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.