93 to 19-12-93 and again from 13-4-94 to 16-4-94 . He was issued charge- sheet No.92 dated 4-5-94 and after holding enquiry he was suspended for 5 days for commission of the misconduct under clause 19 (4 ) of the C. S. O. He again absented from duty from 12-5-94 to 15-5-94, 2-8-94 to 3-8-94 and 17-9-94 to 24-9-94 for which he was issued charge - sheet No. 238 dated 15-10-94 and after holding enquiry he was suspended for 10 days . Thereafter the concerned workman again remained absent from duty w.e.f 15-10-94 to 17-10-94 and from 16-1-95 to 18-1-95 and from 6-4-95 to 10-4-95 without any information and without any justification for which he was issued Charge - sheet No.88 dated 13-5-95 but the concerned workman did not submit any reply to the charge - sheet . The management appointed Sri M. M. Haque , Deputy Manager ( P ) , Sijua Colliery as Enquiry Officer and Sri P. C. Nandy as management representative to conduct the departmental enquiry . Departmental enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and the concerned workman fully participated in the enquiry and the enquiry in accordance

In this respect the statement MW - 1 is very material . MW- 1 stated on cross - examination at page 2 that I cannot say whether any paper showing my appointment as management's representative has been filed by the management or not. I cannot say whether the charge - sheet issued to the workman concerned was served upon him . In the domestic enquiry proceeding below the LTI it has not been mentioned that the same is the LTI of the concerned workman . Before passing order of dismissal the concerned workman was not served with copy of the enquiry proceeding and enquiry report . I cannot say whether the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

concerned workman was served with a second show cause before issuing the order of dismissal . This statement of the management's witness shows that no 2nd show cause was issued to the concerned workman . Moreover , in the domestic enquiry proceding the LTI has been taken from the concerned workman but it has not been mentioned that LTI is of the concerned workman or not . Moreover giving only 3 days time for awarding punishment of dismissal shows that this is prejudice attitude of the management .

The concerned workman has referred 1991 Lab . I. C. 308 ( SC) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the disciplinary proceeding is quasi -judicial and it attracts principles of natural justice . Inquiry Officer regarding finding of guilt and preposing punishment The delinquent is entitled to know the same . Delinquent's right to be entitled to copy thereof Not lost after the 42nd amendment - Rules of natural justice . Applicability to disciplinary inquiry --- Not affected by 42nd Amendment .

7. The management has referred (2008 ) Supreme Court Cases ( L & S ) 164 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that when a person had been found guilty of unauthorised absenteeism for 15 times and again he was unauthorised absence for a long period of 105 days , in that case , consequential dismissal from service ought not to have been treated to be harsh and interfered with by Labour Court/High Court .

In the present case the concerned workman remained absent for 11 days in two years of service and that 11 days absence from duty cannot be treated as habitual absentee in the present case , considering his Psyclsis problem . However the order passed by the management i.e. dismissal order , Ext . W- 2 , shows that he was not given enquiry report of the proposed punishment. So it also violates law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1991 Lab . 1. C. 308 ( SC) .

8. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above , I hold that the action of the management of Sijua Colliery of M / s . TISCO in dismissing Sri Raj Kumar Belder from the services of the company w.e.f. 12-6-95 is not justified . Accordingly the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with 50 % back wages . The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award . This is my award .

H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 118.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार देवी स्टोन के

303

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29012/ 3/2007- आईआर ( एम ) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 118. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.29 /2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Devi Stone and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010 .

[No. L- 29012/3 /2007 - IR (M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1) ( d) of the 1.D. Act , 1947

Reference No. 29 of 2007

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of M / s . Devi Stone Works , Mallpara , Pakur and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the Employers : Mr. S. N. Ghosh , Advocate Onbehalf of the Workman : None

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Stone Mines

Dated , the 16th November 2010

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the I. D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 29012 / 3 /2007 - IR-( M ) dated, the 9th May , 2007 .

SCHEDULE

" Whether the termination of services of Shri Kumar Krishna Nand Singh , Mines Mate, by M / s . Devi Stone Works and non - settlement of statutory dues for the month 1-7-2002 to 31-12-2003 is just & legal ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

2. The instant case relates to the termination of services of Shri Kumar Krishna Nand Singh , Mines Mate, by M/ s . Devi Stone Works as well as to the non- settlement of statutory dues for the period from 1-7-2002 to 31-12-2003 . The case was running at the point of filing W. S. and rejoinder by the management , as well as the settlement between both the parties .

3. Meanwhile today Shri S. N. Ghosh , Learned , Advocate for the management filed a petition along with anAffidavit in original dated 15-1-2008 which was sworn by the concerned workman Kumar Krishna Nand Singh and accordingly praying for closure of the case on the ground that there has been amicable settlement of the issue between both the parties . The perusal of the affidavit of the workman concerned crystal clearly shows that he has himself admitted that his employer owner of the company was closed due to the pitiable condition of its economy. It also displays that the dispute for his final dues of his service was raised before the LEO ( C ) Patna and RLC ( C ) , Patna Bihar yet it could not be decided . Hence , the present case has been pending before this Tribunal for adjudication . Meanwhile it appears that the workman and the management (owner) have amicably settled the dispute on the 14th January, 2008 under which the former had received cash of Rs.20,000 in a single stroke as per his receipt dated 15-1-2008 under his signature . The affidavit of the workman concerned also stipulates that his claim whatsoever no longer existed .

4. Under the circumstances I find and hold that since the management concerned had closed owing to the bankruptey of its owner but ultimately the disputed dues ofhisservice in the said company for the period resulted in amicable settlement between the parties through the payment of Rs.20,000 to the workman concerned on 14-1-2008.

6.Accordingly it is awarded in terms of amicable , fair and proper settlement of both the parties in accordance withthe principle of natural justice . The affidavit and tis enclosure will form part of the Award as Annexure .

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DHANBAD

Reference Case No. 29 of 2007

Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Devi Stone Works , Pakur

AND

Their Workman Sri Krishna Nand Singh

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Petition to drop the procceding in view of payment made to the workman by the management as final Settlement APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Management of M / s . Devi Stone Works , it ismost humbly stated and submitted as under :-

( 1 ) That the workman Krishna Nand Singh have sworn an affidavit dated 15-1-2008 wherein the workman have stated that he have settled the dispute with the management of M/ s . Devi Stone Works , Pakur and in view of settlement have received Rs.22,000 ( rupes twenty two thousand only ) from the management to full and final settlement and have given money receipt to that extent.

(2) That photocopy of the said affidavit and the money receipt has already been filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the orginals of the affidavit and money receipt will be produced if directed by the Hon'ble Court .

(3) That in view of the above foregoings the above reference case may kindly be closed .

It is therefore prayed that your Lordship may grauously be pleased to close the above mentioned reference case or as deem fit and pass award accordingly And your petition as in duty bound shall his pray .

Filedby

S. N. Ghosh

Advocate

( for the management ) 16-11-10

अनुबंध

के समक्ष,

लेख्य प्रमाणक , पाकुड़ , जिला पाकुड़ ( झारखण्ड ) । शपथ-पत्र

मैं, कुमार कृष्णा नन्द सिंह , पे . श्री चुनचुन प्रसाद सिंह , । के . ओ. दिनेश मिश्रा ( ड्राईवर ) , निवासी मुहल्ला- मद्यपाड़ा , पाकुड़ , थाना-पाकुड़ , नगर , झारखण्ड शपथपूर्वक एवं सत्य निष्ठापूर्वक निम्नवर्णित तथ्यों की घोषणा करता हूँ: -

1. कि , मैं जन्म से भारतीय नागरिक सह उपरोक्त वर्णित पते का निवासी हूँ ।

2. कि, मैं , मेसर्स देवी स्टोन वकर्स , मालीपाड़ा, अंचल पाकुड में एक मेट के रूप में कार्यरत था और उक्त कम्पनी का मालिक का आर्थिक स्थिति दयनीय होने के कारण कम्पनी का काम बन्द हो गई । अंतिम हिसाब मुझे उक्त कम्पनी से नहीं मिलने के कारण मैं एल. ई. ओ . ( सी ) पाकुड़ के पास विवाद उठाया पर एल . ई . ओ. ( सी ) पाकुड़ एवं आर.एल.सी. ( सी.) पटना ( बिहार ) के समक्ष फैसला न हो सका । वर्त्ततान में मेरा उक्त कम्पनी का विवाद धनबाद श्रम न्यायालय में चल रहा है । पर मैं तथा उक्त मेरा कम्पनी के [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

मालिक के साथ हम दोनों के बीच दि. 14.1.08 आपसी समझौता अंतिम हिसाब के रूप में हो गया । जिसकी रकम राशि 22 , 000-00 ( बाईस हजार रु. ) रुपया में एक मुश्त में प्राप्त कर लिया हूँ । अब उक्त कम्पनी के ऊपर मेरा कोई किसी भी प्रकार का दावी , दावा नहीं रहा । 3. कि, मेरे साथ में उक्त मेरा कम्पनी के मालिक से जो मुकदमा चल रहा है मैं उसे श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद में जाकर वापस ले लूगा ।

4. कि, मैं , संबंधित न्यायालयों में समर्पित करने हेतु इस शपथ पत्र का निष्पादन कर दे रहा हूँ ।

5. कि, इस शपथ पत्र में वर्णित सभी तथ्य कथन मेरी जानकारी ज्ञान एंव विश्वास में सत्य है , इसकी कोई भी कथन असत्य नहींहैं ।

305

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

50/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-27012 / 1/2010- आई आर ( एम ) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 119.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Manganese Ore ( 1 ) Ltd and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010.

शपथकर्त्ता

कुमार कृष्णा नंद सिंह

सत्यापन

मैं, कुमार कृष्णा नंद सिंह शपथ पूर्वक सत्यापित करता हूँ, कि इस शपथ पत्र में वर्णित सभी तथ्य कथन मेरी जानकारी , ज्ञान एवं विश्वास में सत्य है जिसे मैंने स्वंय पढ़कर सुन व समझ लिया तथा सही लिखा टंकित पाकर आज दिनांक -15.1.2008 को पाकुड न्यायालय परिसर में उपस्थित होकर अपना हस्ताक्षर अंकित कर दिया ।

पहचानकर्त्ता

अधिवक्ता, पाकुड़ कोर्ट ।

गवाहगणों का हस्ताक्षर :

1. हस्ताक्षर

2. हस्ताक्षर

शपथकर्त्ता -

1. हस्ताक्षर

2. हस्ताक्षर

द्वारा टंकितः- तारकेश्वर प्रसाद सिंह ,

न्या. परि. , पाकुड़ ।

मैं कुमार कृष्णा नन्द सिंह , मैसर्स देवी स्टोन वर्मा से विवाद का फैसला होने पर रकम 22,000 अंकेन में बाईस हजार रुपया का भुगतान पाया ।

हस्ताक्षर नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 119. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैगनीज और इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या

[No. L -27012/ 1 /2010- IR ( M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

No. 50/07

DIARY

Date .

Petitioner/

ExhibitNo. PROGRESS: PartyNo. I The Vice President , MOIL Kamgar Sanghatan , C/ o Shri Ramavtar Devangan , MOIL StaffQuarters, Near Durga Mandir , Katol Road, NAGPUR - 440013

Versus

Respondent/ PartyNo. 2

The General Manager , Manganese Ore ( 1 ) Ltd. , 3 Mount Extension , Sadar , P.O. Box No. 34 NAGPUR - 440001

1. 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 employers in relation to the management of Manganese Ore ( 1 ) Ltd and their workman , Smt . Geeta Bai w/ o late Sh . Yograj , as per letter 306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

No. L -27012 / 1 / 2007 -IR ( M) dated 14-9-2007 with the following schedule .

"Whether the action of the management of MOIL , Nagpur in denying the employment to Smt . Geeta Bai w/ o late Sh . Yograj on compassionate ground is fair and just? If not , to what relief the concerned applicant is entitled ?"

2. The applicant in her statement of claim had requested to give direction to the management to give her appointment on compassionate ground . The management had resisted the claim of the petitioner in the written statement . However , it is clear from the pursis filed by the management on 30-9-2010 and the application filed by the petitioner today i.e. 16-11-2010 that the petitioner has already been given appointment by the management on compassionate ground .

3.Hence , the dispute is disposed of on compromise . The pursis filed on 30-9-2010 and the application on 16-11-2010 by made part of the award . This may be treated as a consent award in terms of the settlement arived at by the parties . Copy of the settlement be made a part of the award .

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer Petitioner his Counsel absent Respondent Counsel is present , Petitioner as well as his counsel is absent since 24-11-2008 , neither filing his WW affidavfit from 13-4-09 Adjourned as a last chance to file WW affidavfit by petitioner to 30-9-10

Petitioner and her Counsel is absent on calis , Respondent Counsel present filed pursis that the petitioner is appointed on compassionate ground alongwith appointment order thus .

As now the petitioner is under management's control/ capacity. The management is directed to produce before the court on the next date for her say in the matter .

Call on 11-11-2010

The petitioner and her advocate are present . Advocate for the management is present . The petitioner has filed an application to permit her to withdraw the dispute on the ground that there is an amicable settlement between her and the management . The advocate for the management has also made endorsement on the application that the compassionate appointment has already been given by the management to the petitioner and acordingly, the case be disposed of.

Put up later on for the order.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

CGIT No. 50/2007

F. F. 30-9-2010

Manganese Ore ( 1 ) Ltd. Vs. Smt Geetabai Yograj Alku PURSIS

The party No.1 / Management submits as under ;

The party No.2/ workman had raised a dispute for grant of compassionate appointment . The party no.1/ management , on declaration about the death of her husband by the competent court , sympathetically considered the case of the workman and offered appointment on compassionate grounds . A copy of letter dt2-8-2010 issued to that effect is filed herewith . Thus the dispute no longer subsists and as such the reference may be answered accordingly .

Hence this pursis .

Nagpur

Date:30-9-2010

Counsel for Party No. 1 /Management मैंगनीज ओर ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड , मॉयल भवन , 1 - ए काटोल रोड , छावनी , नागपुर - 440013

पत्र संख्या 20 - ए/ आश्रित/पीईआर/नेस्ट/ 2010/ 536

दिनांक 2-8-2010

खान प्रबन्धक

उकवा खान

महोदय ,

आपके पत्र क्रं.उ.खा./2/भर्ती/ 10-11 / 1459 दिनांक 15-7-2010 के सन्दर्भ में आपको सूचित किया जाता है कि सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने आपकी खान के ( कोर्ट द्वारा घोषित ) मृतक कामगार स्व. श्री योगराज अल्कुकी आश्रिता पत्नी श्रीमती गीताबाई योगराज को उकवा खान में भुपृष्ट पीसरेट ( अकुशल ) कामगार के रूप में नियुक्ति देने की अनुमति प्रदान कर दी है , जिसका विवरण निम्नानुसार है: - 1. उपरोक्त आश्रिता का चरित्र सत्यापन रिपोर्ट प्राप्त होने तक उनकी नियुक्ति अस्थाई कामगार की हैसीयत से की जाये तथा संबंधित उम्मीदवार की चरित्र सत्यापन रिपोर्ट प्राप्त होने पर तथा उसमें किसी भी प्रकार की प्रतिकुल टिप्पणी नहीं पाई गई तो उनकी नियुक्ति कम्पनी में स्थाई कामगार के रूप में की जाएगी । यदि उक्त उम्मीदवार के चरित्र सत्यापन रिपोर्ट में प्रतिकुल टिप्पणी पाई जाती है तो उनकी नियुक्तिनियमानुसार समाप्त कर दी जावेगी । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2. उनकी चिकित्सा परीक्षा इत्यादि कम्पनी के नियमानुसार कीजाये ।

307

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 ,. 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

Sd-

PartyNo. 1

16-11-2010

Nagpur

3. उपरोक्त उम्मीदवार का साक्षात्कार लेने के बाद अलग से नियुक्ति प्रस्ताव पत्र दिया जाये ।

4. उपरोक्त उम्मीदवार को भूपृष्ठ पीसरेट ( अकुशल ) कामगार की हैसीयत से अस्थाई रूप से 6 महीनों के लिए कार्य दिया जाए ।

5. उपरोक्त समय में इन्हें परीवीक्षाधीन रखा जाये और उनके परीवीक्षा अवधि समाप्त होने पर उनके आचरण , कमाई , हाजरी संबंधी विवरण को देखते हुए आगे की कार्यवाही की जाए ।

6. उपरोक्त उम्मीदवार कम्पनी में भर्ती होने के बाद यदि परीवीक्षाकाल के दौरान अपनी कमाई जीविका का कोई अन्य साधन प्राप्त कर लेते तो उन्हें कम्पनी की सेवा में नहीं रखा जाएगा ।

भवदीय हस्ताक्षर

वरि. उप महा प्रबन्धक ( कार्मिक ) , प्रतिलिपि:

1. अभिकर्ता समूह -1 , बालाघाट खान

BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER C.GLT . AT NAGPUR REFERENCE NO . 50 of 2007 FF - 16-11-2010 MOIL Vs Geeta Nisad

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE DISPUTE

The Party No.2 workman submits as under-

(1 ) That the Party No.2 workman had filed the above reference for adjudication before this Hon'ble Tribunal . However , during the pendency of above reference , a Settlement came to be arrived at between the Party No. 1 and Party No. 2 .

(2) That , the Party No.2 , under this circumstances does not want to prosecute the matter further. In view of this permission to withdraw the dispute may kindly be granted in the interest of justice .

PRAYER:- It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant of permission to withdraw the disposit , in the interest of justice.

Compassionate appointment has been given to Party No. 2. Therefore reference may be disposed of.

Dated - 16-11-2010

गीता बाई निषाद PartyNo. 2 नई दिल्ली, 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 120.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी एल नवेतिया टिकरापुरा पाप्ररोपरलाइट माइन्स 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 -2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -29011/6/2005 - आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 120. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar - 2 , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mine Owner M / s . B. L. Newatia; Tikiripara Pyrophylite Mines Keonjhar Orisa and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010 .

[No. L - 29011 /6/2005 - IR (M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava ,

Presiding Officer , C.GI.T. - cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar .

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 14/2005 L -29011/ 6/2005 - IR ( M) , dated 3-5-2005 Date of Passing Award : 26th November , 2010 Between:

The Management of the Mine Owner,

M/ s. B. L. Newatia ,,

Tikiripara Pyrophylite Mines , At./Po/Dist . Keonjhar , Orissa .

.... Ist Party - Management

And

Their Workmen represented through the General Secretary, 308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

Keonjhar Mines and Forest Workers Union , At./Po . Barbil

Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa - 758035

...2nd Party -Union APPEARANCES

None

Forthe 1st Party- Management.

For the 2nd Party- General Secretary

Union

AWARD

Case taken up today in the Lok Adalat . None of the parties is present .

The present case has been set ex-parte against the 1st Party-Management as it has not filed any written statement till date nor appeared in this Tribunal . The 2nd Party-Union also remained absent for several dates in the past. It therefore transpires that neither of the parties are interested in pursuing the case . After proceeding the case ex-parte against the 1st Party- Management , the 2nd Party- Union also remained absent on last several dates . It was called upon to produce ex-parte evidence but neither it appeared nor filed any ex - parte evidence though notice through Regd . post was issued to it . As such this reference remians without evidence . The claim raised in this reference could not be subsiantiated or proved as valid and justified without evidence . As such no award can be passed in favour of the 2nd Party- Union . The claim made in the statement of claim is therefore declined and the award is passed accordingly.

Dictated and Corrected by me .

J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 121. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स अरुण उद्योग ठेकेदार ओस्टपल करोमाइट माइन्स मैसर्स एफ ए सी ओ आर कनसा जजपुर उडीसा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर-2 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 22/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-43012/4/2009- आई आर ( एम ) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 121. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/ 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bhubaneswar- 2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Arun Udyoga Contractor Ostpal Chromite Mines of M/s . FACOR PO , Kansa Jajpur Orissa and their workmen , which was received by the Central

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] Government on 10-12-2010 .

[No. L-43012/4/2009 - 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. 22/2009 L-43012/4/2009 - IR ( M), dated 9-6-2009 Date of Passing Order 26th November, 2010 Between:

TheManagement of ( 1 ) Chief Executive,

M/ s. FACOR Ltd. ,

Kuans , Laxmibhavan ,

Bhadrak - 756100 Orissa .

(2) M/ s . Arun Udyoga , Contractor , Ostpal Chromite Mines of M /s . FACOR,

PO. Kansa PS . Tamaka, Jajpur, Orissa

.... Ist Party-Management

AND

Their Workmen Shri Kalia Mohanta,

PO . Anali , PS . Bhuban ,

Dist. Dhenkanal ,

At. Khushnapur, Orissa -

...2nd Party-Union APPEARANCES :

Authorized

For the 1st Party- Representative

Management No.1 None

For the 1st Party-

Management No.2 None

For the 2nd Party- workman

ORDER

Case taken up today in the Lok Adalat . The 1st Party- Management No.1 is present through authorized representative . The 1st Party- Management No. 2 and the 2nd Party-workman are absent despite sending notices .

The case has been lingering for the last one year and five months for filing of statement of claim by the 2nd Party-workman . He was noticed after being impleaded in the reference through Regd . Post but he did not appeaг пог file the statement of claim . The reference cannot be kept pending any more . It is therefore liable to be returned to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour for taking necesary action at their end . As such the reference is returned of the Government of India , Ministry of Labour without adjudication for want of statement of claim for taking necessary action at their end . Dictated and Corrected by me .

J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 122.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स परल मिनरल ग्रेनाइट 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 46/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29012/19/2009- आई आर (एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 10th December , 2010 s.O.122.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.46/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Pearl Minerals Granites and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010.

[No. L-29012/ 19/2009 - IR (M) ] 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 1st day of October , 2010 Industrial Dispute No. 46/2009

Between:

... Petitioner Shri Dupati Venkateswarlu , C/ o P. krishnaiah Bhavan , Near MRO Office Road, Chimakurthi (V&M) , Prakasam District .

AND

Sri Siva Sankar ,

Director, M/s. Pearl Minerals Granites , R.L. Puram (V) , Chimakurthy(M) , Prakasam District .

Respondent APPEARANCES :

:

NIL

For the Petitioner

NIL

:

For the Respondent

AWARD

4894GI/2011-24

309

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/ 19/2009 - IR(M ) dated 23-11-2009 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Pearl Minerals Granites and their workman . The reference is ,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Pearl Minerals Pvt . Ltd, in terminating the services of Shri D. Venkateswarlu , Ex . Excavator wie.f. 16-11-2008 is legal and justified? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date ?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 46/2009 and notices issued to the parties.

2. The Respondent has sent letter dated 30-12-2009 received in this office on 23-7-2010 along with withdrawal letter of Petitioner addressed to Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , Vijayawada requesting to drop further proceedings in the matter as the matter has been settled amicably. It is also mentioned in the letter that the dues payable to the Petitoner workman Sri D. Venkateswarlu hadbeen paid vide Cheque Nos . 297317 and 297318 dated 28-8-2009 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Ongole which were acknowledged by the Petitioner also . In view ofthe memo to witheraw the case , the case is dropped treating it to have been withdrawn as finally settled between parties . Hence , this Award on basis of memo dated 30-12-2009 . Memo shall form part of Award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictatedto Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 30th day of October , 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 123. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ए सी सी 310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

लिमिटेड ठेकेदार ए सी सी सीमेंट मैसर्स एस. डी. ठक्कर चन्द्रपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29012/38/2008- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 123. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.13 / 2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ACC Ltd. M/ s . S. D. Thakre ACC Contractor Chanderpur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010 .

[No. L- 29012/38 /2008 - IR (M ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

No. 13/2008

Dated the 16th day ofNovember , 2010 The petitioner and his advocate are absent . Advocate for the management and representative from the side of management are also absent . Though the case is pending since 14-7-2008 , neither the workman has filed statement of claim nor the management has filed written statement . It appears from the record that the parties are not interested to proceed with the case .

2.Hence the case is closed and is reserved for award . put up later on for award.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer , CGIT, Nagpur Petitioner/ Party No. 1

Shri Ramu Budhaji Katre , Ward No. 4 , Near Gajanan Mandir, Ghugus , Chandrapur ,

Versus

Respondent/ PartyNo.2

The Plant Head , ACC Ltd. , Post Cement Nagar , Chandrapur.

2. M/s . S.D. Thakre ,

ACC contractor, Post Cement Nagar , Chandrapur-442502 .

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1. The Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the ACC Ltd. , Post Cement Nagar and their workman, Shri Ramu Budhaji Katre ( here - in - after referred to as the " workman " ) for adjudication 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 Act " in short ) , as per letter No. L - 29012 /38 / 2008 - IR ( M ) dated 5-5-2008 , with the follwoing schedule : -

" Whether the action of the management of M/ s. ACC Cement Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Ramu Katare , Mazdoor , orally through the contractor. ( M / s S.D. Thakre ) without complying the relevant provisions of law and denying him his legitimate dues is legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled to ? " 2. The case came up for hearing on 16-11-2010 . On that day, the workman and his advocate were absent . The advocate and the representative from the side of management were also absent . The workman was not attending the Court for the last 2 years .

3. On perusal of the record , it is found that the workman and his advocate are not attending the Court since 14th July , 2008. The workman has not filed the statement of claim . The management has also not filed the written statement . It appears that nobody is interested to proceed with the case . Hence , the case is liable to be dismissed for default of the parties . Hence it is ordered:

ORDER

The case is dismissed for the default of the parties . This may be treated as no award .

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 124.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मायनिंग एण्ड इलाईड मशीनरी कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, नागपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-29012 / 32/ 2001- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 10th December , 2010 S.O. 124. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.83 /2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mining & Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. , Nagpur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010 .

[No. L - 29011 /32/2001 - IR (M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Dated: 26-11-2010 Case No. CGIT / NGP/ 83 / 2001

The Secretary,

Petitioner/ Party No. 1

MAMC Employees Union , (CITU ) , 306 , Shanichara behind Khandoba Deosthan , Cotton Market , Nagpur .

Versus

Respondent/ PartyNo.2

The Manager, Mining & Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. , 47 , MIDC , Hingna, Nagpur .

AWARD

(Dated: 26thNovember , 2010)

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short ) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of the Manager , Mining and Allied Machinery Corp. Ltd, 47 , MIDC , Hingna, Nagpur and their workmen , S / Shri Raju Alias Rajendra Krushnarao Khandekar and Gyneshwar Kashirao Parate (" the workmen " in short ) for adjudication , as per letter No. L - 29011 / 32 / 2001 - IR (Misc . ) dated 31-7-2001 and corrigendum issued vide letter of even No. 27-2-2002 , with the following schedule:-

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the management of the Manager , Mining and Allied Machinery Corp. Ltd, 47 , MIDC , Hingna , Nagpur in engaging and continuing S/ Shri Raju Alias Rajendra Krushnarao Khandekar and Gyneshwar Kashirao Parate who were working with the Corporation years together as daily wagers and depriving them of privilege of permanent employees is legal , proper and justified? If not , to what relief the said workmen are entitled to and from what date ? "

2. The workmen , Shri Raju Alias Rajendra Krushnarao Khandekar and Gyneshwar Kashirao Parate through their

311

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

union filed their statement of claim for issuance ofdirection to include their names in the list of the workers entitled to be made permanent in their post with the pleading that theywere working continuously with the Manager , Mining Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. , Hingna , Nagpur for years together as daily wagers and the management did not include their names in the list of workers entitled to be made permanent , without any justification .

3. The management also filed their written staternent denying the allegations made by the workmen pleading that they were never in continuous employment and they were employed only as and when required as casual labourers and were paid the minimum wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act and as such they are not entitled to be made permanent .

4. The workman filed two separate affidavits on 31-7-2002 . However , since 10-3-2010 , the workmen remained absent. None also appeared on behalf of the workmen to argue out the case . On 28-10-2010 , a last chance was given to the parties for argument on the merit of the case and the case was fixed to 26-11-2010 for argument . On 26-11-2010 also , the parties remained absent , so the case was closed for passing award .

5. Perused the record and found that there is no evidence on record to show that the two workmen were working in Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. , Hingna continuously for years . Rather , the documents filed by them show that they were working as casual labourer and they worked only for some days in the said industry . It is also found from the documents filed by the management that the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. , Durgapur including Nagpur unit was declared closed w.e.f. 3-1-2002 in pursuant of the Court's order. In view of the evidence on record , I find that the two workers are not entitled for getting the status of permanent employee . Hence it is ordered :

ORDER

The action of the management of Manager , Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. , 47 , MIDC, Hingna, Nagpur in giving making the workman privilege of permanent employees is legal , proper and justified and the workmen are not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 125.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार श्री जगदीश चड्डा पुत्र श्री किशन चड्डा माइन्स लीज होल्डर कोटा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम 312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-29012/28/2005- आई आर( एम) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th December , 2010 S.O. 125. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Jagdish Chaddha S/o Sh . Kishan Chaddha Mine Lease Holder Kota and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-12-2010 .

[No. L-29012/28 /2005 - IR (M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PRESENT : N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

I.D. 14/06

Reference No. L- 29012/28/05- ( IR(M) Dated: 24-1-2006

Sh . Nanuram Munshi S/ o Shri Nathu Lal Through Joint Secretary Hind Mazdoor Sabha Bengali Colony Cantonment Kota(Raj .)

V/s

Shri Jagdish Chaddha S/o Sh.Kishan Chaddha Mine Lease Holder Naya Kheda Boondi Road Kota (Raj .)

AWARD

26-11-2010

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub -section 1 and 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication which runs as under :-

" क्या श्री नानूराम पुत्र श्री नाथुलाल को श्री जगदीश चड्‌डा माईन्स लीज होल्डर नया- खेड़ा बून्दी रोड , कोटा की ग्राम बुधपुरा में स्थित सेण्ड-स्टोन की खदान पर मुंशी के पद पर माह जनवरी , 1998

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] से 10-09-2003 के मध्य निरन्तर 240 दिन से अधिक सेवा प्रदान की थी ? यदि हां तो अप्रार्थी द्वारा श्री नानूराम पुत्र श्री नाथूलाल को सेवा से पृथक करने की कार्यवाही उचित एवं वैद्य है ? यदि नहीं तो प्रार्थी किस अनुतोष तथा राहत का हकदार है ? "

2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order, the registered notices were issued to both the parties . Upon perusal of the proceedings of the case , it appears that representative on behalf of both the sides apeared on 19-4-06 and claim statement was filed on 15-5-06 . Subsequently, the post of the Presiding Officer remained vacant after 24-7-06. After posting of Presiding Officer in the month of September, 2009 , fresh notices were issued to both the sides but none appeared on behalh of both the sides.

3. On perusal of the record it further reveals that registered notices issued to Jagdish Chaddha , non- applicant on the address mentioned in the reference order were returned unserved thrice with the remark that no such person was found on the given address.

4. It also reveals from the record that the registered notice has been served upon the workman . The acknowledgment receipt of the registered notice is on the record . Despite service of the registered notice neither workman nor his representative has appeared.

5. Only claim statement of the workman is on the record. The workman has not appeared & adduced any evidence to substantiate his claim . It appears that the workman is not willing to contest the case further. Therefore "No Claim Award " is passed in this matter . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

6. Award as above ,

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 126. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आईषीपी कम्पनी लिमिटेड , नोएडा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चन्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/50/2002- आई आर( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th December, 2010 S.O. 126. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 73/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IBP Co. Ltd. , Noida (UP ) , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-12-2010 .

[No. L- 30012/ 50/2002 - IR (M) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH

Case I.D. No. 73/2003

Shri Roshan Lal Dhir , 126 , Vikas Vihar, Ambala City,

Haryana

313

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

given the opportunity of being heard in the departmental proceedings from 29-08-1998 but witnesses examining prior to the day were not recalled for cross - examination. Enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in lapse manner without affording the opportunity even to adduce defense evidence . No fair and proper enquiry was conducted against him . The principle of natural justice was violated at every stage of the enquiry proceedings . On the basis of the above , the workman has prayed for setting aside the enquiry proceedings and punishment awarded to him . He has also prayed for an order of his reinstatement with all consequential benefits .

...Applicant

Versus

The General Manager (NR)

I.B.P. Co. Ltd. , Regional Office,

...Respondent

E-8 , Sector 1 , Noida (U.P. )

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

:

Shri S. P. Sharma .

:

Shri N. K. Zakhmi .

For the Management

AWARD

Passed on 3-11-2010

Government of India vide Notification No. L -30012/ 50/ 2002 - IR( M ), dated 22-04-2003 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act ( the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal: -

" Whether the action of the management of I.B.P. Ltd. , Noida in dismissing Sh . Roshan Lal Dhir , workman from service is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

2.After receiving the reference parties were informed.

Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The case of the workman in nut shell is that he was engaged as Fitter , Grade- B , by the management by the appointment letter dated 1-09-1972. He was selected for placement in Grade - VI ( Blue Collar) as Foreman technical w.e.f. 1-12-1991 vide order of dated 15-02-1992 of the management . He was charge sheeted vide letter dated 18-12-1992 for eight charges for disobedience and unauthorized absent of several occasions . The enquiry officer conducted ex - parte enquiry . He was not afforded the opportunity for cross - examine the witnesses . He was only permitted to join the enquiry proceedings . He was The management appeared and opposed the claim of the workman by filing written statement . It was contended by the management that all possible opportunity for hearing was given to the workman . In spite ofproper serving of summons to appear before the enquiry officer , the workman failed to ensure his presence and enquiry was ordered to be conducted exparte . It was only on 29-08-1998 that the workman has put his presence and opportunity for hearing was given to him . As the workman in spite of notice was not present on previous occasions , the witnesses , already recorded were not recalled for cross - examination . It does not violate the principle of natural justice because oportunity was given to the workman but he does not avail the opportunity.

The management has further contended that after affording the opportunity of proper hearing the punishment of dismissal from the services was awarded by the disciplinary authority which is not the proportionate punishmentto the committed misconduct.

As per the settled law of service jurisprudence, the parties were directed to argue on preliminary issue on fairness of enquiry . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case , it was ordered by this Tribunal that issue of fairness of enquiry shall also be decided after affording the opportunity for adducing oral evidence along with other issues . Accordingly, evidence of both of the parties was recorded . Parties were heard at length . On perusal of the entire materials on record the charges levelled against the workman were as follows :-

1. Since you did not visit CDO on 14-03-1996 as per tour programme . SO , Bhatinda had asked for , inter alia , the reasons, vide his memo dated 20-03-1996 , for not adhering to the tour programme Instead of responding to him , you chose to inform Dy . Manager , Chandigarh vide you undated letter (received in CDO on 4-04-1996 ) that you had not gone to CDO as you had not agreed to do so and that is why you had not signed the said tour programme .

Subsequently, you were advised by Dy . Manager (S) on 22-03-1996 , SO on 28-04-1996 and SDM vide his memo dated 05-08-1996 to visit CDO (on 19-08-1996) . Since you did not comply with these instructions , SDM sought you 314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

explanation vide his memo dated 6-09-1996 . You were gain advised by Dy . Manager ( S ) vide his memo dated 25-09-1996 , inter alia , to respond to SDM's memo dated 05-08-1996 . Vide the said memo , you were again requested to visit CDO to discuss various issues relating to your work. In spite of repeated advices / instructions , oral as well as in writing , you failed to report at CDO till date .

2. You had toured Gidderbaha and Lambi ROs on 10-04-1996 without any tour programme issued by SO Bhatinda or prior intimation to SO.

3. You were given tour programme by SO on various dates such as on 07-09-1996 , 16-09-1996 , 21-09-1996 , 23-10-1996 but you did not adhere to these tour programme with the result the maintenance of the units at various RO'sgot affected. In connection with the tour programme dated 7-09-1996 , SO had asked for your explanation vide his memo dated 21-09-1996 but you have not clarified the reasons so far for not adhering to this tour programme .

4. You remained absent from you duties in an unauthorized manner for 27 days in May, 1996 ( i.e. from 1-05-1996 to 27-05-1996) for which SDM had sought you explanation vide his memo dated 5-08-1996 , followed by a reminder dated 6-09-1996 but you have not submitted you explanation so far . You explanation was also sought by SO vide his memo dated 16-06-1996 for not attending duty from 1-06-1996 to 15-06-1996 . You were agaiin reminded by Dy . Manager ( S) vide his memo dated 25-09-1996 to expedite you explanation sought by SDM vide his memo dated 5-08-1996 . Vide this memo , you explanation was also sought for your absence for 27 days in August 1996. Since you had not reported for duty from 6th to 12th and 16th to 20th Sept. , 1996 your explanation was sought by SO vide his memo dated 21-09-1996.

The undersigned regrets to note that you did not respond to any of the above communications .

5. In order to discuss various issues relating to your work, another effort was made by Deputy Manager ( S ) , AM( E ) and SO when they visited you residence in the morning of 26-09-1996 . But to their utter surprise , on their seeing you standing outside , you went inside your house and when so called for , you advised him that you would be coming out in a while as you were preparing for bath . After waiting for about 20 minutes , when SO again called for, you replied from inside that you would be meeting them in SO's office / residence but you did not turn up that day.

6. Since SO was required to be away from Bhatinda from 8th to 18th August , 1996 he had advised you to report for duty to Shri D. K. Garg , S & D Officer during the said period and take tour programme from him . Since you did not obey these instructions . SO Sought you explanation vide his memo dated 30-08-1996 . Vide the said memo , you

[PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] were also to intimate about your whereabouts during the period from 8th to 28th August , 1996 .

7.As per tour programme dated 16-10-1996 , you were required to report to SO on 18-10-1996 . Since you did not do so , your explanation was sought by SO vide his memo dated 23-10-1996 , this explanation is still awaited .

8. You were advised by SO that an attendance register has been maintained in his office and that your attendance shall be marked on reporting the duty or on the basis of submission of Pump Maintenance Reports in case of tours . Since you did not follow these instructions , you were advised by SO vide his Regd . Post memo dated 5-11-1996 to submit PMRs by 9-11-1996 failing which you would be treated as absent from duty. Since you refused to received the said memo , the postal authorities returned the same with the remarks ' refused ' . However, in order to expedite the matter , another memo dated 13-11-1996 was sent to you by Regd . Post wherein you were again requested , inter alia , to expedite submission of your PMRs for the month of October 1996 .

Since you had reported for duty only on 5th to 6th November , 1996 you were also advised vide the above said memo to explain the reasons for not reporting for duty regularly.

On issue of fairness of enquiry , this Tribunal has not passed any order without recording the oral evidence because workman was not afforded the opportunity for cross -examination of witnesses recorded prior to his joining the enquiry proceedings by him on 29-08-1998 . It is the settled principle of service jurisprudence that when an employee challenges the enquiry proceedings on the gound of violation of any principle of natural justice , he has to prove the prejudice caused to him for such violation . Proper opportunity was afforded by this Tribunal to the workman to prove prejudice caused to him before this Tribunal as per the provisions of the law. The workman was cross - examined on all the charges by learned counsel for the management and he has primarily admitted during cross - examination almost on all the charges with some explanations . Parties were also afforded to file the written arguments . I have also perused the written arguments of the parties .

As stated earlier the workman was duly served summons to attend the enquiry proceedings on 15-06- 1998 at 10 A.M. The summons were served upon him on 11-06-1998 . He has admitted the receiving of summons but failed to appear before the enquiry officer on pretext that summons should be send to him through proper channel . The purpose of issuing summons is to inform the workman to appear before the enquiry officer on the date and time mentioned in the summon . Proper information was there but the workman on technical ground that [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

information should come through proper channel abstained to appear before the enquiry officer. It was the proper information to the workman that enquiry is pending against them and he has been asked to present before the enquiry officer on 15-06-1998 , but he failed . Accordingly, enquiry officer has rightly proceeded further and recorded the evidence of three witnesses . Thereafter , on 29-08-1998 , workman put his appearance and after recording his statement he was permitted to join the enquiry from the stage of the enquiry. He was provided with the copies of the documents and he also perused the original documents lying in the enquiry file . He was given all possible oportunity of being heard by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority . The workman has challenged the enquiry proceedings on the ground that evidence recorded prior to joining the enquiry proceedings dated 29-8-1998 were not recalled and he may not cross - examined the witnesses . In my view no prejudiced is caused to the workman for this act of the enquiry officer because before this Tribunal he has admitted almost all the charges with some explanations . Explanation to admission of charge has to be proved by the workman and not by the management .

The enquiry officer in his enquiry report dated 27-06-2000 held all the charges proved against the workman.

I have gone through the enquiry report and I am unable to digest the finding of the enquiry officer on Charge No. 5 regarding the disrespect shown to the seniors at the residence of the workman . If the seniors are visiting personally at the residence of a junior it is the social obligation of the workman to ask them to come in and sit down with cordial behavior . No legal obligation follow if the workman has not respected the officers at his residence . I am unable to understand what tempted the senior officers to visit the residence ofjounor officer , Shri Roshan Lal Dhir , and if he has not respected them at his residence no legal obligation can follow. It was an only social obligation which Shri Dhir has not recognized . The officer of the management had voluntarily undertaking the risk ofmisbehavior by a junior official . Moreover , from entire enquiry it has not been proved that Shri Dhir has spoken some hard words in a unhealthy way and filthey manner but he has not invited the officer to come in and has asked to wait till his bath . At the cost of the repetition , it is not insult in the legal term but may be termed as a social insult for which no legal action can be taken . Accordingly, Charge No. 5 stands not proved and it was the perversity of the enquiry officer for not perusal the correct facts on charge No. 5. Thus , the finding on charge No. 5 , are set aside being perverse .

On rest of the Charges Nos . 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 & 8 the charge stands proved because the same have also been

315

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

admitted before this tribunal with certain explanations . The same explanations were given by the workman during the departmental proceedings . The explanations given by the workman are not trust and worthy reliable . The disobedience of the orders of the seniors is established and proved even beyonddoubt . The explanations given by the workman are excuses which cannot be considered by the Tribunal in case of administrative in action and laxity. The workman was guilty of administrative in action and laxity. The cumulative affect of the charges proved that his adamancy prompted him to violate the lawful orders and directions of the seniors which is not desirable in any institutions , rather it is fettle for the proper business of any Organisation . Discipline is the backbone of any institution . We cannot imagine any work culture without discipline . At all cosy discipline has to be maintained. Accordingly, the enquiry officer has rightly held the rest of the charges to be proved .

The disciplinary authority has also aforded all possible opportunity of being heard to the workman before awarding punishment . The only question remains whether the punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to the committed misconduct? The consequential question arise whether it is the fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested in this Tribunal by Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act ? Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act empowered this Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction on quantum of punishment if the punishment awarded to the workman is dismissal or discharge . The workman was dismissed from the services on his disobedience to the senior officers . It is the settled law of service jurisprudence that jurisdiction under Section 11A should be springly exercised by the Tribunal to prevent miscarriage of justice . This jurisdiction can be invoked and exercised in exceptional cases to prevent of glaring injustice to the workman,

On the one hand it is the disobedience of orders and unauthorized absent by the workman and on the other hand the punishment is dismissal from the services . It is true that it is not only one charge of disobedience , there are several as more as six charges of disobedience and one charge of unauthorized absent . But the Tribunal should not also undermine the facts of dismissal of the workman from the services . Dismissal from the services is a socio -economic death of the workman which not only affects his status in the organization but the social status in the society along with the future prospects and status of family members . Considering the nature of charge proved against the workman , I am of the view that punishment of dismissal was harsh one and it should have been lesser , moderate and modified punishment . The intention of the management was to see off such a workman from the department who commits the act of 316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8, 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

indiscipline regularly and repeatedly. This intention is appreciateble but with this intention some moderate and lesser punishment the dismissal was justified. The workman could have shown the way out from the organization by a moderate punishment of compulsory retirement from the services . There was no legal bar to pass an order of the compulsory retirement as the workman by the day of awarding the punishment of dismissal from the services has completed 27 years of services with the department . The workman should not undermine these 27 years of services while awarding the punishment. Accordingly, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of misconduct , and nature of punishment awarded to the workman and the affects and consequences of the punishment awarded to the workman , I am of the view that instead of punishment of dismissal from the services , compulsory retirement should have been the appropriate punishment. If the punishment of dismissal from the services is substituted be punishment of compulsory retirement the purpose behind awarding the punishment by the management is also fulfilled.

Accordingly, on the basis of the above observations , I am ofthe view that it is a fit case of exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act because the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman in my view is a glaring injustice on account of the fact that workman has served the department most for 27 years . Thus, by exercising the jurisdiction and powers under section 11 A of the Act , I am substituting the punishment of dismissal from the services by the punishment of compulsory retirement. The workman shall be deemed and considered to be a compulsory retired from the services from the date of passing the punishment order by the disciplinary authority. The workman will be entitled for all the post retiremental benefits . Accordingly, the management is directed to pay the post retiremental benefits to the workman within one month from the date ofpublication of the award . The reference and industrial dispute is accordingly answered . Let Central Government be approached for publication ofthe award, and thereafter, filebe consigned to record room.

Chandigarh .

Dated: 3-11-10

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 127. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार अंकुर माईनिंग प्रा. लि. , जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 39/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/48/2006- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th December, 2010 S.O. 127. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Ankur Mining Pvt . Ltd. , Jaipur and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 13-12-2010 .

[No. L-29012/48 /2006-IR (M) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PRESENT : N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer I.D. 39/2007 Reference No. L-29012/48 /06- IR(M)

dated: 15-5-2007

Shri Vimal Singh Through Shri Sitaram Gupta Mazdoor Maidan , Old Power House Near Ram Mandir, Banipark, Jaipur

V/s

The Manager , Ankur Mining Pvt . Ltd. Gehlot Bhawan , New Colony, Near Panch Batti , Jaipur .

AWARD 26-11-2010

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication which runs as under : -

Whethe the action of the management of M/ s. Ankur Mining Pvt . Ltd. , Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Vimal Singh , Welder w.e.f. 4-2-2005 is legal and justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? " [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order, the registered notices were issued to both the parties . The notice issued to non - applicant has been returned with remark " left " and none has appeared on behalf of non-applicant.

3. The notice issued to the workman on address mentioned in the reference order has been served upon him. The acknowledgement receipt is on the record . Despite service of registered notice , none appeared on behalfofthe workman . Under such circumstances the case was reserved for passing Award .

4. Since the workman has neither appeared nor filed any claim therefore, there is no material on record to adjudicate the reference under consideration on merit . It appears that the workman is not willing to contest the case further. Therefore "No Claim Award " is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

5.Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 128. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यूसी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/ 110/2008 - आई आर ( सी एम II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th December , 2010 S.O. 128.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.13/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Workshop ofWani Area, Tadali and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13-12-2010 .

[No. L- 22012/ 110/2008 - 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/13/2009

Date: 2-12-2010 Petitioner/

: The Secretary,

4894G1/2011-25

317

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011/ पौष 18 , 1932

PartyNo.1

Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS ), CWS Tadali Branch, At/PO Tadali , Distt. Chandrapur, Chandrapur.

Versus

Respondent/ PartyNo.2

The General Manager, Central Workshop of Wani Area, Tadali , Western Coalfields Ltd. , At/PO Tadalia Dist, Chandrapur, Chandrapur.

AWARD (Dated: 2nd December , 2010)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( "the Act" in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Central Workshop of Wani Area, Tadali of WCL ( "WCL " in short ) and their workman , Shri Nilkanth Dhuke (" the workman " in short ) for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/ 110/2008 - IR( CM - II) dated 24-03-2009, with the following schedule :-

"Whether the action of the management of Central Workshop Tadali of WCL in denying promotion to Sri Nilkanth Dhuke , EP Fitter is legal and justified? Towhat relief is the workman concerned represented through the Union entitled and from which date ? " 2. In this case, the reference was received by this Tribunal on 3-4-2009 and the case was initiated on 9-4-2009 and notices were issued to both the parties for filing their respective statement of claim and written statement . On 27-5-2009 , the respondent appeared through their advocate and the case was adjourned to 20-8-2009 for filing statement of claim . However, the petitioner, in this case, neither appeared nor filed his statement of claim till 23-9-2010 . The respondent also remained absent after 27-5-2009 . So , on 23-9-2010 , in the interest ofjustice , a last chance was given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim and the case was posted to 30-11-2010 for filing statement of claim . In spite of giving such a scope to the petitioner, no statement of claim was filed by him. On 30-11-2010 , the respondent also did not appear. As from the record, it was found that the parties are not interested to proceed with the case , the case was closed and was fixed for passing award .

3. As no statement of claim or any other materials have been filed, there is no other alternative for the Tribunal except passing of an order of no dispute award . Hence , it isordered:

318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18, 1932

ORDER

The case be treated as " no dispute award", due to the default of the parties .

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 दिसम्बर, 2010

का.आ. 129.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एन. पी. सी. आई. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 96/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/202/2004- आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th December , 2010 S.O. 129.-In pursuancedance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 96/05 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of NPCIL , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13-12-2010.

[No. L-42012/202/2004- IR (CM - II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT , JAIPUR

PRESENT

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

I.D. 96/05

Reference No. L-42012/202/2004 -IR( CM - II )

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

26-11-2010

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub - section 1 & 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for adjudication which runs as under :-

"Whether the action of the management of RAPS 1 to 4 NPCIL , Rawatbhata (Raj .) in changing method ofcalculation ofelectric charges from its employees w.e.f. 1-4-2001 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the employees are entitled to and from which date ?"

2. The applicant union has pleaded that on withdrawal of project allowance , certain project concessions including free units of electricity and subsidy beyond free electricity units were sanctioned to the employees posted at RAPS vide DAE's O.M. dated 16-11-74 ( Annexure 1 ) . Subsequently, a notice dated 18-2-99 u/s 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act was served to effect the change specified therein in condition of service and vide O.M. No. RAPS/ 9000/PD/S/ 1356 dated 9-4-99 the management has modified and withdrawn certain concessions including subsidy beyond free electricity limits granted vide DAE's O.M. dated 16-11-74. The union has further pleaded that earlier the employees working under PPED under the Atomic PowerDepartment were en masse transferred on deputation to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) and such employees were given an offer of absorption in the NPCIL . It was assured at the time of option that there will be better prospets for the employees of the NPCIL . The union has also pleased that the CGIT, Surat has held the action of the NPCIL , Kakrapar Atomic Power Station withdrawing the concession including subsidy beyond free electricity unit as unjustified and an appeal against the said award is still pending in the Gujarat High Court .

dated: 4-8-2005

TheGeneral Secretary

Rajasthan Anushkti Pariyojna Karmchari Union (INTUC), INTUC Office , Pratap Circle , POL Bhabhanagar, Rawatbhata, Kota ( Raj . )

V/s The Site Director, RAPS I to 4, NPCIL PO : Anushakti , Rawatbhata, Kota(Raj .)

3. Thus , the union has prayed that the project concession regarding subsidy beyond free electricity units made available under the DAE's O.M. dated 16-11-74 be continued and calculation of electricity charges should be made as per the State Electricity rates after excluding the free units and the subsidy units and relief be provided w.e.f. 1-4-2001 .

4. Resisting the claim made by the union , the management has averred in their reply that on withdrawal of project allowance certain project concession were sanctioned to the employees vide DAE's O.M. dated 16-11-74 . The said project concession were initially sanction due to lack of certain necessary facilities to the emplyees who were working at construction projects . As per said O.M. certain free electricity units and subsidy up to 100 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

units were granted as project concessions . Subsequently, the employees working under PPED were en masse transferred to NPCIL, vide O.M. dated 4-9-1987 and it was decided that concessions like free supply of electricity upto certain units etc. will be given to such employees as per orders of the Atomic Power Department . The management has further averred that the pay scales of employees have been revised as per the recommendation of the 3rd , 4th and 5th pay commissions and all atomic power projects had been implemented and all basic facilities were also made available to the employees of the Atomic Power Stations during period from 1974 to 1998. Therefore , in view of above factual backdrop it was decided to modify the project concessions given under DAE's O.M. dated 16-11-74. Accordingly, the DAE vide their O.M. No. 2/33/ 97-303-1139 dated 30-11-98 have modified certain concessions and withdrew certain project concessions including subsidy beyond free electricity units . In pursuance of the DAE's O.M. 30-11-98 the NPCIL had also withdrew project concessions sanctioned to the project based employees of the DAE/NPCIL vide order RAPS/ 9000/DD/S/ 1356 dated 18-2-99 and as regard the employees covered under section 9 -A , notice under said section of the Industrial Dispute Act was given to all registered unions .

5. It has been further averred that an Industrial Dispute was raised by the union before the ALC ( C ) , Kota . On failure of the conciliation proceedings the same was intimated vide letter dated 1-12-99 . But the Central Government decided not to refer the matter for adjudication vide order dated 22-2-2000 . Moreover , in O.A. 84/99 & 86/ 99 the CAT, Jodhpur Bench has held the impugned order dated 30-11-98 as justified vide its order dated 5-10-99 . The above order was challenged in writ petition 4617/99 but the said writ petition was dismissed at admission stage on 27-2-2002 . A civil suit No. 22/2001 was also filed by the union before civil judge ( L.D. ) , Rawatbhata. The temporary injunction application filed in the said suit was rejected vide order dated 28-6-2000 and appeal against the said order filed before ADJ , Chittorgarh was also rejected vide order dated 6-9-2001 . Ultimately the suit was also dismissed on default on 28-11-2003 .

319

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

8. In rejoinder , apart from reiterating earlier averments made in the claim statement , the union has also pleaded that the customary concessions available to the employees cannot be abolished after such a long period of 26 years . The DAEs orders were applicable only up to 31-12-97 . After absorption of the employees in NPCIL , the service conditions of the NPCIL were applicable upon the optees . The union has alleged that the DAEs order dated 30-11-98 regarding withdrawal of project concession to the NPCIL's employees is arbitrary and unjustified . Moreover , after the NPCIL came into existence the order of the DAE is not applicable on the employees of the NPCIL .

9. Upon perusal of the proceedings it reveals that on 2-5-2006 an affidavit of the General Secretary of the union was filed in support of the claim and the case was adjourned for cross - examination on the said affidavit for next date i.e. 11-7-2006 . It appears from the subsequent proceedings that the post of the Presiding Officer remained vacant for a long period . Thus , after posting of the Presiding Officer, fresh notices were issued to both the parties , but despite service of registered notices , none appeared on behalf of both the parties . Under such circumstances , the reference under adjudication is to be answered on the basis of admitted facts in the pleadings and undisputed documents on the record.

10. The union has filed annexure - 1 to annexure - 7 and the management has filed annexure - 1 to annexure - 16 in support of their respective case . Upon perusal of the pleadings of both the sides and documents on record , it is evident that the documents as well as facts are almost undisputed . The dispute seems to be regarding withdrawal of the subsidy beyond free electricity units and method of calculation of electric charges w.e.f. 1-4-2001 .

11. It is an admitted fact that while withdrawing the project allowance some concessions includmg free electric supply up to cerlain units and subsidy beyond free units up to 100 units were provided to the employees concerned vide DAE's O.M. dated 16-11-74 . Up to the following limit concession of the free supply of electricity was given to the employees in the corresponding pay scales : -

30 units

Pay up to 299 p.m.

45 units

Pay between 300 to 799 p.m.

60 units

Pay between 800 to 1299 p.m.

75 units

Pay 1300 and above

6. The management has further pleaded that the Union has again raised the present dispute before ALC ( C) , Kota despite knowing this fact that O.M. dated 1-5-2003 has been issued in pursuance of DAEs O.M. dated 30-11-98 , NPCIL's circular dated 10-2-99 and after issuing notice u/s 9A ofthe I.D. Act . The management has submitted that the calculations of electric charges are being made as per model calculation . Therefore , the claim of the union deserves to be rejected.

7. The management has also raised objection regarding maintainability of the claim on the basis of principles of res judicata.

12. The said DAEs O.M. dated 16-11-74 further envisages as under: -

"This concession will be admissible to RAPP employees in addition to the existing concession under which for electricity up to 100 units charges at a subsidized rate are payable by them. In other words , while for units up to the limits mentioned at ( III ) above 320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

they will not have to pay anything; for excess units up to a ceiling of 100 units a concessional rate equal to the rate presently in force at Bombay (21 paisa) willbe charged. "

13. It is also mentioned in the said O.M.; "As amenities, for the lack of which Project Allowance was initially sanctioned, have already been provided at all aforementioned project sites , continuance of this allowances can no longer be justified . " It is further mentioned; " a total withdrawal of project allowance will cause hardship to employees who have been receiving thisallowance for quite some time . In order to alleviate to a certain extent the hardship caused thereby the project concessions have been sanctioned to the employees concerned."

14. It is an admitted fact that vide O.M. No. 2/33/97- SCS/1130dated30-11-98, the DAE have modified the project concessions and also withdrew certain concessions including subsidy beyond free electricity units as under : - " No subsidy beyond the free units of electricity provided for in the concession . Domestic rates prevalent in the local areas should be charged for electricity consumption over and above the free units from the respective categories of employees ." 15. It also appears from perusal of the record that in line with the above instruction received from the DAE it was decided to implement the above order of the DAE in the NPCIL where project concessions were granted based ontheDAEs orders from time to time . Vide order No. BBPIR/ 3215/N -104 dated 10-2-1999 , it was also decided that so far asthe workmen in the RAPS is concerned, the above orders canbe implemented after issuing requisite notice of change ofservice conditions under the Fourth Schedule ofSection 9A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly a notice u/s 9A of I.D.Act was issued to all union concerned to effect the change specified in the enclosed annexure w.e.f 12-3-99 in the condition of service applicable to the workmen concerned.

16. In pursuance of the O.M. dated 30-11-98 , the NuclearPowerCorporation (NPC) issued a circular RAPS/ 0900/ pd/ 99/S/ 1356 dated 9-4-99 wherein it is mentioned ; "as regards the workmen of RAPS (both absorbees and direct recruits) , as soon as the conciliation proceedings are completed, the order will become implementable with effect from the said date , the notification of the same shall be issued separately."

17. The DAES O.M. dated 26-12-2002 ( annexure 17) regarding reviewing of electricity charges sanctioned to the project based employees of DAE is on the record wherein uniform methodology for calculation of electricity charges has been suggested .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 18. The NPCIL's order no . RAPS /M (P & IR) /2003 /S/ 244 dated 1-5-2003 is also on record which pertains to recovery ofelectric charges from employees at revised rates w.e.f. 1-4-2001 . The relevant portion is as under: - " In supersession of all previous orders on the subject, the electricity charges ( Running charges ) w.e.f.1-4-2001 to be paid by the NPCIL /DAE employees who are residing in RAPS residential accommodation , shall be based on the actual units consumed minus free units at the present rates i.e. @ 1.95 per unit up to 50 units and @ Rs.3.00 per unit above 50 units or at the rates time to time notified by RSEB ."

19. In above admitted factual background , it is to be seen whether the action of the management of RAPS , Rawatbhata in changing method of calculation of electric charges from its employees w.e.f 1-4-2001 is legal & justified?

20. The union has contended that the calculation should not be as per model calculation as envisaged in the order dated 1-5-2003 . The case of the union is that after excluding free electricity units and after taking into consideration the subsidy beyond free units up to 100 units RSEB slab rates for electricity consumption should be applied while calculating the electric charges whereas the contention of the management is that subsidy beyond free electric units has been withdrawn therefore , the electricity charges to be paid by NPCIL employees shall be based on the actual units consumed minus free units at the present rates notified by the RSEB .

21. Though in the present reference under adjudication it is to be adjudicated whether method of calculation of electric charges from its employees w.e.f. 1-4-2001 is justified , but for this it is necessary to consider whether withdrawal of subsidy beyond free unit is unjustified . If withdrawal is justified than method of calculation of electric charges excluding subsidy units cannot be said to be unjustified.

22. It is an admitted fact that an award passed by the CGIT, Surat in ITC No. 32/99 , the question regarding withdrawal of subsidy beyond free units was also under consideration. In the said award withdrawal of concession of electricity including subsidy free electricity has been held unjustified . Admittedly , against the said award writ petition in the Gujrat High Court is still pending.

23. It is pertinent to mention that in O.As No.84/ 99 & 86/99 the impugned order dated 15-3-99 regarding withdrawal of the project concessions sanctioned to the project based employees of the DAE was challenged by the Union concerned therein while considering the withdrawal of subsidy beyond free electricity units the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Central Administrative Tribunal , Jodhpur Bench has observed as under :-

" In the year 1974, 30, 45, 60 and 75 units of electricity were allowed free to the employees of various pay scales . In the corresponding new pay scales corresponding number of free units have been allowed but prevailing R.S.E.B. electricity rates have been ordered to be charged for excess consumption , which it is said, were being charged at a very nominal rate initially . While judging this factor one should not lose sight of that everything has become costlier everyday. The earlier concession ofnominal rate was as per then prevailing monetary value and present revision in this respect in charging prevailing rate of electricity is as per the prevailing monetary value and considerably much higher pay of the employees . Therefore , the imposition of condition of charging prevailing R.S.E.B. rate of the unit for electric consumption over and above the free units cannot be categorized as unjust . "

24. The said order of the CAT was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. civil writ petition No.4617/ 1999 but the said writ petition was dismissed on 27-8-2002 with following observation :-

"there is no ground to interfere with the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal . "

25. Thus , Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has affirmed the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal in this regard in O.As No. 84/99 & 86/99 vide order dated 15-3-99.

26. It is pertinent to mention that in award passed in I.T.C. No. 32/99 interalia the question regarding withdrawal of subsidy beyond free units was also under consideration be fore the CGIT, Surat . The CGIT, Surat has held the action ofNuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. , Kakrapar Atomic Power Station regarding withdrawal of the project concessions including subsidy free electric limits unjustified . It is also pertinent to mention that the objection regarding maintainability of the reference before the said Tribunal on the basis of principle of res -judicata was also raised by the union concerned . While rejecting the plea the Tribunal has observed as under :--

"There was no complaint or dispute before it between NPCIL or its projects in Gujarat and CAT has not taken up proceedings or discussed the issue connected with such establishments , it has only discussed projects near Kota , Heavy water plant near Rawatbhata , it discusses about development and circumstances around those projects , It has not discussed about projects at Anumala , Kakrapar in

321

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8, 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

Gujarat, situation adjoining in its vicinity, conditions ofworkers there , that is judgment does not pertain to same parties on the same dispute and therefore , the principle of res -judicata is not applicable . It is also to be noted that judgement given by CAT, Jodhpur under some other Law cannot take away powers ofthis Tribunal to decide matters under the I.D. Act, Not only this matter which may be legal and appropriate under one Act in one state may be illegal and improper in another state for other parties . Therefore , objection of the 1st party cannot hold good. The 1st party has also stated that keeping in mind the orders of the CAT, Rajasthan , Ministry of Labour, GOI on the premise that principle of res judicata hits , such disputes has not referred the dispute for adjudication . Ifwe examine this point it is seen that the parties raising disputes were from Rajasthan , and the party before CAT and the dispute was the same , therefore , it was not referred for adjudication . The present reference before this Tribunal is not like that , parties are from Gujarat . Area is Gujarat organization and workmen are from Gujarat they are governed by the I.D. Act and no forum has passed judgement for them under the Act , both the matters are not same and it is necessary to make reference in this matter, taking into all these factors orders of CAT, Rajasthan does not come in the way. " 27. In present matter , admittedly, the management has not withdrawn the concession of free units available to the employees concerned. Only subsidy beyond free units i.e. concession rate of @ 21 paisa per unit up to 100 units has been withdrawn and the said withdrawal of subsidy has been held justified vide order dated 15-3-99 passed by the CAT, Jodhpur Bench in O.As 84/99 and 86/ 99 and view taken in the said O.As has been affirmed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in writ petition No. 4617/99 vide order dated 27-8-2002 . Therefore , view taken by the CGIT, Surat regarding withdrawal of aforementioned subsidy is not acceptable .

28. Since , the withdrawal of subsidy beyond free electric units has been held justified by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the aforementioned writ petition 4617/98 , the calculation of electricity charges on the basis of actual units consumed minus free units at rates notified by the RSEB is not unjustified . Therefore , the action of the management of RAPS 1 to 4 NPCIL , Rawatbhata in changing method of calculation of electric charges from its employees w.e.f. 1-4-2001 is legal and justified . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

29. Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer 322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8, 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 14 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 130, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे 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 60/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/22/2003- आईआर( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th December , 2010 S.O. 130.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 13-12-2010.

[No. 141012/22/2003 - IR (B - 1 ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Dr. Manju Nigam , Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 60/2003

Ref. No. L-41012 /22/2003 - IR ( B- I) dated : 30-05-2003

BETWEEN

Shri Amrit Lal S / o Shri Mangal Village - Tigai Jalalpur, Post-Govindpur Goriya Distt. Koshambi , Uttar Pradesh .

AND

1. The Divisional Railway Manager , Northern Railway , Allahabad (U. P. )- 211006

2. The Asstt . Signal and Telecom Engineer , Northern Railway, Tundla.

3. The Divisional Engineer ( Signal / D, Northern Railway Etawa .

AWARD 26-11-2010

1. By order No. L - 41012/ 22/2003-1R ( B - I ) dated : 30-05-2003 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 Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] industrial dispute between Shri Amrit Lal -S/ o Shri Mangal , Village - Tigai Jalalpur , Post -Govindpur Goriya , Distt . Koshambi , Uttar Pradesh and the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad and the Asstt . Signal and Telecom Engineer, Northern Railway, Tundla and the Divisional Engineer ( Signal/D) , Northern Railway, Etawa for adjudication .

2. The reference under adjudication is :

" KYA MANDAL RAIL PRABANDHAK, UTTAR RAILWAY ALLAHABAD DWARA KARMKAAR SHRI AMRIT LAL ATMAJ SHRI MANGALI KHALASI KO DINANK 9-11-2000 SE SEWA SE NISHKASIT KARNA NYA YO CHIT HAI ? YADI NAHI TO SAMBANDHIT KARMKAAR KIS ANUTOSH KA HAKDAAR HAI ? "

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman , Amrit Lal was appointed as Khalasi on 20-08-1980 on permanent basis at Rura under Senior Section Engineer (Signal ) , Etawah and he was served upon a charge sheet dated 17-10-98 by the Disciplinary Authority for unauthorized absence w.e.f. 24.04.96 . The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted his enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority who imposed punishment of removal from railway services upon the workman vide impugned order dated 09-11-2000. Aggrieved from said punishment order the workman preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide appellate order dated 08-05-2001 .

4. The workman in his statement of claim has alleged that the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry without affording any opportunity for defence to the workman ; likewise the objections raised by him , in reply to the show cause notice , were not taken into account by the Disciplinary Authority , while imposing penalty of removal upon him ; accordingly, same is against the principles of natural justice . The workman has also alleged that the Appellate Authority while rejecting his appeal , without going into the merit of the disciplinary enquiry, has passed an unreasoned and non - speaking order ; and accordingly, he has prayed that impugned orders dated 09-11-2000 be set aside , after declaring illegal and the workman be reinstated with full back wages and continuity in service .

5. Per contra , the management of the Railways has denied the aflegations of the workman and has submitted that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice , giving full and proper opportunity to the workman to defend himself and there was nothing illegal with it . It has also submitted that the order passedby the Disciplinary Authority andAppellate Authority are justified and based on merit of the case and accordingly, has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected without any relief to the workman.

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6. The workman has field rejoinder whereby he has only reiterated his averments in the statement of claim and has introduced nothing new .

7. The parties filed documentary evidence in support of their respective cases . On the plea of the workman that he was not allowed proper opportunity to defend himself, following preliminary issue was framed on 07-12-2005:

1. Whether the enquiry officer has not afforded the opportunity to the worker to defend the case as alleged bythe worker.

8. After framing the issued the parties were given ample opportunity to give their evidence in support of their respective versions ; but both of the parties failed to avail the same ; and accordingly, the Tribunal passed following order on above mentioned issue :

" On the discussions above I come to the conclusion that the worker has failed to discharge the burden that he was not allowed opportunity to defend himself for the charge alleged . Issue is therefore , decided against the worker ."

9. Accordingly, the next date i.e. 07.01.2008 was fixed for evidence, and parties were intimated of the same by registered post . The workman once again failed to produce its evidence on various dates ; and accordingly, the case was ordered to proceeded ex - parte against the workman on 29-01-2009 . Similarly , when the management did not adduce any evidence , the case was ordered to proceed ex - parte against the management and 11-11-2009 was fixed for arguments . The workman filed its . written arguments whereas the management did not file any ; however , none of the parties availed opportunity of oral submissions . After, lapse of several dates for oral arguments , the case was reserved for award .

10. The workman remained absent before Enquiry Officer. He also did not turn up to adduce evidence in support of his version that he was not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself; but he refrained to do so . This fact is well corroborated by the Presiding Officer's finding while deciding the preliminary issued vide dated 29.10.2007 , which reads as under:

on "After framing issues the court proceeded for collecting evidence of the parties on the aforesaid issue but the worker did not turned up for evidence . In the circumstances 11-7-06 the court ordered the worker to file the evidence in the form of affidavit in support of his case and present himself for cross examination . The court also warned that no further opportunity shall be given but the worker remained absent and therefore on 11-8-06 the court ordered the case to proceed ex -parte against the worker. "

The above finding of the Presiding Officer reveals deliberate avoidance of the workman to adduce evidence .

323

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 / पौष 18 , 1932

11. Likewise, when workman was expected to plead that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him, he again showed his negligence ; and just filed a written argument , which cannot be termed as supplement to the expectations from the workman.

12. It is admitted that the workman was dismissed vide impugned order dated 09-11-2000 after conducting departmental enquiry , which was conducted ex - parte due to non-participation of the workman in said departmental proceedings . When the workman raised the present industrial dispute it was incumbent upon him to come forward with cogent evidence to prove that the departmental enquiry was conducted against settled principles of natural justice and he was not given proper opportunity to defend himself ; and also in the event of holding , the enquiry to be fair and proper , by this Tribunal it was expected from the workman to plead that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and adduce evidence insupport thereto. But the workman has failed to discharge hisburden .

13. The workman has not adduced any evidence in support of his case ; neither in support of his averment that the enquiry was unfair nor he challenged the quantum of punishment . On the other hand the case of the management that the enquiry officer afforded the opportunity to the workman to defend himself and the same was conducted fairly stands proved , and accordingly, there appears no justification to interfere with the punishment inflicted upon the workman by the management by the impugned order .

14. The case was proceeding ex - parte against the workman and there is neither any pleading nor evidence of the workman that the punishment order is wholly disproportionate or he deserves any lesser punishment .

15. Therefore , in view of the above discussions , the action of the railway administration to dismiss the workman from services vide impugned order dated 09-11- 2000 does not appears to be unjustified . Resultantly, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

16. The reference is answered accordingly.

17. Award as above .

Lucknow

26-11-2010

Dr. MANJU NIGAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 14 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 131.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट 324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] बैंक प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकारण / श्रम न्यायालय सं. II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 678 / 2के5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/ 375/2001- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th December, 2010

The facts of the case are the claimant/ workman was employed as Clerk - cum - Cashier at the relevant time , at Panchkula Branch of the State Bank of India . He was charge- sheeted for attempting to withdraw a sum of Rs. 5,000 from Saving Bank Account No. 17145 of Shri Sushil Kumar. During enquiry the workman made a confessional statement whereupon the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding of proof of guilt against the workman. The disciplinary authority issue a Show Cause Notice proposing a punishment of removal from service and after considering the reply of the workman and after giving him personal hearing the punishment order of removal from the service was passed .

S.O. 131. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 678/ 2K5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 13-12- 2010.

[No. L - 12012/375/2001 - IR (B - I)]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH,

Present : Sri A.K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. 678/2K5

Registered on 25-08-2005

V. K. Miglani S / o . Shri H.B. Miglani , R/ o H. No. 617 , Sector 12, Panchkula (Haryana)

.Applicant

Versus

The Asst . General Manager , State Bank of India , Region - 1 , Zonal Office, Chandigarh - 160017

.Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: Sh . Raj Kaushik , Advocate

For the Management : Sh . S.K. Gupta , Advocate .

AWARD

Passed on 03 December , 2010

Central Government vide Notification No. L - 12012 /

375/2001 - IR(B - I ) Dated 25/01/2002, 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 Assistant General Mananger , State Bank of India , Region - l , Haryana Zone in removing Shri V. K. Miglani , Ex- Clerk - cum- Cashier from his services in justified ? If not , what relief is the workman entitled ? "

The workman has raised an industrial dispute by stating that on the relevant date the customer had approached him for withdrawal of funds from his account whereupon the workman had filled a voucher for Rs . 5000 and the customer had signed it . The latter obtained a token from the workman and the workman after completing the formalities of posting the withdrawal in the ledger sent the voucher to the passing officer , who after verification of the signatures passed the withdrawal for payment . Withdrawal was then sent to the Cashier for payment but despite repeated calls the customer did not turn up to receive the payment and the withdrawal in question was deleted from the books of the bank including Ledger and passing scroll of the passing officer. Regarding his confessional statement , the workman has alleged that he had met with an accident on 04-05-1996 and was not in a fit of statement of mind at the time of enquiry . Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Office persuaded him to admit the charge on the assurance that no major penalty will be imposed on him . He was not warned that in the eventuality of admission he may be removed from the service . The Enquiry Officer dispensed with the further enquiry without recording any evidence . The allegation of the workman is that there was no complaint from the customer and he has been victimized because during his tenure as a Secretary of S.B.I. Staff Association from 1993 to 1996 he had earned the wrath of the local management by seeking redressal of grievances of the fellow workman . He had acted just to assist the customer in filling the withdrawal form and had performed his duties in good faith but the management took it otherwise and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him . In reply to the Show Cause Notice he had raised objection against the enquiry and confessional statement and had requested for a fresh enquiry but the disciplinary authority rejected his plea and passed the impugned order . His appeal against the removal order also failed . The punishment order is without any evidence including that of any expert . The management acted on his confessional statement though he had denied the charge in his reply to the Charge - sheet . Charge-sheet itself was vague and undefined . The workman has asked for setting aside the order of removal and has requested for [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

his reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits .

In its reply the management has stated that the workman has admitted the charge and the punishment order was passed inte ralia on the basis of departmental proceedings and other material on record . The story put up by the workman is an afterthought . He had forged the signatures of the customer on the withdrawal form and was caught on the spot during the process of passing and verification of the signatures . There was no persuasion or assurance to obtain the confessional statement of the workman and had made it of his own will and accord and since he had admitted the charge, there was no need for further enquiry and the charge was treated as proved. The management had denied that the workman has been victimized on account of his Trade Union activities . The charge against the workman was specific and so was his admission . At the time of personal hearing also the workman had accepted the charge while requesting for taking a lenient view and in view of his admission there was no need for the production of the account holder or handwriting expert . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:-

1. Whether the confessional statement was made by the workman not in a fit state of mind and was it a result of persuasion by the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and did the management committed any wrong by acting upon it?

2. Whether the action of the management in removing the workman from his service is justified?

3. Whether the workman is entitled to any relief, if so towhat?

In support of his case the workman submitted his affidavit and the management submitted the affidavit of Ravi Mahajan Manager (Personal ) of State Bank of India, Region 1 , Zonal Office , Haryana , Panchkula . The Management has produced certain documents along with itsreply. Vide order dated 9-12-2002 the learned Presiding Officer ofCGIT- cum-Labour Court - l , Chandigarh , where the reference was pending earlier, has held that enquiry was fair and proper . The workman, however, was given opportunity of adducing evidence on perversity of decision making if any of enquiry officer and disciplinary authority and the case was listed for the evidence of the parties . On 29-04-2010 , before this Tribunal , it was submitted on behalf of both the parties that no evidence isrequired in the case and it be fixed for arguments . The workman filed his written arguments while the learned counsel for the management made his oral submissions .

4894GI/2011-26

325

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18, 1932

I have considered the material available on record and also the arguments of the parties counsel . My findings on the various issues are as follows:-

Issue No. 1

It is important to note that the workman had not denied his confessional statement but he has tried to save his skin firstly on the ground that he was not in a fit state of mind at the time of his statement . In his affidavit dated 24-3-2006 he has stated that he had met with an accident on 4-05-1996 and was admitted in PGI from 4-5-1996 to 8-5-1996 and he had been referred to the PGI for proper assessment and certification by Dr. Parbhat Sood (Consultant Neuro Psychiatrist) , General Hospital , Sector 6, Panchkula . But there is no medical paper to support that he was suffering from any disease. Moreover, the accident had taken place in 1996 while the charge relate to an incident of October, 1997 and disciplinary proceedings started against him in 1999 and as it is clear from Annexure - 8 ofwritten statement the workman admitted the charge on 5-8-1999 . There is nothing on record to show, except his own statement that he was not in a fit state of mind to make the confessional statement. His plea in this regard , therefore, is not acceptable .

The workman has assailed his admission secondly, on the ground that he had been induced to make it by the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. But in support of thisallegation also there is no evidence . The admission of the charge appears to have been made in a natural way and manner. Annexure - 8 shows the proceedings of 5-8-1999 . On the date , the Enquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer and the workman were present and after the Presenting Officer read out the charges levelled against him vide Memo No. DGM/HAR/DPS/442 dated 26-03-1999 the Enquiry Officer asked the workman whether he accept the charge levelled against him and the workman replied: - "Yes, I do accept the charge levelled against me videMemo No. DGM/HAR/DPS/442 dated 26-03- 1999 unconditionally."

Annexure - 12 of the written statement is the record ofpersonal hearing . The last para of the proceedings is as follows:---

"Shri Miglani pleaded in the personal hearing that he met with an accident in May, 1996. From then he is under depression. He accepted the charge and pleaded that he committed the mistake under depression . He requested that keeping in view his small kids a lenient view may be taken . He assured that in future he will work sincerely and honestly. " The plea of the workman that confessional statement was obtained by an inducement does not inspire confidence . The argument of the counsel of the workman is that in the statement of the workman in which he has allegedly confessed his guilt the word ' unconditional ' has 326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

been added. The mention of this word creates a doubt about the genuineness of the statement . No person would write the word ' unconditional ' if he wants to admit his guilt.

Regarding this argument it is important that in his affidavit the workman has nowhere stated that his confessional statement recorded by the Enquiry Officer is not genuine and there has been any interpolation in his statement . The argument is clearly an afterthought like the other objections of the workman against the confessional statement.

In its argument the workman has sought to assail the confessional statement, also on the ground that before recording it the Enquiry Officer did not warn him that in case of admission of charge he may lose his service and so his confessional statement cannot be acted upon . This argument of the workman is also not convincing . The occasion of the warning arises only when before his statement the workman applies in writing to confess his guilt or in answer to the charge-sheet he admits the guilt. The confessional statement of the workman in the case came suddenly in answer to the question of the Enquiry Officer, who was not having any inkling of the confessional statement after the workman had denied the charge in his reply to the charge-sheet. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the workman his learned counsel has cited the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation Versus Shyam Lal 2004(4) RSJ 115 wherein the Hon'ble Court held "that it is the firm settled position in law that admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making the admission . It is , however, open to the person making the admission to show why the admission is not to be acted upon."

The argument of the workman is that in the case workman had requested the authorities to conduct the enquiry afresh as his admission was not voluntary but the authorities did not consider his request. In this regard the argument of the workman is misplaced . According to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court the workman has a right to show i.e. he has to prove the circumstances or facts making out the grounds for not acting upon admission . It does not mean that an afterthought statement of the person making the admission will be taken into consideration without any supporting evidence .

The learned counsel for workman also cited the law laid down in Gurdeep Singh Versus State of Punjab & Another 2005(3 ) SCT 271 wherein the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that though the rules do not envisage regular enquiry for imposing minor punishment it mandates of Issuance of charge -sheet, consideration of reply and discretion to hold an enquiry and since competent authority already formed an opinion on the basis of material on record , a Show Cause Notice was

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] merely post decisional hearing and does not satisfy rules ofjustice.

The above case law is not applicable in this case . In that case after holding a preliminary enquiry the competent authority accepted the preliminary enquiry report and after considering the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty in holding the accused in the case , a Show Cause Notice calling upon him as to why minor penalty should not be imposed upon him was issued . Charge Sheet was not issued to the petitioner and a notice was issued to the petitioner. calling upon him to show cause , why minor penalty should not be imposed upon him ? It was in these circumstances that the Hon'ble Court held that the notice was a post decisional hearing and it does not satisfy the rules of natural justice . Here in this case , the charge- sheet wasissued to the workman ; he denied the charge initially but subsequently admitted his guilt ; the Enquiry Officer found him guilty and then competent authority issued a notice of proposed punishment and asking the workman as to why the proposed punishment be not inflicted upon him.

The learned counsel for the workman has also cited Kamla Kumari versus State of Haryana & Others 2005 ( 3 ) SCT 517 wherein an adverse order was passed after Show Cause Notice but without any consideration to the reply to such notice . It was held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that such an action would be violative of principle of natural justice and cannot be sustained.

In the present case in reply to the notice of proposed punishment the workman appeared on 29-01-2000 before the disciplinary authority and pleaded that as he had met with an accident in May, 1996 he was under depression . He however, accepted the charge and pleaded that he had committed the mistake under depression . The punishment order Annexure R - 13 shows that the disciplinary authority considered the submissions of the workman but found that the stand taken by the workman is an afterthought and is not convincing as he had met with the accident more than one year before the commission of mistake . It is clear that the above cited law alsodoes not help the workman . He cannot resile from the admission .

From the above going discussion it is clear that the plea of the workman that he made the confessional statement not in a fit of state of mind and his admission was a result of persuasion by the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer is not acceptable and is rejected. The management committed no wrong by acting upon it . Issue no. 1 is decided against the workman .

Issue No. 2 & 3

The counsel of the workman has assailed the punishment order on the ground that there was no legal evidence in support of the charge and since no payment [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

was received by the workman , it cannot be alleged that the workman attempted to cash the withdrawal fraudulently. It has been argued that no opinion from any expert was sought with regard to the signature on the withdrawal slip. In this regard it is important to note that the charge against the workman was about the forging the signatures of the customer Shri Sunil Kumar on the withdrawal form also . The workman has pleaded guilty to the charge in his admission . Hence , there was no need of examining any witness or expert . As it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Versus Shyam Lal ( supra) admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making the admission ? No fault can be found with the action of the management in holding the workman guilty on the basis of his admission . The learned counsel for management has cited State Bank of India & another versus Bela Bagchi & another 2006 (3 ) SLR 184 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a bank officer is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of depositors and the customers . Every officer / employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligent and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer . It is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted case when the officer/ employee acted without authority.

It is thus clear that a bank employee not take his duty lightly or in a casual manner . Here the workman is not guilty of negligence but he was having a charge of a fraudulent act on his head . The action of the management in removing the workman from service is , therefore , perfectly justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief . The reference is answered against the workman . Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 132 , -औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंण्डियन इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ पल्सेस रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 155/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/242 /98 - आई आर ( डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th December , 2010 S.O. 132. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central

327

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 155/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of a Indian Institute of Pulses Research and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2010 .

[No. L-42012/242/98 - IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PRAKASH, HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR. Industrial Dispute No. 155 of99

BETWEEN

Shri Vimlesh C/ o Rajendra Prasad Shukla , 115,193 A - 2 , Mswanpur , Kanpur .

AND

Directore,

Indian Institute of Pulses , Research , Kalyanpur , G T. Road , Kanpur .

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoL , vide notification No. L -42012/ 242/ 98 - IR(DU ) dated 26-04-99 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .

2. Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute of Pulses Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur in terminating the services of Sh. Vimlesh is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?

3. Brief facts are that the claimant Sri Vimlesh has filed his claim statement praying that order of termination ofservice dated 19-05-98 be set aside and he be directed to be reinstated in the service with continuity and all back wages. It is alleged by him that he was employed by the opposite party on 1-1-90 in permanent capacity by opposite party department and he was being paid the minimum of the scale i.e. Rs . 2127 per month before termination . It is stated that to avoid applicability of the provisions of the Act , opposite party started taking work through the contractors . It is stated that he was engaged, for agriculture purposes . It is stated that the opposite party is an agriculture industry as they grow Dal , Chana , Matar etc. , and they sell it to the farmers and other institutes for the purposes ofgaining. It is stated that he has worked for 240 days or more. Before termination he has not been paid notice pay, notice or retrenchment compensation , so the opposite party has flouted the provisions of Section 25F of the Act . It is also stated that the opposite party has engaged certain other workers without affording any opportunity to the claimant . So he has filed this claim .

328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 /PAUSA 18 , 1932

4. Opposite party has filed a detailed reply running into 85 pages but mostly of reiteration of the same facts . His main contention is that the claimant was never engaged or employed in the institute . His attendance was never marked . It is stated that the agriculture work are being taken in the institute through the workers engaged on contract basis through contractors . He was never paid any wages or remuneration by the opposite party. There is no relationship of master and servant . No appointment letter was ever issued to the claimant . Therefore , it has been prayed that the claim petition of the claimant be dismissed being devoid of merit .

5. Claimant has also filed rejoinder but therein nothing new has been pleaded except reiterating the facts already pleaded by him in his claim statement .

6.Both the parties have filed documentary evidence .

7. Claimant has filed 10 documents vide list dated 27-07-01 mostly these are photocopies and claimant has not given any evidence to prove any of the documents . Opposite party has not admitted any of the documents .

8. Opposite party has also filed 12 documents vide list dated 27-07-01 . Mostlythese are photocopies of license of the contractor issued by the Regional Labur Commissioner O.

9. It is the contention of the opposite party that in getting such type of work like plowing irrigation etc. , they take services of the workers through the contractor and a license has been issued by RLO in that respect .

10. Claimant has not adduced any evidence despite giving sufficient opportunity. It is true that initially the burden lies on the claimant to prove his case ; pleadings cannot take the shape of proof . Opposite party has contradicted the version of the claimant . Opposite party has adduced one Sri JN Katiyar, M.W.I ( retired Farm Manager ) DPR . He stated on oath that he had never employed or engaged the claimant Sri Vimlesh in his institute . He was never allowed to mark his attendance . In the institute the work relating to agriculture purposes like Nirai Gurai etc. is being taken through the workers of licensed contractors . When the claimant was not in the engagement of the opposite party so the question of making payment does not arise . His statement is un-rebutted . Claimant was himself present on that day but he did not think it proper to cross examine the witness . Therefore the evidence adduced by the management is genuine and believable . Claimant has failed to prove his case .

11. On the basis of above observation it is held that the reference is liable to be decided against the claimant and in favur of the opposite party. It is also held that the claimant is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 12. Reference is therefore, answered accordingly against the claimant .

Dated. 9-12-10

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 133.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 86/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/206/2000- आईआर (डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th December , 2010 S.O. 133. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 86/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2010.

[No. L -40012/206/2000- IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HIS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 86 of 2000 In the matter of dispute between- Sri Adya Prasad Pandey, Son of Late R. D. Pandey, Resident of Village Chandpur , PO Mahgaon , District Varanasi . AND

The General Manager , Telecom Department , Telegraph , Varanasi . AWARD

1.Central Government , MoL & Employment , vide notification no.L- 40012/ 206 /2000- IR ( DU ) dated 31-07-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication this tribunal .

2. Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department in terminating the services of Sh . Adya Prasad [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Pandey with effect from 01-09-99 is justified? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled?

3.Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party terminated the services of the claimant with effect from 01-09-99 without making payment of his earned wages and also without paying him artear which is illegal . For the security purposes of the Sub Division of the opposite party, the claimant was engaged by the opposite party on 10-03-98, thereafter, he was transferred in the year . 1999 fromMirzapur to Adalpura Sub Division District Varanasi by the opposite party. It is stated by the claimant that he rendered his continuous services up to 31-08-99 and in this way he had rendered more than 240 of continuous service during the period of his ' engagement . It is stated by the claimant that the Sub Division is under the control and supervisions of the opposite party. It is stated that the opposite party paid him remuneration for the work done by him . It is stated that the role of opposite party no.3 is nothing but to disburse the wages to the opposite party. In the array of the parties opposite party no.3 has been shown as S. N. Singh , M/s Security and Protection ServicesGayatri Nagar Colony, Taktakpur Varanasi .

4. It is also stated that the work against which the services ofthe claimant have been utilized is of permanent nature and is also under the direct control and supervision of the opposite party. He was paid by the opposite party no . 1 Rs.1650/- per month but during the period of his engagement the claimant was paid wages only at the rate of Rs . 1000 by the opposite party no.3 . The wages of the claimant were revised by the opposite party with effect from June 1999 from Rs . 1650 to Rs.2513 but the applicant was paid only Rs . 1200 per month . As the claimant raised his voice before Central Administrative Tribunal , Allahabad , the opposite party became annoyed and dispensed with his continuous services with effect from 01-09-99 , without making payment of retrenchment compensation, notice pay or notice as per rules , therefore, the termination of his services is liable to be set aside being passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . It is nothing but a victimization of the applicant by the management . Therefore it has been prayed by him that he be reinstated in the service of the opposite partywith full back wages and all consequential benefits .

5. The opposite party contested the claim of the claimant and has vehemently denied that he was ever appointed/ engaged by them against any regular or permanent post . It is stated by them that for the purpose of security, in the office of TDM Mirzapur, an agreement was entered into between M/ s Security & Protection Services Gayatri Nagar, Pandey Pur Varanasi , through its Director S. N. Singh and Divisional Engineer (Admn . ) through Sri Mrityunjai Singh posted in the office ; ofTDM Mirzapur on 06-02-98 for a period of one year till 5-2-99. In

329

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

the agreement it was clearly mentioned that the salaries of the security goods by the security agency shall be given to the said agency and the said agency will be responsible for the payment of salaries to the security guards . It was also clearly mentioned in the agreement that the security guardwill be at no point of time employee/ workmen ofthe department . It was also mentioned that power of appointment and termination shall rest with the security agency. Armed Security Guard was to be paid Rs . 1950 per month and security gaurd with his Lathi was to be paid Rs.1650 per month . Opposite party has filed true Photo copies of the agreement as annexure 1. It is also stated that the claimant has already filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad and he did not suppose to file numerous litigations . It is stated that the opposite party is neither appointing authority nor the terminating authority. Therefore they have prayed that the claim ofthe claimant be dismissed as devoid of merits .

6. Claimant has filed certain photocopies of the documents . During arguments I have inquired from the Auth. Representative for the claimant whether he wants to rely any of the photocopy of the documents but he did reply in positive so these documents cannot be taken into cognizance and is not relevant to decide the question involved.

7. Opposite has filed the copy of the agreement that iswith M/s . Security & Protection Pandeypur Varansi , as stated above . They have also filed certain photocopies vide list dated 16-02-01 . These are 14 photocopies but during , arguments they have also not placed any reliance on these photocopies .

8. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence. Claimant has adduced himself as W.W.I Adya Prasad Pandey. Opposite party has adduced Sri V. B. Mishra , SDO aM.W.1.

9. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the whole record .

10. The only short question to be decided in the dispute is whether the claimant was ever appointed or engaged directly by the Opposite party department and he has completed 240 days in a year.

11. It is a clear case of the opposite party that the claimant was never appointed or engaged by the department. No appointment letter was ever issued. The name ofthe claimant was never called from any Employment Exchange. It is stated that for the protection and security inthe office of TDM Mirzapur the services ofM/ s Security & Protection Gayagtri Nagar, Pandeypur Varanasi were engaged through a mutual agreement which was entered between the parties and that agency has to provide the security guards for one year starting from 6-2-98 to 5-2-99. It is clearly stated that no services were taken after 5-2-99 . I have inquired whether there is any documentary 330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

evidence with the claimant that he was engaged directly by the opposite department or was he ever paid the wages or remuneration directly by the opposite party department. Claimant has failed to show before me any clinching documentary evidence in respect to the fact . Opposite party has clearly in his oral evidence as M.W.I that opposite is neither the appointing authority nor the punishing authority, it was neither the paying authority.

12. Claimant has admitted in his cross examination that he was not given any appointment letter by the opposite party, he was not medically examined. Neither there was any police verification .

13. There is another contention of the claimant that the opposite party has removed the services of the claimant and employed other ones . I have gone through this fact also and find that there is no mention of such type of aversions in the claim statement therefore ; the claimant cannot take any advantage of this issue .

14. 1 have perused the evidence of the parties . The evidence adduced by the opposite party is believable . In the given facts and circumstances of the case , in my view the claimant has failed to prove his case .

15. Claimant has placed reliance upon a decision Hussainbhai , Calicut and Alath Factory Thozilali Union , Calicut and others , 1978 , LLJ page 397.

16. I have given my anxious thought to the law citedby the clamant and find that the preposition of law is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the claimant's case which are entirely distinguishable on facts and law.

17. Therefore , in view of above observations it is concluded that the claimant has failed to prove his case and therefore , he is not held entitled to the relief claimed by him . As such reference is liable to be decided in negative . against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 134. जबकि मैसर्स श्री दिग्विजय सीमेन्ट कम्पनी लिमिटेड , जामनगर ( कोड संख्या जी . जे/ 4 राजकोट क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत ) , (एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत प्रदान की गयी छूट को रद्द करने के लिए आवेदन किया है ।

2. और जबकि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान ने अब दिनांक 01-08-2005 से अपनी छूट को अभ्यर्पित ( सरेंडर ) कर दिया है तथा यह काफी समय से कोई क्रियाकलाप नहीं कर रहा है ।

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 3. अतः , अब केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को प्रदान की गई छूट को दिनांक 01-04-2009 से रद्द करती है ।

[सं. एस-35017 /08 / 2010 - एसएस-2 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th December , 2010 S.O. 134. Whereas M/ s Shree Digvijay Cement Company Ltd. , Jamnagar [ under Code No. GJ /4 Rajkot region ] ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied for cancellation of exemption granted by Government of India under clause ( a) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952 ) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ;

2. And whereas the establishment has now surrendered its exemption with effect from the 01-04-2009 and it is no longer carrying on any activity ;

3. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4 ) of Section 17 of the said Act the Central Government hereby cancels the exemption granted to the said establishment with effect from the 01-04-2009 .

[No. S - 35017/08/2010 - SS - II ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 22 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 135. केन्द्रीय सरकार , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधि नियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 91-क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा मैसर्स ब्रिटिश इंडिया कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , कानपुर के नियमित कर्मचारियों को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रचालन से 30 सितम्बर 2010 सहित इस अवधि तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

2. उक्त छूट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन है ; अर्थात्: - ( 1 ) पूर्वोक्त स्थापना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं , एक रजिस्टर रखेगी , जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे ;

( 2 ) इस छूट के होते हुए भी , कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे जिनको पाने के लिए वे इस अधिसूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत्त होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अंशदानों के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते हैं ;

( 3 ) छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए , यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जा चुके हों , तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे ;

(4) उक्त कारखाने/स्थापना का नियोजक उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना पर उक्त अधिनियम [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अवधि कहा गया है ) प्रवर्तमान था ऐसी विवरणियां , ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम , 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं;

(5 ) निगम द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई निरीक्षक या निगम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृत कोई अन्य पदधारी;

(i ) धारा 44 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टियों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ; अथवा

( ii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम , 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवधि के लिए रखे गये थे या नहीं; या

( iii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी , नियोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को , जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है , नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं; या

( iv ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान , जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के उपबंध प्रवृत्त थे , ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं , निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगा: -

(क ) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी अवश्यक समझता है ; अथवा (ख) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगाधीन , किसी कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा , बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज , ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं; या

(ग ) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की , या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति को, जो ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए , यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है , परीक्षा करना; या

331

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 8 , 2011 /पौष 18 , 1932

( घ ) ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना , कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर , लेखा , बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;

(ङ ) यथानिर्धारित अन्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करना । 6. विनिवेश/निगमीकरण के मामले में , प्रदत्त छूट स्वतः रद्द हो जाएगी और तब नए प्रतिष्ठान को छूट हेतु समुचित सरकार की अनुमति लेनी होगी ।

[संख्या एस-38014/48 / 2008 - एस.एस. - 1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव स्पष्टीकरण ज्ञापन

इस मामले में छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देना आवश्यक हो गया है क्योंकि छूट के आवेदन पर कार्यवाही करने में समय लगा । तथापि, यह प्रमाणित किया जाता है कि छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देने से किसी भी व्यक्ति के हित पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नहीं पड़ेगा ।

New Delhi , the 22nd December , 2010 S.O. 135. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91 - A of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of M / s . British India Corporation Ltd. , Kanpur from the operation of the said Act for a period up to and inclusive of 30th September, 2010.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following conditions namely :---

(1 ) The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees ' .

(2) Not withstanding this exemption , the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates ;

(3 ) The contributions for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) The employer of the said factory / establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act ( hereinafter referred as the said period) , such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees ' State Insurance (General ) Regulations , 1950 ;

(5) Any inspector appointed by the Corporation under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall , for the purpose of:-- 332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 8 , 2011 / PAUSA 18 , 1932

(1) Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 44 for the said period: or

( ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees ' State Insurance (General) Regulations , 1950 for the said period; or

( iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification ; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of theAct had been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:

(a) Require the principal or immediate employer to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of thisAct; or

(b) At any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment , office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts , books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or (c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such factory, establishment , office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintain in such factory, establishment , office or other premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

6. In case of disinvestment/corporatization , the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption .

[No. S- 38014/48/2008 - SS - I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

It has become necessary to give retrospective effect to the exemption in this case as processing of the applications for exemption took time. However, it is certified that the grant of exemption with retrospective effect will not affect the interest of any body adversely .

Printedby the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.

Cite this issue. Weekly Gazette of India, Government of India, 08 January 2011. Indian Gazettes, https://egazette.servantsofknowledge.in/details/in.gazette.central.w.2011-01-08.33126/. Archive identifier in.gazette.central.w.2011-01-08.33126.