This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

REGD . NO . D. L. (N ) 04 /0007 /2003-05

सत्यमेव जयते

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 10 ]

No. 10 |

नई दिल्ली, फरवरी 27 मार्च 5 , 2011 , शनिवार /फाल्गुन ४ फाल्गुन 14 , 1932 NEW DELHI , FEBRUARY 27 -MARCH 5, 2011 , SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 8- PHALGUNA 14 , 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 11-खण्ड 3-उप- खण्ड ( ii) PART II- Section 3- Sub- section ( ii )

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

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

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 653.-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 बिहार सरकार, गृह ( पुलिस ) विभाग पटना की सहमति से अधिसूचना सं. 1 /सी.बी.आई. 80-04/2010 एच. पी. दिनांक 7-9-2010 द्वारा जाली रेलवे टिकटों का मुद्रण और बिक्री और उपरोल्लिखित अपराधों और उसी लेन- देन के दौरान किए गए अथवा उसी तथ्यों से उत्पन्न किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों के संबंध में दुष्प्ररेण और षडयंत्र से संबंधित थाना बरियारपुर, जिला- मुंगेर ( बिहार ) में दर्ज भारतीय दण्ड संहिता, 1860 ( 1860 की अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 420 ,467 , 468 , 471 , 409 और 120- बी तथा शस्त्र अधिनियम , 1959 ( 1959 की अधिनियम सं. 54 ) की धारा 25 ( 1 - बी ) 26 और 35 के अंतर्गत मुकदमा सं. 47/10 दिनांक 29-5-2010 की जांच हेतु दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम के सदस्यों को एत‌द्वारा सम्पूर्ण बिहार 655 G1/2011

(1969 )

राज्य के लिए शक्तियां और क्षेत्राधिकार प्रदान करती है ।

[सं 228/ 73/2010 - ए वी डी-11 ]

वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 653. 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 of the State Government of Bihar Home ( Police ) Department , Patna vide Notification No. 1 / CB1-80-04/2010 - H . P. dated 7-9-2010 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Bihar for investigation of case No. 47/10 dated 29-5-2010 under sections 420 , 467 , 468 , 471, 409 and 120 - B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 1970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

( Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and sections 25 ( 1 - B) , 26 and 35 of the Arms Act , 1959 ( Act . No. 54 of 1959) registered at Bariarpur , Police Station , District Munger ( Bihar ) relating to printing and sale of fake Railway Tickets and attempts , abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228 / 73 / 2010 - AVD - II ] V. M. RATHNAM ,Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 654.-केंद्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( वर्ष 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए गुवाहाटी उच्च न्यायालय , गुवाहाटी में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( के.अ. ब्यूरो ) द्वारा अन्वेषण किए जाने वाले मामलों के अभियोजन , अपीलों , पुनरीक्षण या इस मामले से उद्धृत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए श्री प्रशांत एन. चौधरी , एडवोकेट को केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो ( सीबीआई ) में विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 225 /2 / 2010 - ए वी डी- II ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 22nd February , 2011

S.O. 654. 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 Shri Prasant N. Choudhury, Advocate , as Special Public Prosecutor of the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( Central Bureau of Investigation ) in the Guwahati High Court at Guwahati for conducting the prosecution appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) .

[No.225 /2 / 2010 - AVD - II ] V. M. RATHNAM, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 23 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 655. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( वर्ष 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए विशेष मजिस्ट्रेट रायबरेली तथा विशेष मजिस्ट्रेट ( अयोध्या प्रकरण ) तथा विशेष जज ( अयोध्या प्रकरण ) लखनऊ में के.अ. ब्यूरो केस सं. आरसी 8 ( एस ) / 1992 / एस . आई.यू. -वी/एस.सी- II/ नई दिल्ली तथा आर.सी. 1 ( एस ) / 1993 से 48 ( एस ) / 1993 / एसआईसी- IV /नई दिल्ली ( अयोध्या मामले के संबंध में श्री जे.बी. सिंह , वकील को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 225/27/2010 - ए वी डी- II ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव

[ PART 11 S3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 23rd February , 2011

S.O. 655. 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 Shri J. B. Singh , Advocate , as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution in CBI Case No. RC . 8 ( S ) / 1992 / SIU - V / SC - II /New Delhi and RC . I ( S )/ 1993 to 48 ( S) / 1993 / SIC . IV / New Delhi ( Ayodhya cases) before the Special Magistrate , Rai Bareli and Special Magistrate (Ayodhya Prakran ) and Special Judge ( Ayodhya Prakran) and Special Judge ( Ayodhya Prakran ) at Lucknow.

[No.225 /27/2010 - AVD - 111

V. M. RATHNAM . Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 25 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 656. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुन्निम स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धाग 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए असम राज्य सरकार , राजनैतिक ( ए ) विभाग . दिसपुर कीदिनांक 6-12-2010 की अधिसूचना सं. पीएलए 659 / 2009.129 ए द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से नॉर्थ कछार हिल्स आटोनोमस काउंग्रिल ( एनसीएचएसी ) , एनसी हिल्स डिस्ट्रिक्ट ( अब दीमा हम्माओ डिस्ट्रिक ) , हाफलांग , असम के लोक सेवकों द्वारा सरकारी निधियों के दुर्वेिनिया के संबंध में पुलिस स्टेशन सीआईडी में पंजीकृत भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 120 ( बी ) 400 तथा 420 के अंतर्गत केस सं. 66/2010 , भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 120 बी , 409 , 420 तथा 407 के अंतर्गत केस सं. 67/2010 , भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम 1988 (1988 का अधिनियम सं. 49 ) की धारा 13 ( 1 ) ( सी के साथ पठित धारा 13 ( 2 ) तथा ( डी ) के अंतर्गत अन्वेषण करने तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों के संबंध में प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरण तथा पडयंत्र के संबंध में या इसी संव्यवहार के क्रम में या उन्हीं तथ्यों में उद्भून किसी अन्य अपराध/ अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार एतद्वारा सम्पूर्ण असम राज्य के सम्बन्ध में करती है ।

[सं. 228/2/2011 एवीडी ॥ ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 25th February , 2011

S.O. 656. 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 of the State Government of Assam , Political ( A) Department . Dispur vide Notification No. PLA . 659 / 2009 / 129 - A dated 6-12-2010 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Assam for investigation of Case [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

No. 66/2010 under sections 120 - B , 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860 ) , Case No. 67/2010 under sections 120 - B , 409 , 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860 ) , Section 13 (2) read with 1.3( 1 ) (c) and (d ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988 ) registered at Police Station CID relating 10 misappropriation of Government funds allegedly by the Public Servants in North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council INCHAC ) , N.C. Hills District ( Now Dima Hasao District) , Haflong , Assam and attempt , abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[ No. 228 /2/2011 - AVD- II ] V. M. RATHNAM, Dy. Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय ( वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 21 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 657. रुग्ण औद्योगिक कंपनी ( विशेष उपबंध ) अधिनियम , 1985 की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के साथ पठित धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री वाई . के. गैहा और श्री एस . के. भट्टाचार्य को पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके 65 वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त कर लेने तक अथवा औद्योगिक और वित्तीय पुनर्निर्माण बोर्ड ( बीआईएफआर ) के समापन तक अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , बीआईएफआर के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 20 ( 1 ) /2004- आई एफ- II ( भाग-2 ) ] राजीव शर्मा , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services ) New Delhi , the 21st February. 2011

S.O. 657. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 4 read with Sub- section 2 of Section 6 of the Sick Industrial Companies ( Special Provisions ) Act , 1985 , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Y.K .. Gaiha and Shri S. K. Bhattacharya as Members . Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction BIFR ) for three years , with effect from the date of ssumption of the charge of the post or till they attain the age of 65 years or till the abolition of BIFR or until further orders , whichever event occurs the earliest .

[ F. No. 20 ( 1 )/2004-IF.-II ( Part - 2 ) ] RAJIV SHARMA , Under Secy.

1971

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 658. बीमा विनियामक और विकास प्राधिकरण अधिनियम , 1999 ( 1999 का 41 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री विजय महाजन के स्थान पर प्रबंधन विकास संस्थान , गुड़गांव के निदेशक प्रो. वी.के. गुप्ता को तत्काल प्रभाव से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , बीमा विनियामक और विकास प्राधिकरण के अंशकालिक सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 11 / 6/2003- बीमा -111 ] ललित कुमार, निदेशक ( बीमा) New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2011

S.O. 658. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act , 1999 (41 of 1999 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Prof. V. K. Gupta , Director , Management Development Institute , Gurgaon as Part - time Member of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority vice Shri Vijay Mahajan , with immediate effect for a period of five years or until further orders whichever is earlier .

[ F. No. 11 /6 /2003 - Ins . III ] LALIT KUMAR, Director ( Ins . ) कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जयपुर, 24 फरवरी, 2011 ( सं. 26/2010-11 )

का.आ. 659.--आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( 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 " राजस्थान स्टेट पोल्यूशन कन्ट्रोल बोर्ड , 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 उपखण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( iv ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[क्रमांक: मुआआआआआ/( मु. )/जय/ 10 (23 सी ) / (iv)/ 10-11/6624 ]

मुकेश भान्ती , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Jaipur , the 24th February, 2011 (No. 26/2010-11 )

S.O. 659. 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- 1972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5.2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income - tax , Jaipur hereby approves " Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board , Jaipur " for the purpose of said section for the A. Y. 2010-11 and 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 /6624] MUKESH BHANTI , Chief Commissioner of Income - tax केंद्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड [ आयकर निदेशालय ( ज.सं. , मु.प्र. एवं रा.भा. ) ] ( राजभाषा प्रभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 21 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 660.-केंद्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड के निम्नलिखित अधीनस्थ कार्यालय , जिसके 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है: -

आयकर आयुक्त कार्यालय , मैसूर

[फा.सं. 2300 /रा.भा.प्र./2009-10 ] अमिताभ कुमार , आयकर निदेशक CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES Directorate of Income Tax (PR , PP & OL ) | (Official Language Division ) New Delhi , the 21st February, 2011

S.O. 660. - In pursuance of Sub - rule 4 of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( use for official purposes of the Union ) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following subordinate office of the Central Board of Direct Taxes , whereof more than 80 % of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax , Mysore [F. No. 2300 / O . L. D./2009-10 ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director of Income Tax ( राजस्व विभाग ) (केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी , 2011

(आयकर)

का.आ. 661. जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( जिसे बाद में उक्त अधिनियम के रूप में

[PART II SE संदर्भित किया गया ) की धारा 80 झक की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंद द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए संख्या का.आ. 51 : दिनांक 8 जनवरी , 2008 तथा जिसे सं. का. आ. 1605 ( असि 2 जुलाई , 2008 के तहत संशोधित किया गया , के तहत वित्त मंत्राल ( राजस्व विभाग ) , केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड में भारत सरकार अधिसूचना द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए एक स्कीम निर्मित अधिसूचित की है;

और जबकि मैसर्स इंडो ग्लोबल इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर एंड यूटिि सर्विसेज प्रा. लिमिटेड , जिसका पंजीकृत पता 401-402 ग्रेट ई प्लाजा , यरवदा , पुणे-411006 में है , ने सर्व संख्या 457 , 45.0 1295/1296/1122/1129/1140 गांव शिरवाल तथा शिंदेवाड़ी , तहगन खंडाला , जिला सतारा , महाराष्ट्र में एक औद्योगिक पार्क त्रिकागत किया है;

अतः अब आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के नियम 18 ग के माथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80झक की उपधारा ( 4 ) के ग ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्दाम इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित शर्तों के अधीन मैसर्स इंदा ग्लोबल इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर एंड यूटिलिटी सर्विसिज प्रा. लिमिटेड, जिसक पंजीकृत पता 401-402 ग्रेट ईस्टर्न प्लाजा , यरवदा , पुणे -411006 : है , ने सर्व संख्या 457 , 458 , 1295/1296/1122/1129/11400 गांव शिरवाल तथा शिंदेवाड़ी , तहसील खंडाला , जिला सतारा , महाराष्ट्र जं उक्त उपक्रम द्वारा विकसित एवं अनुरक्षित तथा प्रचालित की जा रही है, के रूप में खंड ( iii ) के प्रोजनार्थ एक औद्योगिक पार्क करने अधिसूचित करती है ।

शर्तें जिन पर मैसर्स इंडो ग्लोबल इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर एंड यूटिलि सर्विसिज प्रा . लिमिटेड , पुणे द्वारा एक औद्योगिक पार्क की स्थापना लिए भारत सरकार का अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है । 1.

( i) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम इंडो ग्लोबल इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर यूटिलिटी सर्विसिज प्रा. लिमिटे ( ii) अवस्थान

सर्वे 457 , 458 , 1295/1296 1122/1129/1140 गांव शिरवान्न तथा शिंदेवाड़ी , तहसील खंडा जिला सतारा , महाराष्ट्र ।

वर्ग मात्र

15,000

(iii ) निर्मित न्यूनतम फर्शी क्षेत्र

जैसा कि औद्योगिक पार्क ( iv ) प्रस्तावित औद्योगिक कार्य-कलाप

( संशोधन ) स्कीम , 2010 में

परिभाषित किया गया है ।

90.8 प्रतिशत अथवा उससे अधिक

(v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए उद्दिष्ट आबंटन योग्य क्षेत्रफल की प्रतिशतता [ भाग 1 ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

9.2 प्रतिशत अथवा उससे कम ( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए उद्दिष्ट आबंटन योग्य क्षेत्रफल की प्रतिशतता

( vii ) औद्योगिक उपक्रमों कीन्यूनतम संख्या 44 यूनिटें

25-03-2009

(viii ) औद्योगिक पार्क के प्रारंभ होने की तिथि

2. औद्योगिक पार्क को स्थानीय प्राधिकरण से प्रारंभ होने के प्रमाणपत्र की तिथि जो 25-03-2009 है , को विकसित के रूप में समझा जाएगा ।

3. औद्योगिक पार्क का मालिक एक ही उपक्रम होना चाहिए। 4. अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ औद्योगिक पार्क में कम से कम तीस यूनिटों के अवस्थापित होने के उपरान्त ही उपक्रम को उपलब्ध होंगे । न्यूनतम संख्या में औद्योगिक यूनिटों की संगणना के लिए किसी व्यक्ति तथा उससे संबद्ध उपक्रमों की सभी यूनिटों को एक यूनिट माना जाएगा ।

5. संबद्ध उपक्रम की यूनिटों सहित कोई भी औद्योगिक यूनिट आबंटन योग क्षेत्रफल के पच्चीस प्रतिशत से अधिक का उपभोग नहीं करेगी ।

6. अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ इस अधिसूचना के तहत अधिसूचित उपक्रम को ही उपलब्ध होगा तथा न कि किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को ज्ये बाद में अधिसूचित औद्योगिक पार्क किसी कारणवश विकसित कर सकता है , विकसित करता है तथा प्रचालन करता है अथवा अनुरक्षण करता है तथा प्रचालित करता है ।

7. औद्योगिक यूनिटें केवल वहीं कार्य - कलाप करेंगी जिन्हें औद्योगिक पार्क ( संशोधन ) स्कीम , 2010 में विनिर्दिष्ट किया गया है । 8. उपक्रम को औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए अलग खाता- बही रखनी चाहिए तथा नियत तिथि तक आयकर विभाग को अपनी आयकर विवरणी दाखिल करनी चाहिए ।

9. यह अधिसूचना अमान्य होगी तथा मैसर्स इंडो ग्लोबल इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर एंड यूटिलिटी सर्विसेज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , पुणे ऐसी अमान्यता की किसी भी प्रतिक्रिया के लिए पूरी तरह उत्तरदायी होंगे , यदि ( i ) इसके द्वारा दाखिल आवेदन तथा परवर्ती दस्तावेज जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अधिसूचना जारी की जाती है , में गलत सूचना/ मिथ्या जानकारी होती है अथवा कुछ वस्तुगत सूचना इसमें नहीं दी गई होती है,

( ii ) यह औद्योगिक पार्क के अवस्थान के लिए है जिसके लिए किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में अधिसूचना पहले ही जारी की जा चुकी है ।

10. उपक्रम प्रपत्र आई पी एस -11 में एक वार्षिक रिपोर्ट केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड को प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

1973

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों तथा औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम में शामिल की गई शर्तों का उस अवधि के दौरान पालन किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अन्तर्गत लाभ उठाए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है , यदि उपक्रम किन्हीं भी शर्तों का पालन करने में असमर्थ होता है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के परियोजना प्लान में किसी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में अभिज्ञान अथवा आवेदक द्वारा किसी वस्तुगत तथ्य को प्रकट न करने से औद्योगिक पार्क का अनुमोदन अमान्य हो जाएगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 11/2011 /फा. सं. 178 /55 / 2008 - आई टी ए -1 ]

रमण चोपड़ा, निदेशक (Department of Revenue )

(Central Board of Direct Taxes) New Delhi , the 24th February, 2011

( INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 661. Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- Section (4 ) of Section 80-1A of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue , Central Board of Direct Taxes ) vide number S.O. 51 ( E ) , dated the 8th January , 2008 and amended vide number S.O. 1605 ( E ) dated 2nd July, 2008;

2. And whereas M / s . Indo- Global Infrastructure & Utility Services Pvt . Ltd. having its registered address at 401-402 Great Eastern Plaza , Yerwada , Pune 411006 has developed an Industrial Park at Survey Nos . 457 , 458 , 1295/ 1296/1122/1129/1140 Villages Shirwal and Shindewadi , Tehsil Khandala , Distt . Satara , Maharashtra .

3.Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub - section (4 ) of Section 80 - IA of the saidAct read with Rule 18 C of the Income Tax Rules , 1962 , the Central Government hereby notifies M / s . Indo-Global Infrastructure & Utility Services Pvt . Ltd. having its registered address at 401-402 Great Eastern Plaza, Yerwada, Pune 411006 , has developed an Industrial Park at Survey Nos . 457 , 458 , 1295/1296/1122/1129/1140 Villages Shirwal and Shindewadi , Tehsil Khandala , Distt . Satara , Maharashtra being developed and being maintained and operated by the said undertaking , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii) subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification ..

ANNEXURE

Theterms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an Industrial park by M / s . Indo Global Infrastructure & Utility Services Pvt . Ltd. , Pune .

1. ( i ) Name of the Industrial Indo - Global Infrastructure

& Utility Services Pvt . Ltd. Undertaking, 1974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(ii) Location

Survey Nos . 457 , 458 , 1295/ 1296/1122/1129/1140

Villages Shirwal and Shinde- wadi , Tehsil Khandala , Distt . Satara , Maharashtra

15,000 Square Meters ( ii) Minimum Constructed FloorArea

As defined in Industrial ( iv) Proposed industrial activities

Park (Amendment )

Scheme , 2010

90.8%

(v) Percentage of alio- cable area earmarked for Industrial use

9.2% or less

( vi ) Percentage of allo- cable area earmarked for commercial use

44 Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units

25-03-2009

(viii) Date of commence- ment of the Industrial Park

2. The Industrial Park shall be construed as developed on the date of commencement certificate from the local authority which is 25-03-2009 .

3. The industrial park should be owned by only one undertaking .

4. The tax benefits under the Act will be available to the undertaking only after minimum number of thirty units are located in the Industrial Park. For the purpose of computing the minimum number of industrial units , all units of a person and his associated enterprises will be treated as a single unit .

5. No industrial unit , along with the units of an associated enterprise , shall occupy more than twenty five per cent of the allocable area .

6. The tax benefits under the Act will be available only to the undertaking notified vide this notification and noi to any other person who may subsequently develop, develops and operates or maintains and operates the notified industrial park , for any reason .

7. The Industrial units shall undertake only those activities as specified in Industrial Park ( Amendment ) Scheme , 2010 .

8. The undertaking must keep separate books of accounts for the industrial park and must file its income tax returns by the due date to the Income - tax department .

9. The notification will be invalid and M / s . Indo -Global Infrastructure & Utility Services Pvt . Ltd. , Pune shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

i. the application and subsequent documents furnished by it , on the basis of which the notification is issued by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] some material information has not been provided in it.

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

10. The undertaking shal ! furnish an annual report to the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Form IPS - II .

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park ( Amendment) Scheme, 2010 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case the undertaking , failsto comply with any of the conditions .

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

[Notification No. 11 /2011 / F . No. 178 / 55 / 2008 - ITA - 1 ] RAMAN CHOPRA , Director औद्योगिक और वित्तीय पुनर्निर्माण अपीलीय प्राधिकरण नई दिल्ली , । मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 662 , राष्ट्रपति , आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण में स्थायी रूप से कार्यरत वरिष्ठ निजी , सचिव श्रीमती विजय शर्मा को इस प्राधिकरण में पूर्व संशोधित वेतनमान 10000-325-15200/ - तथा संशोधित वेतनमान पी . बी -3 रु. 15600-39100 + 6600 दिनांक 14 फरवरी , 2011 ( अपराह्न ) से तीन वर्ष की अवधि या कार्मिक एवं प्रशिक्षण विभाग के कार्यालय ज्ञापन संख्या 6-8-2009- स्थापना ( वेतन -2 ) दिनांक 17-06-2010 के अनुसार या समय - समय पर संशोधित के शर्तों के अनुसार 5 वर्ष तक या अगले आदेश तक या इस कार्यालय के बंद होने तक , जो भी पूर्वघटित /पहले हो , प्रतिनियुक्ति के आधार पर प्रमुख निजी सचिव के पद पर नियुक्त करते हैं ।

[ मिसिल सं -1/2/2011 - प्रशा. ] दया नन्द , अवर सचिव APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION New Delhi , the Ist March , 2011

S.O. 662.- The President is pleased to appoint Smt . Vijay Sharma , a Sr. Private Secretary of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as Principal Private Secretary in this Authority in the pre - revised Pay Scale of Rs . 10,000-325-15.200 (Revised pay Band PB - 3 Rs . 15600-39100 + 6600 Grade Pay) w.e.f. 14-02-2011 ( A/N ) on deputation basis , initially for a period of three years extendable as per rules upto 5 years or till abolition of AAIFR or until further orders , whichever is earlier on terms & conditions determined as per the instruction contained in DOPT OM No. 6-8-2009-Estt . (Pay- 11 ) dated 17-06-2010 as amended from time to time .

[No. 1 /2/2011 - Admin . ] DAYA NAND , Under Secy .

1975 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

( स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 663.-केन्द्र सरकार , दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करके , अर्हता नामावली में परिवर्तन के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामतः-

उक्त अनुसूची में:

( क) श्री वेंकटेश्वर विश्वविद्यालय के सामने मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता [ जो कि आगे कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के अन्तर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद शीर्षक पंजीकरण के लिए संपेक्षण [ जो कि आगे कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के सामने निम्नलिखित को शामिल किया जाएगा , नामतः

(2)

(3)

एम डी ( रेडियोलोजी/रेडियो डायगनोसिस )

" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( रेडियोलोजी/ रेडियो डायगनोसिस) "

( यह वर्ष 1985 में अथवा उसके बाद कुरनूल मेडिकल कॉलेज , कुरनूल , आंध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री वेंकटेश्वर , विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी । )

" डिप्लोमा इन मेडिकल , रेडियो डायगनोसिस डी एम आर डी

( यह वर्ष 1971 में अथवा उसके बाद कुरनूल मेडिकल कॉलेज , कुरनूल , आंध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री वेंकटेश्वर , विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी । )

( ख ) " आंध्र प्रदेश स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा के सामने मान्यताप्राप्त अर्हता [ जो कि आगे कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के अन्तर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के पश्चात् शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संपेक्षण ' [ जो कि आगे कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है । ] के सामने निम्नलिखित को शामिल किया जाएगा , नामतः

एम डी ( रेडियोलोजी/रेडियो डायगनोसिस )

" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( रेडियोलोजी/रेडियो डायगनोसिस ) "

( यह वर्ष 1985 में अथवा उसके बाद कुरनूल मेडिकल कॉलेज , कुरनूल , आंध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में आंध्र प्रदेश स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी । )

" डिप्लोमा इन मेडिकल , रेडियो डायगनोसिस " डी एम आर डी

( यह वर्ष 1971 में अथवा उसके बाद कुरनूल मेडिकल कॉलेज , कुरनूल , आंध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में आंध्र प्रदेश स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी । )

(ग ) " एन टी आर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा " के सामने मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता [ जो कि आगे कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के अन्तर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद शीर्षक पंजीकरण के लिए संपेक्षण [ जो कि आगे कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के सामने निम्नलिखित को शामिल किया जाएगा , नामतः

एम डी ( रेडियोलोजी /रेडियो डायगनोसिस )

" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( रेडियोलोजी/रेडियो डायगनोसिस ) "

(यह वर्ष 1985 में अथवा उसके बाद कुरनूल मेडिकल कॉलेज , कुरनूल , आंध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में एन टी आर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी । )

" डिप्लोमा इन मेडिकल , रेडियो डायगनोसिस डी एम आर डी ( यह वर्ष 1971 में अथवा उसके बाद कुरनूल मेडिकल कॉलेज , कुरनूल , आंध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित 1976

PART II-SEC. 30 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(2)

(3)

किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में एन टी आर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किः जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी । )

" मजिस्ट्रार चिरूजिएइ ( कार्डियोथोरेसिक सर्जरी ) " एम. सी. एच. ( कार्डियोथोरेसिक सर्जरी )

( यह वर्ष 1994 में अथवा उसके बाद गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज , हैदराबाद , आंध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में एन टी आर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त अर्हता होगी । )

सभी के लिए टिप्पणी:

1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम के लिए स्वीकृत मान्यता 5 वर्ष की अधिकतम अवधि के लिए होगी जिसके बाद इसकी पुनरीक्षा की जाएगी । 2. उप - धारा 4 में अपेक्षित अनुसार मान्यता को समय पर नवीकरण नहीं कराने के फलस्वरूप संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रमों में निरपवाद रूप से दाखिला बंद हो जाएगा ।

[ सं. यू. 12012/ 187/2010 - एमई ( पी -11 ) अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare )

New Delhi , the 28th January, 2011

S.O. 663. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2 ) of the Section 11 of the 'Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) , the Central Government , after cosulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , due to change of nomenclature of the qualification namely : In the said Schedule-

( a ) against " Sri Venkateswara University " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading Abbreviation for Registration [hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely:-

(2)

(3)

MD ( Radiology/ Radio Diagnosis )

"Doctor ofMedicine ( Radiology / Radio Diagnosis ) "

( This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Sri Venkateswara University in respect of students being trained at Kurnool Medical College , Kurnool , Andhra Pradesh on or after 1971. ) (b ) against " Andhra Pradesh University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading Abbreviation for Registration ' ( hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely:--

MD ( Radiology/ Radio Diagnosis )

"Doctor of Medicine ( Radiology/ Radio Diagnosis ) "

(This shall be a recognised inedical qualification when granted by Andhra Pradesh University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada in respect of students being trained atKurnool Medical College , Kurnool , Andhra Pradesh on or after 1985. ) "Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis " DMRD

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Andhra Pradesh University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at Kurnool Medical College , Kurnool , Andhra Pradesh on or after 1971. ) 1977 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(c) against " NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualifica- tion' [ hereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration ' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely: --

"Doctor ofMedicine (Radiology/ Radio Diagnosis )

MD (Radiology /Radio Diagnosis ) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by NTR University ofHealth Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh on or after 1985.) Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis DMRD (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool , Andhra Pradesh on or after 1971. ) Magistrar Chirugiae (Cardio Thoracic Surgery)

M.Ch (Cardio Thoracic Surgery) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad , Andhra Pradesh on or after 1994. ) " Note to all : 1. The recognition- so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years , upon which itshall have to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub- clause -4 shali invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course .

[No. U.12012/ 187/2010- ME(P. - II )] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 664,-दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते. हुए केन्द्र सरकार , भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करके , उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामत:-

2. महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा प्रदान की जाने वाली दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 60 के समक्ष कालम 2 एवं 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्ठियों में निम्नलिखित को शामिल किया जाएगा , नामत:-

"XXV. आर्ड फोर्सिज मेडिकल कालेज , पुणे मास्टर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी

एमडीएस ( प्रोस्थो. ) , महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक

(1) प्रोस्थोडोन्टिक्स और क्राउन एंड ब्रिज (यदि 15-6-2010 को अथवा उसके उपरान्त प्रदान की गई हो)

एमडीएस ( पेरियो. ) , महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय,

न्ग्रसिक

(ii) पेरियोडोन्टोलोजी (यदि 17-6-2010 को अथवा उसके उपरांत प्रदान की गई हो )

एमडीएस ( ओरल सर्जरी ) , महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक

(iii) ओरल एंड मेक्सिलोफेशियल सर्जरी ( यदि 19-6-2010 को अथवा उसके उपरांत प्रदान की गई हो)

एमडीएस ( ओर्थों. ) , महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक"

(iv) ओर्थोडोन्टिक्स एंड डेन्टोफेशियल ओर्थोपेडिक्स (यदि 22-6-2010 को अथवा उसके उपरांत प्रदान की गई हो )

[फा. सं. वी. - 12018/1 /2010-डीई ] अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव 655 01:11-2 1978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5,2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii )

New Delhi , the 14th February, 2011

S.O. 664. 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 the 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.60 , in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :--

"XXV. Armed Forces Medical College , Pune Master of Dental Surgery

MDS ( Prostho .) , Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik

(i) Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge (if granted on or after 15-06-2010 )

MDS ( Perio. ) , Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik

( ii) Periodontology (ifgranted on or after 17-06-2010 )

MDS ( Oral Surgery ) , Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik

( iii) Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (ifgranted on or after 19-06-2010 )

MDS ( Ortho . ) , Maharashtra University ofHealth Sciences , Nashik "

( iv) Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics (if granted on or after 22-06-2010 )

[ F.No.V.- 12018/1 /2010 - DE ]

ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 21 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 665.-केन्द्र सरकार , दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 3 के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार के दिनांक 24 जनवरी , 1984 के का.आ. सं. 430 की अधिसूचना में , एतद्द्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामतः-

2. उक्त अधिसूचना में , क्रम सं. 4 एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के लिए " धारा 3 के प्रावधान के साथ पठित खंड ( च ) के अंतर्गत नामांकित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत उसमें निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः-

नामांकित

" 4 डा. आर. के. बाली

17-2-2011 "

केन्द्रीय सरकार

बाली दन्त चिकित्सक केन्द्र 20बी 2 , डी.बी. गुप्ता रोड , करोल बाग , नई दिल्ली-110005

दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 6 (4 ) के शर्तों में , वे दिनांक 15-2-2010 से पांच वर्ष की शेष अवधि के लिए कार्यालय का कार्यभार संभालेंगे )

[ फा. सं. वी . - 12013/2/2009 -डीई]

अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st February , 2011

S.O. 665. - in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No.S.O. 430 dated 24th January , 1984 namely :

In the said notification under head " Nominated under clause ( F ) read with proviso to section 3 " for serial No. 4 andi the entries relating thereto , the following shall be substituted therein , namely : - - 1979

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

17.02.2011 "

Central Government

Nominated

"4. Dr.R.K.Bali

Bali Dental Centre

20- B/2, D.B.Gupta Road Karol Bagh , New Delhi - 110005

( In terms of Section 6(4 ) of the Dentists Act , 1948 , he shall hold the office for the remainder of the term of five years w.e.f. 15-02-2010)

[F.No.V.12013 /2/2009 - DE ]

ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 666. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानको के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये है वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिए गये है :

अनुसूची

टिप्पणी वापस लिये गए मानक ( कों ) की संख्या और वर्ष

भारत के राजपत्र भाग -2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में का.आ. संख्या और तिथि प्रकाशित

क्रम संख्या

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1430 , 19-05-1990

आई एस 12063 : 1987

[सं. ईटी -01/जी -63 ( ए ) ]

आर . के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 666.- In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , it is hereby notified that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter , have been cancelled and stand withdrawn .

SCHEDULE

Remarks Sl.No. No. & Year of the Indian Standard Withdrawn

S.O. No. & Date published in the Gazette of India Part- II , Section - 1 , Sub - section ( ii)

(3)

(4) (2)

(1)

1430 dt. 19-05-1990

1 IS 12063 : 1987 Classification of degrees of protection provided by enclosures of electrical equipment

[Ref: ET-01 /G - 63 ( A) ]

R. K. TREHAN , Scientist - F & Head ( Electrotechnical ) 1980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 667.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया हैं वह स्थापित हो गया हैः--

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष

( 1 )

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

आई एस 13728 : 1993

फरवरी 2010 आई एस / आईईसी 61262-1 : 1994 चिकित्सा विद्युत उपस्कर- विद्युत प्रकाशित एक्सरे बिम्ब तव्रिकारकों के अभिलक्षण भाग । प्रवेश क्षेत्र का साईज़ ज्ञात करना

इस मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलुरु , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदरावाद . जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : एम एच डीजी 3.5

राकेश कुमार , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमएचडी )

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2011

S.O. 667. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule here annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

S.No. No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Date established

No. & Year of Indian Standards , if any, superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

IS 13728: 1993

February, 2010 1. IS/IEC 61262-1 : 1994 Medical Electrical Equipment Characteristics of Elctro- Optical X - Ray Image Intensifiers Part - 1 Determination of the Entrance Field Size

Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref: MHD/G -3.5)

RAKESH KUMAR, Scientist - ' F ' & Head ( MHD)

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 668.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

जून 2009 1 . आई एस 15874 : 2009/सिसपर 28 1997 औद्योगिक , वैज्ञानिक और चिकित्सा उपस्कर 1981 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(1)

(2)

( 3 )

(4) (आईएसएम ) आई टी यू द्वारा निर्धारित बैंड्स के अंतर्गत उत्सर्जन स्तर के लिये मार्गदर्शी सिद्धांत

जुलाई 2009 2. आई एस/ आई ई सी 60793-1-50: 2001 प्रकाशित तंतु भाग 1 मापन विधियां और परीक्षण प्रक्रियाएं अनुभाग 50 नम उष्मा ( स्थायी अवस्था)

फरवरी 2010 3. आई एस 15867 ( भाग 1 ) : 2010 सतह की अनियमितताओं की सीमाओं पर फेराइट कोर गाइड भाग 1 सामान्य विशिष्टि

फरवरी 2010 4 आई एस 14901 ( भाग 1 ) 2010/ आई ई सी 60747-1: 2006 अर्धचालक युक्तियां- विविक्त युक्तियां एवं समाकलित परिपथ- भाग । सामान्य (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

फरवरी 2010 5. आई एस 14901 ( भाग 5/ अनुभाग 1) : 2010/ आई ई सी 60747-5-1 2002 अर्धचालक युक्तियां- विविक्त युक्तियां एवं समाकलित परि- पथ - भाग 5 आप्येइलैक्ट्रॉनिक युक्तियां अनुभाग -1 सामान्य (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

फरवरी 2010 6 आई एस/ आईएसओ/आईईसी 27006 2007 सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी सुरक्षा तकनीक आडिटिंग एवं सूचना सुरक्षा प्रबंधन तंत्र की प्रमाणन करने वाले निकायों की अपेक्षाएँ

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: एल आई टी डी/जी-75 ] नरेन्द्र सिंह , प्रमुख ( इलेक्ट्रॉनिकी एवं आई टी )

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2011

S.O. 668.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Datè of established Sl.No. No. & Year of the Indian Standards Established

No. & Year of Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4) (1) (2)

(3)

June 2009 IS 15874 : 2009 / CISPR

1 .

28: 1997 Industrial, Scientific and Medical Equipment ( ISM) - Guidelines for Emission Levels within the Bands Designated by ITU 1982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

[ PART 11 - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] (1) (2)

(3)

(4) 2. IS/IEC 60793-1-50 : 2001

July2009 Optical Fibres : Part 1

Measurement Methods and Test Procedures Sec 50 Damp Heat ( Steady State)

February2010 3. IS 15867 ( part 1 ) : 2010/

IEC 60424-1 : 1999 Ferrite

Cores Guide on the Limits of Surface Irregularities : Part 1 General Specification

4. IS /ISO /IEC 27006 : 2007

February 2010 Information Technology -

Security Techniques - requirements for Bodies

Providing Audit and Certification of Information Security Management Systems

5. IS 14901 ( part 5 / Sec 1 ) :

February2010 2010/IEC 60747-5-1: 2002

Semiconductor Devices -

Discrete Devices and

Integrated Circits

Part 5 Optoelectronic Devices

Sec 1 General ( First Revision)

6. IS 14901 (Part 1 ): 2010 /IEC

February 2010 60747-1: 2006

Semiconductor Devices -

Discrete Devices and

Integrated Circits

Part I General ( First Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .

[ Ref: LITD/G- 75 ]

NARENDRA SINGH , Head ( Electronics & IT )

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 669.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अधि सूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिये गये हैं :--

अनुसूची

क्रम सं. रद्द किये गये मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

टिप्पणी

भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खंड 3 ,

उपखंड ( ii ) में का. आ. संख्या

और तिथि प्रकाशित

(2)

(1)

(4)

(3)

मानक अप्रचलित है ।

एस ओ न. उपलब्ध नहीं है ।

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 01 ) : 1969 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति

रूपरेखाओ डी 01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1983

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 2.

एस. ओ. नं. उपलब्ध नहीं है ।

मानक अप्रचलित है । आई एस 5000 ( ओडी 04 ) : 1969 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 04

एस. ओ. नं. उपलब्ध नहीं है ।

मानक अप्रचलित है । आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 05 ) : 1969 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 05

एस. ओ. नं. उपलब्ध नहीं है ।

मानक अप्रचलित है । आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 06 ) : 1969 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 06

एस. ओ. नं. उपलब्ध नहीं है ।

मानक अप्रचलित है । आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 07 ) : 1969 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 07

एस. ओ. नं. उपलब्ध नहीं है ।

मानक अप्रचलित है । 6. आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 08 ) : 1969 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 08

मानक अप्रचलित है ।

एस. ओ . नं. 1425

तिथि 19-5-1990

आई एस 5000 ( ओडी 09 ) : 1969 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 09

मानक अप्रचलित है ।

एस. ओ. नं. 3318

तिथि 21-10-1972

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 10 ) : 1971 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 10

एस. ओ. नं. 3318

मानक अप्रचलित है ।

तिथि 21-10-1972

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 11 ) : 1971 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 11

10.

एस. ओ. नं. 3318

मानक अप्रचलित है ।

तिथि 21-10-1972

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 12 ) : 1971 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 12

11.

मानकु. अप्रचलित है ।

एस. ओ. नं. 3318

तिथि 21-10-1972

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 13 ) : 1971 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 13

12.

एस. ओ. नं. 3318

मानक अप्रचलित है ।

तिथि 21-10-1972

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी -14 ) : 1971 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 14

13.

मानक अप्रचलित है ।

एएस. ओ . नं. 2939

तिथि6-9-1975

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 15 ) : 1973 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 15

14.

मामक अप्रचलित है ।

एस. ओ . नं. 2081

तिथि 5-9-1975

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 16 ) : 1973 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 16

15.

एस. ओ. नं. 1232

मानक अप्रचलित है ।

तिथि 3-4-1976

आई एस 5000 ( ओडी 17 ) : 1974 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 17 1984

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1 )

मानक अप्रचलित है । 16.

एस. ओ . नं. 1597 तिथि 8-5-1976

आई एस 5000 ( ओडी 18 ) : 1974 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 18

मानक अप्रचलित है । 17.

एस. ओ . नं. 1232 तिथि 3-4-1976

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 19 ) : 1974 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 19

मानक अप्रचलित है । 18.

एस. ओ. नं. 2584 तिथि3-10-1981

आई एस 5000 ( ओडी 20 ) : 1978 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 20

मानक अप्रचलित है । 19.

एस. ओ. नं. 2584 तिथि3-10-1981

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 21 ) : 1979 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 21

मानक अप्रचलित है । 20.

एस. ओ . नं. 1342 तिथि 3-4-1982

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 23 ) : 1978 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 23

मानक अप्रचलित है । 21 .

एस. ओ. नं. 1342 तिथि 3-4-1982

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 25 ) : 1978 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 25

मानक अप्रचलित है । 22.

एस. ओ . नं. 2584 तिथि 3-10-1981

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 26 ) : 1971 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 26

मानक अप्रचलित है । 23.

एस. ओ . नं. 2584 तिथि 3-10-1981

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 27 ) : 1978 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 27

मानक अप्रचलित है । 24.

एस. ओ . नं. 2562 तिथि 10-10-1981

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 28 ) : 1978 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 28

मानक अप्रचलित है । 25.

एस. ओ . नं. 2862 तिथि 10-10-1981

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 29 ) : 1979 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 29

मानक अप्रचलित है । 26.

एस. ओ. नं. उपलब्ध नहीं है ।

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 31 ) : 1981 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 31

मानक अप्रचलित है । 27.

एस. ओ. नं. 1294 तिथि 30-3-1985

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 32 ) : 1981 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 32

मानक अप्रचलित है । 28.

एस. ओ. नं. 1294 तिथि 30-3-1985

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 33 ) : 1981 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 33 1985 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(4) (1)

(2)

(3)

मानक अप्रचलित है । 29.

एस. ओ . नं. 2831

तिथि 22-6-1985

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 34) : 1981 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 34

मानक अप्रचलित है । 30. आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 35 ) : 1981

एस. ओ . नं. 1294

तिथि30-3-1985

अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 35

31.

मानक अप्रचलित है । आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 36) : 1981

एएस. ओ. नं. 2148

तिथि 18-5-1985

अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 36

मानक अप्रचलित है । 32. आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 37 ) : 1982

एस. ओ. नं. 2882

तिथि16-8-1986

अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 37

मानक अप्रचलित है । 33.

एस. ओ . नं. 0298

तिथि31-1-1987

आई एस 5000 ( ओडी 38 ) : 1984 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 38

मानक अप्रचलित है । 34.

एस. ओ. नं. 1424

तिथि 19-5-1990

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 39 ) : 1986 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 39

मानक अप्रचलित है । 35.

एस. ओ. नं. 1429

तिथि 19-5-1990

आई एस 5000 ( ओडी 40 ) : 1986 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 40

मानक अप्रचलित है । 36.

एस. ओ. नं. 1424

तिथि 19-5-1990

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 41 ) : 1986 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 41

मानक अप्रचलित है । 37.

एस. ओ. नं. 1425

तिथि19-5-1990

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 42) : 1986 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 42

मानक अप्रचलित है । 38.

एस. ओ. नं. 1424

तिथि 19-5-1990

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 43 ) : 1986 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखाओ डी 43

मानक अप्रचलित है । 39.

एएस. ओ. नं. 1424

तिथि 19-5-1990

आई एस 5000 ( ओडी 44 ) : 1986: अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 44

मानक अप्रचलित है । 40.

एस. ओ. नं. 1425

तिथि 19-5-1990

आई एस 5000 ( ओ डी 45 ) : 1986 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 45

मानक अप्रचलित है । 41.

एस. ओ. नं. 1537

तिथि2-6-1990

आई एस 5000 (ओडी 46 ) : 1986 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 46

भानक अप्रचलित है. । 42.

एस ओ न. 1424

तिथि19-5-1990

आई एस 5000 (ओड़ी 47 ) : 1986 अर्धचालक युक्तियों का आयाम : युक्ति रूपरेखा ओ डी 47

655 Gl/11-3 1986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(1)

(2)

43.

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

(4)

एस ओ न. 2900

तिथि 14-9-2002

आई एस 5608 ( भाग 5 ) : 2002/ आई ई सी 189-6 ( 1982 ) पीवीसी विद्युतरोधन और पीवीसी खोल सहित अल्प आवृत्ति केबलों तथा तारों की विशिष्टि भाग 5 संकेतन केबलें (प्रथम पुनरीक्षण)

वापिस लेने के लिए अनुमंसित क्योंकि जिस मानक पर यह मानक आधारित था वह आई ई सी वापिस ले लिया गया है ।

एस ओ न. 2900

तिथि 14-9-2002

44. आई एस 5608 ( भाग 6 ) : 2001 / आई ई सी 189-6 ( 1971 ) पीवीसी विद्युतरोधन और पीवीसी खोल सहित अल्प आवृत्ति केबलों तथा तारों की विशिष्टि भाग 6 जम्पर केबलें ( प्रथम पुनरीक्षण)

45.

एस ओ न. 2136

तिथि 11-8-1990

आई एस 12598 संचार , मापयंत्रण और नियंत्रण के लिये तापसुघट्य केबलें

एलआईटीडी 06 के द्वारा वापिस लेने के लिए अनुमसित

एस ओ न. 1707

46,

तिथि 27-6-1992

आई एस 13176 दूरसंचार , केबल के पी वी सी विद्युतरोधन और पीवीसी खोल 47.

एलआईटीडी 06 के द्वारा वापिस लेने के लिए अनुमंसित

एस ओ न. 2900

तिथि 14-9-2002

आई एस 15114 : 2002 , सूचना प्रक्रमण-64 बिट ब्लॉक सिफर एल्गोरिथ्म के प्रचालन प्रकार 48

वापिस लेने के लिए अनुमंसित क्योंकि जिस मानक पर यह मानक आधारित था वह आई एस ओ 8372 : 1987 वापिस ले लिया गया है ।

एस ओ न. 2900

तिथि 14-9-2002

आई एस 15115 : 2002 सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी- सुरक्षा तकनीक क्रिप्टोग्राफिक एल्गोरिथ्म के पंजीकरण की विधियां

वापिस लेने के लिए अनुमंसित क्योंकि जिस मानक पर यह मानक आधारित था वह आई एस ओ 9979 : 1999 वापिस ले लिया गया है ।

[संदर्भ : एल आई टी डी/जी 75 ) नरेन्द्र सिंह , प्रमुख ( इलैक्ट्रॉनिकी एवं आई टी )

New Delhi , the 21st February , 2011

S.O. 669 .--In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , it is . hereby notified that the Indian Standards , Particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter , have been cancelled and stand withdrawn .

SI.No. No. & Year of the Indian Standards Cancelled

(1)

(C)

SCHEDULE

Remarks

S.O. No. & Date published in the Gazette of India . Part - II , Section -3 , Sub - section ( ii)

(3)

Standard is Obsolete S.O. No , not available

1. 15 5000 OD 01 ) : 1969 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Devices outline OD 1

2. IS 5000 ( OD 04 ) : 1969 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 4

- do-

- do - [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(2)

( 1 )

3. IS 5000 ( OD 05 ) : 1969 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices : Device outline OD 5

4. IS 5000 ( OD06) : 1969 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 6

S. IS 5000 ( OD 07) : 1969 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices : Device outline OD 7

6. IS 5000 ( OD 08 ) : 1979 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 8

7. IS 5000 (OD 09 ) : 1986 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 9 ( first revision)

1987

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(4)

(3)

Standard is Obsolete S.O. No. not available

-do-

-do -

-do-

-do -

-do-

S.O. 1425 19-05-1990-

-do-

S.O.3318

21-10-1972

8. IS 5000 ( OD 10) : 1971 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 10

-do-

S.O.3318

21-10-1972

9. IS 5000 ( OD 11 ) : 1971 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices : Device outline OD 11

-do-

S.O.3318

21-10-1972

10. IS 5000 (OD 12) : 1971 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices : Device outline OD 12

-do-

S.O.3318

21-10-1972

11. IS 5000 ( OD 13 ) : 1971 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 13

12. IS 5000 ( OD 14 ) : 1971 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices : Device outline OD 14

-do-

S.O.3318 21-10-1972-

-do-

S.O.2939

06-09-1975

13. IS 5000 ( OD 15) : 1973 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices: Device outline OD 15

-do-

S.O.2081

05-07-1975

14. IS 5000 (OD 16) : 1973 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices : Device outline OD 16

-do-

S.O. 1232

03-04-1976

15. IS 5000 (OD 17) : 1974 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 17

-do-

S.O. 1597

08-05-1976

16. IS 5000 ( OD 18 ) : 1974 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 18

-do-

S.O. 1232

03-04-1976

17. IS 5000 (OD 19) : 1974 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 19

-do-

S.O.2584

03-10-1981

18. IS 5000 ( OD 20 ) : 1978 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 20 1988

(2)

( 1)

19. IS 5000 ( OD21 ) : 1979 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 21

20. IS 5000 ( OD 23 ) : 1978 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 23

21. IS 5000 ( OD 25 ) : 1978 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 25

22. IS 5000 ( OD 26) : 1971 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 26

23. IS 5000 (OD 27) : 1978 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 27

24. IS 5000 (OD 28 ) : 1978 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 28

25. IS 5000 ( OD 29 ) : 1979 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 29

26. IS 5000 ( OD31 ) : 1981 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 31

27. IS 5000 ( OD 32) : 1981 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 32

28. IS 5000 ( OFD 33 ) : 1981 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 33

29. IS 5000 ( OD 34) : 1981 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices : Device outline OD 34

30. IS 5000 ( OD35 ) : 1981 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices : Device outline OD 35

31. IS 5000 ( OD 36 ) : 1981 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 36

32. IS 5000 (OD 37) : 1982 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 37

33. IS 5000 ( OD 38 ) : 1984 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 38

34. IS 5000 ( OD 39 ) : 1986 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices : Device outline OD 39

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5,2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

[ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

(3)

Standard is Obsolete S.O. 2584 03-10-1981

-do-

S.O. 1342 03-04-1982

-do-

S.O. 1342 03-0-1-1982

-do-

S.O. 2584 03-10-1981

-do-

S.O.2584 03-10-1981

-do-

S.O.2862 10-10-1981

-do-

S.O. 2362 10-10-1981

-do-

S.O. No. not available

-do-

S.O. 1294 30-03-1985

-do-

S.O. 1294 30 03-1985

-do-

S.O.2831 22-06-1985

-do-

S.O. 1294 30-03-1985

-do-

S.O. 2148 18-05-1985

-do-

S.O. 2882 16-08-1986

-do-

S.O. 0298 31-01-1987

-do-

S.O.1424 19-05-1990 [ भाग ] ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3) (1) (2)

35 . IS 5000 (OD 40 ) : 1986 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 40

36. IS 5000 (OD41 ) : 1986 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 41

37. IS 5000 ( OD 42 ) : 1986 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices: Device outline OD 42

38. IS 5000 (OD 43 ) : 1986 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 43

39. IS 5000 ( OD 44 ) : 1986 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 44

40. IS 5000 ( OD 45 ) : 1986 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 45

41. IS 5000 ( OD 46) : 1986 Dimensions of semiconductor devices : Device outline OD 46

42 IS 5000 (OD 47 ) : 1986 Dimensions ofsemiconductor devices: Device outline OD 47

43. IS 5508 (Part 5 ) : 2002 / IEC 189-6( 1982 ) LF Wires and cables with OPVC insulation and PVC sheath : Part 5 Signalling cables ( first revision) 44. 15 5608 ( Part 6) : 2002/IEC 189-7 ( 1971 ) LF Wires and cables with OPVC insulation and PVC sheath : Part 5 Signalling cables ( first revision ) 45. IS 12598 : 1989 Thermoplastic cables for communication , instrumentation and control

46. IS 13176 : 1991 PVC insulation and sheath of telecommunication cables 47. IS 15114 : 2002 Information Processing -Modes of operation for a 64 - bit block cipher algorithm 48. IS 15115 :2002 Information Technology- Security techniques procedures for registration of Cryptographic algorithms

1989

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(4)

Standard is Obsolete

S.O. 1424 19-05-1990

-do-

S.O. 1424 19-05-1990

-do-

S.O. 1425 19-05-1990

-do-

S.O. 1424 19-05-1990

-do-

S.O. 1424 19-05-1990

-do-

S.O. 1425 19-05-1990

-do-

S.O. 1537 02-06-1990

-do-

S.O. 1424 19-05-1990

S.O.2900 dt. 14-09-2002

Recommended for withdrawal as the base IEC standard has been withdrawn

S.O. 1464 dt. 04-05-2002

Recommended for withdrawal as the base IEC standard has been withdrawn

Recommended for withdrawal by LITD 06

S.O.2136 dt. 11-08-1990

Recommended for withdrawal by LITD 06

S.O. 1707 dt. 27-06-1992

S.O.2900 dt . 14-09-2002

Recommended for withdrawal as the base standard ISO 8372: 1987 has been withdrawn

S.O. 2900 dt. 14-09-2002

Recommended for withdrawal as the base standard ISO /IEC 9979 : 1999 has been withdrawn

[Ref: LITD/G-75] NARENDRA SINGH , Head ( Electronics & AT ) 1990

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 670. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

क्रम सं.

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

( 1)

(2)

(3 )

(4)

सितम्बर , 2010

संशोधन नं 1

सितम्बर , 2010

1. आई एस 15377 : 2003 डायरैक्ट -टू-होम सेवाओं के लिये डिजिटल सैट टौप बॉक्स- विशिष्टि

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ : एल आई टी डी/जी -75 ] नरेन्द्र सिंह , प्रमुख ( इलेक्ट्रॉनिकी एवं आई टी )

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2011

S.O. 670.- In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the amendment

Sl.No. No. and year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

September 2010

Amendment No. 1

September 2010

1. IS 15377 : 2003 Digital Set Top Box for Direct-To-Home (DTH ) Services- Specification

Copy of this Standard/ Amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan . 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: LITD/G - 75 ] NARENDRA SINGH , Head ( Electronics & IT )

नई दिल्ली , 23 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 671.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में तथा अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 2312 दिनांक 19 अगस्त , 2010 के अतिक्रमण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वे स्थापित हो गये हैं :

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

1 जुलाई , 2011

आईएस 93346 : 2004/

आईईसी 60079-0 : 2000

आई एस / आईईसी 60079-0: 2004 विस्फोटी पर्यावरण-सामान्य अपेक्षाएं 1991 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(4) (2 )

(3)

(1)

1 जुलाई , 2011

आईएस 2148 : 2004/

आईईसी 60079-1: 2001

2. आई एस/ आईईसी 60079-1 : 2007 विस्फोटी पर्यावरण - ज्वालासह आवरण " d"

1 जुलाई , 2011

आईएस 6381 : 2004/

आईईसी 60079-7 : 2001

3 . आई एस/आईईसी 60079-7 : 2006 विस्फोटी पर्यावरण - भाग 7 बढी सुरक्षा "e"

1 जुलाई , 2011

आईएस 5780 : 2002/

आईईसी 60079-11 : 1999

4. आई एस/ आईईसी 60079-11 : 2006 विस्फोटी पर्यावरण - भाग 11 आन्तरिक सुरक्षा " i "

इन भारतीय मानकों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : ईटी -22 /टी -31 , टी -45 , टी-61 , टी-62 ] आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक-ई एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी )

New Delhi , the 23rd February , 2011

S.O. 671.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , and in supersession of the notification No. S.O. 2312 dated 19 August , 2010 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Sl . No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

1. IS /IEC 60079-0 : 2004

IS 13346: 2004 /ЛЕС 60079-0 : 2000 01 July 2011 Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Atmospheres General Requirements

IS 2148 : 2004/ IEC 60079-1 : 2001

01 July2011 2. IS/IEC 60079-1 : 2007 Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres Flameproof Enclosures " d"

IS 6381 : 2004/ IEC 60079-7 : 2001

01 July 2011 3. IS/IEC 60079-7: 2006 Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres-- Increased Safety " e "

4. IS/ IEC 60079-11 : 2006

ISS5780 : 2002 /IEC 60079-11 : 1999 01 July 2011 Electrical Apparatus For Explosive Gas Atmospheres-Intrinsic Safety " i " .

Copies of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref: ET- 22/T- 31 , 1-45 , T-61 , T-62 ]

R. K. TREHAN , Scientist - E & Head ( Electrotechnical ) [ PART 11 ---SEC. 3 ( i ) ] 1992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 672.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय के द्वारा जारी की गई अधि सूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1701 तारीख 30 जून , 2010 जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप - खंड ( ii ) , तारीख 4 जुलाई , 2010 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 282.88 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 698.72 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है , कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विहित उक्त भूमि के भाग में कोयला अभिप्राप्त है ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 282.88 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 698.72 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की भूमि और उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकारों का अर्जन करने की अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।

टिप्पण -1 : इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या ईसीएल/ आरजेएमएल /एमओयूजेडए/ एनओटीआई/ 54 तारीख 21 सितम्बर , 2010 को उपायुक्त , जिला गोड्डा ( झारखण्ड ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, । , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रोन, कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में या निदेशक तकनीकी ( प्रचालन ) , ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सांकटोरि डाकघर - दिसेरगढ़ , जिला - बर्द्धवान , ( पश्चिम बंगाल ) -713333 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है । टिप्पण-2 : उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है जिसमें निम्नलिखित उपबंध हैं : - अर्जन की बाबत आपत्तियाँ

" 8 ( 1 ) कोई व्यक्ति जो किसी भूमि में , जिसकी बाबत धारा 7 के अधीन अधिसूचना निकाली गई है , हितबद्ध है, अधिसूचना के निकाले जाने से तीस दिन के भीतर सम्पूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का अर्जन किए जाने के बारे में आपत्ति कर सकेगा ।

स्पष्टीकरण: -

1. इस धारा के अर्थान्तर्गत यह आपत्ति नहीं मानी जाएगी , कि कोई व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में कोयला उत्पादन के लिए स्वयं खनन संक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी संक्रियाएं केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं करनी चाहिए । 2. उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आपत्ति सक्षम अधिकारी को लिखित रूप में की जाएगी और सक्षम अधिकारी , आपत्तिकर्ता कोस्वयं सुने जाने का या विधि व्यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपत्तियों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जाँच , यदि कोई हो , करने के पश्चात् जो वह आवश्यक समझता है , वह या तो धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि के या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न टुकड़ों या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आपत्तियों पर अपनी सिफारिशों और उसके द्वारा की गई कार्यवाही के अभिलेख सहित विभिन्न रिपोर्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा ।

3. इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होता यदि भूमि या किसी ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए, जाते ।"

दिप्पण -3 : केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला नियंत्रक, । , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700001 को उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2520 तारीख 11 जून , 1983 द्वारा सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया है । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1993

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

अनुसूत्री

ललमटिया कोल माईनिंग ब्लाक ( सातवाँ चरण )

थाना

सलमटिया

जिला गोड्डा: झारखंड

( रेखांक संख्या ईसीएल/आरजेएमएल/एमओयूजेडए/ एनओटीआई/54 तारीख 21 सितम्बर , 2010 )

थाना : ललमटिया

मौजा/ग्राम

ग्राम संख्यांक क्रम सं.

जिलाः गोड्‌डा

टिप्पणियां क्षेत्र हेक्टर में (लगभग)

3 1. बसडीहा

47 2. हरक्खा

50 3. तालझरी

19 4. केशगडिया

20 5.

48 पहाड़पुर

6. भेरण्डा

49 कुल क्षेत्र

निम्नलिखित में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाटों की संख्या:-

1. मौजाबसड़ीहा:

प्लॉट संख्या: -1

2. मौजा हरक्खा:

क्षेत्र एकड़ में (लगभग)

6 0.33

0.82

भाग 13.64

33.69

भाग 131.59

325.03

भाग 12.40.

30.63

भाग 71.01

175.39

भाग 53.91

133.16

भाग 282,88

698.72

प्लॉट संख्या : 780, 954, 955, 956, 957 , 958 , 959, 960, 967, 968,969, 970, 971 , 972, 973, 1000 , 1001, 1005, 1017 भाग, 1024, 1026, 1027, 1034 भाग, 1035 भाग, 1036 भाग, 1037 भाग, 1038, 1039, 1041 , 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051 , 1052, 1053 भाग 1054, 1055 , 1056, 1057, 1058 , 1059, 1060.

3. मौजा तालझरी:

प्लॉट संख्या 1,2,3,4,5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 , 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23 , 24, 25, 26, 27 , 28 , 29 , 30, 31 , 32, 33 , 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 , 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 , 52, 53 , 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 , 62, 63 , 64,65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 , 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 ,91 , 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 , 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 , 119, 120, 121 , 122, 123 , 124 , 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133 , 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 , 148, 149, 150,151 , 151 , 152, 153, 154 , 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 , 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178 , 179, 180, 181 , 182, 183, 184, 185 , 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191 , 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198 , 199, 200 , 201 , 202,203 , 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214 , 215, 216, 217, 218 , 219, 220, 221 , 222, 223 , 224, 225 , 226, 227, 228 , 229, 230, 231 , 232, 233 , 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241 , 242, 243 , 244 , 2236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241 , 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251 , 252, 253 , 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261 , 262, 263 , 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271 , 272, 273 , 274,275,276, 277,278,279,280, 281 , 282,283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288 , 289, 290, 291 , 292, 293 , 294, 295, 296, 297, 298 , 299, 300, 301 , 302, 303 , 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311 , 312, 313 , 314 , 315 , 316, 317, 318,319, 320, 321 , 322, 323 , 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 , 329, 330 , 331 , 332, 333 , 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341 , 342, 343, 344 , 345, 346, 347 , 348 , 349, 350, 351, 352,353,354,355,356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361 , 362 , 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371,372,373,374,375,376,

399,400,401 , 377,378,379,380,381,382 , 383, 384, 385,386, 387, 388 , 389, 390, 391 , 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398,

402,403 , 404,405, 406, 407, 408 , 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418 , 419, 420, 421 ,422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428,429,430, 431 , 432, 433, 434,435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441 , 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448,449, 450, 451 , 452,453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459,460, 461 , 462,463,464,465,466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 , 472,473,474,475,476, 655/114 1994

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

477,478,479, 480, 481 , 482,483 , 484 , 485 , 486 , 487 , 488 , 489, 490 , 491 , 492 , 493 , 494,495,496 , 497, 498 , 499 , 500 , 501 . 502 , 517 , 518 , 519, 520 , 521 , 522 , 523 , 524 , 525 , 526, 527 , 528 , 529,530,531 , 532, 533 , 534 , 535, 536, 537, 538 , 539 , 540 . 541 , 542 , 543 , 544 , 545 , 546 , 547 , 548 , 549,550,551,552,553 ,550,551,552,553,554,555,556,557 , 558 , 559, 560 , 561 , 562 , 563 , 564, 565, 566 , 567 , 568,569 , 570 , 571 , 572, 573,574,575,576,577 , 578,579 , 580 , 581,582 , 583 , 584,585 , 586 , 587 , 588 , 589 , 590 , 591 , 592 , 593,594 , 595 , 596 , 597 , 598,599 , 600 , 601 , 602, 603 , 604, 605 , 606 , 607 , 608 , 609 , 610, 611 , 612 , 613,614,615 , 616,617,618,619 , 620 , 621,622 , 623 , 624, 625,626 , 627 , 628,629,630 , 631,632 , 633 , 634, 635,636, 637,638,639, 640 . 641,642,643 , 644, 645 , 646, 647, 648, 649, 650 , 651 , 652, 653 , 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661 , 662, 663, 664, 665. 666,667,668,669,670,671,672 , 673,674,675,676,677,678,679, 680, 681,682 , 683 , 684, 685 , 686, 687,688, 689, 690. 691 , 692 , 693 , 694 , 695 , 696 , 697,698 , 699 , 700 , 701 , 702 , 703 , 704 , 705 , 706 , 707 , 708 , 709 , 710 , 711 , 712 , 713 , 714,715 , 716,717,718,719 , 720 , 721 , 722 , 723,724,725,726,727 , 728 , 729, 730 , 731 , 732 , 733,734 , 735 , 736 , 737,738, 739,740. 741 , 742,743,744,745,746,747,748,749,750,751,752,753,754,755,756 .

4. मौजा केशगड़िया :

प्लॉट संख्या 18 भाग, 103 , 104, 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116, 117 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 . 279,280,281.282.

5. मौजा पहाड़पुर

प्लॉट संख्या:- 16 , 47 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57, 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66, 67, 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74,185 , 186, 187, 188、 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219, 220 , 221 , 222 , 223 , 224 , 225, 226, 227, 228 , 229, 230, 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236, 237, 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245 , 246, 247, 248 , 249, 250,251,252,253,254,255,256 , 257 , 258 , 259 , 260 , 261 , 262 , 263 , 264 , 265 , 266 , 267 , 268 , 269 , 270 , 271 , 272,273,274 , 275,276,277,278 , 279 , 280 , 281 , 282 , 283 , 284 , 285 , 286, 287 , 288 , 289, 290 , 291 , 292 , 293 , 294 , 295 , 296, 297 , 298, 299 . 300, 301 , 302 , 303 , 304 , 305, 306 , 307 , 308 , 309 , 310 , 311 , 312, 313 , 314 , 315 , 316, 317, 318 , 319 , 320 , 321 , 322 , 323 , 324 , 325, 326, 327 , 328 , 329 , 330 , 331 , 332, 333 , 334 , 335 , 336 , 337 , 338 , 339 , 340 , 341 , 342, 343 , 344 , 345 , 346, 347,348 , 349 、 350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357 , 358 , 359 , 360 , 361 , 362 , 363 , 364 , 365 , 366 , 367 , 368 , 369 , 370 , 371,372,373,374, 375, 376 , 377, 378 , 379,380,381,382 , 383 , 384, 385 , 386 , 387 , 388 , 389 , 390 , 391 , 392 , 393 , 394, 395 , 396, 397, 398. 399. 400, 401 , 402 , 403 , 404 , 405 , 406 , 407 , 408. 409, 410 , 411 , 412, 413 , 414 , 415 , 416 , 417,418,419 , 420 , 421,422,423.424 . 425, 426,427,428 . 429 , 430, 431 , 432 , 433 , 434,435 , 436 , 437 , 438 , 439 , 440, 441 , 442 , 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448,449, 450 , 451,452,453 , 454, 455, 456 , 457,458,459,460, 461 , 462, 463 , 464 , 465 , 466, 467 , 468 , 469 , 470 , 471 , 472,473,474. 5,476,477.478.479,480,481,482,483 , 484, 485 , 486 , 487 , 488 , 489 , 490 , 491 , 492 , 493 , 494, 495. 496, 497,498 , 499, 500, 501,502, 503 , 504 , 505 , 506 , 507 , 508 , 509 , 510 , 511 , 512 , 513 , 514 , 515 , 516 , 517 , 518 , 519 , 520, 521,522,523,524 , 525,526,527,528 , 529 , 530 , 531 , 532,533,534,535,536,537,538,539 , 540 , 541 , 542 , 543 , 544 , 545 , 546,547,548 , 549 . 550,551,552 553 , 554 , 555 , 556 , 557,558,559,560,561,562 , 563 , 564 , 565 , 566 , 567, 568 , 569 , 570 , 571,572,573.574. 575,576,577.578 , 579 , 580, 581,582, 583 , 584, 585 , 586 , 587,588,589 , 590. 593 , 594 , 598 , 599 , 600 , 601,602,603,604 、 605.606.607.608,609,610,611,612,613,614,615,616,617,618,619, 620 , 621 , 622 , 623 , 624 , 625, 626,627,628,629 , 631,632.636.637,638,639. 483,484,4

6. जौजा भेरण्डा :

प्लॉट संख्या: 1,2,3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9, 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16, 17 , 18 , 19, 20 , 21 , 22, 23 , 24 , 25 , 26, 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31.32.33 . 34, 35, 36, 37 38, 39 , 40, 41 , 42, 43, 44 , 45 , 46, 47 , 48, 49, 50, 51 , 52, 53 , 54, 55 , 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65, 66, 67 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97, 98.99 . 100,101,102,103,104,105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115 , 116 , 117, 118, 119 , 120, 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125. 126. 127, 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134, 135 , 136 , 137, 138 , 139, 140, 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146, 147 , 148 , 149, 150 , 151 , 152, 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159, 160, 161 , 162, 163 , 164 , 169 , 170, 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 . 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187, 188 , 189, 190 , 191 , 192, 193 , 194 , 195 , 242.265,267,268,269,270,271,272 , 273 . 274,275,276,277,278,279 , 280, 281 , 282 , 283 , 284 , 285 , 286 , 287 , 288 , 289 , 290 , 291 , 292 , 293 , 294, 295 , 296 , 297 , 298 , 299 , 300, 301 , 302, 303 , 304 , 305 , 306, 307, 308 , 309, 310, 311 , 312 , 313 , 314, 315 , 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 , 322 , 323. 324, 325, 326, 327 , 328 , 329 , 330, 331 , 332 , 333 , 334 , 335 , 336 , 337,338,339 , 340 , 341 , 342 , 343 , 344 , 345 , 346, 347, 348. 349,350,351,352, 353 .

कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 7 ( 1 ) के अधीन ललमटिया कोल माईनिंग ब्लॉक ( सातवाँ चरण ) के अन्तर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले क्षेत्र का सीमा विवरण ।

सीमा विवरण ( क 1 से क 20 )

( क । सेक 2 ) नौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 एवं मौजा केशगरिया सं. 20 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु का से शुरू होकर रेखा उपरोक्त सांझा सीमा से होते हुए मौजा केशगरिया सं. 20 , तलझारी सं. 19 एवं बड़ा भोड़ाय के त्रिसंगम को पार कर पुनः मौजा [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1995

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 एवं तलझारी सं. 19 के साझा सीमा होते हुए मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 , तलझारी 19 एवं बसडीहा सं. 47 के त्रिसंगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क2 पर मिलती है ।

( क 2-क 3 ) मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 , तलझारी सं. 19 एवं बसडीहा 47 के त्रिसंगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क 2 से शुरू होकर मौजा तलझारी सं. 19 एवं बसडीहा सं. 47 के सांझा सीमा होते हुए मौजा तलझारी सं. 19 , बसडीहा सं. 47 एवं पहाड़पुर सं. 48 के त्रिसंगम पर स्थित बिन्दु कउ पर मिलती है ।

(क 3 क 4) मौजा तलझारी सं. 19 , बसडीहा सं. 47 एवं मौजा पहाड़पुर सं. 48 के त्रिसंगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क3 से शुरू होकर मौजा बसडीहा सं. 47 एवं मौजा पहाड़पुर के सांझा सीमा होते हुए मौजा बसडीहा सं. 47 , पहाड़पुर सं . 48 एवं भेरण्डा सं. 49 के त्रिसंगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क4 पर मिलती है ।

(क 4-क 5) मौजा बसडीहा सं. 47 , पहाड़पुर सं. 48 एवं भेरण्डा सं. 49 के त्रिसंगम स्थित बिन्दु क 4 से शुरू होकर मौजा बसडीहा सं. 47 एवं भेरण्डा सं. 49 के सांझा सीमा होते हुए मौजा बसडीहा सं. 47 एवं भेरण्डा सं. 49 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क.5 पर मिलती है ।

(क 5--क 6 ) मौजा बसडीहा सं. 47 एवं भेरण्डा सं. 49 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु कऽ से शुरू होकर मौजा भेरण्डा सं. 49 एवं बसडीहा सं. 47 , के सांझा सीमा से शुरू होते हुए बसडीहा सं. 47 , भेरण्डा सं. 49 एवं हरक्खा सं . 50 के त्रिसंगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क 6 पर मिलती है ।

(क 6 क 7) मौजा बसडीहा सं . 47 भेरण्डा सं. 49 एवं हरक्खा सं. 50 के त्रिसंगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क 6 से शुरू होकर मौजा भेरण्डा सं. 49 एवं हरक्खा सं. 50 के सांझा सीमा होते हुए मौजा बसडीहा सं. 47 एवं हरक्खा सं. 50 के सांझा सीमा स्थित बिन्दु का पर मिलती है ।

(क 7-क 8 ) मौजा बसडीहा सं . 47 एवं हरक्खा सं . 50 के सांझा सीमा स्थित बिन्दु का से शुरू होकर प्लॉट सं. 1053 को पार कर प्लॉट सं. 1041 के पश्चिमी सीमा होते हुए हरक्खा मौजा सं. 50 के प्लॉट सं. 1039 के दक्षिणी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क४ पर मिलती है ।

( क 8 क 9 ) मौजा हरक्खा सं. 50 के प्लॉट सं. 1039 के दक्षिणी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क 8 से शुरू होकर उसी प्लॉट दक्षिणी सीमा से होते हुए प्लॉट सं. 1037 , 1036 , 1035 , 1034 को पार कर पुनः प्लॉट सं. 1026 एवं 1024 के दक्षिणी सीमा होते हुए प्लॉट सं. 1017 सड़क को पार कर पुनः प्लॉट सं. 960 , 959 , 958 , 957 के दक्षिणी सीमा होते हुए प्लॉट सं. 967 के दक्षिणी पूर्वी सीमा होते हुए , प्लॉट सं. 968 के दक्षिणी सीमा होते हुए प्लॉट सं. 968 , 972 , 1001 एवं 1002 के संगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क० पर मिलती है ।

(क 9 क 10) प्लॉट सं. 968 , 972 , 1001 एवं 1002 के संगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क ० से शुरू होकर , रेखा प्लॉट सं. 1001 के पूर्वी सीमा होते प्लॉट सं. 1005 के पूर्वी दक्षिणी सीमा होते हुए हरक्खा मौजा सं. 50 के प्लॉट सं. 990 , 1005 एवं 1006 के संगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क 10 पर मिलती है ।

(क 10 क 11 ) मौजा हरक्खा सं. 50 के प्लॉट सं. 990 , 1005 , 1006 के संगम स्थित बिन्दु क 10 से शुरू होकर रेखा प्लॉट सं. 1000 , 1001 , 1005 एवं 973 के पश्चिमी सीमा होते हुए हरक्खा मौजा 50 के प्लॉट सं. 973 के उत्तरी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क11 पर मिलती है ।

( क 11 -क 12 ) मौजा हरक्खा सं . 50 के प्लॉट सं. 973 के उत्तरी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क 11 से शुरू होकर प्लॉट सं . 973 , 956 , 955 एवं 954 के उत्तरी सीमा होते हुए प्लॉट सं. 1017 को पार कर प्लॉट सं. 1027 के उत्तरी सीमा होकर प्लॉट सं. 1034 को पार कर प्लॉट 1035 , 1036 , 1037 , 1038 , 1043 , 780 , 1048 , 1049 , 1050 के उत्तरी सीमा होकर प्लॉट 1054 को पार कर प्लाट सं. 1060 , 1059 के उत्तरी सीमा से होकर मौजा हरक्खा 50 एवं भेरण्डा 49 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क12 पर मिलती है ।

(क 12 क 13 ) मौजा हरक्खा सं. 50 एवं भेरण्डा सं. 49 के साझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु पर क 12 से शुरू होकर रेखा उक्त मौजा सांझा से होते हुए हरक्खा सं . 50 के प्लॉट सं. 1074 के दक्षिणी सीमा स्थित बिन्दु क13 पर मिलती है । (क 13-क 14) मौजा हरक्खा सं . 50 के प्लॉट सं . 1074 के दक्षिणी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क13 से शुरू होकर मौजा भेरण्डा सं. 49 के प्लॉट सं. 84 को पार कर प्लॉट 205 , 204 , 97 , 196 , 223 , 226 , 227 , 228 , 229 , 236 , 241 , 243 एवं 240 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होते हुए भेरण्डा मौजा के प्लॉट सं. 244 , 169 , 168 के संगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क 14 पर मिलती है । [ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 1996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(का' 14 -क 15 ) मौजा भेरण्डा सं. 49 के प्लॉट सं. 244 , 169 एवं 168 के संगम पर स्थित बिन्दु पर क 14 से शुरू होकर रेखा प्लॉट सं. 168 , 257 के पश्चिमी दक्षिणी सीमा होकर , प्लॉट सं. 258 अंश के पश्चिमी सीमा पर प्लॉट सं. 259 अंश के उत्तरी सीमा प्लॉट 261 के उत्तर- पश्चिमी सीमा प्लॉट सं. 262 के पश्चिमी , प्लॉट सं. 263 के पश्चिमी दक्षिणी , प्लॉट सं. 264 अंश के पश्चिमी सीमा 266 के पश्चिमी दक्षिणी सीमा होते हुए प्लॉट सं. 269 सड़क को पार कर , मौजा पहाड़पुर सं. 48 के प्लॉट सं. 42 , 43 एवं 44 के पश्चिमी सीमा , प्लॉट सं. 44 एवं 45 के दक्षिणी सीमा के प्लॉट सं. 38 , 48 , 49 , 52 एवं 75 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होते हुए प्लॉट सं. 75 , 84 , 88 , 74 के संगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क15 पर मिलती है । (क 15-क 16 ) मौजा पहाड़पुर-48 प्लॉट सं. 75 , 84 , 88 ,74 के संगम स्थित बिन्दु क 15 से शुरू होकर प्लॉट सं. ४४ , १५ , १ 183,184,182 , 191 के पश्चिमी सीमा प्लॉट सं. 186 , 187 , 188 के उत्तरी सीमा प्लॉट सं. 189 , 197 , 202 , 203 , 171 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होते हुए प्लॉट सं. 171 , 206 , 207 , 208 के संगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क16 पर मिलती है । क 16-क 17) मौजा पहाड़पुर -48 प्लॉट सं. 171 , 206 , 207 , 208 के संगम पर स्थित बिन्दु क 16 से शुरू होकर रेखा, पतार सं.. 169 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होते हुए प्लॉट सं. 123 सड़क को पार कर प्लॉट सं. 590 अंश के उत्तरी सीमा प्लॉट सं. ८ . 592 , 595 , 596 , 597 ,640 , 635 के पश्चिमी , प्लॉट सं. 635 , 634 के दक्षिणी सीमा , प्लॉट सं. 633 , 6 : 0 के पश्चिमी , प्लॉट सं. 786 , 787 के पश्चिमी प्लॉट सीमा होते हुए मौजा तलझारी 19 के प्लॉट सं. 503 , 511 , 512.51.3 के पश्चिमी सीमा होते हुए प्लॉट सं. 516 को पार कर मौजा तलझारी -19 , केशगरिया -20 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित विन्दु क 17 पर मिलती है ।

( 17 क 18 ) मौआ तलझारी सं . 19 एवं केशगरिया सं. 20 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क17 से शुरू होकर , रेखा उक्त मौका उ सांझा सीमा से होते हुए उसी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क 18 पर मिलती है ।

( 18 क 19 ) मौजा तलझारी सं. 19 एवं केशगरिया सं. 20 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क18 से शुरू होकर , केशरिया प्लॉट के उत्तरी पूर्वी सीमा , प्लॉट सं. 135, 134 , 133 , 132 , 130 के पूर्वी सीमा एवं प्लॉट सं. 130 , 131 , 117 , 104.503 . 282 के दक्षिणी सीमा से होते हुए मौजा तलझारी सं. 19 एवं केशगरिया सं. 20 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु का मिलती है ।

(क 19-क 20 ) मौजा तलझारी सं. 19 एवं केशगरिया सं. 20 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क19 से शुरू होकर रेखा उक्त मौजा के झा सीमा से होते हुए उसी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क21) पर मिलती है ।

( क 20 क 1 ) मौजा तलझारी सं. 19 एवं केशगरिया सं. 20 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क20 से शुरू होकर रेखा केशरिया स के प्लॉट सं. 18 को पार कर मौजा केशगरिया सं. 20 एवं बड़ा भौड़ाय सं. 18 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु कर मिलती है ।

सीमा विवरण ( ख 1 से ख 3 )

(ख 1 -ख 2 ) मौजा लोहिण्डया बाजार सं. 45 , हरक्खा सं . 50 एवं बसडीहा सं. 47 के त्रिसंगम पर स्थित बिन्दु ख। से शुरू होकर, रेखा मौजा लोहिण्डया बाजार सं. 45 , बसडीहा सं. 47 के सांझा सीमा होते हुए उक्त सांझा सीमा स्थित बिन्दु ख 2 पर मिलती है ।

( ख 2-ख 3 ) मौजा लोहिण्डया बाजार सं. 45 , एवं बसडीहा सं. 47 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु खा2 से शुरू होकर रेखा बसडीहा सं. 47 के प्लॉट सं. 1 के दक्षिणी सीमा से होकर मौजा बसडीहा सं. 47 हरक्खा सं. 50 के सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु ख३ पर मिलती है ।

( ख 3-ख 1 ) मौजा बसडीहा सं. 47 एवं हरक्खा सं. 50 के सांझा सीमा स्थित बिन्दु खउ से शुरू होकर उक्त मौजा के सांझा सीमा से होते हुए मौजा बसडीहा सं. 47 एवं हरक्खा सं. 50 एवं लोहिण्डया सं. 45 के त्रिसंगम पर स्थित बिन्दु ख। पर मिलती है ।

[ फा. सं. 43015 /29 / 2009- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू. - । ]

एस. सी. भाटिया, निदेशक

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 22nd February , 2011

S.O. 672. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1701 dated the 30th June , 2010 issued under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 ( 20 of 1957 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), and published in the Gazette of India Part - II , Section - 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) dated the 4th July, 2010, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 282.88 1997 [ भाग ] ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

hectares ( approximately ) or 698.72 acres ( approximately) of the land in the locality specified in the schedule annexed to that notification;

Andwhereas , the Central Government is satisfied that Coal is obtainable in a part of the said land prescribed inthe schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 282.88 hectares ( approximately ) or 698.72 acres (approximately ) and all rights in or over the said land described in the schedule appended hereto .

Note 1 .

The plan bearing number ECL / RJML / MOUZA / NOTI / 54 dated the 21st September , 2010 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected at the office of the Deputy Commissioner , District Godda (Jharkhand) , or at the office of the Coal Controller , 1, Council House Street , Kolkata ~ 700001 or at the office ofthe Director Technical ( Operation ) , Eastern Coalfields Limited , Sanctoria , P.O. Dishergarh , District- Burdwan(West Bengal ) -713 333 .

Note 2.

Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows :-

Objection to acquisition :

" 8( 1 ) Any persons interested in any land in respect of which a notification under Section 7 has been issued , may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification , object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or any rights in or over such land .

Explanation:--

1. It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires to undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be undertaken by the Central Government orby any other person .

2. Every objection under sub - section ( 1 ) shall be made to the competent authority in writing , and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall , after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any , as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 or of rights in or over such land , or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central Government , containing his recommendations on the objections , together with the record of the proceedings held by him , for the decision of that Government .

3. For the purposes of this section , a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act . " Note3 .

The Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 has been appointed by the Central Government as the competent authority under Section 3 of the said Act , vide Notification number S.O. 2520 dated the 11th June , 1983 .

SCHEDULE

Lalmatia Coal Mining Block ( Phase VII)

Thana - Lalmatia

District -Godda , Jharkhand

(Plan bearing number ECL /RJML / MOUZA/NOTI / 54 dated the 21st September , 2010 ) Thana : Lalmatia

District: Gooda

Remarks Village Number

Sl . No.

Mouza / Village

Area in hectares

(approximately)

Area in acres (approximately) .

6 47

0.33

0.82

Part 1. Bansdiha

2. Harakkha

13.64

33.69

Part 19

Part

325.03

131.59

3. Taljhari

30.63

12.40

Part Keshgaria

175.39

71.01

Part 5. Paharpur

133.16

53.91

Part Bharanda

TotalArea:

282.88

698.72

Plot numbers to be acquired in :

1998

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14, 1932

1. Mouza Bansdiha :

Plotnumbers:

2. Mouza Harakkha : -1

Plotnumbers:-780,954,955,956,957,958,959,960,967,968,969,970,971,972,973 , 1000, 1001 , 1005 , 1017 Part , 102-4. 1026, 1027, 1034 Part, 1035 Part, 1036 Part, 1037 Part, 1038 , 1039 , 1041 , 1042, 1043, 1044 , 1045 , 1046, 1047, 1048 , 1049 , 1050, 1051 , 1052, 1053 Part , 1054, 1055 , 1056, 1057, 1058 , 1059 , 1060..

3. MouzaTaljhari :

253,254,255,256, 257, 258, 259, 260 , 261 , 262, 263 , 264, 265 , 260 , 267. 268,269, 270, 271 , 272, 273 , 274,275,276 , 277, 278,279,280,281 , 282 , 283 , 284 , 285 , 286, 287, 288,289.290 , 1,202,293,294,295 . 296, 297, 298 , 299, 300, 301 , 302 , 328, 329, 330, 331 , 332, 333 , 334, 335, 336, 337, 338 , 339, 340 , 341 , 342 , 343 , 344, 345 , 346, 347,348 , 349, 350 , 351 , 352 .

353,354,355,356. 357, 358, 359 , 360 , 361 , 362, 363 , 364, 365, 366, 367, 368 , 369 , 370, 371,372,373, 374,375,376, 377, 378,379,380,381,382 , 383 , 384, 385,386 , 387 , 388 , 389 , 390 , 391,392, 393, 394, 395 , 396, 397, 398 , 399, 400 , 401, 402. 152, 153 , 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 , 159, 160, 161 , 162, 163 , 164 , 165, 166,167, 168, 169 , 170, 171 , 172, 173 , 174, 175, 176 , 177, 178 , 179, 180, 181 , 182, 183 , 184, 185, 186, 187 , 188, 189, 190 191 , 192, 193 , 194 , 195, 196, 197, 198 , 199, 200, 201,202 , 203 , 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 , 212 , 213 , 214, 215, 216 , 217, 218 , 219, 220 , 221 , 222, 223 , 224 , 225 , 226,227. 228, 229, 230, 231 , 232 , 233 , 234, 235, 236 , 237, 238, 239,240, 241 , 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247 , 248 , 249, 250,251,252, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311 , 312, 313,314,315 316, 317, 318 , 319, 320, 321 , 322, 323 , 324.325,326,327 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412, 413 , 414, 415 , 416, 417, 418 , 419, 420, 421 , 422, 423 , 424, 425, 426,427, 428,429,430, 431 , 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439,440 , 441 , 442, 443 , 444 , 445, 446, 447, 448 , 449, 450,451,452, 453,454,455,456,457, 458, 459,460, 461 ,462, 463.464, 465 , 466 ,467 , 468 , 469 , 470 , 471 , 472,473,474,475,476,477. 478,479,480,481 , 482, 483,484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491,492, 493 , 494 , 495, 496, 497, 498 , 499 , 500 , 501,502 . 517 , 518,519 , 520, 521 , 522, 523 , 524, 525 , 526, 527, 528 , 529 , 530, 531 , 532 , 533 , 534 , 535, 536,537, 538 , 539, 540,541 . 542, 543, 544, 545 , 546, 547, 548, 549, 550 , 551 , 552,553,554,555,556, 557 , 558 , 559 , 560, 561,562 , 563 , 564, 565 , 566. 567, 568,569 , 570, 571,572,573,574,575, 576, 577,578,579 , 580, 581 , 582, 583 , 584 , 585 , 586 , 587 , 588, 589 , 590, 591 . 592, 593 , 594,595, 596, 597 , 598, 599, 600, 601 , 602, 603 , 604, 605, 606, 607, 608 , 609,610,611,612,613,614,615,616 , 617,618,619 , 620, 621 , 622, 623, 624, 625 , 626, 627, 628,629,630, 631,632,633,634 , 635, 636, 637 , 638,639,640,641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646,647,648, 649, 650, 651 , 652, 653 , 654, 655, 656, 657, 658 , 659, 660, 661 , 662, 663,664,665,666 , 667, 668,669,670, 671 , 672,673 , 674, 675,676,677,678,679,680,681,682, 683 , 684,685,686,687, 688 , 689, 690 , 691 , 692,693,694,695, 696, 697,698 , 699, 700 , 701 , 702, 703 , 704, 705 , 706, 707, 708, 709,710,711,712, 713,714,715,716, 717,718,719,720 , 721 , 722, 723,724,725,726,727, 728 , 729, 730, 731 , 732, 733,734, 735, 736, 737 , 738 , 739 , 740, 741 . 742,743,744,745 , 746, 747 , 748 , 749, 750 , 751,752,753,754,755,756 .

4. Mouza Keshgaria :

Plotnumbers:-18 Part, 103 , 104, 105, 106, 107 , 108, 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115, 116, 117 , 130, 131 , 132, 133 , 134, 135,279,280,281,282 .

5.Mouza Paharpur :

250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255 , 256 , 257 , 258 , 259, 260, 261 , 262 , 263,264, 265 , 266 ,267 , 268 , 269 ,270,271,272,273,274 .

275,276,277,278, 279, 280, 281 , 282, 283, 284 , 285, 286, 287, 288 , 289, 290, 291 , 292, 293 , 294 , 295 , 296, 297, 298, 299 , Plotnumbers:-46,47, 53 , 54, 55 , 56, 57, 58 , 59, 60 , 61 , 62, 63 , 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 , 72 , 73 , 74,185, 186, 187, 188 , 198 , 199, 200, 201 , 204, 205 , 206, 207, 208 , 209 , 210, 211 , 212 , 213 , 214, 215 , 216 , 217, 218 , 219 ,220 , 221 , 222, 223.224. 225, 226, 227, 228 , 229, 230, 231 , 232, 233 , 234 , 235 , 236, 237 , 238, 239, 240, 241 , 242 , 243 , 244, 245, 246, 247 , 248 , 249, 300, 301 , 302, 303, 304, 305 , 306, 307, 308 , 309 , 310, 311 , 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318 , 319, 320, 321 , 322, 323 , 324. 325, 326, 327, 328 , 329, 330, 331 , 332, 333 , 334, 335, 336, 337, 338,339, 340, 341 , 342, 343 , 344, 345 , 346, 347,348, 349 , 350,351,352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358 , 359, 360, 361 , 362, 363,364, 365, 366 , 367, 368 , 369, 370 , 371,372,373,374 , 375,376,377,378, 379, 380,381 , 382, 383 , 384, 385, 386, 387, 388 , 389, 390, 391,392, 393,394, 395 , 396 , 397, 398, 399. 400,401,402,403, 404,405,406, 407,408 , 409,410, 411 ,412, 413 , 414 , 415,416,417,418,419 ,420 , 421 , 422 , 423, 424 . 425, 426, 427 ,428, 429, 430, 431 , 432, 433 , 434, 435, 436, 437, 438 , 439, 440, 441 , 442, 443 , 444, 445 , 446,447,448,449 , 450, 451,452, 453 , 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459,460, 461 , 462, 463 , 464, 465, 466, 467 , 468 , 469, 470, 471 , 472,473,474 . 475,476,477,478, 479, 480,481 , 482, 483 , 484, 485, 486, 487, 488 ,489, 490, 491 , 492, 493 , 494, 495 , 496,497, 498, 499, 1999 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

500 , 501 , 502 , 503 , 504, 505 , 506, 507, 508 , 509, 510, 511 , 512, 513 , 514, 515 , 516, 517, 518 , 519, 520, 521 , 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531 , 532, 533 , 534, 535, 536, 537, 538 , 539, 540, 541 , 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551 , 552, 553 , 554, 555,556, 557, 558 , 559 , 560, 561 , 562, 563 , 564, 565 , 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571 , 572, 573,574, 575,576,577,578,579 , 580 , 581 , 582 , 583, 584 , 585, 586, 587,588,589, 590, 593, 594, 598, 599, 600, 601 , 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608 , 609 , 610 , 611 , 612, 613,614,615,616,617,618,619, 620 , 621 , 622, 623, 624, 625, 626,627, 628, 629, 631,632, 636, 637,638,639 .

6. Mouza Bharanda :

Plot numbers : -1 , 2, 3 , 4 , 5, 6 , 7 , 8, 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14, 15, 16, 17 , 18 , 19, 20 , 21 , 22 , 23, 24, 25 , 26, 27 , 28 , 29, 30, 31 , 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 , 38, 39, 40, 41 , 42, 43 , 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 , 49, 50, 51 , 52, 53 , 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 , 61 , 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76, 77 , 78 , 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 84, 85 , 86 , 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 , 92, 93 , 94, 95 , 96, 97, 98, 99 , 100,101,102,103 , 104, 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109, 110 , 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115 , 116, 117 , 118 , 119, 120, 121 , 122, 123 , 124, 125, 126, 127 , 128 , 129, 130, 131 , 132, 133 , 134, 135 , 136, 137, 138, 139 , 140, 141 , 142, 143 , 144, 145 , 146, 147 , 148 , 149, 150, 151 , 152, 153 , 154, 155 , 156, 157 , 158 , 159 , 160, 161 , 162, 163 , 164 , 169, 170, 171 , 172, 173 , 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 , 182, 183 , 184, 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189, 190 , 191 , 192, 193 , 194 , 195 , 242, 265,267,268,269,270,271,272,273 , 274,275,276,277,278,279,280, 281 , 282 , 283 , 284, 285 , 286, 287 , 288 , 289, 290 , 291 , 292, 293 , 294 , 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301 , 302 , 303 , 304, 305 , 306 , 307 , 308 , 309, 310 , 311 , 312 , 313 , 314 , 315, 316, 317 , 318 , 319, 320 , 321 , 322, 323 , 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 , 329 , 330 , 331 , 332 , 333 , 334, 335, 336, 337 , 338 , 339, 340, 341 , 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347,348, 349,350,351,352,353 .

Boundary Description of the area falling under Lalmatia Coal Mining Block (Phase VII) to be notified under Section 7 (1 ) of the CBA ( A& D) Act , 1957 .

Boundary Description ( A1 to A 20 ) :

A1 -A2

Line starts from Point Al on common boundary of Mouza Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Keshgaria No. 20 Passes through the common boundary of Mouza Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Keshgaria No. 20 crosses the tri -junction pillar of Mouza , Keshgaria No. 20 , Taljhari No. 19 and Bara Bhorai No. 18 , again passes through the common Mouza boundary of Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Taljhari No. 19 and meets at PointA2 ontri -junction pillar of Mouza Bara Bhorai No. 18 , Taljhari No. 19 and Bansdiha No.47.

A2-A3

Line starts from Point A2 on tri -junction pillar of Mouza Bara Bhorai No. 18 , Taljhari No. 19 and Bansdiha No. 47; passes through the common Mouza Boundary of Taljhari No. 19 and Bansdiha No. 47 and meets at Point No : A3 on tri -junction pillar ofTaljhari No. 19, Bansdiha No. 47 and Paharpur No. 48 .

A3-A4

Line starts from Point A3 on tri -junction pillar of Mouza Taljhari No. 19 , Bansdiha No. 47 and Paharpur No. 48; passes through the common Mouza boundary of Basdiha No. 47 and Paharpur No. 48 and meets at Point No. A4 on tri -junction pillar of Mouza Bansdiha No. 47 , Paharpur No. 48 and Bharanda No. 49 .

A4-A5

Line starts from Point No. A4 on tri -junction pillar of Mouza Bansdiha No. 47 , Paharpur No. 48 and Bharanda No. 49; passes through the common boundary of Bansdiha No. 47 and Bharanda No. 49 ; meets at Point A5 on the common Mouza boundary of Bansdiha No. 47 and Bharanda No. 49.

A5-A6

Line starts from point A5 on common Mouza boundary of Bansdiha No. 47 and Bharanda No.49 ; passes through the common Mouza boundary of Bansdiha No. 47 and Bharanda No. 49 and meetsat Point A6 on tri -junction pillar of Mouza Bansdiha No. 47 , Bharanda No. 49 and Harrakha No. 50 .

A6-A7

Line starts from point No. A6 on tri -junction Pillar of Mouza Bansdiha No.47 , Bharanda No. 49 and Harrakha No. 50 ; passes through the common Mouza boundary of Bansdiha No. 47 and Harrakha No. 50; meets at Point No. A7 on common Mouza boundary of Bansdiha No. 47 and Harrakha No. 50 .

A7 -A8

Line starts from Point No. A 7 on common Mouza boundary of Bansdiha No. 47 and Harrakha No. 50 ; crosses the road on Plot No. 1053 ; passes through the western boundary of Plot No. 1041 and meets at Point No. A8 on southern boundary of Plot No. 1039 in Mouza Harrakha No. 50 .

A8 -A9

Line starts from Point No. A8 on southern boundary of Plot No. 1039 in Mouza Harrakha No. 50 ; passes through the southern boundary of Plot No. 1039 ; crosses the plot No. 1037 , 1036 , 1035 , 1034; again passes through southern boundary of Plot No. 1026 , 1024 ; crosses the road on Plot No. 1017; passes through southern boundary of Plot No. 960 , 959 , 958 , 957 ; eastern and southern boundary of Plot No. 967 , southern boundary of Plot No. 968 and meets at Point No.A9 at the junction of Plot No. 968, 972 , 1001 and 1002 .

2000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] A9-A10

Line starts from Point No. A9 passes through the eastern boundary of Plot No. 1001 ; eastern and southern boundary ofPlot No. 1005 ; meets on Point A 10 at the junction of Plot No. 990, 1005 and 1006 in Mouza Harrakha No. 50 .

A10-A11

Line starts from Point No. A 10 ; passes through western boundary of Plot No. 1000 , 1001 , 1005,973 ; and meets at Point No. A11 on northern boundary of Plot No. 973 in mouza Harrakha No. 50 .

A11 -A12

"Line starts from Point No. A11 on Northern boundary of plot No. 973 in mouza Harrakha No. 50 ; passes through the northern boundary of Plot No.973 , 956 , 955 , 954; crosses the road on Plot No. 1017; passes through the northern boundary of Plot No. 1027 ; crosses the Plot No. 1034; passes through the northern boundary of Plot No. 1035 , 1036 , 1037 1038 , 1043,780,1048,1049 , 1050 ; crosses the Plot No. 1054; passes through northern boundary of 1060 , 1059 ; and meets at the Point no . A12 on common mouza boundary of Harrakha No. 50 and Bharanda No. 49 .

A12 -A13

Line starts from A12 on the common Mouza boundary of Harrakha No. 50 and Bharanda No. 49; passes through the common Mouza Boundary of Harrakha No. 50 and Bharanda No. 49 and meets at Point No. A13 on southern boundary of Plot No. 1074 of Mouza Harrakha No. 50.

A13 -A14

Line starts from point No. A13 and crosses Plot No. 84 of Mouza Bhiranda No. 49 and passes along western boundary ofplot no . 205 , 204 , 198, 197 , 196, 223 , 226 , 227 , 228 , 229 , 236, 241 , 243 , 244 and meets atpoint no . A14 at the junction of plot No. 244,169 , 168 of Mouza Bhiranda No. 49 .

A14-A15

Line starts from A14 and passes along western and southern boundary of Plot No. 168 , 257 ; western boundary (Part ) of Plot No. 258 , Northern boundary ( Part) of Plot No. 259 , northern and western boundary of Plot No. 261 ; western boundary of Plot No. 262 ; western and southern boundary of Plot No. 263 ; western boundary ( Part) of Plot No. 264; western and southern boundary of Plot No. 266 and crosses the road on Plot No. 269 of Mouza Bhiranda No. 49 and the line enters the Mouza Paharpur No. 48. The line passes along the western boundary of Plot No. 42 , 43 , 44 and also southern boundary ofPlot No. 44 & 45 ; again passes along the western boundary of Plot No. 38 , 48 , 49, 52 and 75 ofMouz! Paharpur No. 48 and meets the point No. Al5 at the junction of Plot Nos . 75 , 84 , 88 and 74 of Mouza Paharpur No. 48.

A15 - A16

Line starts from the Point No. Als situated on junction of plot no . 75 , 84, 88 , 74 of Mouza Paharpur - 48 and passes along the western boundary of Plot No. 88 , 89 , 91 , 184 , 183 , 182 , 191 and again passes along northern boundary of Plot No. 186 , 187 , 188 and along western boundary of Plot No. 189 , 197 , 202 , 203 , 171 and meets at point no . A16 situated on junction of 171 , 206 , 207 , 208 .

A16-A17

Line starts from point no . Al6 situated on junction of 171 , 206 , 207 , 208 of Mouza Paharpur --48 ; passes through the western boundary of plot No. 170,169 and crosses plot No. 123 ( road ) and passes through northern boundary of plot No. 590 & western boundary of plot No. 591 , 592, 595 , 596, 597 , 640 , 635 and southern boundary of plot No. 635 , 634 and western boundary ofplot No. 633,630 , and south western boundary ofplot No. 786, 787; and again passes through western boundary of plot No. 503 , 511 , 512 , 513 , crosses plot No. 516 of Mouza Tajhari - 19 and meets at point No. A17 situated on common boundary ofMouza Taljhari - 19 and Keshgaria - 20 .

A17 -A18

The line starts from point A17 , passes along the common boundary of Mouza Taljhari No. 19 and Keshgaria No. 20 and meets at Point No. A18 on the common Mouza boundary of Taljhari No. 19 and Keshgaria No. 20

A18 -A19

Line starts from the Point A18 on common Mouza boundary of Taljhari No. 19 and Keshgaria No. 20: passess through north eastern boundary of Plot No. 135 , eastern boundary of Plot No. 135 , 134 , 133, 132 , 130 and southern boundary of Plot No. 130 , 131 , 117 , 104 , 103 , 282 ; and meets at Point No. A 19 on the common Mouza boundary of Keshgaria No. 20 and Taljhari No. 19 .

A19-A20

Line starts from the Point A19 on common Mouza boundary of Taljhari No. 19 and Keshgaria No. 20 ; passes through the common Mouza boundary of Taljhari No. 19 and Keshgaria No. 20 and meets at Point No. A20 on the common Mouza boundary ofTaljhari No. 19 and Keshgaria No. 20 .

A20 -A1

Line starts from Point No. A20 on common Mouza boundary of Taljhari No. 19 and Keshgaria No. 20; crosses the Plot No. 18 of Mouza Keshgaria No. 20 and meets at the Point No. Al on common Mouza boundary of Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Keshgaria No. 20 .

Boundary Description (B1 - B3) :

B1 -B2

Line starts from the Point No. B1 on tri -junction pillar of Mouza Lohandia Bazar No. 45 , Harrakha No. 50 and Bansdiha No. 47 ; passes through the common Mouza boundary of Lohandia No. 45 and 2001 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

Bansdiha No. 47 and meets at the Point No. B2 on common Mouza boundary of Lohandia No. 45 and Bansdiha No. 47.

B2-B3 Line starts from the Point No. B2 on common Mouza boundary of Lohandia No. 45 and Bansdiha No. 47, passes through the southern boundary of Plot No. 1 in Mouza Bansdiha No. 47 meets at point B3 on common boundary ofBansdiha No. 47 and Harrakha No. 50 .

B3-BI

Line starts from the Point No. B3 on common Mouza boundary of Bansdiha No. 47 and Harrakha No. 50, Passes through the common Mouza boundary of Bansdia No. 47 and Harrakha No. 50 meets at the Point No. Bl on tri -junction Pillar ofMouza Bansdiha No. 47, Harrakha No. 50 and Lohandia No. 45 .

[F.No. 43015/29/2009 -PRIW- I]

S. C. BHATIA , Director

नई दिल्ली , 23 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 673.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला मंत्रालय धारक क्षेत्र को ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय के द्वारा जारी की गई अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 2109 तारीख 19 अगस्त, 2010 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप खंड ( ii ) तारीख 28 अगस्त, 2010 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि और उस पर के सभी अधिकारों का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और मध्य प्रदेश सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 536.551 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1325.81 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाने चाहिए ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 536.551 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1325.81 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते हैं ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/ बीएसपी /सीजीएम ( पीएलजी ) भूमि/399 , तारीख 15 नवम्बर, 2010 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , शहडोल और अनुपपुर (मध्य प्रदेश ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर-495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

बकही ब्लाक दूसरा विस्तार , सोहागपुर क्षेत्र, जिला-शहडोल और अनुपपुर ( मध्य प्रदेश )

[रेखांक संख्या- एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/सीजीएम (पीएलजी ) भूमि/399 , तारीख 15 नवम्बर , 2010 ] सभी अधिकार :

(क ) राजस्व भूमि: -

टिप्पणी

जिला

तहसील

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

पटवारी हल्का संख्या

बन्दोबस्त संख्या

ग्राम का नाम

क्रम सं

भाग

93.512

शहडोल

630

103

बकहो

सोहागपुर

भाग

416.118

629

बकही

अनूपपुर

कुल:- 509.630 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1259.29 एकड़ ( लगभग )

655 Gl:11-5 2002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 / PHALGUNA 14, 1932

[PART II-SFC. 3 ( ii ) ] (ख ) राजस्व वन : -

ग्राम का

बन्दोबस्त पटवारी हल्का तहसील

जिला

टिप्पणी क्रम सं.

नाम

संख्या

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

संख्या

630

बकहो

शहडोल

भाग

25.998

103 सोहागपुर

629

बकही

भाग

0.923-

अनूपपुर

कुल:- 26.921 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 66.52 एकड़ ( लगभग )

कुल योग ( क + ख ): 536.551 हेक्टर ( लगभग )

या 1325.81 एकड़ (लगभग) 1. ग्राम बकहो ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या: 100 , 101 , 103 से 109 , 126 , 133 से 136 , 151 , 152 ( भाग ) , 153 से 164, 166 ( भाग ) , 167( भाग ) , 168 से 171 , 173 से 187 , 193 से 215 , 241 से 246 , 500 से 525 , 537 से 539 , 550 ( भाग ) , 551 से 561 , 563 से 568 , 570 से 589 , 650 , 655 से 682 , 685 से 694 , 706 से 708 , 710 , 711 , 777 , 778 ( भाग ) , 779 ( भाग ) , 780( भाग) , 1132( भाग ) , 1134( भाग ) , 1135 ( भाग ) , 1140 , 1141 , 1142( भाग ) , 1167( भाग ) , 1168 ( भाग ) , 1169 ( भाग ) , 1170 से 1180.1182 , 1185 से 1190 , 1191 ( भाग ) , 1192 से 1194 , 1195( भाग ) , 1199 , 1202 ( भाग ) , 1220 ( भाग ) , 1221 ( भाग ) , 1222 से 1224 , 1225( भाग ) , 1226 ( भाग ) , 1249 ( भाग ) , 1250 ( भाग ) , 1251 से 1253 , 1289 , 1292 से 1309 , 1310( भाग ) , 1360( भाग ) , 650/1401 , 678/1402 , 101/1414 , 105/1417 , 205/1418.

2. ग्राम बकही ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या 2 से 106, 107 ( भाग ) , 108 , 110 ( भाग ) , 113 ( भाग ) , 114 , 115, 16( भाग ) , 117 ( भाग ) , 119 से 201 , 204, 205( भाग ) , 206 ( भाग ) ,207 से 212 , 213 ( भाग ) , 214 , 215 , 218 से 404 , 405( भाग ) , 412 से 418, 427 428 , 430 से 432, 433 ( भाग ) , 434 से 436 , 438 , 443 से 445 , 446, 447 , 469, 470( भाग ) , 473 से 519, 529 से 539 , 545 , 547 से 549, 555 ( भाग ) , 558 से 786 , 788 से 790 , 792 से 967 , 968 ( भाग ) , 969 से 999 , 1000( भाग ) , 1001 से 1106, 1107( भाग ) , 1108 , 1109 ( भाग ) , 1110 से 1141 , 1144 से 1148 , 1149 ( भाग ) , 1150 ( भाग ) , 1151 से 1159 , 1160 ( भाग ) , 1161 ( भाग ) , 1216 से 1222 , 1229 से 1245 , 1246( भाग ) , 1247 से 1252 , 1253 ( भाग ) , 1288 ( भाग ) , 1289( भाग ) , 1290( भाग ) , 1291 ( भाग ) , 1308 ( भाग ) , 1310 ( भाग ) , 1341, 1344( भाग ) , 1345 ( भाग ) , 1346( भाग ) , 1347 ( भाग ) , 1348( भाग) , 1349 ( भाग ) , 1350( भाग ) , 1351 ( भाग ) , 1352 ( भाग ) , 1353 ( भाग ) , 1354( भाग ) , 1355 ( भाग ) , 1356( भाग ) , 1358( भाग ) , 1359( भाग ) , 1360 से 1411 , 1412 ( भाग ) , 1413 , 1414 , 1416 ( भाग ) , 1418 , 1420( भाग ) , 1421 ( भाग ) , 1422( भाग ) , 1423 ( भाग ) , 1424 से 1428 , 1429( भाग ) , 1060/1718 , 1414/1720 , 1414/1721 , 169/1725 , 496/1728 , 914/1729 .

सीमा वर्णन: -

ब्लाक 1 :

क-ख रेखा , ग्राम बकहो में बिन्दु " क " से आरंभ होती है और प्लाट संख्यांक 1202 , 1169 , 1168 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग रेखा , प्लाट संख्यांक 1168 की सीमा से होकर , 1167 से होकर 1171 , 1173 , 1132 से होकर , 1142 से गुजरकर, 1141 , 1140 से होकर 1135 से गुजरती है और 1134 से होकर बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है ।

ग-घ रेखा , प्लाट संख्यांक 1134 , 1135 से होकर, 1132 से गुजरकर, 1179 , 1180 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है । घ-क रेखा प्लाट संख्यांक 1180, 1174 , 1172, 1170 से होकर , 1202 से गुजरती है और आरम्भिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है । ब्लाक 2 : -

ङ- च रेखा, ग्राम बकहो में बिन्दु " ङ " से आरंभ होती है और प्लाट संख्यांक 1226 , 1225 , 1221 , 1220 , 1191 से होकर, 1194 से होकर , 1195 से गुजरकर , 1199 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।

च-छ रेखा प्लाट संख्यांक 1199, 1194, 1182 , 1185 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है ।

छ-ज रेखा, प्लाट संख्यांक 1185 , 1188 , 1251 , 1253 , 1252 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " ज " पर मिलती है । ज-ङ रेखा, प्लाट संख्यांक 1252 से होकर , 1250 , 1249 से होकर 1225 , 1226 से जाती है और आरम्भिक बिन्दु " ङ " पर मिलती है । 2003 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

ब्लाक 3 : -

झ - ञ रेखा , ग्राम बकहो में बिन्दु " झ " से आरंभ होती है और प्लाट संख्यांक 1300 , 1299 , 1298 , 1289 , 1292 , 1289 , 1296 , 1293 से होकर , 779 से गुजरती है और बिन्दु " अ " पर मिलती है ।

ज-ट रेखा , प्लाट संख्यांक 779 से गुजरती है और ग्राम बकहो - बकही के सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " ट " पर मिलती है । ट-ठ रेखा , ग्राम बकहो - बकही के सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु " उ " पर मिलती है ।

ठ-झ रेखा, प्लाट संख्यांक 1360 , 1310 से गुजरकर , 1307 , 1302 , 1301 , 1300 से होकर जाती है आरम्भिक और बिन्दु " झ " पर मिलती है ।

ब्लाक-4 :

ड-ढ रेखा , ग्राम बकहो में बिन्दु " ड " से आरंभ होती है और प्लाट संख्यांक 109 , 107 , 106 , 202 , 126 , 198 , 133 , 136 , 177 , 176 , 175 से होकर 167 , 166 से गुजरकर , 164 , 162 , 151 से होकर , 152 से गुजरकर, 153 , 154 , 513 , 515 , 516 , 517 , 518 , 520 , 561 , 563 , 568 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " ट " पर मिलती है ।

ढ-ण रेखा, ग्राम बकहो में प्लाट संख्यांक 568 , 567 , 570 , 571 580 , 666 , 668 , 669 , 670 , 672 , 673 , 674 से होकर , ग्राम बकही के प्लाट संख्यांक 2 , 6 , 7 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 38 , 39 , 307 , 308 , 313 , 355 , 356 , 357 , 580 , 584 , 585 , 586 , 587 , 639 , 640 , 641 , 642 , 671 , 672 , 674 , 675 , 729 , 730 , 731 , 733 , 734 , 735 , 736 , 737 , 779 , 780 , 781 , 782 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " ण " पर मिलती है ।

ण-त रेखा , ग्राम बकही में प्लाट संख्यांक 790 , 792 , 827 , 833 , 834 , 835 , 836 , 867 , 868 , 874 , 877 , 878 , 916 , 915 , 1729 , 914 , 917 , 919 , 920 , 921 , 922 , 923 , 924 , 1061 , 1062 , 1063 , 1065 , 1072 , 1073 , 1074 , 1075 , 1079 , 1080 , 1081 , 1083 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " त " पर मिलती है ।

त-थ रेखा , प्लाट संख्यांक 1083 से होकर , 1160 , 1161 , 1150 , 1149 से गुजरकर , 1148 , 1144 , 1141 , 1217 , 1216 , 1220 , 1221 , 1222 , 1230 , 1229 , 1288 , 1289 , 1290 , 1291 , 1310 , 1308 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " थ " पर मिलती है । द-ध रेखा , प्लाट संख्यांक 1308 से होकर , 1310 , 1291 , 1290 , 1289 , 1288 से गुजरकर , 1229 , 1231 , 1246 , 1247 से होकर , 1253 , 1109 , 1107 से गुजरकर , 1106 , 469 , 470 , 473 , 474 , 519 , 518 , 529 , 539 , 538 , 545, 547, 549, 506, 505 से होकर , 555 , 968 से गुजरकर, 1011 से होकर , 1000 से गुजरकर , 999 से होकर , 968 से गुजरती है और बिन्दु " ध " पर मिलती है । ध -न रेखा , प्लाट संख्यांक 558 , 418 , 416 , 415 , 414 , 412 , 399 से गुजरती है और बिन्दु " न " पर मिलती है । न-प रेखा , प्लाट संख्यांक 400 , 401 से होकर , 405 से गुजरकर , 427 ,428 , 430 , 432 से होकर , 433 से गुजरकर , 438 , 436 , 443 , 445 , 447 ,446 से होकर , 265 से गुजरकर, 219 , 218 , 215 से होकर , 213 , 206 , 205 से गुजरकर , 204 , 201 , 1360 से होकर , 1359 से गुजरकर , 1358 से होकर , 1356 , 1355 , 1354 , 1353 , 1352 , 1351 , 1350 , 1349 , 1348 , 1347 , 1346 , 1345 , 1344 से गुजरकर, 1341 , 1330 व 1329 की पश्चिमी सीमा से होकर , 1350 से गुजरकर , 1379 से होकर , 1429 से गुजरकर , 1425 , 1424 , 1423 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " प " पर मिलती है ।

प-फ रेखा , प्लाट संख्यांक 1423 , 1422 , 1421 , 1420 से गुजरकर , 1720 , 1418 , 1414 , 1415 से होकर , 1416 , 1412 से गुजरकर , 1409 , 1408,119 , 120 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " फ " पर मिलती है ।

फ-ब रेखा, ग्राम बकही के प्लाट संख्यांक 102 , 103 , 108 से होकर, 110 , 113 , 116 , 117 , 107 , 1412 से गुजरकर ग्राम बकहो के प्लाट संख्यांक 780 से गुजरती है और बिन्दु " ब " पर मिलती है ।

ब-भ रेखा , ग्राम बकहो के प्लाट संख्यांक 780 से होकर गुजरकर , 768 , 769 , 770 की दक्षिणी सीमा से होकर , 780 , 778 से गुजरकर , 773 की पूर्वी सीमा व 778 , 777 682 की पश्चिमी सीमा से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " भ " पर मिलती है ।

भ -म रेखा , प्लाट संख्यांक 685 , 711 , 710 , 708 , 707 , 706 , 694 , 655 , 658 , 584 , 585 , 650 , 1401 , 580 , 589 , 588 की सीमा से होकर , 550 से गुजरकर , 551 , 552 , 539 , 538 , 537 , 525 , 524 , 502 , 501 , 500 , 170 , 171 , 186 , 185 , 184 , 187 , 193 , 215 , 214 , 213 से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " म " पर मिलती है ।

म-ड रेखा प्लाट संख्यांक 213 , 242 , 241 , 246 , 100 , 107 , 104 , 103 , 109 से होकर जाती है और आरम्भिक बिन्दु " ड " पर मिलती है ।

[फा.सं. 43015 / 30/2009- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एस.सी. भाटिया , निदेशक 2004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14, 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd February, 2011

S.O. 673.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2109 dated the 19th August , 2010 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 ( 20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India , Part - II , Section 3 , Sub - section (ii ) dated the 28th August, 2010 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire 536.551 hectares or 1325.81 acres land as all rights in or over such lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Government;

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Government ofMadhya Pradesh , is satisfied that the lands measuring 536.551 hectares ( approximately ) or 1325.81 acres ( approximately ) as all rights in or over such lands as described in schedule appended hereto , should be acquired ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the said Act, the Centra! Government hereby declares that , the land measuring 536.551 hectares ( approximately ) or 1325.81 acres ( approximately ) a all rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule are hereby acquired .

The Plan bearing number SECL/BSP / CGM ( PLC ) /LAND/ 399 , dated the 15th November, 2010 of the area covera! by this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Shahdol and Anuppur ( Madhya Pradesh ) or in the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coaltield Limited ( Revenue Section) , Seepat Road , Bilaspur - 495006 ( Chhatisgarh ) .

SCHEDULE

BAKHI BLOCK 2nd EXTENSION , SOHAGPUR AREA District - SHAH DOL and ANUPPUR ( Madhya Pradesh ) (Plan bearing number SECL/ BSP / CGM (PLG )/ LAND / 399 , dated the 15th November , 2010)

All Rights:

(A) Revenue Land :

Sl . No.

Bandobast number

Patwari halka number Name of village

1 .

Bakho

103

630

Bakhi

629

District

Remarks Tahsil

Area in hectares

6 .

४.

Shahdol 93.512

Sohagpur

Part Part

416.118

Anuppur

Total : -509.630 Hectares (Approximately) or 1259.29 Acres ( Approximately )

( B ) Revenue Forest Land :

SI No.

Bandobast number

Patwari halka number Name of village

1 .

Bakho

Bakhi

630 629

103 47 Total:- 26.921 Hectares (Approximately ) or 66.52 Acres (Approximately)

1..

Remarks Tahsil

District

Area in hectares

25.998

Part

Shahdol

Sohaopur

0.923

Part

Anuppur Anuppur

Grand Total (A + B ) : - 536.551 Hectares ( approximately )

or 1325.81 Acres Approximately) .

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bakho ( Part ) : 100 , 101 , 103 to 109 , 126 , 133 to 136 , 151 , 152 , 153 to 164 . 166P, 167P, 168 to 171 , 173 to 187 , 193 to 215 , 241 to 246 , 500 to 525 , 537 to 539 , 550P, 551 to 561 , 563 to 568 , 57010 589, 650 , 655 to 682 , 685 to 694,706 to 708 , 710 , 711 , 777 , 778P, 779P, 780P, 1132P, 1134 , 1135P, 1140, 1141 , 1142P, 1167P, 1168P, 1169P, 1170 to 1180, 1182, 1185 to 1190 , 11919, 1192 to 1194 , 1195P, 1199, 1202P, 1220P, 1221P, 1222 го 1224 , 1225P , 1226P, 1249P, 1250P, 1251 to 1253 , 1289 , 1292 to 1309 , 1310P, 1360P, 650/1401 , 678/1402 , 101/1414, 105/1417 , 205/1418 .

2005

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bakhi (Part) : 2 to 106, 107P, 108 , 110P, 113P, 114, 115 , 116P,. 117P, 119 to 201 , 204, 205P, 206P, 207 to 212, 213 , 214, 215 ,218 to 404, 405P, 412 to 418, 427,428,430 to 432, 433P, 434 to 436, 438 , 443 to 445 , 446, 447, 469 , 470P, 473 to 519, 529 to 539, 545 , 547 to 549, 5552, 558 to 786,788 to 790,792 to 967, 968P, 969to 999, 1000P, 1001 to 1106, 1107P, 1108, 1109P, 1110 to 1141 , 1144 to 1148, 11499, 1150P, 1151 to 1159, 1160P, 1161P, 1216 to 1222, 1229 to 1245, 1246P, 1247 to 1252, 1253P, 1288P, 1289P, 1290P, 1291 P, 1308P, 1310P, 1341, 1344P, 1345P, 1346P, 1347P, 1348P, 1349P, 1350P, 1351P, 1352P, 1353P, 1354P, 1355P, 1356P, 1358P, 1359P, 1360 to 1411 , 1412P, 1413 , 1414, 1416P, 1418, 1420P, 1421P, 1422P, 1423P, 1424 to 1428, 1429P, 1060/1718 , 1414/1720, 1414/1721 , 169/1725, 496/1728 , 914/1729.

BoundaryDescription:

Block - 1 :

A-B Line starts from point " A" in village Bakho and passes through plot No. 1202, 1169 , 1168 and meets at point ' B ' .

BC Line passes along boundary of plot No. 1168, through 1167 , along 1171 , 1173 , 1132, through 1142, along 1141,1140, through 1135 , along 1134 and meets at point 'C' .

C -D Line passes along plot No. 1134 , 1135, through 1132, along 1179, 1180 and meets at point ' D' .

D-A Line passes along plot No. 1180 , 1174 , 1172, 1170 , through 1202 and meets at starting point 'A' .

Block - 2:

E-F Line starts from point " E " in village Bakho and passes through plot No. 1226, 1225 , 1221,1220,1191 , along 1194, through 1195 , along 1199 and meets at point ' F ' .

F-G Line passes along plot No. 1199, 1194, 1182, 1185 and meets at point "G" ..

G-H Line passes along plot No. 1185 , 1188 , 1251 , 1253 , 1252 and meets at point "H" .

HE Line passes along plot No. 1252 , through 1250 , 1249 , along 1225 , 1226 and meets at starting point 'E' .

Block - 3 :

1 -J Line starts from point " T " in village Bakho and passes along plot No. 1300 , 1299, 1298 , 1289, 1292 , 1289, 1296, 1293 , through 779 and meets at point ' J ' .

J -K Line passes through plot No. 779 and meets at point "K" on common boundary line ofvillage Bakho - Bakhi .

K-L Line passes along common boundary line of village Bakho - Bakhi and meets at point "L " .

Line passes through plot no . 1360 , 1310, along 1307, 1302 , 1301 , 1300 and meets at starting point ' 1 ' . L- I

Block 4:

M -N Line starts from point " M " in village Bakho and passes along plot No. 109, 107, 106, 202, 126, 198, 133 , 136, 177, 176, 175 , through 167, 166 , along 164, 162, 151 , through 152 , along 153 , 154,513,515,516,517,518,520,561,563,568 and meets at point 'N' .

N-O Line passes in village Bakho along plot No. 568 , 567 , 570, 571 , 580, 666, 668 , 669,670 , 672, 673 , 674 then in village Bakhi along plot No. 2, 6, 7 , 23 , 25 , 26, 38 , 39 , 307,308,313,355,356,357,580,584,585,586,587,639, 640, 641 , 642, 671 , 672, 674, 675, 729, 730, 731 , 733 , 734, 735, 736, 737 , 779, 780, 781 , 782 and meets at point ' 0 ' .

O- P Line passes in village Bakhi along plot No. 790, 792, 827 , 833 , 834, 835, 836, 867, 868,874,877,878,916,915,1729,914, 917, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923 , 924, 1061 , 1062, 1063, 1065 , 1072, 1073 , 1074, 1075, 1079, 1080, 1081 , 1083 and meetsat point' P' .

P-Q Line passes along plot No. 1083 , through 1160,1161,1150,1149 , along 1148 , 1144, 1141 , 1217 , 1216, 1220, 1221 , 1222, 1230, 1229, 1288 , 1289, 1290, 1291 , 1310, 1308 and meets at point ' Q' .

Q- R Line passes along plot No. 1308 , through 1310 , 1291 , 1290, 1289 , 1288 , along 1229, 1231,1246,1247, through 1253,1109, 1107 , along 1106,469,470,473,474,519, 518, 529, 539, 538, 545, 547, 549, 506, 505, through 555, 968, along 1011 , through 1000 , along 999 , through 968 and meets at point ' R' .

R-S Line passes through plot No. 558,418,416,415,414,412, 399 and meets at point "S" .

S- T Line passes along plot No. 400 , 401 , through 405 , along 427 , 428, 430, 432, through 433 , along 438 , 436, 443, 445, 447, 446, through 265 , along 219 , 218 , 215 , through 213,206,205 , along 204,201 , 1360, through 1359, along 1358, through 1356, 1355, 1354, 1353, 1352, 1351 , 1350, 1349, 1348, 1347, 1346, 1345, 1344 , along 1341, westem boundary of 1330, 1329, through 1350 , along 1379 , through 1429, along 1425 , 1424, 1423 and meets at point 'T' .

2006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ) T-U Line passes through plot no . 1423 , 1422 , 1421 , 1420 , along 1720, 1418 , 1414 , 1415 , through 1416 , 1412 , along 1409, 1408 , 119 , 120, 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 and meets at point "U" .

UV Line passes in village Bakhi along plot no . 102, 103 , 108 , through 110, 113 , 116, 117, 107 , 1412, in village Bakho 780 and meets at point "V".

V-W Line passes in village Bakho through plot no . 780 , along southern boundary of 768 , 769 , 770, through 780, 778 , along eastern boundary of 773 , western boundary of 778 , 777 , 682 and meets at point "W " .

W-X Linepasses in village Bakho along plot no . 685, 711 , 710, 708, 707, 706, 694, 655, 658, 584, 585, 650, 1401 , 580, 589, 588, through 550, along 551 , 552, 539 , 538 , 537 , 525 , 524, 502, 501 , 500, 170, 171 , 186 , 185 , 184, 187, 193, 215 , 214, 213 and meets at point "X" .

X-M Line passes in village Bakho along plot no 213 , 242, 241 , 246, 100, 107, 104, 103, 109 and meets at starting point "M".

[F. No. 43015 /30/ 2009 - PRIW - I ]

S. C. BHATIA , Director

नई दिल्ली , 23 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 674, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1440 तारीख 2 जून , 2010 जो भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 5 जून , 2010 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की 722.220 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 1784.61 एकड़ ( लगभग ) भूमि में और उस पर के सभी अधिकारों का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 722.220 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1784.61 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाने चाहिए ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 722.220 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1784.61 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते हैं ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/ बीएसपी/ सीजीएम ( पीएलजी ) /लैंड/ 391 तारीख 6 सितम्बर, 2010 का निरीक्षण , कलेक्टर , कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , कांउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700001 के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफिल्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

करतली ईस्ट ब्लाक , कोरबा क्षेत्र ,

जिला-कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

[ रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/सीजीएम ( पीएलजी ) /लैंड/ 391 तारीख 6 सितम्बर , 2010 ]

सभी अधिकार :

(क ) राजस्व भूमि:

तहसील

ग्राम.संख्या

जिला

टिप्पण

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

पटवारी हल्का संख्या

क्रम सं

ग्राम का नाम

8 करताली

कोरबा

पाली

भाग

39.360

पाली

कोरबा

2.323

अनसर्वेड

भाग गणेशपुर

पाली

कोरबा

243.230

भाग पुटा [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

4 1

75 नूनेरा

43 उड़ता

( ख ) राजस्व वन भूमि :

पटवारी हल्का ग्राम संख्या क्रम सं

ग्राम का नाम

संख्या

4 1

78 1. करताली

44 पुरा

75 नूनेरा

उड़ता

2007

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन14 , 1932

कोरबा

2.270

भाग

पाली

कोरबा

35.046

भाग

कुल: - 322.229 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 796.23 एकड़ ( लगभग )

जिला

क्षेत्र हेक्टर

तहसील

टिप्पण

में

पाली

कोरबा

80.461

भाग

पाली

204.763

कोरबा

भाग

पाली

कोरबा

74.059

भाग

पाली

कोरबा

40.708

भाग

कुल: - 399,991 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 988,38 एकड़ ( लगभग )

कुल योग ( कख ):- 722,220 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1784.61 एकड़ ( लगभग ) ग्राम करताली ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या: 125 ( भाग ) , 127 ( भाग ) , 128 से 144, 145 ( भाग ) , 146 से 149 , 150 ( भाग ) , 197 ( भाग ) , 234( भाग ) , 642 ( भाग ) , 643 ( भाग ) , 649 ( भाग ) , 650 से 673 , 674/1 , 674/21 2. ग्राम गणेशपुर ( अनसर्वेड ) ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 1

3. ग्राम पुटा ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या: 1/1 , 1/2 , 1/3 , 1/4 , 1/5 , 1/6 , 2 से 9 , 10/1 , 10/2 , 11 से 32 , 33 ( भाग ) , 34( भाग ) , 35 से 80 , 81/1 , 81/2 , 82 से 166 , 167 ( भाग ) , 168 से 184 , 186 से 196 , 197( भाग ) , 198 ( भाग ) 199 , 200( भाग ) , 210/1 ( भाग ) , 329 ( भाग ) , 330/1 ( भाग ) , 330/2 , 331 , 332 ( भाग ) , 337 ( भाग ) , 338 ( भाग ) , 339 ( भाग ) , 346( भाग ) , 347(भाग ) , 377 ( भाग ) , 384( भाग ) । 4. ग्राम नूनेरा ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:- 219/8 , 220 ( भाग ) , 221 ( भाग ) , 222 से 224 , 225 ( भाग ) , 226 , 227/2 , 227/1 ( भाग ) , 228 ( भाग ) , 229, 230 , 1137 ( भाग ) , 1138 ( भाग ) ।

5. ग्राम उड़ता ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या: । ( भाग ) , 2 ( भाग ) , 3( भाग ) , 93 ( भाग ) , 94 ( भाग ) , 97 , 98 ( भाग ) , 99 , 100 ( भाग ) , 102( भाग ) , 103 से 107 , 108( भाग ) , 109 ( भाग ) , 110 , 111 / 1 क ( भाग ) , 111/2 , 111/3 , 111/4 , 111/5 , 158 , 159 1

सीमा वर्णन :

क - ख रेखा ग्राम करताली के बिन्दु " क " से आरंभ होती है और प्लाट संख्या 127 , 125 , से गुजरकर , ग्राम नूनेरा के 227/1 , 221 , 225 , 220 , 228 से गुजरकर , 230 के उत्तरी सीमा से होकर , 228 से गुजरकर बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग रेखा, प्लाट संख्या 228 से गुजरकर ग्राम नूनेरा और पूय के सम्मिलित सीमा के ' बिन्दु ' " ग " पर मिलती है ।

ग-घ रेखा , ग्राम नूनेरा और पूटा के सम्मिलित सीमा से होकर , ग्राम नूनेरा के प्लाट संख्या 1137 , 1138 से गुजरकर बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।

घ-ङ रेखा , ग्राम नूनेरा के प्लाट संख्या 1138 से गुजरकर ग्राम उरता के । से गुजरकर बिन्दु " ड " पर मिलती है ।

ङ- च रेखा , ग्राम उरता के प्लाट संख्या 3 , 2 , 1 से गुजरकर गाम पूटा के 137 से गुजरकर बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।

च- छ रेखा , ग्राम नूनेरा के प्लाट संख्या 137 से गुजरकर ग्राम उरता के 1 , 102 , 100 , 98 , 111 /1 क , 94 , 95, 108 , 109 से गुजरकर बिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है ।

छ-ज रेखा , ग्राम पूटा के प्लाट संख्या 384 , 377 , 167 , 210/1 , 185 से गुजरकर बिन्दु " ज " पर मिलती है । 2008

[ PART II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

ज-झ रेखा , ग्राम पूटा के प्लाट संख्या 187 से पश्चिमी सीमा से होकर , 210/1 , 197 , 198 , 200 , 330/1 , 329 , 332 , 337 , 338 , 339 , 346, 347 , 33 , 34 से गुजरकर ग्राम गनेशपुर के 130 , 129 , 128 , 127 के दक्षिणी सीमा से होकर बिन्दु " झ " पर मिलती है । झ- अ रेखा, ग्राम करताली के प्लाट संख्या 668 के दक्षिणी सीम्मा से होकर , 642 , 643 ,649 से गुजरकर 650 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होकर , 145 , 150 , 197 से गुजरकर बिन्दु " अ " पर मिलती है ।

ञ- क रेखा, प्लाट संख्या 197 , 234 , 127 से गुजरकर आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/3/2009- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एस. सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 23rd February, 2011

S.O. 674. Whereas , by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.О. 1440 dated the 2nd June , 2010 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development ) , Act, 1957 ( 20 of 1957 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) and published in the Gazette of India , Part - II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) dated the 5th June , 2010 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire 722.220 hectares (approximately) or 1784.61 acres ( approximately ) land as all rights in or over such lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And, whereas , the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Govemment ;

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Government of Chhattisgarh, is satisfied that the lands measuring 722.220 hectares ( approximately ) or 1784.61 acres ( approximately ) s all rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule appended hereto , should be acquired ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the said Act , the Centrai Government hereby declares that the land measuring 722.220 hectares ( approximately ) or 1784.61 acres ( approximately ) as all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule are hereby acquired .

The Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/ CGM ( PLG ) /LAND / 391 , dated the 6th September , 2010 of the area covererl by this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector , Korba ( Chhattisgarh ) or in the Office of the Coal Controller , 1 Council House Street , Kolkata -700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfield Limited ( Revenue Section) , Seepat Road, Bilaspur - 495006 ( Chhattisgarh ) .

SCHEDULE

KARTALI EAST BLOCK, Korba Area District - Korba ( Chhattisgarh)

[Plan bearing number : SECL BSP / CGM ( PLG ) /LAND/ 391 , dated the 6th September , 2010] All Rights :

(A ) Revenue Land:

Remarks

District

Village number Tahsil

Area in hectares

Patwari halka number

Sl . No.

Name of Village

8 2

1. Kartali

39.360.

Part

Pali

Korba

2.323

Part 12

Pali

Korba

Ganeshpur

Unsurveyed

Part 3. Puta

243.230

Pali

Korba

2.270

Part Nunera

Pali

Korba

35.046

Urta

Part 14

Korba

Pali

Total : - 322.229 hectares (approximately ) or 796.23 acres ( approximately ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2009

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(B) Revenue Forest Land:

Patwari halka number

Village number Sl. No.

Nameof Village

4 1. Kartali

78 2. Puta

44 3.

Nunera

75 4.

Urta

43 Tahsil

Remarks

District Area in hectares

Pali

80.461

Korba

Part

Pali

Korba 204.763

Part

Pali

Korba 74.059

Part

40.708

Pali

Korba

Part

Total:- 399.991 hectares ( approximately ) or 988.38 acres (approximately)

Grand Total (A+B) : - 722.220 hectares (approximately)

or 1784.61 acres (approximately) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Kartali (Part) : 125P, 127P, 128 to 144, 145 , 146 to 149, 150P, 197P, 234P, 642P, 643P, 649P, 650 to 673,674/ 1 , 674/2.

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Ganeshpur ( Unsurveyed) (Part) : 127 , 128, 129, 130 .

3: Plot numbers to be acquired in village Puta (Part) : 1/1 , 1/2, 1/3 , 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 2 to 9, 10/1 , 10/2, 11 to 32, 33P, 34P, 35 to 80, 81/1, 81/2, 82 to 166, 167P, 168 to 184, 186 to 196 , 1979, 1988, 199, 200P, 210/ 1P, 329P, 330/1 P, 330/2 , 331 , 332P, 337P, 338P, 339P, 346P, 347P, 377P, 384P.

4. Plot numbers to be acquired in viflage Nunera (Part): 219/8, 220P, 221 P, 222 to 224, 225P, 226, 227/2 , 227/1 P, 228P, 229, 230, 1137P, 1138P.

5. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Urta (Part) : 1P, 2P, 3P, 93P, 94P, 97, 98P, 99, 100P, 102P, 103 to 107, 108P, 1099, 110, 111 / 1ΚΡ, 111/2, 111/3 , 111/4, 111/5, 158, 159.

Boundary Description :

A-B Line starts from point " A " in village Kartali and passes through plot nos . 127, 125 , in village Nunera through 227/1 , 221 , 225, 220 , 228 , along itokthern boundary of 230, through 228 and meets atpoint 'B' .

B-C Line passes through plot no . 228 and meets common village boundary of Nunera and Puta at point 'C' .

C-D Line passes along common village boundary of Nunera and Puta, in village Nunera through 1137, 1138 and meets atpoint ' D' .

DE Line in village Nunera passes through plot no . 1138 , iti village Urta through 1 and meets at point 'E' .

E-F Line passes in village Urta through plot nos . 3 , 2, 1, in village Puta through 137 and meets at point ' F ' .

FG Line passes in village Nunera through plot no . 137, in village Urta through 1, 102, 100, 98, 111/ 1K, 94, 95 , 108,109 and meets at point "G" .

G-H Line passes in village Puta through plot nos . 384, 377, 167, 210/1 , 185 and meets at point "H" .

H-1 Line passes in village Puta along westem bouridary ofplot no . 187, through 210/1 , 197, 198 , 200, 330/1 , 329, 332, 337, 338, 339, 346, 347, 33 , 34, in village Ganeshpur alttig southern boundary of 130, 129, 128, 127 and meetsat point " I" .

I-J Line passes in village Kartali along southern boundary of plot no . 668 through 642 , 643 649, along western boundary of650 , through 145, 150, 197 and meets at point " J " .

J-A Line passes through 197, 234, 127 and meets at starting point "A" .

[F.No. 43015/3/2009 -PRIW- 1 ]

S.C. BHATIA, Director

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 675.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला मंत्रालय धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय के द्वारा जारी की गई अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2644 तारीख 17 सितम्बर , 2009 जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 26 सितम्बर, 2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 423.07 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 1045.00 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है, कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विहित की गई उक्त भूमि के भाग में कोयला अभिप्राप्त है ;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 423.07 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1045.00 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है । 655 3 /11-6 2010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] इस अधिसूचना के अंधौन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या आरईवी/ 4/ 2010 , तारीख 17 मई, 2010 का निरीक्षण , उपायुक्त चतरा, झारखण्ड के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , कांउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700001 के कार्यालय में या महाप्रबंधक ( भूमि एवं रामस्व ) , दरभंगा हाउस , सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , राँची , झारखण्ड या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक , गवेषण विभाग , सेन्ट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एवं डिजाईन इंस्टीच्यूट , गोदवाना पैलेस , कांके रोड , राँची झारखण्ड या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक , पिपरवार क्षेत्र , झारखण्ड के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ;

दिप्पण 1: - कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है , जिसमें निम्नलिखित उपबंध है:-

अर्जन के बाबत आपत्तियां

" 8 ( 1 ) कोई व्यक्ति जो किसी भूमि में, जिसकी बाबत धारा 7 के अधीन अधिसूचना निकाली गई है , हितबद्ध है , अधिसूचना के निकाले जाने से तीस दिनों के भीतर सम्पूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का अर्जन किए जाने के बारे में आपत्ति कर सकेगा । "

स्पष्टीकरण

(1) इस धारा के भीतर यह आपत्ति नहीं मानी जाएगी कि कोई व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में कोयला उत्पादन के लिए स्वयं खनन संक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी संक्रियाएं केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं करनी चाहिए ।

(2) उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आपत्ति सक्षम अधिकारी को लिखित रूप में की जाएगी और सक्षम अधिकारी , आपत्तिकर्ता को स्वयं सुने जाने का या विधि व्यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपत्तियों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जाँच , यदि कोई हो , करने के पश्चात् जो यह आवश्यक समझता है , वह या तो धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि के या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न टुकड़े या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आपत्तियों पर अपनी सिफारिशों और उसके द्वारा की गई कार्यवाही के अभिलेख सहित विभित्र रिपोर्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा ।

(3)

इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा जो प्रतिकार में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होता , यदि भूमि या किसी ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए जाते । " टिप्पण-2 : केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700001 को उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में 11 जून , 1983 में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 2518 , तारीख 27 मई 1983 द्वारा समक्ष प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया है ।

अनुसूची

अशोका वेस्ट कोल माईनिंग ब्लॉक

जिला-चतरा , झारखण्ड

( रेखांक संख्या आरईवी/4 /2010 , तारीख 17 मई , 2010 ) सभी अधिकार :

थाना

जिला क्र. सं

ग्राम का नाम

ग्राम/थाना संख्या 1 .

सरैया

टंडवा

87/244

चतरा 2.

टंडवा

91/248

चतरा झुलुंदा

टंडवा

92/249

चतरा लुकुया

टंडवा

तोरहद

चतरा

93/250 5.

हेंजदा

टंडवा

चतरा

94/251

कुल क्षेत्र

टिप्पणियां क्षेत्र (हेक्टर में

क्षेत्र (एकड़ में )

40.69

भाग

100.50

95.14

भाग

235.00

203.44

502.50

भाग

70.34

173.75

भाग

13.46

33.25

भाग

423.07

1045,00

अशोका बेस्ट में अशोका विस्तार परियोजना हेतु अधिग्रहित भूखंडौ की विवरणी :

1. ग्राम-सरैया में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या 113 ( भाग ) , 124( भाग ) , 125, 126 , 127 , 128 ( भाग ) , 129 , 131( भाग ) , 132 , 133 ।

2. ग्राम-लकुआ में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या - 1 ( भाग ) , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ( भाग ) , 6 से 12 , 13 ( भाग ) , 14 से 113 एवं 114( भाग ) ।

3. ग्राम- झुलुंदा में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या - 1 ( भाग ) , 2 से 6 , 7 ( भाग ) , 8 ( भाग ) , 43 ( भाग ) 44, 45 , 46 ( भाग ) , 49 ( भाग ) , 50 ( भाग ) , 51 ( भाग ) , 52 ( भाग ) , 53 ( भाग ) , 54 से 60 , 61 ( भाग ) , 62 से 67 , 68 ( भाग ) , 69 से 73 , 74 ( भाग ) , 75( भाग ) , 82 ( भाग ) , 83 से 99 , 100( भाग ) , एवं 101 ( भाग ) और 104 । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2011 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

4 ग्राम- हेन्जदा में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या 1 ( भाग ) , 2 से 12 , 13 ( भाग ) , 14( भाग ) , 15 ( भाग ) , 28 ( भाग ) , एवं 88( भाग) ।

5. ग्राम-तोरहड में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या- 1 ( भाग ) , 2 से 103 , 104( भाग ) , 105 ( भाग ) , 106 ( भाग ) , 107 ( भाग ) , 108, 109 , 110 , 111 ( भाग ) , 114( भाग ) , 117 ( भाग ) , 147( भाग ) , 149( भाग ) , 150 ( भाग ) , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 ( भाग ) , और 159 ।

सीमा वर्णन :

क- ख रेखा' क ' से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम सरैया के प्लॉट संख्या 124 और ग्राम लुकुया के प्लॉट संख्या 1 , 5 , 13 , 114 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ख' पर मिलती है ।

ख -ग रेखा ग्राम लुकुया एवं चिरलुंगा , झुलुंदा एवं कोयलारा की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है । 1 , 8 , 7 , 53 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ड़ ' पर मिलती है । ग - घ - ड़ रेखा ग्राम झुलुंदा के प्लॉट संख्या

ड़ -च रेखा ग्राम झुलुंदा के प्लॉट संख्या 53 , 52 , 51 , 50 , 49 , 46 , 43 , 61 , 75 , 74 , 68 , 82 , 100 , 101 एवं ग्राम हेन्जदा के प्लाट संख्या- 28 , 1 , 15 , 14 , 13 एवं 88 से गुजरती है ( जो पूर्वोक्त का.आ. 1501 , तारीख 26 मई , 1990 द्वारा अशोक ब्लॉक की सम्मिलित सीमा का गठन करती है ) और बिन्दु ' च ' पर मिलती है ।

च-छ रेखा ग्राम ठेठांगी और सरैया ( जो पूर्वोक्त का.आ. 1501 , तारीख 26 मई 1990 ) और ग्राम हेन्जदा के प्लॉट संख्या -88 और ग्राम तोरहड के प्लॉट संख्या 158 , 147 , 149 , 150 , 117 , 114 , 105 , 104 , 106 , 107 , 111 , 117 एवं 01 ठेठांगी एवं सरैया सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' छ ' पर मिलती है ।

छ-क रेखा ग्राम सरैया के प्लॉट संख्या 128 , 131 , 113 , और 124 से ( जो पूर्वोक्त का.आ. 1501 , तारीख 26 मई 1990 द्वारा अशोक ब्लॉक की सम्मिलित सीमा का निर्माण करती है ) गुजरती हुई प्रारंभ बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा.सं. 43015/ 21 /2009- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ] एस.सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 23rd February, 2011

S.O. 675. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2644 dated the 17th September , 2009 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section- 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 ( 20 of 1957 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , and published in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section - 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) dated the 26th September , 2009 the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 423.07 hectares ( approximately) or 1045.00 acres ( approximately ) of the land in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;

And, whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in the said land prescribed in the Schedules appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 , of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 423.07 hectares ( approximately ) or 1045.00 acres ( approximately ) and all rights in and over the said land described in the Schedule appended hereto .

The Plan bearing number Rev/ 4/2010 , dated the 17th May, 2010 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office of the Dy. Commissioner , Chatra , Jharkhand or at the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 , or at the Office of the Chief General Manager , Piparwar area Jharkhand or General Manager ( Land and Revenue ) Central Coalfields Limited , Ranchi , Darbhanga House or Chief General Manager ( Exploration ) Division Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place , Kanke Road , Ranchi .

Note 1: Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows :-

Objections to acquisition

"8( 1 ) Any person interested in the land in respect of which a notification under section 7 has been issued , may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification , object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land .

Explanation

( 1) It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires to undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.

2012

[ PART II - SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(2) Every objection under sub - section ( 1 ) shall be made to the competent authority in writing , and the competint authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall , after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry , if any , as he thinks necessary , either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 or of rights in or over such land , or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land , to the CentralGovernment , containing his recommendations on the objections , together with the record of the proceedings held by him , for the decision of that Government .

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to clairn an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act . " Note 2 : The Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata 700 001 has been appointed by the Central Government as the competent authority under Section 3 of the said Act , vide notification number S.O. 2518 dated the 27th May, 1983 published in Part II , Section 3 , sub- section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India dated the 11th June , 1983 .

ALL RIGHT:

Sl ; No.

Thana number

Name of village

Village/ Thana number 1.

Tandwa 87/244 Saraiya

Tandwa 91/248 Shulunda

Lukuia

Tandwa 92/249 3 .

Torhad

Tandwa 93/250

Tandwa 94/251 Henjada

Plots for acquisition in Ashok West block for Ashok expansion ОСР :

SCHEDULE

Ashok West Coal Mining Block District - Chatra , Jharkhand ( Plan bearing number Rev / 4 /2010 , dated the 17th May, 2010 )

Remarks

Area in

Area in hectares

Name of District

40.69

PART

100.50

Chatra

235.00

Chatra

95.14

PART

203.44

Chatra

PART

502.50

PART

Chatra

70.34

173.75

PART

Chatra

13.46

33.25

1045.00

423.07

Total Area:

Plot numbers to be acquired in village of Saraiya : 113 (P) , 124 ( P ) , 125 , 126, 127 , 128 ( P ) , 129, 131 ( P ) . 132 al 133 .

Plot numbers to be acquired in village of Lukuia : 1 ( P ) , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ( P ) , 6 to 12 , 13 ( P ) , 14 to 113 and 114 ( P ) .

3. Plot numbers to be acquired in village of Jhulunda : 1 ( P ) , 2 to 6 , 7 ( P) , 8 ( P ) , 43 ( P) , 44 , 45 , 46 ( P ) , 49 ( P ) , 50 ( 1 ) 51 ( P) , 52 ( P ) , 53 ( P) , 54 to 60, 61 ( P ) , 62 to 67 , 68 ( P ) , 69 to 73,74 ( P) , 75 (P), 82 ( P) , 83 to 99 , 100 ( P ) , 101 (P ) , and 104 .

4. Plot numbers to be acquired in village of Henjada : 1 ( P) , 2 to 12 , 13 (P) , 14 ( P) , 15 ( P ) , 28 ( P ) and 88 ( P) .

5. Plot Nos . to be acquired in village of Torhad : I ( P ) , 2 to 103 , 104 ( P) , 105 (P ) , 106 ( P ) , 107 ( P ) , 108 , 109, 110, 111 ( P ) . 114(P) , 117 (P) , 147 (P) , 149 (P) , 150 ( P) , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 ( P ) and 159 .

Boundary Description:

A-B Line start from ' A' and passes through Plot No. 124 in village Saraiya and Plot Nor . 1 , 5 , 13 , 114 in village Lukuia and meets at Point'B ' ,

B-C Line passes through common boundary of villages Lukuia and Chirlonga , Jhulunda and Koilara and meets at point ' C' .

C-D- E Line passes through Plot Nos . 1 , 8, 7, 53 in village Jhulunda at mects at point ' E ' .

E- F Line passes through Plot Nos . 53 , 52, 51 , 50, 49 , 46, 43 , 61 , 75 , 74, 68 , 82 , 100 , 101 , in village Jhulunda and Plot No. 28, 1 , 15 , 14 , 13 , 88 in village Henjada [ which form part common boundary of Ashok Block u/ s 9 ( i ) CBA ( A & DE ) Act , 1957 , vide S.O. No. 1501 dated 26-05-1990 ] and meets at point ' F ' .

F-G Line passes through plot Nos . 88 in village Henjada and plot nos . 158 , 147, 149, 150 , 117 , 114 , 105 , 104 , 106 , 107 , 111 , 117 , 01 in village Torhad common boundary of village Thathangi and Saraiya [ which form part common boundary ofAshok West Block u/ s 9 ( i ) CBA (A & D ) Act , 1957 vide S.O. No. 1501 dated 26.05.1990 ] and meets at point 'G" .

G-A Line passes through plot Nos . 128 , 131 , 113 & 124 in village Saraiya [which form part common boundary ofAshok Block u/ s 9 ( i ) CBA (A & D ) Act , 1957 vide S.O. No. 1501 dated 26-05-1990 ] & meets at starting point 'A' .

[ F.No. 43015/21 /2009 - PRIW- I ]

S.C. BHATIA , Director [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2013

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 676. केन्द्रीय सरकार सोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में रमन मंडी से हरियाणा राज्य में बहादुरगढ तक पैट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान मैट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए:

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

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

कोई भी व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से, जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री प्रहलाद सिंह , ( हरियाणा ) , हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना , एस सी एफ नं. - 29 , सैक्टर -6 , बहादुरगढ -124507 , हरियाणा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला: झज्जर,

तहसील : बहादुरगढ

राज्य : हरियाणा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/किला संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

गाँव का नाम

मुस्ततिल संख्या

(3)

(2)

(1)

1. आसौदा

टोडरान

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

एयर

(5)

(6)

(7)

(4)

588

589

35 [फा. सं. आर-31015 /13/2009- ओ. आर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 23rd February, 2011

S.O. 676. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana for implementation of " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " , should be laid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein or laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Prahlad Singh , Competent Authority (Haryana ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Guru Govind Singh Refinery Product Evacuation Project , SEC No. - 29 , Sector - 6 , Market , Bahadurgarh - 124507 , Haryana.

SCHEDULE

District: Jhajjar

Tehsil : Bahadurgarh

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

Name ofVillage

(3) (1)

(2)

1. Asaudha Todran

State: Haryana

Area

Khasra/Killa No.

Hectare Are Square Metre

(6)

(7) (4)

(5)

588

589

[F. No. R- 31015/ 13 /2009 -OR - II]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

2014

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 677.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का. आ. 2446 दिनांक 10-09-10 , द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जाएगा ) की धारा 3 ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर , रमन मंडी से बठिण्डा ( पंजाब राज्य में ) तक , पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना रमन मंडी से बठिण्डा पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइल " के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील तलवंडी साबो जिला बठिण्डा राज्य पंजाब की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनतन को तारीख 20-12-2010 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दे दी है । और , केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची 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 उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला : भटिंडा

तहसील : तलवंडी साबो

राज्य : पंजाब

खसरा/किला संख्या

क्षेत्रफल क्रम सं गाँव का नाम

हदबस्त संख्या मुस्ततिल संख्या

हेक्टयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर (3)

(4)

(7) (1) ( 2)

(5)

(6)

(8) 44

1356

66 1. कोट बख्तू

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

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23rd February, 2011

S.O. 677.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 2446 dated the 10-09-2010 , 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 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi to Bathinda in the State of Punjab by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for implementing the " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bathinda " in Tehsil Talwandi Saboo District Bathinda , in runjab State;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 20-12-10.

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

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

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 land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is acquired ;

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest from the date of publication of this declaration , in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Talwandi Saboo

District : Bhatinda

State: Punjab

Mustatil No. Khasra/Killa No.

Hadbast No.

S. No. Name ofVillage

Area Are

Hectare

Square Metre (2)

(1)

(3)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(4)

1356

66 44

Kot Bakhtu

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

[ भाग II- खष्ठ 3 ( ii) ]

2015 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी , 2011

(4) (5)

1 ) शासनसनबार जारी 2007

164

163

167

1985

01 का. आ. 678. भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएन्स इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्बर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा - मासुदेवपुर - हावड़ा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

166

172

170

171

63 और भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में , जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

173

174

176

175

142

84 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 ;

141

140

137

138

136

129

106

128

107

47 कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध कर दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपायोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री भास्कर त्रिपाठी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , प्रथम मंजिल , फोर्चुन टावर , चन्द्रशेखरपुर , भुवनेश्वर-751023 , ओडिशा राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

110

08 अनुसूची

111

राज्य: ओडिशा

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक सिंगला जिला बालेश्वर

109

07 गांव का नाम

09 सर्वसं/सब डिविजन सं.

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

06 (1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

53 249

1) शासनसनबार

13 247

153

2) मसडा

246

47 248

150

10 245

01 244

157

158

07 00

00 00

04 159

160

01 00

24 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(4) (5)

(3)

112

00 00

2) मसडा जारी

1) झिकिरिया जारी

00 93

113

00 91

110

00 00

109

16 00

108

104

06 00

100

101

102

101

103

100

11 61

00 00

784

11 32

राज्य : ओडिशा

जिला : बालेश्वर

मंडल/तेहसिल/ तालुक : बस्ता

82/106

1) धेनुखोजा

81/105

80/104

77/101

76/100

73/9 /

00 00

806

74/98

72/96

00 03

71/95

70/94

68/92

77 00

सर्वे सं. 68/92

और 99/127

मंडाल/तेहसिल/

जिला : बालेश्वर

राज्य : ओडिशा

के बीच में 00

88 तालुक : रुपसा

99/127

161

1) झिकिरिया

63/86

(00

181

67/90

18 00

182

66/89

85 00

183

65/88

151

62/85

(09

153

61/84

52 150

सर्वे सं. 61/84

149

और 58/81

सर्व सं. 149 और

के बीच में 00

02 111 के बीच में 00

58/81

00 00

111

03 2017 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(2)

(3) (2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(4) (5)

00 00

57/80

1) धेनुखोजा-जारी

2) चंदनपुर- जारी

22 46/68

12 00

22 42/64

16/66

56/79

50 41/63

01 40/62

00 10/12

00 00

11/13

(X)

14/16

00 00

03 15/17

80 00

16/18

10 00

17/19

18/20

31/53

195

3) कोरेयिबाटिया

86 00

196

19/21

11 30/52

197

297

27/34

09 00

298

25/31

296

26/33

295

536

सर्वेसं. 35 और

303

गांव सीमा के

283

बीच में

305

197

2) चंदनपुर

282

107

35/93

306

34/92

327

33/91

328

32/90

329

31/89

330

30/88

331

28/86

332

29/87

489

22/80

533

23/81

486

21/76

485

20/75

515

19/74

484

18/73

483

17/72

482

94 71

463

64 00

462

10 68

452

655 Gl/ 11-7 2018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

( 1)

3 ) कोरेयिबाटिया- जारी 453

4) कुंडापुर - जारी

451

449

450

448

(12

445

444

(0)

443

(0)

386

360

(1)

361

(Χ)

359

(X)

(05

358

390

(0)

394

(00)

( χ )

391

א)

393

392

434

(0)

412

425

424

(α )

5) पलासिया 423

420

418

(0)

419

1263

4) कुंडापुर

1266

1265

1264

1216

1268

1270

1269

1272

1212

1209

1276

1208

1207

1206

1205

(0)

92 6) झिंजिपाडा 1064

58 7) डुबुलिया

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) )

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

1200

2א 1071

1070

4x 1072

(0)

1078

56 1077

(X)

(0)

1161

1162

( X )

אן

( X)

1163

(1)

1164

1188

(0)

61 1187

(1)

(14

1170

(X)

( 4

1171

(0)

1169

(X)

(17

57 1172

(K)

1173

(0)

30 1176

(1)

21 1175

(0)

(1)

1138

107

1137

41 5

54 6

18 9

(0)

(X)

10 18

80 21

( 13

אא 24

(0)

(04

12 28

16 26

( 12

(0)

37 72 2019 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5) (3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

(1)

01 40

(9) गोहिरागाडिया- जारी 193

(7) डुबुलिया- जारी

42 41

115/184

192

194

191

19 00

188

187

08 45

000

208

10 00

209

00 06 00

244

08 49

243

126/217

43 51

71 57

218

238

17 54

03 00

232

80 55

219

24 00

229

31 14

228

227

03 00

92 00

226

60 00

221

97 11

225

71 (8) कांचानिया

4/4

(10) चकराडा

60 3

3/3

1/1

22 6

2/2

717

94 1

42/82

(11 ) बैगणडिहा

61 21

44//84

(07

43/83

149

45/85

10 00

177

46/86

15 (9) गोहिरागाडिया

67 176

3777

01 175

10 00

47/87

36/76

174

26 00

73 173

35/75

(0)

72 178

171

70/111

50 00

100

05 00

76/117

179

64 180

69/110

(0)

22 00

75/116

05 196

46.

51 118/195

74/115

29 00

73/114

194

( 1)

81/152

00.

113/182

00 2020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(1)

(3)

(1) (2)

(4) (5)

( 11) बैगणडिहा- जारी 63/104

(12) रेणुपडा- जारी

82/153

83/154

84/155

00 30

85/156

131/280

129/278

130/279

127/276

126/275

274

124/272

286

287

1507

( 12) रेणुपडा

430

433

1510

432

1511

10 (13) बरडा 436

431

1501

428

438

439

427

(X)

426

420

419

413

414

(6)

408

415

(12

407

406

404

402

401

224

(14) बेगुनिया 230

231

229

238

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

(4)

(3)

( 5)

13 239

276

65 242

85 275

24 243

10 277

45 274

273

272

(00

271

246

247

266

265

11 164

(0)

77 262

259

260

258

32 74/75

288/800

52/53

52 53/54

54/55

55/56

50 56/57

32 63/64

(0)

16 62/63

(0)

61/62

(0)

85 60/61

59/60

10t

52 118/122

117/121

116/120

115/119

289/801

14 113/117

18 112/116

4/4

3/3

70 17/17

16/16

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3)

( 5)

(1)

(4)

18/18

(14) बेगुनिया-जारी

(15) नाबदा- जारी 19/19

112/170

(15) नाबदा

113/171

114/172

132/190

131/189

130/188

(16) सोनपुर

129/187

192

134/193

मंडल/तेहसिल/

140/199

तालुक : जालेश्वर 139/198

(1) कोटसाही

141/200

148/232

140/233

147/231

150/234

146/230

227

226

225

228

224

223

208

209

210

211

222

212

213

219

218

217

216

215

220

298

290

291

308

309

2021 (2)

(3) (4) (5) 325

51 324

323

66 322

321

312

313

93 314

67 508

37 511

56 512

जिला : बालेश्वर

राज्य: ओडिशा

276

265

266

65 275

273

62 267

268

79 274

18 271

00 272

16 258

92 257

39 150

37 121

98 59

09 58

10 61

99 60

91 62

47 63

98 66

58 65

80 84

02 2022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(2)

(3)

( 1)

(4) (5)

( 1) 108

1) कोटसाही- जारी

1) कोटसाही- जारी 88

100

109

00-

107

101

106

104

102

103

1401

1402

1400

1410

1395

1398

1394

1392

1396

1391

1397

1387

1390

1388

1367

1368

1386

1385

1384

1377

1376

1378

1375

1374

1373

1372

1697

1696

1698

1699

(12

1695

1700

1691

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

(3) (4) ( 5) 1692

4 1694

1693

1689

(X)

א 1690

(1)

1684

(00

1688

(G)

( 1)

1683

77 2563

(00

31 1682

(00

20 1685

(X)

(04

(1)

1686

( 2

23 1679

( X )

1677

(00

1678

(0)

(1)

1640

1676

(X)

25 1675

1674

1673

(X)

1672

( X)

40 1670

(K )

1664

(0)

(X)

1671

(X )

1665

1657

(X)

1.3 1666

( X )

(0)

50 1656

( X )

1747

(010

1856

(X )

1855

340

1854

(X)

(0)

22 1853

48 1857

1851

( X)

1858

( X)

1850

(X)

52 1859

( X)

48 1849

1848

( 0)

11 1847

( X )

16 1798

(1)

97 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2023 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(1)

(3)

( 2)

(4) (5)

( 1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

403

(2) केशपुरा

26 केशपुरा-जारी

407

408

409

420

411

416

1385

418

1418

454

466

468

469

471

1375

1078

(3) सरसिदा

1079

1080

1076

1081

1075

1082

1074

1073

1334

1086

1072

1425

1087

397

1037

398

1113

1115

399

1036

401

1035

1116

402

94 00 00 00 01 25 21 00 03 08 00 00 59 22 00 84 00 00 88 93 00 00 10 00 13 84 23 00 04 42 410 00 07 68 24 00 04 82 00 08 56 25 00 05 81 00 00 10 26 00 06 56 00 01 34 00 00 10 417 00 04 06 18 00 00 20 00 02 26 1381 00 00 93 451 00 05 62 00 06 00 452 00 00 91 27 00 03 07 453 00 01 06 16 00 ΟΙ 17 00 01 62 28 00 09 28 450 00 01 75 15 00 00 10 455 00 04 19 14 00 01 11 465 00 08 08 29 00 05 30 00 02 44 33 00 00 26 467 00 03 89 34 03 14 00 05 38 37 00 02 83 00 09 61 36 00 06 68 00 00 10 35 00 00 78 00 02 69 67 00 08 75 470 00 00 45 66 00 10 94 00 05 39 65 00 02 58 00 05 12 57 00 02 58 00 03 41 56 00 03 66 00 03 16 58 00 01 30 00 02 50 59 00 02 56 00 13 95 64 00 01 35 00 04 47 60 00 04 35 00 12 82 52 00 04 55 00 19 72 00 00 14 00 02 59 53 00 01 19 00 07 75 00 01 88 00 23 46 00 09 00 02 51 00 13 72 00 00 10 400 00 00 84 00 01 20 (0) 00 73 00 14 56 00 00 37 00 14 80 404 00 00 11 00 10 01 00 01 89 00 05 75

1177 2024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

(5) ( 1)

(3) (4)

(2)

216

पारिबेलदा-जारी

सरसिदा-जारी

1118

1119

1104

1002

1120

968

1205

966

1204

965

964

963

962

मंडल/तेहसिल/

राज्य : ओडिशा

जिला : बालेश्वर

तालुक : रेमुणा

गांव सीमा और

(1) पारिबेलदा

सर्वे सं. 535

के बीच में

535

174

169

167

166

165

559

सर्व सं. 161 और

158 के बीच में 00

158

211

214

249

219

245

244

246

243

248

240

554

257

238

355

356

359

360

363

361

362

348

346

345

344

334

337

338

(2) मौजपुर

157

212

155

213

00 02 49 00 00 10 00 25 79 00 03 29 00 00 10 (1) (3 61 1003 00 00 20 00 00 00 01 27 223 00 07 06 698 00 09 15 00 01 16 00 00 32 00 02 38 00 04 79 (X) 00 15 00 06 88 04 20 00 16 81 247 ( X ) (12 64 00 01 91 (X) 00 12 54 242 (0) 18 55 00 07 00 (X) 00 28 00 00 65 00 B 00 00 47 239 00 03 12 00 00 258 00 (00 (6) 00 12 45 531 00 01 4.3 00 B 78 00 00 25 00 0B 17 00 03 81 00 11 06 00 08 16 83 00 07 43 364 00 00 16 84 00 00 10 00 03 51 85 00 01 68 08 36 00 04 45 00 07 13 86 00 06 53 00 04 04 00 01 14 00 00 28 87 00 03 49 00 02 38 168 00 03 88 00 14 65 00 03 00 00 08 27 00 04 22 00 00 26 00 00 13 335 00 00 07 98 12 73 160 00 04 96 00 10 04 161 00 02 07 339 00 04 50 540 00 00 89 05 47 00 06 79 00 03 04 336 00 00 00 00 37 71 00 00 87 00 05 97 70 00 04 00 04 89 69 00 00 53 00 01 19 6 00 00 51 00 07 63 100 00 03 66 2025 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(1)

(3)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4) (5)

(4) ( 5) 5.

35 मौजपुर-जारी

841

कल्याणपुर-जारी

840

839

00 00

22 3

844

00 00

14 11

853

68 10

854

90 00

855

37 13

856

04 00

857

00 15

858

9% 00

167

(3) कल्याणपुर

914

171

970

19 00

172

915

21 00

173

941

09 776

942

00 00

775

943

00 00

940

09 774

937

780

939

69 782

938

32 1026

934

02 783

मंडल/तेहसिल/

राज्य : ओडिशा

जिला : मयुरभंज

788

तालुक : वैसिंगा

787

113

(1) डिहापंचपुटुली

789

138

790

114

00 09

02 00

792

112

791

136

02 00

808

127

08 807

123

00 00

811

126

54 812

145

(2) चकापंचपुटुली

819

195

818

149

06 1028

150

817

199

50 815

169

170

816

48 00

147

00 824

125

08 00

825

190

α)

826

126

33 827

113

06 00

843

112

51 00

842

655 Gl/ 11-8 2026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(1)

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(4) (5)

(2)

(3)

(1)

1433

गडादेउलिया-जारी

चकापंचपुटुली- जारी 111

110

109

108

192

107

106

188

1927

( 3 ) गडादेउलिया

2561

1926

1929

1930

1931

1925

2658

1932

1933

1934

2527

1917

1916

1913

1402

1403

1400

1407

1903

1820

1408

1816

1434

1815

1435

1438

1439

1812

1802

1811

2498

1803

1805

2562

1784

2490

1782

1721

712

1780

722

644

सर्वे सं. 641

और 550 के

बीच में रास्ता

550

562

552

00 04 62 00 04 47 00 03 58 00 17 81 00 06 54 00 01 71 00 05 40 00 11 94 189 00 00 56 00 02 64 00 00 36 00 (B 31 00 02 73 00 05 94 00 02 13 00 00 52 96 00 12 06 00 00 43 95 00 20 46 00 04 51 00 00 09 00 07 35 165 00 00 37 1806 00 (B 10 89 00 04 33 00 00 22 84 00 04 47 00 (12 14 85 00 17 81 1783 00 00 68 69 00 01 71 00 03 68 00 11 94 00 06 37 67 00 02 64 00 04 56 00 26 18 00 01 26 00 05 16 00 36 96 00 00 10 00 03 72 00 07 18 713 00 19 13 00 06 50 00 21 62 00 02 83 714 00 09 84 00 05 48 715 00 12 59 00 00 10 (0) 00 20 00 08 22 723 00 (0) 10 00 37 724 (0) 04 19 00 04 33 721 00 00 43 1918 00 09 82 720 ( X) (5 (6) 00 11 51 725 00 07 32 00 04 62 726 (0) (2 22 00 06 54 00 ( X ) 10 00 05 40 643 00 (1) 26 2743 00 (0) 56 641 00 02 73 00 (0) 36 00 (2 73 00 02 13 (0) 10 114 00 12 06 00 04 50 00 20 46 551 00 (0) 89 00 00 10 00 06 79 00 00 37 560 00 00 10 00 (4 33 00 31 87

1409 2027 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(2)

( 1)

(3)

(2)

(5)

( 1)

(4)

(3) (4) (5) 2725

2554

गडादेउलिया-जारी

गडादेउलिया- जारी

283

2714

268

2613

269

270

272

273

578

2545

575

(4) कालामा

सर्वे सं. 574

और 608 के

बीच में रास्ता

608

2447

295

(5) बालियापिटा

613

610

311

2383

313

2384

338

337

2370

327

325

313

329

314

328

234

2553

235

303

300

286

282

2555

00 00 39 00 01 30 559 00 00 19 00 13 81 00 01 98 00 88 00 01 14 00 14 70 557 00 04 26 00 02 82 558 00 03 78 00 02 12 556 00 03 26 00 28 23 577 00 02 92 823 00 15 00 00 85 00 05 53 576 00 03 51 2434 00 05 04 00 05 76 1 00 06 03 574 00 04 32 2 00 02 87 3 00 02 55 4 00 03 55 00 00 51 5 00 01 95 00 07 02 13 00 00 41 00 02 67 00 00 21 615 00 04 51 420 00 02 39 00 00 18 296 00 00 10 609 00 04 93 310 00 03 51 00 01 69 00 01 27 611 00 01 53 312 00 02 01 00 07 21 00 07 94 00 00 48 315 00 05 12 00 04 59 314 00 01 88 00 00 24 317 00 00 36 00 02 53 316 00 12 20 326 00 12 67 324 00 07 68 00 08 94 00 07 93 328 00 01 17 323 00 06 329 00 02 08 326 00 02 26 00 08 00 00 02 26 312 00 00 72 331 00 00 36 00 00 09 327 00 00 23 311 00 05 37 00 17 41 280 00 07 54 355 00 00 20 281 00 01 55 00 12 50 00 00 19 00 01 61 00 02 32 226 00 01 43 00 00 17 227 00 00 63 00 07 24 228 00 00 23 00 05. 04 229 00 08 93 00 00 10 223 00 04 56 2028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

[ PART II -- SC. 3 ( i ) ] (1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(4)

85 00

( 5 ) बालियापिटा जारी 421

(7) बिस्तनुपुर - जारी 249

575

23 00

222

618

00 00

220

248

15 219

250

98 00

221

मंडल /तेहसिल/

राज्य: ओदिशा

जिला : मयुरभंज

436

तालुक : रासागोबिंदपुर

217

गांव सीमा और

(1 ) सापागाडिया

207

सर्वे सं. 237 के

215

बीच में

06 214

237

116

(७) गणेश्वरपुर

238

82 00

105

239

02 00

106

(2 )

240

03 107

241

242

29 00

138

243

00 104

251

110

(7) बिस्तनुपुर

248

60 00

107

249

02 571

265

108

263

ist

03 105

264

13 104

266

00 00

102

329

00 635

330

344

101

328

16 570

326

564

325

00 93

348

349

10 91

सर्वे सं. 349 और 426 के बीच

में रास्ता

Οι 89

426

03 90

425

00 222

424

04 224

483

95 226

421

54 557

480

414

225

420

01 244

417

11 00

243

419

562

416

4.3 241

418

08 00

563

1015

(2) पाइकासाही

605

[फा. सं. एल.- 14014/ 17/2011- जी.पी. ] 247

के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव 2029 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(2)

(4) (5)

(3) New Delhi , the 24th February , 2011

(1)

166

( 1 ) Sasansanbar Contd.

172

170

171

173

174

79 S.O. 678.-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;

176

175

142

141

140

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 heroto ;

137

138

136

129

106

(1) 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 ;

128

107

110

111

109

(0)

005

53 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 Bhaskar Tripathy, Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, 1st Floor, Fortune Tower, Chandrasekharpur , Bhubaneswar -751 023 , Orissa State .

06 SCHEDULE

153

(2) Masada

District : Baleshwar State : Orissa

Mandal / Tehsil/

102

00 Taluk : Singla

150

Village

Area to be acquired

(12

( 5

for ROU

Survey No./ Sub - Division

Are C-Are

Нес.

117

00 (2)

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

(0)

63 ( 1 ) Sasansanbar 249

00 247

(00 246

01.

248

245

(X)

89 00

244

11 157

158

06 159

85 00

00 160

101

74 2007

100

62 00

06 164

10:

00 163

(X )

17 167

(0)

1985

어 2030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

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

(4) (5)

(2)

(3)

( 1)

(2)

(4) (5)

(3) 00

04-

80/104

784

( 2) Masada Contd.

77/101

( 1 ) Dhenukhoja Contd.

76/100

73/97

74/98

72/96

00 38

71/95

70/94

18 39

68/02

27 00

Road bet suy

no . 68/92 &

806

99/127

09 45

99/127

07 44

63/86

67/90

00 42

66/89

85 00

65/88

22 District: Baleshwar State: Orissa

Mandal/Tehsil/

(X)

62/85

08 Taluk: Rupsa

61/84

( 1 ) Jhinkiria

161

Road bet suy

181

no . 61/84 &

182

58/81

02 00

183

151

58/81

153

57/80

(2 00

150

46/68

53 149

42/64

10 In bet suy no .

56/79

37 00

149 & 111

41/63

10 00

111

40/62

00 03

33 00

112

10/12

98 00

113

11/13

25 00

110

14/16

56 109

108

15/17

41 104

(0)

16/18

100

17/19

61 00

101

18/20

78 00

102

31/53

35 00

103

19/21

76 00

30/52

27/34

24 00

(X)

25/31

26/33

( X )

Nala bet suy no.35 & VB

District : Baleshwar State : Orissa

00 Mandal/ Tehsil/

197

( 2 ) Chandanpur

Taluk: Basta

(07

35/93

34/92

82/106

( 1 ) Dhenukhoja

33/91

81/105 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

32/90

( 2 ) Chandanpur

31/89

( 3) Koreibatia Contd.

Contd.

30/88

28/86

29/87

22/80

23/81

21/76

20/75

19/74

18/73

17/72

16/66

195

( 3 ) Koreibatia

196

197

297

298

296

295

2031 ( 2)

(3) (4) (5)

80 485

515

94 484

75 483

44 482

463

64 462

452

453

00 05

83 451

19 449

05 450

448

54 445

444

76 443

52 386

67 360

10 361

10 359

358

49 390

ΟΙ

394

391

62 393

23 392

12 434

412

31 425

55 424

62 423

66 420

418

17 419

1263

(4) Kundapur

536

303

283

305

282

306

327

328

329

330

331

332

489

533

486

1266

1265

1264

32 1216

00 08

1268

1270

1269

1272

85 1212

1209

00.

1276

1208

09 03

1207

1206

1205 2032

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(2)

(3) (4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5) (1)

(5)

(4) 00

74 1064

58 (7) Dubulia Contd. 44

00 1200

38 (4) Kundapur Contd.

1071

15 00

00- 1070

1072

00 00 08

00 1078

13 1077

24 1161

14 00

54 1162

09 00

00 1163

10 1164

00 1188

90 00

00 00

7) 1187

07 1170

01 1171

1169

( 8 ) Kanchania

00 00

1172

(1)

00 00

1173

(1)

1176

(X )

1175

(12 00

1138

1137

4א

06 00

(1) (5) Palasia

(0)

(X) 00

149

(1)

60 9

(税 10

177

( 9 ) Gohiragaria

(α)

176

175

174

(17

173

178

171

42 00

117

179

06 00

180

(1)

(X )

196

( ۲)

118/195

ST 29

194

(0)

113/182

193

115/184

11 32

(1)

192

(0)

191

19 00

112

188

( 6) Jhinjipara

(0)

187

(7 ) Dubulia

208

75 00

200

00 41

244

08 42

243

87 00

194

(01

126/217

(1)

68 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

218

238

( 12) Renupada Contd.

( 9 ) Gohiragaria Contd.

232

219

229

228

227

226

221

225

4/4

( 10 ) Chakrara

3/3

1/1

2/2

42/82

( 11 ) Baigandiha

44//84

43/83

45/85

46/86

377

47/87

36/76

35/75

70/111

76/117

69/110

75/116

74/115

73/114

81/152

63/104

82/153

83/154

84/155

85/156

131/280

129/278

130/279

127/276

126/275

274

124/272

286

287

(13 ) Barada 1507

(12) Renupada

430

433

1510

655 Gl/11-9

2033 (2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5)

(17

432

1511

55 436

431

1501

428

438

25 439

-427

426

420

419

34 413

69 414

408

06 415

407

406

404

402

401

14 224

38 230

07 231

229

31 238

13 239

276

11 242

275

24 243

10 277

00 00

45 274

49 273

272

271

246

247

266

45 265

264

262

259

10 260

10 258

74/75

288/800

52 52/53

79 53/54

08 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(5)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(4) (5)

( 1)

(2)

(3)

(1)

54/55

( 13 ) Barada Contd .

( 15 ) Nabda Contd. 222

212.

55/56

(04

213

56/57

( X)

219

63/64

(X )

218

62/63

217

61/62

216

(12

00 00

60/61

215

59/60

220

00 (0)

101

( ۴)

298

118/122

290

117/121

291

116/120

308

115/119

(12

309

289/801

325

113/117

(Χ)

324

(3 00

112/116

323

(0)

(B 00

4/4

( 14 ) Begunia

322

3/3

{12

321

17/17

0 ]

312

16/16

313

18/18

314

19/19

508

(16) Sonpur

112/170

(12

(X) ( 15 ) Nabda

511

113/171

(X )

512

114/172

State: Orissa

Mandal/ Tehsil/ District: Baleshwar 00

132/190

Taluk : Jaleswar

131/189

( 1 ) Kotsahi

(0)

130/188

276

(04

129/187

265

0 ]

192

266

134/193

275

(0)

140/199

273

139/198

162

267

141/200

268

148/232

אן

274

(1) 00

( 12

140/233

(15

271

00 00

147/231

272

258

150/234

112

257

146/230

150

227

121

226

225

(0)

(12

(۲)

( 1)

(0)

228

(0)

224

223

208

209

104

(X) (1)

( 1)

V (0)

211

(X)

00 2035 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(4) (5)

(3)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

( 1)

1691

( 1 ) Kotsahi Contd.

( 1 ) Kotsahi Contd. 65

04 64

1692

1694

1693

00 02

1689

98 00

1690

1684

1688

00 00

1683

108

2563

1682

00 100

04 00

1685

109

1686

107

1679

101

1677

00 00

106

1678

104

1640

102

1676

103

1675

00 00

1401

1674

1402

1673

1400

12 1410

1672.

1670

1395

00 00

1664

1398

1671

1394

1665

00 1392

00 00

1657

1396

1666

1391

00 00

1656

1397

1747

01 00

1387

00 00

1856

1390

13 00

1855

1388

()

1854

1367

1853

1368

1857

1386

05 00

1851

1385

1858

1384

1850

1377

1859

1376

1849

00 00

1378

1848

1375

00 00

1847

1374

01 00

1373

1798

26 00

00 1372

(2) Kespura

1697

1696

1698

42 1699

1695

1700 2036

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

( 1)

(2)

(4) ( 5 )

(3)

(4) (5)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(0)

(01

75 (2 ) Kespura Contd . 25

( 2 ) Kespura Contd. 450

00 00

455

465

1385

(00)

( 1 )

466

(0)

467

(X)

1381

468

( 1)

05 00

1418

(Χ )

469

(0) 27

(17

( X )

471

(0)

1375

(17

( 1 ) 28

(19

(1)

47)

(0)

1078

(3) Sarsida

ツ 14

(Y)

1079

1080

41 33

(0)

1076

(0)

(1)

1081

12 000

1000

1075

1082

(0)

1074

(1)

1073

1086

02 00

1072

(0)

75 00

(12

1087

600 56

1037

00 58

(00

1113

(1) 50

()

( 1)

112

lis

(0) 00

10306

1035

( 1 )

14 60

(0)

( X )

inj

1116

1177

(0)

1334

(0)

1118

12 53

1119

( 1) 1425

1104

(1)

(1) 397

(00

(1)

1003

(0)

(0) 398

(0)

( X )

1002

(1)

400

698

09 399

( X )

1120

32 401

(0)

968

04 404

(1)

1205

402

966

(0) 403

1204

407

965

408

117

{ 1} 00

964

963

409

(00

00 00

962

(X) 47 410

420

State: Orissa

District : Baleshwar 411

Mandal/Tehsil/ Taluk : Remuna

416

Nala bet VB

( 1 ) Paribelda

417

& suy no . 535 ( 1) 418

535

( K)

13 451

(0)

11 452

453

10 454

01 2037 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(2)

(5)

(2)

(4) ( 1)

(3)

(4) ( 5)

(1)

335

174

( 1 ) Paribelda Contd.

( 1 ) Paribelda Contd

10 86

337

00 169

339

89 00

540

06 00

79 168

338

00 00

336

01 167

00 00

87 166

22 (2) Maujpur

04 00

165

00 00

00 559

00 00

51 160

66 00

08 161

100

In bet suy no .

161 & 158

71 158

( 1) 211

21 00

157

00 03 00

212

83 155

00 00

213

00 216

(0)

00 00

214

167

(3) Kalyan pur

249

171

(X)

219

(X)

172

223

173

93 245

776

(X)

244

775

246

00 243

774

00 247

780

248

782

93 00

242

1026

04 240

783

554

788

68 239

787

257

789

258

790

238

792

531

791

355

808

00 356

807

03 00

359

811

83 364

812

99 360

819

02 00

363

818

361

1028

02 362

817

348

00 346

815

345

816

43 00

344

824

334

825

00 2038

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(1)

(5)

(3)

(5) (2)

(3) (4)

( 1)

(2)

(4)

36 826

(X )

(α ) 827

(2) Chakapanchuputali 192 Contd.

107

( X )

(2 (3 ) Kalyan pur Contd.

843

106

(X )

13 00

842

(0)

841

( X )

840

( X)

188

839

165

(X )

(0)

37 844

(X)

(04

853

004 854

( X)

855

( X )

71 856

( 1)

11 857

858

1927

(1)

(3) Gadadoulia

914

2561

970

1926

(3) 915

( 17

1929

(0) ( X)

941.

1930

942

( X)

1931

12 00

(0)

943

1925

940

2658

(1)

937

22 939

(6)

1932

( }

37 938

1933

934

(12

1934

1918

09 Mandal/ Tehsil/ District : Mayurbhanj State: Orissa

2527

11 Taluk : Baisinga

1917

( 1 ) Dihapanchaputuli 113

1916

138

1913

(1)

05 00

112

114

(X )

2743

56 112

(13

(00

1402

(1)

136

1403

( X)

(12

73 127

1406

( X )

(12

123

(X)

1407

(2 126

(12

1903

(1)

46 145

(2) Chakapanchuputali

10 195

1820

(00

( X ) 149

(0 )

1408

150

104

३३

1409

199

1433

169

( 1 )

1816

170

(0)

1434

01 00

147

1815

( 1 )

94 125

(X )

1435

(2 00

190

( X )

1438

(04

126

( X )

1439

113

( X )

1812

112

( 1)

1802

( X ) 00

111

004

1811

( X) 00

110

2498

( X ) 00

100

1806

( X )

(B 00

108

1803

( X )

( X) 00

189 2039 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

( 5)

(2)

(3) (4) (2)

(3)

(1)

(4) ( 5)

2384

1805

(3 ) Gadadeulia

59 Contd.

(3 ) Gadadeulia Contd.

338

1783

24 00

337

2562

2370

02 00

1784

326

12 00

2490

08 00

327

1782

17 00

01 1721

328

00 00

329

(12 712

(01) 00

313

713

72 00

312

1780

09 00

00 714

314

311

37 00

715

117

280

00 722

01 723

281

00 00

2553

19 724

32 721

303

112

17 00

720

300

(0)

286

24 725

05 00

726

282

00 00

2555

10 644

い

2554

30 643

283

13 00

81 641

ΟΙ

268

00 Road bet suy

269

00 no . 641 & 550 00

550

270

272

02 551

23 562

273

15 560

10--

823

2545

552

2434

(04 2725

(0)

(B 559

(X)

(4) Kalama

87 2714

00 00

(12

55 2613

55 00

(B 557

558

556

295

00 577

(5) Baliapita

39 00

420

(2 578

10 576

296

03 575

310

(0)

27 574

311

0 ]

312

02 Road bet suy

313

00 no . 574 & 608 00

06 00

(17

315

00 608

88 2447

314

(12

(00-

615

317

2) 00

00 613

316

68 00

324

609

325

07 610

00 611

323

326

02 2383

21 2040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14, 1932

[PART II Sic . 3 ( i ) ] ( 1)

(4)

(2)

(3)

( 5)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(4) 00

562

06 ( 5) Baliapita Contd. 329

331

241

(7) Bistnupur Contd .

563

327

605

00 328

247

00 00

355

249

85 234

575

00 235

618

10 226

248

41 227

250

20 228

Mandal/Tehsil/

229

State : Orissa

District : Mayurbhanj 223

56 Taluk: Rasagobindapur

421

(B ( 1 ) Sapagadia

06 222

Nala bet VB & suy no. 237 00

237

96 221)

238

219

239

( 12

(f)

(17

221

240

0B 436

241

32 217

242

39 207

243

00 00

215

251

151

32 214

248

116

( 6) Ganeswarpur

249

(2 00

105

265

13 106

263

(14

03 00

107

264

138

266

104

(12

329

110.

330

50 (7) Bistnupur

107

344

571

328

00 00

326

14 108

325

23 00

105

348

12 104

00 .

349

15 00

102

635

Road bet suy

(1)

no . 349 & 426 00

101

426

570

(00

425

564

( 1)

424

14 93

00 .

(X)

483

( X)

421

(1)

480

(17

414

(X )

(0)

420

(X )

417

222

419

( X)

224

416

(1)

(B 226

112

418

(0)

557

(α)

1015

(2) Paikasahi

225

244

[F. No. L - 14014 / 17/2011 - GP ] K. K. SHARMA , Under Socy .

243

89 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 24 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 679. भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएन्स इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के 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 बासुदेबपुर- 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 बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः , अब , भारत सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की 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 उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध कर दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री भास्कर त्रिपाठी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, प्रथम मंजिल , फोर्चुन टावर, चन्द्रशेखरपुर, भुवनेश्वर-751023 , ओडिशा राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक भद्रक देहात जिला भद्रक राज्य : ओडिशा गांव का नाम सर्वेसं/सब डिविजन सं.

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

सिएयर

एयर

2601

44 (1 ) बाणतिआ

71 7677

2676

2673/685

2677/686

2674/687

2679

2680

2681

2682

2683

76 07 45 16 68 94 22 49 44 17 2584/632

655 Gi/ 11-10

2041

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

34 ( 1 ) बाणतिआ-जारी 2583/631

2581

66 2579/629

2576/626

2575/625

( X)

(1)

0 ]

2511

(X)

32 2571/621

(X)

2570/620

(X )

2567/617

99 2566/616

(X)

112

( 1)

( )

2565/615

15 2564/614

(X)

( X )

75 2562/612

2560

(1)

11 2516

5523

100

35 2551/537

535

(0)

10- 79

( X )

39 523

( X )

1950/536

(0)

(X)

1949

( X )

1948

(X)

1947/521

(X)

(04

81 1893

1898/510

(X)

(0)

65 1896/509

(X)

1865

(0)

(1 )

28 1875/498

1873/496

(1)

(X)

1871/495

35 1870/494

1860

43 1847

94 1848/480

87 1839

(0)

1826/468

(X)

10 1820/465

(1)

44 1827/469

(X)

1825

13 37

05 1824

(0)

1823/467

(X)

(0)

37 1813 2042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(00

1814

( 1 ) बाणतिआ- जारी

1804/456

95 1804

1699/454

01 1800

07 1801

α)

23 1291

54 1693

92 1692/444

02 1682

(α)

32 1681

(0)

10 1680

(12 1679

(X)

(2 1678

27 1354/402

(X)

1363/401

04 1362/4000

74 1341/397

00 1345

(00

92 390

01 1330/391

(X)

1331/389

( 1)

1320/384

13 1319/382 00

33 1318/383

(0)

01 1316

(1)

300/177

(0)

391/176

392/175

( )

60 393/174

11 384

(0 )

51 394

02 383/173

אא

(0)

382

(X)

306/172

(X )

(0)

377

(0)

378

381

(00

82 379

א)

160/59

(1 )

107

156/55

(1)

155/54

[ PART 11 - S30

(۲)

( 1 ) बाणतिआ- जारी 153

112

152

(X)

( X )

151

(12

143/52

142/51

16 66 141

140/46

146

बालेश्वर राज्य : ओडिशा मंडल /तहसील/तालुक : सोरो जिला

00 01

गाँव सीमा और

( 1 ) रघुनाथपुर

सर्वे सं. 46 के

बीच में

( X )

(12

(X )

(X)

(0)

(X )

( 1 )

אל

(X )

(1)

54 14

( X )

(1)

(X)

(0)

सर्वे सं. 39 और (X )

46 के बीच में

42 40

(K )

אא

(00

(X )

12 10

(0 )

112 35

(X)

55 12

(1 )

( X )

112

(X)

300

( 2 ) बलदिआ

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक निलगिरी जिला बालेश्वर राज्य आडिशा

57 1827

( 1 ) बौलगडिआ

1828

(X)

1792

(0)

13 1826

(0)

(1) 1802 2043 [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

14 1793

( 1 ) बौलगडिआ- जारी

1 ) बौलगडिआ- जारी 1512

08 1797

(14

1511

( 1)

( X )

(0)

(1)

48 1801

1513

1800

(1)

1514

(17

(0)

1798

1516

1799

( 1)

254

(X)

(1)

(2) अगिरिया

1765

(1)

288

1776

( 1)

287

(X)

1777

286

35 1766

(0)

284

34 1775

(01

(X )

282

(18

1767

(X)

280

24 1741

(07

276

67 00

1740

321

1739

272

(0)

19 00

2072

(0)

270

75 00

1713

271

05 00

1714

225

04 1712

223

1711

222

1710

221

1709

220

19 00

1967

219

1596

(0)

217

1595

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक : सिमिलिया जिला बालेश्वर राज्य : ओडिशा

1590

1602

09 45

(1) महतीपुर

1591

1655

1588

1596

10 1587

(X)

1600

52 00

1584

1597

58 1586

1650

1585

1598

1583

( X)

1580

1576

1579

1577

1578

1572

(X)

57 1564

1571

(0)

(14

93 1562

1638

1561

1549

1541

1640

40 1563

1548

(X)

1542 2044

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

4 1

5 3

01 00

1547

( 1 ) महतीपुर - जारी

( 1) महतीपुर- जारी 1282

05 00

99 1628

1284

10 1546

1283

23 1543

1285

1286

10 00

1544

31 00

(2) 1542

1287

00 00

1288

(赵 1539

1541

(12

644

(2) अन्तरा

1540

768

1537

105

769

1630

763

(1)

26 1460

762

15 00

1461

771

1462

כא

761

1464

758

00 00

1455

3293

05 1424

007

757

00 00

1423

756

1429

754

(03

1428

748

1427

738

1430

732

1414

(X)

731

1413

733

1415

734

1314

928

1353

930

1352

932

1346

1544

1349

1543

1350

1542

1351

(04

1530

1354

3182

1256

1526

00 1257

1527

02 1258

1539

1295

1649

1294

1523

1281

1522

12 00

1293

1521

02 00

1280

1650

1279

1651

04 2045 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) )

4 2

5 1

12 88

1519

3313

(2) अन्तरा जारी

(2) अन्तरा -जारी

1518

बालेश्वर राज्य : ओडिशा

मंडल/ तहसील /तालुक : रेभुणा जिला

1516

661-

(1) बरौन

1517

660

1520

667

06 00

1483

649

1447

668

1010

669

1026

627

00 00

1027

670

3140

672

1081

671

.00

1082

674

1090

644

1083

01 34

643

1085

675

1086

676

59 00

1084

637

1066

636

1182

635

1181

30 80

612

00 1174

626

1175

625

1080

02 30

613

1179

614

1186

592

1178

591

1177

11 86

590

1361

587

1360

586

1357

585

1355

581

00 00

1353

580

3310

579

1381

578

1380

560

1385

561

1384

562

00 00

1383

16 44

556

1388

1390

1391

55 2046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

5 18

50 ( 1) बरौन -जारी

10 12

01 21

00 552

56 24

08 20

15 22

77 23

62 81

10 (2)शालागों

14 25 80

41 87

04 86

59 90

12 88

07 89

69 70

79 92

84 91

05 98

30 127

32 128

130

47 129

04 131

09 03 132

32 133

52 43

0B 134

37 141

51 142

06 143

61 145

17 146

71 147

78 154

40 171

84 172

61 1.73

174

19 1909

78 (3) गाबिंद‌पुर

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

22 (3 ) गाबिंदपुर- जारी 1910

2063

61 1920

1917

31 1918

06 1922

58 2017

1932

1923

1931

85 1935

66 1929

1930

62 1943

19 1856

10 1855

1945

1944

1946

26 1854

10 1947

48 1466

89 1948

83 1465

59 1464

1471

39 1457

90 1472

85 1456

1453

72 1455

(2 08 1454

91 1011

35 1008

20 2048

1007

02 1006

1004

95 1009

1010

15 1014

1000

64 2047 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5 3

(3 ) गाबिंदपुर - जारी 2051

991

(3 ) गाबिंद‌पुर - जारी

2070

999

1076

983

1074

984

1073

985

1095

986

1094

987

1096

682

1107

643

1106

644

1104

646

1105

647

1117

648

1116

649

1118

650

1120

645

1136

653

1143

651

1149

652

1148

635

1147

633

1151

00 00

621

1152

632

1153

634

1154

1026

1155

2041

1156

631

1157

00 00

630

1158

1027

1242

00 00

1049

1241

629

1243

09 00

1050

1244

1056

1245

1051

1247

1053

1246

1054

1248

05.

1055

1249

1060

1250

1063

1255

1065

1258

1066

1259

2077

2055 2048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

08 284

72 (4) जेनाबरेइ

281

84 280

02 279

35 277

86 276

47 269

32 268

31 267

21 102

101

38 99

90 100

53 65

16 (5) झिंकामुंडली

00 64

02 66

02 67

13 68

05 71

72 63

05 72

04 42

37 39

17 43

05 37

27 36

15 33

60 27

45 32

05 29

08 19

42 20

0 21

17 3

352

75 (6) गौरपुर

363

353

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

5 355

30 (6) गौरपुर-जारी

361

28 356

22 360

53 357

15 359

358

318

10 317

313

314

1269

62 312

01 46 65

(17

3 68

08 69

35 42

53 40

95 74

04 85 79

86 80

64 81

85 82

83 83

10 90

10 91

(0)

12 65 95

38 96

97 (7) बाल गोपालपुर 404

403

398

97 396

68 272

29 371

373

78 363

89 375

43 361

46 2049

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 5, 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii )]

06 00

357

(8) बिद्याधरपुर

(7) बाल गोपालपुर

163

-जारी

20 08

00 69 162

85 00

168

80 00

169

00 81 171

03 170

00 00

160

198

00 00

172

173

08 43

1475

(9) कुरुणिआ

158

1471

174

18.

1472

-157

06 52

1473

156

88 :

1468

155

1469

120

00 04

1465.

145

1464

219

1413

218

1412

146

06 79

1411

141

1410

139

1406

06 33

1408

581

(8 ) बिद्याधरपुर

10 00

1409

579

00 00

1407

580

1594

577

1500

576

1501

575

1393

510

-20

1392

509

00 00

1530

508

1365

104

1.00 00

1359

100

1360

101

1357

102

1356

103

1355

105

00 00

106

1353

11 37 00

04 47

1354

1547

00 00

1339

1319

655 GI/11-11 2050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

5 1320

03 (9) कुरुणिआ जारी

06 1338

1581

00 1579

1847

58 1580

03 1585

46 1582

00 1583

18 1584

1587

1594

88 1621

1622

1623

43 1626

10 1625

07 1620

87 1627

42 1612

17 1629

1630

89 1631

03 1633

81 1632

901

20 900

899

08 898

896

76 1817

12 894

86 897

75 887

02 888

18 889

388

387

66 383

389

18 390

80 399

01 400

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

5 1

26 398

(9) कुरुणिआ

जारी

51 391

403

397

404

49 402

405

406

407

433

04 60

432

431

(0) 430

438

429

1843

29 427

422

421

420

804

31 423

10 803

805

22 806

78 802

801

94 792

27 790

22 791

793

69 777

776

(2 775

90-

12 762

55 763

764

(0)

(17

765

(X)

735

(04 732

00 01

31 731

733

(0) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

28 734

00 738

09 (9) कुरूनिया (जारी)

31 718

717

93 716

04 688

2051

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

00 03

629

(10) भरदा ( जारी )

556

94 411

336

335

07 325

(11) बालिपल

01 690

689

56 678

677

05 676

10 675

03 674

42 673

666

37 662

35 1875

19 1874

01 658

02 647

1897

651

19 650

39 649

648

641

640

38 1873

75 1823

ΟΙ

607

11 (10) भरदा

606

605

03 604

09 626

03 627

53 625

94 624

30 630

10 631

632

03 634

635

31 324

66 323

609

0B 249

246

68 248

247

04. 93 251

261

44 262

240

17 263

264

224

225

95 226

97 223

222

219

45 220

63 221

227

229

20 211

230

(X)

48 231

72 132

(α)

33 129

131

64 133

06 134

135

(00

136

187

(X )

(X)

139

2.4 137

(X)

04 2052

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

5 1

1322

03 00

138

00 00

1293

148

(12) शिलासुअन (जारी)

(11 ) बालीफ्ल (जारी)

1323

140

1324

141

1330

142

1331

146

1329

147

1332

152

1452

00 00

153

12 156

1333

1339

00 00

155

63 00

1340

00 173

1341

00 00

157

03 48

1449

158

1350

161

1351

162

1365

164

1366

163

1367

01 160

1364

00 168

1363

01 00

167

1362

166

1370

165

1369

00 370

09 00 53

1371

00 00

371

1361

984

(12) शिलासुअन

1360

985

1359

986

1358

983

1263

10 00

1277

1375

1304

840

1303

(13) नच्छीपुर

00 00

679

1302

677

1436

676

01 00

1301

01 00

674.

1300

683

1298

00 00

682

1297

672

1305

684

1295

686

00 08

1294

670

1321 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

4 1

5 717

13 690

10 (13) नच्छीपुर (जारी )

76 691

62 692

10 693

714

06 715

15 713

038 719

03 720

721

32 712

726

01 727

728

86 729

00 711

730

734

00 735

733

06 825

01 783

28 784

21 789

03 785

74 788

00 790

04 791

10 793

61 799

800

90 801

31 805

39 798

00 806

00 807

01 808

82 811

42 447

814

2053

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

35 920

(14) काशिमपुर

10 921

27 919

918

916

48 917

91 1545

24 915

913

825

824

03 48

17 823

: 822

31 820

62 819

82 816

15 815

814

811

49 812

76 796

795

94 794

76 797

10 798

43 793

06 792

41 790

74 791

769

765

766

05 767

07 768

66 746

760

759

45 758

757

51 749

751

33 750

02 2054

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

5 752

537

729

529

01 (14) काशिमपुर (जारी )

(14) काशिमपुर (जारी)

531

21 00

07 728

00 753

530

48 00

389

59 00

754

382

00 00

727

444

53 614-

390

00 726

391

08 1535

392

00 615

401

08 613

407

612

408

616

409

09 00

618

403

05 00

617.

406

54 00

600

411

55 596

404

00 00

597

405

32 00

04.

598

1461

00 00

599

414

00 587

415

05 00

588

417

589

416

00 00

577

237

1592

236

01 00

563

235

573

197

82 00

572

196

564

195

569

192

15 570

02 92

(15) मरायगन

571

गाँव सीमा और 100 सर्वे सं. 182 के

568

बीच में

567

182

66 566

183

31 539

1743

004

(0 )

178

538

177

535

176

536

४

188

533

174

532

04 2055 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

189

(15) मरायगन

-जारी

190 .

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;

171

486

170

193

191

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 ;

192

169

168

167

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 ;

487

150

1760

497

498

496

493

492

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 Bhaskar Tripathy, Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, 1st Floor, Fortune Tower , Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar - 751 023 , Orissa State.

495

SCHEDULE

494

Mandal/Tehsii/ District : Bhadrak State : Orissa 550

Taluk: Bhadrak Rural

503

Area to be acquired 546

Are C-Are

SurveyNo./ Sub -Division Hec

Village

545

5 00

547

2601

(1) Banatia

540

7677

71 539

2676

471

2673/685

07 00

1763

2677/686

45 524

2674/687

00 21 1730

2679

522

2680

94 00

521

2681

22 सर्वे सं. 182 00

2682

2683

04 और गाँव सीमा के बीच में

2584/632

2583/631

34 [फा. सं. एल -14014/16/2011- जी. पी. ] के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

2581

66 New Delhi , 24th February, 2011

2579/629

2576/626

39 S.O. 679.- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for 2056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

2575/625

2511

(1) Banatia (Contd.) (1) Banatia (Contd.)

2571/621

2570/620

2567/617

2566/616

2565/615

2564/614

2562/612

2560

2516

5523

2551/537

535

523

1950/536

1949

1948

1947/521

1893

1898/510

1896/509

1865

1875/498

1873/496

1871/495

1870/494

1860

1847

1848/480

1839

1826/468

1820/465

1827/469, 00

1825

1824

1823/467

1813

1814

1804/456

1804

1699/454

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

1800

28 1801

1291

1693

1692/444

92 1682

32 1681

10 1680

80 1679

11 1678

27 1364/402

19 1363/401

1362/400

74 1341/397

1345

390

35 1330/391

1331/389

70 1320/384

1319/382

1318/383

(0) 1316

26 300/177

391/176

85 392/175

393/174

384

51 394

70 383/173

382

43 306/172

56 377

378

381

82 379

14 160/59

31 156/55

155/54

58 153

152

22 151

35 143/52 2057 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

142/51

1799

1765

141

(1) Baulagadia (Contd.)

(1) Banatia (Contd.)

1776

140/46

1777

146

1766

Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk : Soro District: Baleshwar

State : Orissa

1775

01 00

1767

Inbet VB & suy no.46

(1) Raghunath- pur

1741

1740

1739

2072

14 12

1713

1714

1712

1711

1710

07 39

1709

In bet suy no . 00

1967

39&40

1596

1595

1590

1591

1588

1587

1584

1586

1585

1583

1576

1577

309

(2)Baladia

.00

1578

District:Baleshwar

Mandal Tensil Taluk: Nilagiri

1564

State:Orissa

1562

(1 ) Baulagadia 1827

1561

1828

1541

1792

1563

1826

08 14

1542

1802

14 93

1512

1793

1511

1797

1513

1801

1514

02 73

1800

1516

1798

655 GI/11-12 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 2058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

3 1

254

1542

(2)Agiria

1539

288

(1 ) Mahati Pur (Contd.)

1541

05 28

287

1540

05 35

286

1537

284

1630

282

1460

280

1461

276

1462

321

1464

272

1455

270

1424

271

1423

00 225

1429

223

102

1428

222

1427

221

1430

220

1414

219

1413

217

1415

00 District: Baleshwar

Mandal/ Tehsil/Taluk: Similia

State: Orissa

1314

00 1602

1353

(1) Mahati Pur

1655

1352

1596

1346

1600

1349

1597

1350

00 00

1650

1351

1598

1354

1580

1256

1579

1257

00 00

1578

1258

00 1572

1295

1571

1294

1638

1281

1549

1293

1640

1280

1548

1279

1547

1282

1628

1284

1546

1283

23 1543

1285

1544

1286 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1 1

1287

1288

2059

5 2

1520

1483

(2) Antara

(Contd.)

(1) Mahati Pur (Contd.)

644

(2) Antara

768

769

763

762

771

761

758

3293

757

756

754

748

738

732

731

733

734

928

930

02 56

932

1544

1543

1542

1530

3182

1526

1527

04 82

1539

1649

1523

1522

1521

1650

1651

1519

1518

1516

1517

1447

1010

19 1026

1027

3140

1081

1082

1090

51 1083

96 1085

38 1086

1084

1066

10 1182

49 1181

1174

85 1175

1080

1179

1186

1178

1177

1361

1360

1357

1355

1353

3310

82 1381

1380

1385

1384

1383

1388

1390

1391

3313 2060

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

4 3

Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk : Remuna District : Baleshwar

State : Orissa

(1) Barian (Contd.)

661

(1) Baruan

14 660

667

552

649

00 00

668

15 00

669

627

10 670

(2) Shalagan

672

671

00 674

04 00

644

59 00

643

12 00

675

676

69 00

637

01 00

636

635

84 00

612

30 00

626

127

625

128

56 613

130

47 00

614

129

00 00

592

131

00 00

591

132

32 00

590

133

587

586

134

37 585

141

581

142

580

143

61 579

145

578

146

'00

02 560

147

03 561

154

00 00

562

171

556

172

04 14

173

61 15

19 17

00 00

174 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2061

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन14, 1932

02 78

(3) Gobindapur 1909

1910

(3) Gobindapur (Contd .)

2063

1920

1917

1918

1922

2017

1932

1923

1931

12 85

1935

1929

1930

1943

1856

1855

1945

1944

1946

1854

1947

1466

1948

1465

1464

1471

1457

1472

1456

1453

1455

1454

1011

1008

2048

1007

1006

1004

1009

1010

1014

64 1000

17 991

31 999

00 983

75 984

985

986

987

682

643

644

646

36 647

35 648

44 649

650

24 645

653

43 651

652

635

633

84 621

632

63 634

61 1026

2041

35 631

39 630

66 1027

43 1049

68 629

1050

94 1056

1051

1053

50 1054

1055

48 1060

49 1063

91 1065

1066

97 2062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2

5 00

81 2077

(3 ) Gobindapur 1259

2051

2055

65 (3) Gobindapur (Contd.)

(Contd.)

2070

284

(4) Jenabarei

1076

281

01 00

1074

280

84 00

1073

279

35 00

1095

277

1094

276

47 1096

269

06 1107

268

1106

267

1104

102

1105

101

00 00

1117

18 00

1116

100

90 1118

53 00

1120

(5) Jhinkamundali 65

1136

1143

02 1149

02 00

1148

1147

1151

08 00

1152

1153

75 1154

37 00

1155

00 00

1156

1157

05 1158

14 49

21 60

1242

69 00

1241

15 00

1243

00 1244

00 00

1245

00 00

1247

13 00

1246

13 00

1248

01 00

1249

1250

17 1255

00 00

1258

08 2063 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

11 00

77 352

371

(6) Gourpur

373

78 00

363

(7) Balagopalpur (Contd.)

363

89 00

353

375

355

ΟΙ

361

357

356

163

360

162

357

168

359

169

358

171

41 00

318

170

27 00

317

160

86 00

313

172

314

173

1269

158

312

174

90 00

157

36 65

156

155

120

04 00 00

145

219

218

146

14 00

141

139

08 00

(8) Bidyadharpur 581

579

580

08 00

577

41 00

576

71 81

575

41 00

510

09 00

509

20 00

508

00-

104

100

101

50 00

102

24 00

(7) Balagopalpur 404

108

38 403

02 48

105

106

09 82 398

04 47 00

396

272 2064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

06 69

(9) Kurunia (Contd.) (8 ) Bidyadharpur (Contd.) 87

198

1475

(9) Kurunia

1471

1472

1473

1468

1469

1465

1464

1413

1412

1411

1410

1406

1408

1409

(07

1407

1394

1500

1501

1393

1392

1530

1365

1359

1360

1357

(17

1356

1355

1353

1354

1547

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

1339

1319

53 1320

1358

1581

10 1579

1847

1580

1585

1582

39 1583

1584

18 1587

1594

1621

1622

00 . 01

1623

43 1626

10 1625

1620

78 1627

42 1612

1629

1630

1631

81 1633

87 1632

901

20 900

899

898

896

76 1817

86 894

897

887

888

(12 24

18 889

388

95 387

(B 66

383

(0)

389

18 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2065

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

1 1

390

399

ΟΙ

31 731

52 733

(9)Kurunia

(Contd.)

(9) Kurunia (Contd.)

400

398

391

403

397

404

402

405

406

407

433

432

431

430

438

429

1843

427

422

421

420

804

423

803

805

806

802

801

792

790

734

738

718

717

716

688

690

02 689

678

05 35 677

10 676

675

674

673

666

37 662

35 1875

19 1874

09 658

647

1897

12 651

650

39 649

648

641

640

1873

75 1823

607

(10) Bharda

791

793

776

(12

775

762

763

764

765

735

732

355 GI/11-13

52 606

00.

605

604

626

627

525

624

06 630

631

632

03 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 2066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

3 3

139

634

137

635

( 11) Balipal (Contd.)

(10) Bharda (Contd.)

138

629

148

556

140

411

141

336

142

335

146

325

(11)Balipal

147

324

152

323

153

609

156

249

155

246

173

248

157

247

(1)

158

251

161

261

162

262

(X)

164

240

163

263

(0)

160

264

168

224

(X)

167

225

(1)

166

226

165

223

(X )

( 0)

370

222

371

219

984

220

(12) Silasuan

(1)

(0)

985

221

(X )

986

227

00 00

983

229

1277

211

102

1304

230

1303

231

00 48

1302

132

1436

129

1301

131

1300

133

1298

134

360

1297

135

(X) 00

1305

136

(66

1295

187

12 2067 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

05 00

1294

686

(13) Nachhipur

670

Contd.

ΟΙ

1321

(12) Silasuan Contd.

717

1322

690

1293

691

00 03

1323

692

1324

693

04 39

1330

714

02 10

1331

715

1329

713

05 88

1332

719

1452

720

1333

721

1339

712

1340

726

1341

727

01 20 00

1449

728

1350

.10

729

1351

711

1365

730

1366

734

1367

735

1364

733

1363

825

1362

783

1370

784

00 20

1369

00 .

789

1371

785

1361

788

1360

790

1359

791

1358

793

1263

799

1375

800

840

( 13) Nachhipur

801

679

805

677

798

676

806

674

807

683

808

682

811

672

447

684

814 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

5 1

3 2

750

920

752

(14) Kasimpur Contd.

921

729

919

728

918

753

916

754

917

727

1545

614

915

726

00 00

913

1535

825

615

824

613

823

612

822

616

820

618

819

617

(12

816

600

815

10 00

596

814

597

811

598

812

599

00 00

796

587

795

588

794

589

797

00 00

STI

798

1592

793

563

792

573

790

572

00 00

791

564

03 00

769

569

765

570

766

571

767

568

768

567

746

566

02 51

760

539

759

538

758

535

757

536

749

533

751 2069 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

10 82

188

(15) Maraigan

(14) Kasimpur 532

00 70

174

Contd.

Contd. 537

189

529

190

531

171

530

486

389

170

382

193

444

02 31

191

390

192

391

169

392

168

401

167

407

02 38

487

408

150.

409

1760

403

497

406

498

411

496

404

08 00

493

405

492

1461

495

414

494

415

550

417

503

416

546

237

545

236

547

235

-00

540

197

539

196

471

195

1763

192

524

(15) Maraigan

07 Nala bet VB & 00 suy no . 182

1730

182

522

183

521

1743

03 00

Nala bet suy 00 no . 521 & VB

178

177

176

[F. No. L- 14014/16/2011 - GP] K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

2070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) }

नई दिल्ली , 28 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ, 680, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 2447 दिनांक 10-09-10 , द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जाएगा ) की धारा 3 ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर , रमन मंडी से बहादुरगढ़ ( हरियाणा राज्य में ) तक , पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तार पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना रमन मंडी से बहादुरगढ पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन " के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील तलवंडी साबो जिला बठिण्डा राज्य पंजाब की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 20-12-2010 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में 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 उपयोग के अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।

और 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 केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । तहसील : तलवंडी साबो

अनुसूची

जिला : भटिंडा

क्रम सं गाँव का नाम

हदबस्त संख्या

राज्य : पंजाब

खसरा/किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

( 1) ( 2)

(4)

(3)

124

13 फूलो खारी

130

138 2 त्यौना पुजारीन

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर

एयर

वर्ग मोटर (5)

(6)

(7)

(8) 9

11/2/1

11/2/2

79 [फा. सं. आर -31015/42/ 2009- ओ . आर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2011

S.O. 680.-Whereas , by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Pefroleum and Natural Gas . published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 2447 dated the 10-09-2010, 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 ) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for implementing the " GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh " in Tehsil Talwandi Saboo District Bathinda , in Punjab State ;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 20-12-10 .

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

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

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 land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is acquired;

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

Tehsil : Talwandi Saboo

SCHEDULE

District : Bhatinda

Hadbast No. Mustatil No. S. No. Name ofVillage

(1)

( 2)

(3)

(4) 1

Phullo Khari

124

18 2

130

138 Teona Pujarin

State : Punjab

Khasra /Killa No.

Area Are

Hectare

Square Metre (5)

(6)

(7)

(8 ) 9

28 22

90 23

11/2/1

11/2/2

[ F. No. R - 31015/42/2009 - OR - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

2071 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) नई दिल्ली, 1 मार्च , 2011

00 08 64

899

(2) रुक्मणिपुर ( निरंतर )

901

00 19 65

900

00 00

1126

00 01 14

1936

का. आ. 681.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएन्स इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के 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- बासुदेबपुर- हावड़ा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

00 04 21

1935

1125

06 65

1937

1123

1128

03 61

1127

00 04 और भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में , जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

1938

1939

1129

(3) आमिपाडा

00 10 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 ;

00 12

00 07

00 08 44

00 00 22

177

00 00 39

00 03

06 23

04 48 कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध कर दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री बारिद बरन गुहा , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , 7 , वूड स्ट्रीट तिसरी मंजिल कोलकाता -700016 , पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

00 12

01 94 अनुसूची

00 05 64

पश्चिम बंगाल

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक इग्रा II जिला मेदिनीपुर राज्य

00 09

381

54 गाँव का नाम

00 08 76 सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं.

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

00 10

04 हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

382

48 (2)

( 4 ) ( 5 )

(3 )

(1)

(0) 07 56 00 05 63

106

( 1) कृष्णपुर

93 00 11 26

104

00 03 43

892

(2) रुक्मणिपुर

00 00

00 03

2722

00 05 62 894

1910

00 04

(X)

01 36

895

00 15

384

09 75

896

15 897

00 08

00 01 19

00 00 65 888

388

29 00 04

898

00 2072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(1)

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

( 3) ( 4) (5)

02 97

(3) आमिपाडा (निरंतर ) 137

136

00 08 19

(5) उत्तर दाउदपुर (निरंतर)

387

04 87

135

00 06 66

134

157

00 04 32

158

156

00 05 42

164

06 41

165

00 06 75

389

00 02 74

00 80

394

166

395

00 01 60

167

168

00 01 20

396

201

00 05 37

169

199

00 05 13

198

00 02 16

197

00 04 59

195

00 10

196

00 02 %

325

00 09 24

193

194

00 02 50

00 01 50

192

190

00 08 34

189

00 03 43

191

00 84

186

00 01 40

102

08 93

(4) निजदांडा

100

106

00 00

465

00 08 33

108

00 04 51

109

00 05 01

गांव सीमा और 00

(5) उत्तर दाउदपुर

सर्वे सं. 1012 के बीच में

1012

00 04

1019

00 04 05 1017

00.

1008

00 11 68

1007

00 88 977

00 07 72 936

00 06

935

(08

924

00 15 31

00 35 925

923

00 15 95 905

( X )

00 10

906

40 907

902

00 07 26 809

00 04

48 901

200

56 1142

00 01 44 1143

00 00 19 1145

1163

00 06

00 00 26 1164

1162

00 12 4] 1150

00 06 43 सर्वे सं. 1150 00 03

51 और1157 के

बीच मे

1157

00 08

1223

00 00 21 1224

00 12 27 1233

00 06 20

42 1225

1235

02 76

00 08 64 1234

1232

00 08 (7) 1237

00 00 10 1231

00 17 88 1243

00 22

774

00 01 37 2073

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(1) (2)

( 4) ( 5 )

(3)

(1)

775

(6 ) उत्तर सिलमपुर (निरंतर)

1245

(5) उत्तर दाउद‌पुर (निरंतर)

05 25

779

01 60

1349

1350

00 02 22

सर्वे सं. 1350

और 856के

बीच में

856

17 53

00 08 30

3611

00 00 73

3697

00 01

3701

08 18

3702

00 00

855

857

00 00 07

3703

3709

00 08

3710

00 11

3707

00 21

854

14 58

3711

00 17 57

850

सर्वे सं. 850 और 00

गांव सीमा के

बीच में

00 08 80

561

(6) उत्तर सिलमपुर

00 01 55

560

333

334

15 56

332

00 11

339

00 09

338

344

343

00 06 47

06 16

346

00 04

352

13 17

347

00 05 75

348

349

01 04

1534

655Gl/11-14

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

00 04 91 1535

00 08 60 230

00 37 59 2748

72 267

00 17 92 266

00 98 262

18 86 246

00 OB

2749

00 13

2750

00 10 31 247

00 00 59 250

00 29 28 239

00 10 56 238

00 01

240

00 01

231

216

00 20 58 220

96 221

00 10

211

00 09 07 212

209

208

00 01 57 194

ΟΙ

193

00 38

791

07 53

187

00 ' 15

169

-12

00 11

155

CB 26

153

00 00 52 132

00 03

133

16 94

134

17 37

139

152

2057

2058

05 79

2829

00 89

2053

00 13 65 2056

00 23

2055

00 36

2064 1074

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) 00

2828

08 39

275

(6 )

( 7 ) दरबार खान बार

02 86

00 10 35

274

उत्तर सिलमपुर (निरंतर)

2054

00 16 33 00

441

2831

08 98

2066

401

00 00:

08 13 00

2834

07 15

00 02 48 00

2832

02 83

10 33

00 12

2833

00 13 39 00

2046

00 00

2838

08 91

09 00 00 62

2096

00 33 52 00 00 39

2839

00 00 92 2840

00 03 90

00 00

2842

00 00 10 00 22

2099

02 78

गांव सीमा और 00

(8) जगन्नाथ कारबार

2837

सर्वे सं. 1004

2836

के बीच में

2100

01 69

1004

00 05

2823

01 14

207

00 00

2039

02 60

04 74

208

00 00 08 24

2038

209

2037

210

00 03 21 00 08 56

2111

213

00 04 79 00

2306

219

00 00 10 00 15

2107

212

00 09 60 00 01

2108

202

00 70

00 00 11

1993

228

07 00

00 00

1994

229

04 59

00 00

1995

08 53

230

00 03 27 00 07 22

1998

231

1997

198

03 00 02 40

1999

199

04 2000

200

00 00 00 05

2001

197

00 09 00

2002

196

00 11

2003

301

02 00 08

2004

00 00 40

183

2005

00 10

00 04 01

179

00 00 19

2006

174

09 61

00 08

2007

178

00 00 50 00 04 77

2008

00 2009

00 04

177

00 10

66 00 04 29

176

2010

05 00 16 87

00 01 08 1990

175

2011

00 00 83

172

00 25

1989

00 08 86

173

00 08 01

1988

303

03 70

1983

00 36

304

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2075

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 5,2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(2)

(1)

( 3) ( 4) ( 5 )

162

00 17 99 (9) पात्रकबर ( निरंतर) 56

161

(8) जगन्नाथ कारबार (निरंतर)

00 01

305

360

01 20 361

00 08 82 (2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

00 02 32 8

00. 04 36

जिला : मेदिनीपुर

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक भगवानपुर 11

राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल

02 39

(1) पुरुलिया

00 100 10 160

363

00 60 98 365

366

00 0921 367

6000

368

00 03 52 358

00 01 47 369

00 00 10

376

00:

377

00 01 17 374

000045 375

00:07

378

90000 53

00.00

373

39 386

19 64

388

00 16 37

387

399

00 04 79

00 15

400

68 522

00 16

00 06

401

426

00 08 80

00 07 33

425

427

00.

424

00 01 78

428

00 13 12 423

00 08

436

00 11 00:

438

9100

गांव सीमा और 00 सर्वे से 21 को

00 00 17 21

0016 07 9

901000

00 07 51

00 10 08

00 07 98

1000

0008

0000

00 12 41

00 04 79

00 04 17

00 01

08 11

01 IS

00 07 61

00 08 51

00 02 71

08 64

00 02 15

00 OB 15 2.

00 14

(2) नया बसन उर्फ

धाइपुखुरिया

00 05 31

(9) पाइकबर

6690

10.00.

08 41

0000 81

18:00 87

00 00 98

00 10

00 09 45

00 05 40

25 64 6

109

137

0005 24

1000 16

0010

158

: 24

2000

157

159

00 17 38 160

001214

P400.

153

000495 152

1600 161

00 CB 19 207

00 07 68 206

80.00

205

0014 23 194 2076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

(2)

( 4) ( 5 )

(1)

(2)

(3 )

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

964

00 40

00 10 00

195

15 00

871

204

(2) नया बसन उर्फ धाइपुखुरिया ( निरंतर )

00 62

949

ΟΙ 36 203

2454

00 00 98 198

00 00 05

2453

14 67 199

2452

201

00 12 56

00 02 15

40 00 07 87

2451

00 200

02 08

00 03 78 292

971

978

00 22 331

88 330

2466

12 49 329

00 06 78

2467

00 00 37 325

00 00 17

2465

00 05 08

328

2464

326

21 93

00 02

981

(0) 320

00 17 67

985

00 01 00 04 31

2245

987

12 29 00 02 72

317

988

12 17 00 05

344

989

02 00

1138

00 04 99

996

1137

00 00 96

997

00 05 57 1143

00 03 47

998

11 00

1142

1000

09 2510

00 12 19

1007

00 10 00

2508

01 36

00 00 37

1009

12 85

2509

00 04 52

833

2502

04 19

1010

00 00 41 33

1355

1011

00 00 01 29

1348

832

01 30

00 00 05

2492

831

(0) 08 93 00 18 53

1354

830

(12 00

17 91

2486

829

02 91 00

2487

11 82

825

1361

23 10

2239

00 1311

00 01.

323

01 90

(3) ज्यागोडी

1362

00 01

322

03 00

1363

01 06

314

02 59

1364

00 55

310

61 00 00 10

1365

217

00 01 99

1366

00 16

216

00 02 26 1367

00 02 84

215

00 01 42 00 01 78

1368

483

14 93 00

2546

11 01

491

00 00 89 960

00 06 07

492

03 2376

00 04

00 06

493

16 00 07 68

961

494

00 06 (B 962

212

00 12 81 00

963

11 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

( 4) ( 5 )

(3)

(2)

(1)

00 09

495

(3) ज्यागोडी ( निरंतर )

00 05

(4) रघुनाथ चक्र (निरंतर) 496

00 00

497

00 02

237

00 02

511

512

516

213

515

06 80

465

07 30

466

00 03

467

00 00 11

172

06 49

463

462

08 83

461

460

459

458

00 46

173

00 02

174

00 02 03

171

170

122

168

175

00 00

169

00 01

सर्वे सं. 168

और गांव सामा

के बीच में

गांव सीमा और 00

(4) रघुनाथ चक्र

सर्वे सं. 537

के बीच में

537

00 63

284

00 02

543

542

00 06

541

546

290

545

00 12 41

291

00 02

292

555

00 05

296

00 02

294

2077

( 4) ( 5 ) (2)

(3)

00 06

295

07 19

302

00 02

293

00 00

548

304

02 23

303

322

00 05

390

00 47

397

392

391

00 10

625

389

386

00 02

385

10 33

384

566

00 02

380

00 08 24 565

00 02

564

379

377

370

04 88

369

371

366

367

368

559

558

360

00 64

557

00 00 43 556

00 45

357

01 23

563

562

361

01 71

561

01 90

560

06 33

355

00 10 71 354

06 51

350

00 00 79 352

00 08 94 351

347

08 08

सर्व सं. 347 2078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14, 1932

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

(2)

(1)

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

( 3) ( 4) ( 5 ) और 479 के

00 08 84

(6) एक्तारपुर (निरंतर ) 303

बीच में

304

00 10 16 (4) रघुनाथ चक्र (निरंतर)

479

00 07 62

2106

00 00 97 82

00 07 71

219

01 (5). रानी चक्र

31 7

00 07

316

00 10 86 4

00 43 59

317

01 00

04 08

318

00 03 36 00

06 17

315

00 00 10 13

00 01 95

319

00 12 66 00

08 15

488

28 17

00 00

914

00 03 15 19

00 14

915

00 01 52 20

00 00 39

916

00 03 46 156

00 05 01

917

10 (6) एक्तारपुर

157

918

00 80

00 160

913

00 12

18 161

919

21 00

162

902

10 00

181

901

01 00 01 75

920

00 183

182

898

180

900

00 07 09 179

899

173

00 07 72

2861

00 01 87 178

00 09 02

845

14 201

00 00 08 18

856

00 82 200

857

01 23 203

865

00 06 30 00

199

896

00 00 12 00 01

247

891

00 248

00 10 00 11

866

98 00

00 249

864

02 11

00 250

867

00 03 38

61 00

00 280

00 10

882

22 229

00 05 67

878

00 04 16

228

00 03

871

877

06 230

00 00 08

00 232

00 00 67

879

876

06 233

82 00

2132

875

06 67

00 227

873

42 226

05 53

874

00 02 225

00 17

12 00 10

1339

00 01 66

1340

293

07 90

567

01 16 224

00 01

00 10 00 12

569

00 302 2079 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(2)

(1)

(2)

(1)

(4) ( 5 )

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

00 00 31 00 01 35 (7) माधा खालि ( निरंतर ) 1125

(6) एक्तारपुर ( निरंतर ) 566

00 03 81 00

1124

565

1126

00 93 00

560

1127

00 01 05

559

1128

558

OB 20

1130

562

09 99

1129

00 92 561

00 00 27

00 00 10 563

1107

00 13

1104

00 10

85 573

00 00

1133

02 84 551

1132

00 00

550

00 00 00 56

1134

76 553

1144

00 10 00 05

552

1135

00 05 28

12 81 548

00 547

00 02

1137

00 33

1136

00 03 57 00 01

546

00 00

1085

00 38 545

00 00 32

1138

544

00 01

00 00

1139

20 17 1367

01 42

02 53

00 1426

00 01 88

1082

00 23 06 1427

00 12 50

1313

1312

00 02 57 1428

00 03

00 10

00 1422

1306

04 89

00 1429

05 92 00 01

2754

00 13 17

1324

00 12 24 1450

1304

06 56 1449

1451

00 91

1325

02 41

00 00

00 10

05 13 1452

1326

00 1448

00 08 15

00 38

1328

00 02 15 1447

1329

00 00

1332

04 51 1473

00 02 17 00 02 41

1345

1446

1330

00 04 99 1445

00 01 19

1331

00 08 54 00 00 54

1444

1346

00 08 83 1436

1440

00 06

1344

00 07 85

2800

1441

00 08

0B 17

1347

05 87

00 1438

00 00 01

1348

00 44

1439

00 00 10 246

00 06 72

1349

(7) माधा खलि

00 09 05

1152

00 02

2801

00 01 81

1350

00 11 39 1117

1431

2737

00 00 23

00 1121

00 04

2768

06 16

00 02 38

1372

00 00 10 1120

2767

00 04 93 00

1122 2080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

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

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(1)

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) 00

00 00 48 (7) माधा खलि ( निरंतर ) 1373

(8 ) बामुणिआ ( निरंतर ) 352

2766

270

00 29 94 1374

00 11 32

266

00 01 95 1394

00 06 14

263

00 09 05 00

1395

269

00 16 91 00 04 04

1396

157

00 00 25

00 00

1397

262

00 02 00 04

1393

158

00 16 82 1400

159

20 44 00

1401

107

00 02 14 00

1392

01 63

160

00 13 19

1411

00 01

00 05 17 2459

00 18 95 2458

00 10 2457

00 09 08

00 07 23 2463

00 11 83

00 04 78 00 00

2466

00 02 07 00

2465

00 00 18

2464

00 05 79

सर्वे सं. 86

00 06 24 00

2467

और 81

2455

00 08 69

के बीच में

2468

00 01 12

2454

00 04

02 01

00 00 02 53

00 03 63 2452

2474

00 01 89

00 20 79 299

00 01 45

00 02

सर्वे सं. 53

(8) बामुणिआ

298

00 04

और 66

293

00 06 34

के बीच में

295

00 05 06

00 12 85 297

00 00 91

10 37 294

02 00

296

21 81

218

11 332

00 08 15

15 340

00 07 95

00 01 80 339

00 10 71

10 341

00 06 19

00 01 88

338

263

00 00 03

01 60

(9) गरनिआ

337

10 27

292

336

294

00 10

00 00 10 355

00 02 85

293

00 01 00

628

सर्व सं. 355

00 94

00 00 10 और 357

138

00 02 47 के बीच में

627

00 01 14 357

00 00 65

296

00 11 71 354

00 02 91

297

00 02 91 00

353

629

01 88 2081 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5)

(1)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(2)

(1)

08 57

580

(1 ) पाणिनाल ( निरंतर)

(9) गरनिआ (निरंतर)

00 01

579

02 11

185

00 00 44

583

(2) इस्माइलपुर

00 01 27

174

29 92

578

00 87

00 01 35 581

175

00 02 06 .

00 01 84 582

176

14 13

00 07 60 538

207

(3) सतशातमल

536

206

05 89

537

00 02

205

539

1212

541

08 43

1208

542

00 0B

1209

533

00 02

1210

00 05

532

01 50

1211

527

1207

526

1206

524

06 70

1224

523

00 05 23

157

11 71

517

00 49

1226

00 04

516

00 29

156

514

01 36

124

513

04 86

125

00 05

515

27 60

04 90

115

00 500

23 78 00 01

00 598

123

00 04

08 65 499

496

00 20 36

116

597

01 13

121

447

00 09

120

448

00 10

117

00 07

645

119

00 02

449

05 24

00 01

00 15 51

00 03 58

05 42

00 10

1107

(10) बूंदाबनपुर

00 07 68

00 18

1106

00 01 06

75.

00 00

1235

00 02 71

सर्वे सं. 75

00 05

1236

और 352

1109

के बीच में

00 11

1234

00 11 38

352

02 53

1110

00 10

356

0700

1111

00 08

353

00 12 63

1112

0329

00 00 15 65

354

1113

00 08 00 01 44

355

874

00 29

357

जिला : मेदिनीपुर

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक: पोटाशपुर- II

00 62

358

राज्य : पश्चिम बंगाल

00 01

359

00 04 49

(1) पाणिनाल

655 GI/ 11-15 2082

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(2)

(1)

(4) ( 5 )

(2)

(3)

(1)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) 00 02 85

01 89

1171

00 351

(3) सतशातमल ( निरंतर )

(4) संदलपुर ( निरंतर )

1356

04 44

1082

01 (4) संदलपुर

1357

10 85

759

08 33 00 00 34

1355

04 04

757

1358

00 05

11 39

756

00 1360

755

10 00 05 66

1359

2272

00 10 1361

2265

00 01 66 00

1344

02 76

753

1345

01 83

754

00 12 70 1346

00 02 91

744

16 80 1390

00 01 60

1852

07 54 00

1244

01 38

00 02 66

1848

1249

02 92

1849

00 06 84 00

1248

1847

00 06 64 00

1250

01 80

1866

00 91

1240

2248

00 03 00 00

1242

1845

1251

00 03

1868

00 15 94 00 08 09

1252

1870

02 99

1255

00 29 31

1838

1253

00 11 83

1837

00 02 00 05 69

1135

1828

00 07 60

01 87

1132

2328

02 08 00 06

1134

1826

00 01 53 1133

00 00 13

1829

00 04 97 1148

00 11 51

1830

00 08 24 1147

00 09 17

00 25 00 00 16

1815

1146

00 01 21

00 1149

1814

06 58 00

1150

00 02 71

1501

00 02 30

1153

15 84

1500

00 10

1152

1496

1151

1497

00 02 55 00 01 37

1099

1490

02 00 04 71

1156

1495

00 06 95 1157

00 12 22

1494

00 19 00 12 58

1163

00 06

1450

00 1161

1493

00 08 99 2162

00 08 48

1451

03 52 1164

00 01 07

00 12 09

1453

1165

07 27

1452

00 01 04

00 11

1166

1433

00 13 32 1167

00 04 28

1432

19 66 1172

00 00 66

सर्वे सं. 1432

00 04

1169

और गांव सीमा 00. 05 22

1388

के बीच में

1170

42 2083 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 / फाल्गुम 14, 1932

(2)

(1)

(3 ) ( 4) ( 5 )

(4) ( 5 )

(2)

(3 ) 00

1497

00 00 10 (5) बाकुथिदनरी

(5) बाबुयिदगरी ( निरंतर ) 1015

00 01 98

1498

1021

1499

1022

00 0B 92 1500

00 19

1120

08 00

1501

00 90

1047

00 10

00 00

1542

1104

00 29 11 1540

00 04 01

00 07 83

1103

1688

00 07

07 74

1100

00 1544

00 00 17

1106

1539

00 00

1099

00 10 1538

00 13

1080

00 01 1545

00 17 76

1097

00 04 49 1536

00 00

1098

11 33

00 00

1547

15 62

1090

1546

00 96

1091

00 00

1553

00 13

1089

95 00

1554

04 62

14 89

1086

00 1555

309

00 01 00

1562

308

00 12 1244

00 04 96

1087

48 00 07

1243

00 02 08

(6) सिक्नरी

1215

00 04 38

280

00 16 43 1253

00 01 60

276

00 65 1250

00 16 26

277

06 42

00 1251

00 02

279

00 08 70 1248

02 54

273

00 00

1249

18 00

278

12 95

00 00

1237

266

00 02 30 00

1236

09 54

270

00 08 44

1238

00 05

271

00 08 94 00 06 37

1185

272

00 08 49

1239

00 01 49 00

1184

13 96

00 00 10 00

1183

00 89

00 08 22 1130

00 08 48

09 63 00

1131

00 10

247

01 07

1129

00 54

00 00

1128

04 48

00 01 29 00 00 60

1009

1127

00 02 26

00 10

1133

00 53

1134

88 00 00 11 40 1012

00 11 41

00 07 25

07 1126

00 00 81

11 83

00 1125

09 16 1014

00 02 [PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

2084

(2)

(3) (4) ( 5)

( 4) ( 5 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(1)

00 00 10 73

841

(1) शकुलापुर ( निरंतर )

(b) सियनरी (निरंतर )

00 02

882

12 67

106

00 08 90

881

106

00 00

1532

00 01 86

107

00 06 97

880

00 03

112

00 54

883

00 10

113

879

111

00 36

872

127

873

125

00 01

874

00 04

126

00 03

875

00 01

128

00 01 29

876

124

1143

121

00 11

1144

00 01

123

1191

17 27

122

1145

133

1146

134

09 31

1149

148

1150

00 09

147

00 12 41

1151

00 03

146

00 01

1122

145

00 12

1121

144

1153

00 11

143

1119

142

00 01

1383

00 02

500

00 07

1120

जिला : मेदिनीपुर

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक : भगवानपुर- I

1110

राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल

01 05

सर्वे सं. 111000 1374

00 02 90

(1) शकुलापुर

और गांव सीमा

00 02

1373

के बीच में

779

जिला: मेदिनीपुर

05 मंडल/तहसील/तालुक: सुताहाटा- II

00 14

1506

राज्य : पश्चिम बंगाल

00 19

783

00 04 13

1502

(1 ) बन्बिस्नुपुर

01 71 00 09

00 1505

276

00 02 07 00 03

784

85 00

08 782

01 91 00 02

00 785

00 00 62 835

04 62

56 00

834

00 02

174

(2) बालुघाट

43 00

830

02 76

00 02 836

175

82 837

199

00 01

00 13 94 1525

200

00 12

838

01 92

210

00 00

839

00 01 31

201

840

00 03

[फा. सं. एल. 14014/10/2011 - जी.पी. ]

00 11

843

के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

00 15

842 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1) New Delhi , the 1st March, 2011

(2) Rukminipur (Contd.) S.O. 681. 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;

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

(3) Amipara 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 Barid Baran Guha, Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, 7 , Wood Street , 3rd Floor, Kolkata - 700016, West Bengal State .

SCHEDULE

Mandal /Tehsil /

State : West Bengal

District: Medinipur

Taluk : Egra - II

Village

Area to be acquired for ROU

Survey No./ Sub-Division

Hec Are C-Are

( 4) ( 5 )

(2)

(3)

(1)

00 05

105

(1) Krishnapur

00 11

104

03 43

892

(2) Rukminipur

00 03

2722

06 49

894

00 04 43

1910

15 61

895

00 00 15

896

00 08

897

888

898

2085 (2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

00 08 64 899

19 65

901

00 28

900

00 36

1126

00 01 14 1936

04 21

1935

06 65 1125

04 38

1937

1123

61 1128

00 08

00 04

1127

08 88

1938

00 08 37 1939

1129

00 01 43

77 7

72 6

00 07 10 5

00 00 22 10

00 00 39 177

08 11

04 48

00 02

00 01 94 27

06 64

09 54

381

00 08 76

00 10

382

07 56 44

00 08 93 45

05 62

00 07

01 75 384

00 01 15 55

00 65

00 00 29 388 2086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

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

(1)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) 00 02 97

00 04 96

1012

137

(3) Amipara (Contd.)

04 05

(5) Uttar Daudpur (Contd.)

1019

00 136

00 08 19

1017

00 00 10 00

387

04 87

1008

11 68

06 66

135

1007

134

977

07 72 157

936

00 00

158

935

00 10 00

156

05 42

924

00 15 00

164

06 41

925

00 00 35

165

00 06

923

00 15 95 389

906

00 10 00 394

00 00 80

906

00 14 166

00 05 56

907

02 00

01 60

395

902

00 07 00

167

02 73

809

00 00

168

01 20

22 48

901

24 396

200

00 00

1142

201

1143

00 19 169

00 05 37

1145

13 04 00 05 13

199

1163

05 85 00

198

00 00 26

1164

197

04 59

1162

00 12 41 195

00 00 10

1150

00 06 43 196

00 02 %

03 51

In bet suy no . 00 325

00 09

1150 & 1157 193

1157

08 83 194

1223

00 00

192

1224

12 27 190

08 34

00 06 20

1233

00 03 43

189

1225

02 00 00 84

191

1235

00 02 76

01 40

1234

64 00

08 186

00 08 99 00

1232

102

(4) Nijadanda

1237

00 00 10 00

100

03 80

1231

00 17 88 00

106

00 35

1243

00 22 29 00 08 33

465

774

01 37

00 00 04 51

108

775

00 19 15

109

1245

00 12 90

06 07

(5) Uttar Daudpur

779

05 In bet VB & suy no . 1012 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2087 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5 )

(1)

(3) (4) ( 5 ) 00 01 60

262

00 98

Uttar Silampur

(5) Uttar Daudpur (Contd.)

(Contd.)

1349

00 14 40

246

00 18 86 00

1350

10 86

2749

02 22

2750

13 09 In bet suy no . 00

247

1350 & 856

00 10 31 856

00 17

250

00 59 3611

239

00 29

08 30

28 3697

238

10 56

00 3701

240

01 45

231

3702

22 00 08 18

855

216

220

00 00

20 58 857

00 07

221

00 12 96 3703

02 19

211

3709

00 10 32

08 07

212

00 09 07 3710

00 08 70

209

04 52 3707

00 24 90

208

854

00 21 87

194

00 01

57 3711

00 14 58

193

850

.791

38 45 In bet suy no . 00

850&VB

00 07 53

187

561

00 08

00 15

169

51 (6) Uttar Silampur

00 560

155

11 12 00 01

333

153

00 08 00

334

132

00 00 52

00 B

133

00 332

08 33

00 16 94

134

339

139

17 37 338

00 09 41

152

00 35- 60 344

00 01 42

2057

00 01 96 343

2058

00 00 09 346

00 05 16

00 05 79

2829

352

2053

00 00 89 347

00 13 17

2056

13 348

00 05 75

2055

00 349

00 00 05

00 00

2064

1534

2828

08 39

00 00

1535

2054

00 01 18 230

00 08 60

2831

00 08 98 2748

2066

37 59

00 10

2834

00 07 15 267

00 21 72

2832

00 (2 83 266

17 2088

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

( 4) (5 )

(1) .

(2)

(3) (2)

(4) (5 )

(1)

(3)

10 33

00 00 12 67

Darbar Khan Bar 36

2833

00 13 39

(Contd.)

2046

Uttar Silampur (Contd.)

00 01

00 10

00 00 08 91

2838

00 09

00 62

2098

00 39

2839

00 92

00 00 00 24

2840

00 03

00 00 10

2842

00 00 10

2099

00 (B

2837

(8) Jagannath Karbar In bet VB & 00

01 54

suy no.1004 00

2836

1004

00 05

00 01

2100

207

00 01

2823

04 74

208

00 02 60

2039

209

08 24

2038

00 03

210

00 02 21

2037

00 04 79

213

00 08

2111

219

00 10

2306

212

00 09 60 00

2107

00 00 70

202

00 01 59

2108

228

00 07 ( X)

1993

00 04 59

229

08 84

1994

230

0B 53

1995

00 00

231

00 07 22

1998

00 03

198

1997

04 03

199

00 00 02 40

1999

00 12

200

00 00 01 77

2000

00 09 17

197

00 05 33

2001

196

2002

00 02 40

301

00 43

2003

00 40

183

2004

00 04 01

179.

10 29

2005

174

09 61

2006

00 00 50

178

00 B 93

2007

00 00 10

177

00 04

2008

00 05 66

176

04 80

2009

175

2010

08 55

172

16 87

1990

00 08 86

173

00 00

2011

303

00 25 04

1989

304

36 00 08 01

1988

162

66 00 00 26

1983

00 (2

161

62 00 02 86

275

(7) Darbar Khan Bar

00 01 15

305

00 10

274

00 01

360

00 16 33

441

00 08 82

361

00 08 13

401

00 01

00 02

160 2089 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(1)

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5)

(1)

16 07 00 09 98

363

Jagannath Karbar

(1 ) Purulia (Contd. )

04 06 (Contd.)

365

00 07 97

07 51 366

09 367

00 09 31

10 08

00 00

368

00 07 98 00

358

01 47

02 00 00 10

369

00 B 65

00 18 58

376

00 01

377

00 49

00 00

374

477

375

04 79

06 53

378

00 04 17

373

00 00

00 04

19 64

386

00 01 05

388

00 08 11 00

387

00 02 96 00 04 79

399

400

15 89

00 08 72

522

00 07 61

00 05

401

00 08 51

489

426

00 08 80

02 71

07 33

425

03 64 427

00 29

13 03 424

00 01 78

02 15 00 13 12

428

00 03 15

00 08 90

423

00 00 14 00 11 00

436

00 01 09

00 16

438

(2) Naya Basan Urf Dhaipukhuria

00 01 94

109

06 31

(9) Paikbar

137

05 24

14 33

10 36

158

00 00 06 59

157

01 24

159

00 81

12 14

160

00 81

153

00 00 98

152

01 70

161

24 07

207

00 07 89

09 45

00 08 36

206

05 40

00 14 23

205

00 25 64

02 90

194

00 02

00 40

195

00 04 36

204

11 55 Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk : Bhagawanpur-II Dist .: Medinipur

00 62

203

State: West Bengal

00 62

198

Canal bet VB 00 02 39

(1) Purulia

00 05 50

199

& suy no . 21

12 56

201

655Gl/11-16 2090

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5,2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(1)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) 00 07 87

200

00 00 40

2451

Naya Basan Urf Dhaipukhuria 292

02 08

Naya BasanUrf Dhaipukhuria

977

(Contd.)

331

(Contd.)

00 00 51

978

00 22 88 330

00 03

2466

00 12 49 329

00 06 78

2467

00 00 37 325

00 00

2465

00 05 08 328

00 07 21

2464

00 03 70 326

00 21 93

981

00 02 00 320

00 17 67

985

00 2245

00 04 31

00 12

987

317

988

17 344

00 05 05

989

00 1138

02 47

996

99 1137

997

05 1143

00 03 47

00 11 96

998

1142

00 03 27

1000

09 2510

1007

00 10 60 2508

00 01 36

00 00 37

1009

2509

00 12 85

833

04 52 2502

1010

19 1355

00 41

1011

16 1348

832

00 2492

00 05 69

831

08 93

00 1354

00 18 53

830

00 02 90 2486

00 17 91

829

00 12 91 2487

00 02 38

825

1361

00 23 10

2239

00 03 1311

00 01 61

323

01 90 1362

(3) Jiagodi

00 01 57

322

03 15 1363

00 01 06

314

02 59 1364

00 00 91

310

00 55 61 1365

00 00 10

217

00 01 99 1366

00 16 45

1367

02 26

216

00 00 02

42 1368

215

00 01 00 01 78

2546

00 00

483

14 93

ΟΙ

960

00 06

491

00 89 2376

00 04 08

492

03 961

00 07 68

06 16

493

00 962

00 00 55

494

00 06 (B 963

212

00 12 81 964

495

00 09 19 871

00 01

496

00 05 60 949

00 01 36

00 31

497

00 2454

98.

237

00 02 10 2453

00 14 67

511

00 02 33 2452

00 02 15

512

00 08 2091 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(4) ( 5 )

(3)

(1)

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) 00 04 66

00 00 47 (3 ) Jiagodi ( Contd . ) 516

397

00 06 05

(4) Raghunath Chak (Contd.)

213

392

00 60

00 00

515

391

00 06

465

625

00 10 33 466

00 07 30

389

00 01 10 00

467

386

00 05 89 00 00

172

385

463

00 06

384

33 462

00 08 75

566

00 05 10 461

00 08 83

380

89 00

460

565

00 03 459

00 02 55

564

00 02 98 00

458

02 50

379

05 81 00

173

377

174

00 02

370

06 06 171

00 02 03

369

88 00

170

371

122

366

168

367

57 175

00 00 35

368

00 76

169

559

558

00 01 34

360

00 Road bet suy 00 no . 169 & VB

01 24

557

64 (4) Raghunath Chak

00 00

556

43 In bet VB & 00 suy no . 537

00 59

357

00 537

00 00

563

01 284

02 42

543

562

01 542

00 12 17

361

00 01 54

06 13

541

561

00 01 71

06 25

546

00 01

560

06 07

290

00 06

355

00 11

545

354

00 10 71 00 12 41

291

350

06 51 00

02 75

292

352

00 00 79

555

351

296

00 06

347

10 294

00 02 09

In bet suy no . 00 00 06 98

295

347&479

00 07 19

302

479

00 07 62

293

00 07 71

(5) Rani Chak

00 19

548

00 07 304

00 01 89

00 00 02 23

303

00 04 08 322

00 05 81

00 06 17 00

390

00 01 95

13 [ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(2)

(4) ( 5)

(3) (2)

( 1)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(1)

00 01 00 08 15 (6) Ektarpur ( Contd.) 488

(5) Rani Chak ( Contd.) 14

914

00 00 00 10

00 01

915

00 14

916

03 00 00 39

00 00 00

917

05 01

156

(6) Ektarpur

00 (0) 00

918

02 17

157

913

00 12

160

B 21 00 17 17

919

10 161

00 00

902

00 63

162

901

01 00 07

181

00 04 09 00

920

183

00 300 18 00 05

898

182

10 00

900

180

B 00

896

179

00 00

2861

173

845

178

(0)

856

201

857

(J) 00 14

200

00 06

00 17

865

203

(0)

896

199

00 00

891

00 247

866

248

00 11

864

02 00 12

249

00 61

00 00

867

250

00 00

00 10

882

280

00 00 05

878

229

00 00 03

871

228

00 00

877

230

00 00

879

232

876

00 00 00 10

233

875

00 05

2132

00 1 !

873

00 01

227

874

00 02

226

17 12

1339

00 00 10 50

225

00 07 2)

1340

00 01

293

567

00 10 00 01 73

224

569

00 12

302

01 35 00 08 84

566

00 303

565

00 00 10

304

560

2106

00 51

559

00 01

219

558

10 86

316

562

00 00 14 01

317

00 02

561

00 08

318

00 00 27

563

315

573

00 00 12

319 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2093

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(2)

(1)

( 3 ) ( 4) ( 5 )

00 03 08

( 6) Ektarpur ( Contd .) 551

00 01 95

550

(7) Madha Khali (Contd.)

553

552

05 10

00 05

548

547

546

01 41

545

08 32

544

00 01 61

1367

1426

01 88

1427

12 50

00 03 29

1428

00 00

1422

1429

1450

1449

00 00 91

1451

00 00 10

1452

00 08 15

1448

1447

00 09 01

1473

1446

00 02

1445

00 01

1444

1436

00 01

1440

00 05 03

1441

00 08 14

1438

1439

00 01 62

246

00 06 72

(7) Madha Khali

1152

02 39

1117

00 01

2737

00 OG

1121

00 04 55

1120

00 02 38

1122

00 02 27

1125

1124

00 (B 81

1126

1127

00 01 05

1128

00 03 20

1130

00 09 99

00 00 92

1129

1107

1104

00 13

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) 1133

00 02 84 1132

00 00 76 1134

00 00 10 1144

00 12 81 1135

1137

00 00 33 1136

00 03 57 1085

00 00 38

1138

00 32

1139

20 17 1082

00 02 53

00 23 06 1313

1312

02 57

04 89

1306

2754

05 92 1324

00 12 24 1304

00 06 56 1325

00 02 41

05 13 1326

00 00 38 1328

1329

02 15

1332

1345

1330

1331

08 54

1346

03 83

00 07 85 1344

17 2800

1347

06 87 1348

1349

00 10

2801

00 11 39 1350

1431

00 06 16 2768

00 00 10 1372

2767

00 04 93

1373

04 70

2766

02 65

30 11 32 1374

1394

00 06 14

1395

01 10

1396

04 04

1397

00 10

1393

04 82

1400

00 84 2094

[PART II-SBC . 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(2)

(1)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) (1)

(2)

(3) (4) ( 5)

00 13 19

03 81

1401

160

(8) Bamunia (Contd .)

(7) Madha Khali

00 00 01

05 17 (Contd.)

1392

00 1411

00 00 00 00 54

2459

07 2458

00 09 28

78 2457

00 09 08

2463

00 11

00 02 07

00 2466

00 18 00

06 2465

00 03 48

In bet suy no . 00

2464

86&81

00 04

00 2467

01 12

02 01 2455

00 08

00 35

2468

00 08 63

20 79

2454

29 00

02 2452

Inbet suy no . 00 00

2474

53&66

00 12

299

(8) Barmınia

00 10 37 00

298

02 293

00 06 34

11 52

218

00 295

00 05

00 13 15 297

00 01 294

10 296

08 15

01 88 332

263

00 00

340

(9) Garania

00 10 27

292

339

10 71

294

00 00 10 341

00 01 00 03 50

293

21 338

628

00 00

10 337

02 47

00 10

138

00 336

627

00 01 14

355

296

00 11 71

00 94

Inbet suy no. 00

297

02 91 355& 357

629

00 00

01 88 357

580

354

579

353

00 02 37

00 44

352

583

578

92 00

270

266

00 01

581

00 02

263

582

06 00 09

538

00 14 13 269

00 16

00 00 60 00

536

00 25

157

537

00 05 89

262

00 02

00 00

539

08 97

158

541

00 159

00 20 44

542

107

00 02 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2095

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

( 1 )

(2)

( 4) (5 )

(1)

(3 )

00 12 40

(9) Garania ( Contd. ) 533

532

00 05 89

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) 1210

00 02 17

(3) Satshatamal

(Contd.)

527

526

21 07

524

523

517

00 11

516

514

00 04 89

513

00 78

515

00 05

500

04 90

598

00 01 29

00 04

499

496

597

00 23 60

447

00 17 63

448

00 13 32

645

449

00 02

03 58

1107

(10) Brindabanpur

1106

1235

1236

05 41

00 05 95

1109

1234

00 11 26

1110

02 53

1111

1112

00 12 63

1113

00 15

874

00 01

Dist.: Medinipur

Mandal /Tehsil/Taluk : Potashpur- II

State : West Bengal

00 04 49

(1) Paninala

00 08 57

1211

01 50

00 21 65 1207

1206

00 02 21 1224

00 06 70 157

05 23

1226

00 00 49 156

00 29 79 124

00 01 36 125

00 04 86

115

123

00 23 78

08 65 116

00 20 36 121

00 01 13 120

117

00 00 10 119

00 48 49 79

00 05 24

15 51 77

05 42

00 01 06 75

In pet Suy no . 00

75&352

352

00 11 38

356

353

08 16 354

00 08 29

00 08 53 355

00 29 357

00 62 358

00 01 62 359

351

02 85

04 44

1356

(4) Sandalpur

47 29

00 02 11

185

(2) Ismailpur

174

ΟΙ 27

175

00 01 35

176

01 84

207

(3) Satshatamal

206

00 02

205

0600

1212

1208

00 03 43

00 15 31

1209

1357

10 85 1355

05 53 1358

1360

00 07 20

00 05 66 1359

00 72 1361

1344

00 02 76 1245

00 01 83

1246

02 91

1390 [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

2096

(3) (4) ( 5 )

(2)

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

00 02 66

00 01

1848.

(4) Sandalpur ( Contd.)

(4) Sandalpur (Contd.) 1244

00 06

1849

00 02

1249

00 06 64

1847

1248

00 02 93

1866

00 01 80

1250

00 03 48

2248

1240

1845

1242

1868

1251

00 02

08 09

1870

1252

00 29

1255

1838

00 02 32

1837

1253

1828

1135

00 00 01

2328

1132

00 01 53 00

1826

1134

1829

1133

08 24 1148

1830

25 1147

1815

00 00

06 1146

1814

71 1149

00 (2

1501

4 1150

1500

002 00 02

21 1153

1496

00 10

55 1152

1497

1151

1490

00 01

95 1099

1495

00 04

1156

1494

00 12

1157

1450

00 12

1163

08 99

1493

1161

00 03

1451

2162

12 09

1453

1164

(14

1452

00 07

1165

1433

1166

00 19

1432

1167

In bet suy no . 00

00 68

1172

1432&VB

04 59

1169

00 01

1497

(5) Babuidanri

1388

00 01

1498

1170

00 01

1499

1171

00 19

1500

1082

00 00 900 00

759

1501

00 00

1542

757

04 756

1540

07 46

00 755

1688

00 12 2272

1544

2265

00 00 44

1539

753

00 13 35

1538

754

00 17

1545

00 16 80

744

00 00

1536

00 07 54

1852 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2097

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(1)

(3) (4) ( 5 )

1547

08 89

(5) Babuidanri (Contd.)

1546

07 58

(5) Babuidanri (Contd.)

01 67

1553

1554

1555

1562

1244

1243

1215

00 04 38

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

1090

15 62

00 00

1091

00 13

1089

14 89

1086

309

308

1087

08 28

(6) Sianri

1253

01 60

1250

1251

00 02 03

1248

18 00

1249

1237

1236

1238

00 05

1185

00 06

00 20

1239

1184

1183

1130

00 08 48

1131

1129

00 07

1128

00 60

1009

1127

00 02 26

1133

00 00

1134

00 30

1012

00 11 41

1126

00 00

1125

1014

00 02 79

00- 00 10

1015

1021

00 09 88

1022

00 03 92

08 38

1120

1047

00 29 11

1104

1103

00 07 83

07 74

1100

1106

1099

00 10 29

1080

00 01 04

00 04 49

1097

00 11 33

1098

655GI/11-17

280

276

00 00 65

42 277

00 06

279

54 273

12 95

278

266

270

08 94

271

49 272

00 10 35

00 08 22 36

63 37

00 01 07 247

54 38

00 01

00 10 34 87

53 86

00 00

00 11

00 07

00 09

106

00 09 91 105

00 01

107

112

00 00

113

00 07 58 111

06 15

127

125

01 2098

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(2)

(4) (5 )

(1)

(3)

881

08 90 126

00 04 06

(6) Sianri (Contd.)

(1) Shakrullapur (contd.)

1532

00 128

880

00 08

124

883

04 13

121

15 64

879

123

872

17 27

122

873

00 05

00 01

133

874

00 05

0B 71

134

00 03 33

875

148

00 01 29

876

147

00 09

00 48

1143

146

1144

145

10 56

1191

00 10

144

1145

143

1146

00 01 68

31 142

1149

00 11 31

1150

02 78

500

1151

02 41 Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk : Bhagawanpur- I Dist .: Medinipur

1122

State: West Bengal

00 12

1121

1374

00 02 90

1153

(1 ) Shakrullapur

02 53

1373

00 06

1119

01 47 00

1383

779

00 07 56

14 05

1120

1506

00 04 43

1110

19 06

783

(05

00 01

1502

Inbet suy

no . 1110 & VB

00 09

1505

03 47

Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk : Sutahata- II

784

Dist.: Medinipur

00 01

State : West Bengal 782

00 02 18

00 04 13 785

(1) Banbishnupur 1

00 01 71

276

835

834

00 10

830

00 01 91

836

00 00

837

174

(2) Balughata

00 01

1525

00 04 43

838

00 02

175

00 03

839

05 82

199

840

00 13 94

200

11 52

843

210

01 92

842

00 01 31

201

00 10

841

[F. No. L- 14014/10/2011 -GP]

00 02

882

K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2099

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

नई दिल्ली, 1 मार्च , 2011

(2)

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

00 02 60

1. पश्चिम चक् ( निरंतर ) 278

279

02 89

280

00 12 46

528

00 03

447

59 का. आ. 682.- 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 - बासुदेबपुर- हावड़ा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

446

00 14

445

00 08

448

469

00 07 82

449

00 20 21 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;

450

00 00 24

467

00 07 69

466

00 0B

451

454

00 05 15 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 ;

455

00 08 04

465

00 08 85

458

00 04 65

457

00 09 79

00 01 47

182

2. पोर चिंगरा

गाँव सीमा और 00 सर्वे सं. 344 के बीच में

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री बारिद बरन गुहा , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , 7 , बूड स्ट्रीट तिसरी मंजिल , कोलकाता-700016, पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

344

10 55

44 अनुसूची

343

00 00 72

345

मंडल /तहसील / तालुक : भगवानपुर- II

2813

00 02 78 जिला : मेदिनीपुर राज्य : पश्चिम बंगाल

347.

03 53.

गांव का नाम

353

00 22 सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं.

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

341

00 76 हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

2609

00 03 03

354

00 07 67

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

332

616

00 14

00 00 17 1. पश्चिम चक्

615

355

09 91

00 612

00 01 56

356

00 07 02 514

00 08 68

359

00 07 12 538

360

00 07 34 535

00 30 36

361

00 07 57 00 00

537

362

00 07 10 533

363

00 532

15 31

13 79

529

00 13 55

364

05 74 275

00 04 03

366

05 21

00 2100

[PART II- SEC , 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(4) (5)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(1)

(3) (4)

05 34

54 00

00 09 2. पोर चिंगरा ( निरंतर ) 367

2. पोर चिंगरा (निरंतर ) 731

06 78

82 369

789

00 04 90

26 376

790

378

08 37

730

00 00

381

729

00 16

382

732

383

00 01 48

728

400

00 03

09 51

726

394

10 41

725

00 00 53

399

724

28 00

393

719

00 01 00

392

02 62

718

00 01

391

734

00 390

00 08 99

717

00 00 00 33

388

716

00 00 00 04 27

389

715

12 419

00 57

(12

714

00 12

859

713

00 00

858

2803

855

00 13

712

00 18 00

00 99

856

2670

857

00 15

00 00 16

1184

840

00 13 32

1185

843

05 33

1186

2323

00 00

1196

00 01 39 00 15 05

841

00 11 49

1187

835

00 02

00 11

1192

13 00

834

1188

00 04

833

1195

832

00 03

00 00 49 831

1197

829

09 10

1194

00 00 00 10

826

00 26

1193

827

00 03 24

00 65

1202

00 07

828

00 12 39

1203

786

1205

11 57

00 00 00 00 10

2707

78 791

16 41

1206

00 00 00 10

सर्वे सं. 791 और

00 27 91 788 के बीच में

2761

02 788

2760

00 03

01 787

1759

38 2101 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

(4) (5) (2)

(1)

(4) (5)

(2)

(3)

(1)

2. पोर चिंगरा ( निरंतर) 1525

2. पोर चिंगरा ( निरंतर ) 1316

01. 24

1526

00 00 04 02

1317

91 00

1527

1304

01 56

00 00

01 32

1528

1757

05 56 00

1522

1320

0593

04 01 00

1519

1318

13. 96

08 54

00 1319

00 10 58

1518

02 53

1517

1313

1516

66 99 13

00 2787

00 01 66 00 00 23

1508

1333

1510

00 04

00 10

1332

00 52

00 06 87

1449

2786

04 45

2727

00 00

1331

00 00

2728

10. 73

1337

00 07 02 1340

01 40

1450

23 00

1446

2712

1447

1342

00 00

00 07 51

1341

1451

1364

01 50

1455

00 00 21.

1363

1438

00 08 82 1360

00 56

1437

1359

00 02

1436

02 65

00 00 00 90

1358

00 81

1435

1374

1434

00 18

1378

1431

00 10 04 00 07 18-

1379

05 53

1469

00 00 10 98

1380

2470

00 01 38 00

1381

जिला: मेदिनीपुर

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक: सुताहाटा- II

00 14 47

1382

राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल 00

1383

00 15 29

1. बंश खन्ना जलपाइ 965

00 11 97

1531

05 17

966

2723

0B 11

967

00 10 00 02 24

2722

00 14 49

1931

00 05 05

1532

00. 49

970

00 00 00 53

1401

00 B 14

1932

1530

00 11 05

971

1404

00 01 25

06 50

972

00 00 01 05

1524

973

11 91

07 41 1523

974

00 01 .

-00 2102

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(1)

(5)

(2)

(3) (4) (2)

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

00 90 00

1. बंश खन्ना जलपाइ

975

सर्वे से 1272 और 1274

1005

1. बंश खन्ना जलपाइ (निरंतर)

(जारी)

के बीच में

04 06

1006

00 24

1274

1007

01 47

02 68

1275

00 00

00 25

731

00 00 38

सर्वे सं. 1275

00 05 33

730

और गाँव सीमा

के बीच में

00 06

729

09 00 09

00 03 728

134

2. चकदिपा

00 09 65

135

727

11 27

136

00 16

726

137

06 93

2082

138

1032

00 18

139

02 46

00 11

1031

141

00 06

2091

140

00 01

2090

144

07 18

01 75 1029

149

1033

00 01 73

147

00 57

148

00 32

1039

150

00 10

1158

152

00 00 16

00 17

1157

00 03

153

45 71

1156

154

02 00

00 1145

87 00 00

1983

00 00 83

160

00 03 51

1144

159

16 69

1170

00 05 68

155

00 02 44

1171

158

04 97

48 00 00

161

00 01 1169

08 78

00 22

180

1172

00 01

183

00 16

1123

181

00 05

1174

178

09 11

1176

00 58

177

04 10

1175

00 13 61

182

00 10

1209

00 78

188

00 09

1214

00 06 86

189

00 17

1215

190

1906

215

00 04 58

00 12

1228

00 02 32

214

00 02 24

1216

00 01 59

216

00 04

1217

00 10 06

217

04 04

1272

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2103

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 218

2. चकदिपा

10 56

711

00 07 23

2. चकदिपा ( निरंतर )

233

00 00 58

665

00 00 10 219

00 00 10

712

00 08 00 522

00 07 42

713

77 232

714

00 00 96 231

00 06 98

715

00 06 74 221

00 00 10

661

00 00 19 223

00 05 36

660

00 05 32 224

00 06 11

716

00 21 91 225

855

00 01 32 227

870

00 04 01 495

00 02 29

869

00 03 84 496

00 00 54

838

00 01 57 518

00 01 20

867

00 06 18 497

00 14 46

861

01 84 494

00 00 35

3792

00 00 55 498

00 01. 88

866

00 01 37 470

00 01 14

862

00 17 17 503

863

08 49 514

00 00 48

791

00 03 12 513

00 03 89

844

00 02 62 512

830

00 01 37 505

00 04 31

831

01 55 504

00 05

843

00 00 72 482

00 11 61

832

06 62 508

833

00 00 10 509

00 05 16

3750

00 03 37 479

834

00 16 81 3776

00 23 46

821

00 11 90 574

00 05 64

822

00 01 52 00

684

01 43

820

00 13 42 673

00 02 59

3842

00 ΟΙ 25 672

00 10 56

00 01 83

सर्वे सं 3842

670

00 07

और 3869

691

00 00

के बीच में

669

00 05 57

3869

00 08 01 668

00 04 45

3868

00 06 22 667

00 01

3840

00 06 52 666

00 ΟΙ 84

3841

00 00 74 703

3873

00 16 57 [PART II- SEC , 3 ( ii ) ] 2104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(4) (5)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

(1)

(3)

(1)

00 12 86

147

00 01 11

1760

(2) चकदिपा ( निरंतर )

00 14

106

(3) ब्रजबी नंदा चक् (निरंतर)

00 09

3877

00 01

109

00 05

3878

00 07

179

00 01 49

सर्वेसं. 3878

00 11

108

और1799

187

02 के बीच में

00 04 94

194

1799

00 06 33 00 01 00

136

1764

00 00

137

00 19

1770

14 26

183

00 14 55

1787

184

00 04 63

1786

133

00 21

1789

00 28 59

132

00 00 10

1782

1790

जिला: मेदिनीपुर

मंडल/ तहसील/तालुक : नंदीग्राम- II

00 07

राज्य : पश्चिम बंगाल 1792

00 00

3374

00 07 55

439

(1 ) हनु भुया

01 35

1868

436

01 00

1791

02 97

435

3375

00 09 03

433

00 09 22

3376

00 74

434

01 22

3380

00 53

430

00 01 87

3381

00 10

429

3382

00 80

428

00 04

3383

(0) 06

431

00 18

3385

427

00 06

170

(3) ब्रजबी नंदा चक्

00 06 36

00 05

213

10 31

100-

212

00 07 15

101

102

00 03

00 00 59

105

02 17

00 43

106

10 69

102

00 18

108

00 05

188

15 59

107

101

01 08

152

00 05 99

100

153

00 00 12

103

02 89

151

00 15

104

150

00 08

106 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

10. 154

(1) हनु भैया (निरंतर )

2105

(4)

(3)

(5) (2)

00 01 65 1988

(1) हनु भुया (निरंतर)

00 11 61 139

06 39 138

20 137

136

00 04

57 158

00 08

00 14 41 159

161

70 160

40 207

217

00 04

69 208

00 09

214

215

43 1732

00 06 82

1733

95 1738

00 03

37 1739

1740

00 07 87

78 1748

00 08

00 12 27 1747

1756

00 11 64

00 11

1744

1845

19 33

1844

00 02

1846

00 01 23 1848

89 1847

00 09

1895

00 10

21 1896

00 17

1899

00 08

00 01 79 1989

00 07 21 1990

2017

00 00

2196

00 17

2195

2194

12 31

00 04 09 2186

46 2187

2185

00 43

17 2188

07 27

2183

06 2184

2181

44 2178

04 62

2177

00 10 00 2169

06 61

00.

2176

00 19

2171

00 08

2132

04 58

2133

00 02 28 2134

00 10 91 2131

00 11

2130

12 36 2129

00 01

2363

2128

00 10

2366

00 01 06 2365

2367

00 01 9% 816

(2) शिब्रामपुर

00 01 34 1900

1898

04 15

1897

00 01

1890

00 02

1981

00 10

1980

00 00 96 1985

38 1987

00 04

00 01

1991

655 GI/11-18

817

00 13

737

00 04 82 736

00 17 89.

738

00 07 62 726

00 04 73 727

00 15

725

724

00 08

718 2106.

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(5) (1)

(3) (4)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

00 00 31

05 01

(2) शिब्रामपुर (निरंतर) 933

(2) शिब्रामपुर ( निरंतर) 654

00 712

00 09 08

655

05 28 00

04 39

652

00 13 50 934

711

00 03

00 03 12

651

04 80

650

75 935

00 08 57

00 17 937

645

00 936

00 04

643

(X)

49 945

00 01 23

00 01

644

944

00 04 69

459

00 00 42 946

00 04

429

00 13 00

04 943

00 43

432

51 952

00 00 60

430

431

70 949

428

00 03 38 950

04 52

10 951

419

00 11

27 00 01 64

418

00 912

02 962

00 05 65

22 00

411

00 961

409

01 72

00 00 05

420

00 963

10 978

00 06 12

424

20 14

00 977

00 00 42

06 B

425

186

00 08 37

00 07 49

747

(3) खोदमबरी

976

00 04 80

748

31 00

06 82

975

00 09

749

974

00 02 40

756

00 00 10 :

00 00 21

187

755

16 00

973

21 97

754

00 42

1090

00 00 10

780

972

00 10 96

00 01

781

971

00 02 65

07 84

782

1093

00 07 58

783

00 08 09 666

00 04 18

15 41

784

00 1094

00 12 65

753

00 05 69 00

665

00 34

806

00 00

1095

03 15

14 (17

808

00 663

00 17 96

810

00 05 88 662

00 06 35

811

(0) 08 29 (0)

653

11 44

00 00 33

4710

658

00 00 82

861

02 80 657

812 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2107 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 00 04 19

00 (3) खोदमबरी ( निरंतर ) 860

00 11

(3) खोदमबरी ( निरंतर ) 1147

859

11 91

1148

02 43 885

00 01 51

1149

17 83 858

00 04 85

1154

00 00 35 886

00 05 45

1150

00 06 48 887

00 15 84

4141

00 05 58 889

00 01

1151

00 00 91 00

888

07 51

3075

00 14 21 890

00 04 OB

3073

00 09 00 05

908

3074

00 02 25 909

00 01 87

1707

46 910

00 01 62

1706

00 00 10 907

00 10 24

1708

03 26 00

899

05 21

1699

00 01 54 00

900

00 03

1710

00 02 80 906

00 14

1712

01 938

00 10 80

3044

00 02 13 00

939

3043

15 940

00 10 30

1713

00 02 00 00

937

00 78

1714

11 941

00 04 57

2715

00 13 942

00 10 93

1220

00 04 57 943

00 09 39

2719

00 00 20 1020

00 08 46

1722

16 89 1019

00 15 , 00

1734

1016

1735

00 03 1018

00 01 59

1736

01 1017

00 13

1739

00 05 68 1009

00 01 82

1738

00 06 60 1013

00 04

00 04 14

1742

4619

00 04

1741

00 09 66 1010

00 09 26

3017

00 01 20 1011

00 07

1747

14 20 00

00 60

1007

3016

03 18 1137

05 81

4654

07 35 1136

00 10 81

3024

02 27 1135

1748

00 00 68 1139

00 16 64

3013

85 1141

3012

17 26

00 00

1140

3010

B [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 2108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(4) (5)

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

(2)

(1)

00 07 96

01 36

2321

(3) खोदमबरी ( निरंतर)

2378

(3) खोदमबरी ( निरंतर )

2310

3009

00 02 13

4786

00 02 48

2476

2311

2474

00 10

2289

2475

2288

00 04 55

2473

2287

00 75

2465

01 30

2312

00 16 41

2450

2278

2451

00 08 71

2277

00 00

2453

2281

00 06 52

2464

00 00

2275

2457

00 07 35

2276

2455

2235

2461

2236

00 05

2458

01 27

2237

00 00 00 88

2460

07 47

2241

2459

00 04

2232

00 24

2436

00 02

2231

2440

2230

00 00

2441

2229

2439

(0)

2228

2537

2227

00 10

2418

00 94

2226

2417

00 00

2225

2552

00 50

2224

2416

2223

00 00

2553

2218

14 59

2414

05 73

260

00 00

2412

(4) ठाकुर चक्

00 00

255

2580

00 07

07 06

256

2411

00 16 00

251

00 2575

02 04

00 71

254

2581

252

00 01

2373

253

00 02 49

2328

00 09 12

247

2327

00 02

00 (2 61

330

00 04

2307

00 00

329

00 01

2323

10 84

08 14

331

2322

334

00 04 23

2309 2109 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(5)

(3)

(5)

(4) (3) (4)

04 39 (4) ठाकुर चक् ( निरंतर ) 333

(4) ठाकुर चक् ( निरंतर ) 483

336

102

00 04 80 335

00 10 74

00 06

100

66 339

101

11 345

00 06 57

484

37 00

344

00 12 00

346

00 10 68 00

208

00 36 00 06 04

340

00 359

00 68 209

00 12

332

00 01 42 210

01 40

394

204

00:

258

16 62

00 211

00 00 94

259

02 59 213

00 65

246

00 00

202

06 50

1057

00 06 57

(5) जयनपुर

124

00 00 23

00 06

1056

14 75

00 02

1039

203

12 34

1054

00 56

00 08 48

1052

00 13 96 123

0001

1050

16 54

00 06 43

992

00 02 01 57

00 13 98

990

00 01 88 132

00 B

821

00 02 131

00 10 87

991

00 26 122

00 10 14

819

00 00 53 141

823

02 38 117

00 02 58

822

16 81 00

118

11 9%

06 05

817

115

00 01 84

825

116

824

00 09 10 120

00 01

816

00 119

00 01 70

00 00 25

829

00 01 06

830

98 111

00 08 85

00 00

834

110

00 09

832

21 63

00 107

831

00 74

00 10 56

00 53

735

00 07

109

833

16 37 00

108

08 84

732

00 00

731

00 15 28

15.

2110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

06 42

730

(6) पथुरिया (5) जयनपुर ( निरंतर )

00 03

679

10 24

680

1065

725

724

00 08

678

656

671

00 17 95

699

00 00 64

697

695

00 09 30

02 21

694

00 00 10

702

01 44

703

691

692

00 00 39

01 24

690

00 23

1015

00 05 03

473

475

00 02

476

471

470

00 02 43

469

468

467

465

466

463

09 92

464

461

474

00 08 72

705

00 00 33

1038

00 01 24

1041

704

00 00 10

1093

472

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(4) (5) (2)

(3)

01 67

441

00 03

331

00 05 31 330

00 07 94 329

00 88 333

21 332

00 16

73 926

80 336

334

338

357

00 07 82 349

67 348

00 27 337

07 60 352

355

00 09 28 354

00 00 81 306

00 09

353

13 351

85 350

51 308

00 12 23 सर्वेसं. 308

और 309

के बीच में रास्ता

00 01

33 309

00 04 23 269

45 307

00 22

937

09 25 267

00 04 39

04 90 268

83 266

00 03

312

00 07 60 264

00 00 28 262

02 (07 275

280

00 10

08 87

265

52 921

00 02

19 83

274

920

00 01 66 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2111 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च5, 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

(5) 328

00 03

(6) पथुरिया ( निरंतर )

1610

(7) बयल (निरंतर)

01 71 442

00 06 09

1716

00 04 50 443

00 06 77

1707

18 444

00 02 97

1704

14 445

00 01

2475

02 87 446

00 00 53

2474

03 2034

00 03

(7) बयल

1706

00 01 70 2033

16 27

1717

67 2040

0 02 34

1708

00 04 18 2036

00 04 22

1712

00 04 79 2035

00 07 18

1661

13 2232

00 01 39

1718

02 00

2032

08 83

1701

07 2028

00 07 31

1553

00 18 09 00

2052

1702

10 00

2009

00 31

1570

00 08 95 00

2050

00 10

1569

00 06 50 2056

1713

00 15 21 2054

00 00 24

1735

2037

00 10 00 01

2086

1564

01 49 2060

1711

00 06 48 2062

00 00 13

1705

00 09 10 2057

00 25 68

1802

02 2025

00 06 37

1658

04 85 58

1552

00 04 23 00

2059

12 98

1608

00 10 24 2076

1710

00 00 10 00

2064

02 51

1613

00 03 81

2063

2660

00 16 1725

1736

00 11 78 2066

00 02

1709

68 2065

00 13 60

1801

47 2240

00 04 08

1612

04 1563

1573

2166

09 08 1554

00 02 25

1656

00 13 77 1715

2480

00 22 14 1609

00 01 37

2246

00 02 77 00 01

1611

1687

00 01 35 2112

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 / PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(5)

(3) (4)

(1)

(2)

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

00 00 25

05 17

सर्वे सं. 1687

(7) बयल ( निरंतर )

00 01

123

और 2568

(9) बलरामपुर भाग- II (निरंतर)

10 के बीच में

00 06

00 04

2568

00 01 37

2693

03 00 02 20

00 09

(8) नरसिंहपुर जलपाइ 37

00 02 19

00 13

00 06 28

115

00 15

00 01 87

04 39

00 13

325

00 (12 00

198

00 01 00

197

17 97

00 06 80

199

196

( x)

195

191

10 17

121

190

06 41

00 00 00 69

189

00 3()

187

00 ( 下)

113

00 18

316

06 2)

00 00 03 08

224

00 00

223

06 01

01 44

222

(2 36

05 02

249

(B (3

00 00 16 15

108

(9 ) बलरामपुर भाग -11

राज्य : पश्चिम बंगाल

जिला : मेदिनीपुर

00 00 17

1101

मंडल /तेहसिल/ तालुक : नंदीग्राम -1

15 81

109

00 (12 46 00

107

(1) भिमकटा

00 01 66

93 106

07 52

00 04 46

363

105

09 93

214

00 19

06 78

00 05

126

00 05

102

(12 00 02 07

00 32

00 04

100 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2113

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 21

00 02 00

52 (1 ) भिमकटा ( निरंतर )

(2) मनु चक् ( निरंतर ) 96

114

00 06

52 32

00 08 00

115

101

116

95 116

118

00 09 00 10 96

112

00 11 115

117

00 00 37 114

00 13 86

119

06 48

135

122

00 07 23

136

00 06

337

00 01 87 137

338

138

339

133

547

00 00 12

229

548

230

549

05 59

00 00 12 29

231

534

28 232

00 13 18

00 37

538

00 00

284

09 96

536

11 00 00

233

525

00 10

266

526

18 19

00 267

00 00 73

527

45 00 09

283

518

80 00 08 63

282

522

268

00 01

521

00 00 77 270

519

00 09 00 15

280

520

00 00 64 00 04

279

511

273

636

00 14 00

00 07

277

637

274

00 02

638

00 12 275

00 04 97

632

00 276

00 04 61

631

00 08 57 00 01 51

सर्वे सं. 276

628

00 47 75 और गाँव सींमा

627

78 के बीच में

623

00 07 241

00 01 20

(2) मनु चक्

20 27

624

00 140

00 18 14

02 77

706

00 00 13

109

00 06 85

707

03 90

138

119

00 02 14

35 00

134

(2) मनु चक् जलपाइ

781

00 05 01

09 39

133

782

00 08 43 95

655GI/11-19 2114

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(5)

New Delhi , the 1st March , 2011

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

08 15

792

00 08

793

(3 ) मनु चक् जलपाइ (निरंतर)

791

783

784

S.O. 682. 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;

778

00 07 44

203

00 01

120

777

00 24

691

754

00 06 24

692

09 03

688

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 ;

687

05 64

121

00 00 10

122

00 02

109

10 72

00 12

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 Barid Baran Guha , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, 7 , Wood Street, 3rd Floor , Kolkata - 700016 , West Bengal State .

00 46

SCHEDULE

00 02 67

Mandal/Tehsil/ District : Medinipur State: West Bengal Taluk : Bhagawanpur - II

Area to be acquired

Village

for ROU

Survey No./ Sub-Division

00 15

Are C- Are

Hec 00

15 45

(4) (5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

16 57

14 17

616

( 1 ) Paschim Chak

00 49

615

00 67

00 15

612

08 68

514

538

718

30 36

535

717

00 06 16

00 10

537

730

00 06 64

533

00 729

00 04 91

13 79

532

00 735

529

13 00 08 89

1110

04 03

275

00 02 60

278

[फा. सं. एल-14014/ 11 /2011- जी.पी. ]

00 02 89

279

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

2115

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) Paschim Chak 280

00 0B 38

383

00 00 35

400

70 528

Pora Chingra (Contd.)

(Contd.)

394

00 09 55 447

00 03 59

399

00 00 00

446

445

393

00 07

448

00 08 94

392

00 00

469

07 82

391

00 01 68 449

00 20 21

390

08 450

00 00 24

388

00 33 00

467

07 69

389

27 466

00 08 00

419

00 00 57 451

859

00 12 69 454

00 05 15

858

00 03 35 455

855

00 13 41 465

00 08 85

856

00 00 99 458

00 04 65

857

00 15 457

840

11 182

00 01 47

843

00 00 64 Nalabet VB & 00 03 17

(2) Pora Chingra

2323

00 00 10 suy no . 344

344

00 10 55

841

00 15 05 343

00 05 44

835

00 02 30

345

834

89 00

2813

833

04 59 347

00 03 53

832

00 03 16 353 .

22 66

831

01 341

829

00 13 80 2609

00 03 03

826

00 00 10 354

00 07

827

00 03 24 332

828

00 07 63 00

355

09 91

786

04 59 356

00 07 02

791

00 00 10 359

00 07 12

00 00 10

In bet suy.

360

00 07 34

no . 791 & 788 361

00 07 57

788

03 97 362

00 07 10

787

00 03 06 363

00 15 31

731

00 09 54

364

789

00 01 82 366

00 05 21

790

00 00 26 367

730

00 08 37 369

00 06 78

729

00 04 14 376

732

03 89 00

378

00 37

728

01 381

13 55

726

00 09 51 382

00 16 13 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ⅱ ) ;

2116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

( 5)

(2)

(3) (4)

(1)

(5)

(2)

(1)

(3) (4)

(0 00

2786

00 10

725

18 77

1331

00 00

724

Pora Chingra (Contd.)

10 73

1337

719

1340

718

00 02

00 (12

2712

00 04

734

1342

717

00 03

00 07

1341

716

00 00

12 75 00

00 715

1364

دکیان

00 21 00 02

714

1363

(0) ( X) 713

1360

(0) 2803

1359

00 00 18

712

00 (0)

1358

२७ 2670

1374

00 00 16

71 1184

1378

00 13

1185

אן

(07

1379

00 05

1186

1380

1196

1381

1187

14 47

(00

1382

1192

00 12

1383

(α) 00

1188

00 11

1531

00 05

1195

2723

1197

00 02

2722

00 09

1194

00 05

1532

1193

(0) (1)

1401

00 00

1202

12 14

1530

1203

1404

1205

00 11

1524

00 00

2707

?א

00 01

1523

00 16 41

1206

(X)

1525

00 27 91

2761

00 01

1526

2760

(0)

(X)

1527

1759

00 00

1528

00 03

1316

1522

1317

1519

00 01

1304

1518

00 01

1757

00 02

1517

00 05 93

1320

(0)

1516

00 13

01 1318

1508

( 1 )

1510

00 10 58

1319

1449

1313

(0)

2727

99 13

2787

2728

1333

( 17

1450

1332

(04 2117 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(3)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) (1)

(2)

(5)

(1)

(4)

00 1446

17 36

1157

Pora Chingra

00 45 71

1156

1447

(Contd.)

Bansh Khana Jalpai (Contd. )

16 71 00

1145

00 1451

03 09

00 00 TI

1983

1455

01 50

1144

00 03 51 00 08

1438

1170

16 00 00 56

1437

1171

00 12 44

1436

00 02

00 00 53

1169

00 00

1435

1172

00 22 48

16 36 1434

1123

00 05 50

1174

00 10 04

1431

1176

1469

00 05

1175

04 10 2470

01 38

1209

10 23

00 Mandal/ Tehsil/ Taluk : Sutahata - II District : State : West

00 09 70

1214

Mexlinipur Bengal

1215

17 20 965

00 15 29

00 12 38

1906

966

( 1 ) Bansh Khana Jalpai

1228

12 66 00 00 10

967

00 02 24

1216

00 14 49

1931

1217

00 04 00

970

00 49

00 04 04

1272

1932

90 00 11 05

971

In bet suy. no . 1272 & 1274 00 06- 50

972

00 24

1274

34 00

11 91

973

1275

00 00

974

975

Inbet suy. no . 1275 & VB

01 49

1005

134

00 03 09

(2) Chak Dipa

00 04 06

1006

135

1007

01 47

11 27

136

(00 00 25

731

00 02 94

137

05 33

730

138

00 00 33 729

(0) 06 94

00 02

139

728

(1) 09 53

04 05

141

05 99

140

727

14 79

144

726

00 01 75

149

00 06

2082

147

01 73 00 18 06

1032

148

1031

11 28

00 02 49

150

2091

00 06 43

00 00

152

16 00 01 25

2090

153

00 03 59 00 07 18

1029

154

1033

160

00 83

00 00 32 46

1039

159

1158

10 2118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

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

( 1)

(5)

(5) (3) (4)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

04 08

(2) Chak Dipa ( Contd. ) 479

155

( 2) Chak Dipa ( Contd. )

46 158

3776

01 48

00 161

574

180

08 78

684

01 43

(00)

673

(0) 183

(2 59

181

672

56 00

(07 65 178

670

00 00 00

00 00 73 177

691

05 182

669

00 00 00 78

668

188

667

(0)

(6) 00 06 86

189

666

( 0) 01 84 190

(04

215

703

00 00 00

711

214

00 07

10 00

665

00 00 216

01 59

08 (X)

712

00 217

00 10

218

10 56

713

00 01

00 9% 00 00 58

714

233

00 00 00

715

00 06 74

219

07 42

661

(X) 522

00 19

1005 232

01 22

660

716

21 91 00 06 98

231

00 00

01 32

855

221

870

00 04 00

(5 36

223

224

869

838

57 00

01 225

(3 16

867

227

(00 01

861

495

00 02 29

00 (00 00 00

3792

496

866

(1) 01 37 00 01

518

(X)

862

17 00 14 46

497

863

00 (8 49

494

00 (B

791

00 01

498

02 62 00

844

00 470

01 14

830

00 01

00 11

503

831

(0) 01

514

00 00

843

00 (B 89

513

06 62

(0)

832

00 01

512

(0)

833

505

00 04

3750

103 00 05

504

00 16 81

834

482

00 11

00 11 90

821

508

822

509

05 2119 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(2)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 00 13 42

00 08 (B

101

(2) Chak Dipa (Contd. ) 820

00 10

00 00

(3) Brajabi Nanda Chak ( Contd.)

3842

01 25

100

01 83

00 00

103

In bet suy. no . 3842 & 3869

104

00 15 47 00 08

3869

00 08 71

105

3868

00 06

147

00 02 86

3840

106

14 84 3841

109

00 01 51 00. 16

3873

179

00 07 1760

00 01 11

108

00 11 08

3877

187

02 3878

00 05 65

00 04 94

194

00 01 49

In set suy. no . 3878 &

00 06 33

136

1799

137

00 00 55 00

1799

01 12

183

1764

184

19 61

1770

133

11 00 14

1787

132

28 00 04 63

1786

Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk :

State : West

1789

Nandigram - II

District: Medinipur Bengal

1782

439

00 1790

07 55

( 1 ) Hanu Bhunya

00 07 24

00 1792

436

01 76

00 00 00 33

02 97 3374

435

01 35

1868

433

00 09 03

1791

434

00 00 74 00 09 30

3375

430

00 00 53 3376

00 09 22

429

00 10 42 3380

00 01

428

3381

00 01

431

3382

427

00 04

3383

06 36

00 3385

00 18 63

00 10 31

100

00 06

170

00 07 15

101

213

00 05

( 3 ) Brajabi Nanda Chak

00 00 10

102

212

04 62

00 00 26

00 00

00 02 20 95

00 15 58

105

00 59 00

106

00 43

03 19

108

00 18

02 17

107

00 15 59 00 10

102

08.

00 01 188

05 21

00 2120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(3)

(1) (1)

(2)

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

(3) (4) (5)

(4) (5)

00 04 80

152

153

(1) Hanu Bhunya (Contd.) (1 ) Hanu Bhunya (Contd.)

151

00 03

150

154

00 11 61

139

138

137

00 04 77

136

00 03 57

158

00 14

159

00 06

161

06 70

160

00 27 40

207

00 04 17

217

00 09 69

208

214

215

1732

1733

1738

1739

00 07 87

1740

1748

1747

00 11

1756

1744

1845

1844

01 99

1846

00 01 23

1848

1847

(2) Shibrampur

1895

1896

00 17

00 08 03

1899

1900

00 06 55

1898

00 04 15

1897

00 01 42

1890

00 02 70

1981

00 10 68

1980

00 00 96

1985

00 04

1987

01 72 1991

1988

00 01

1989

07 21 1990

2017

00 00 80 2196

00 17 32 2195

12 31 2194

00 (14 09 2186

2187

00 00 43 2185

00 00 17 2188

00 07

2183

00 10 06 2184

(0)

2181

00 09 44 2178

00 04 (2 2177

00 10 00 2169

06 61 2176

00 19 78 2171

56 2132

58 2133

28 2134

2131

(α)

11 45 2130

12 36

2129

( 5

2363

(X)

2128

(X) 10 36 2366

2365

10 2367

816

01 30 817

(1)

18 737

00 04 82 736

17 89

738

726

(0 (07 62

(X)

73 727

725

724

94 718

(01 933

09 08 712

00 2121

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन14 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(2)

00 04

934

711

00 03

(2) Shibrampur (Contd.) (2) Shibrampur (Contd.)

935

00 08 57

937

00 04

936

945

00 04 69

944

04 58

946

00 00

943

952

949

950

00 01 37

951

00 01 64

912

962

961

05 05

963

(3) Khodambari

00 06

978

00 06 03

977

00 08

186

976

00 06.

075

00 02 40

974

00 21

187

00 21

973

00 00 42

1090

10 96

972

00 02

971

00 07 58

1093

666

1094

00 34

665

00 03

1095

17 96

663

06 35

662

00 11

653

00 82

658

657

00 00

654

00 05

655

00 13 50

652.

651

00 10

650

655 GI / 11-20

(5) (2)

(3) (4)

00 17 04 645

00 00

643

644

00 42

459

00 13 71 429

04 51

432

00 06 42 430

00 12

431

428

11 10 419

00 02

418

00 22

411

409

00 00

420

00 20 14 424

425

747

'00

31 748

09 73

749

756

00 16.

755

754

00 10

780

781

00 07 84 782

783

00 15

784

753

806

14 07 808

00 05 88 810

811

4710

861

01 34

812

860

859

885

858

886

887

889

888 2122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(1)

00 04

890

00 05 94

908

(3) Khodambari (Contd.) (3) Khodambari (Contd.)

01 87

909

910

00 01

907

00 10

00 05 21

899

00 03

900

00 14 47

906

00 10 80

938

00 01 29

939

00 10 30

940

937

941

942

10 93

943

09 39

08 46

1020

00 10 70

1019

1016

00 00 10

00 01

1018

1017

1009

1013

00 04

4619

1010

1011

1007

00 05

1137

10 81

(0)

1136

00 (0)

1135

1139

00 16

1141

00 08

1140

1147

00 02 43

1148

00 17

1149

00 (0 35

1154

1150

00 06 48

06 58

4141

1151

3075

00 14

3073

00 09

00 02 25

3074

1707

0) 00 46

[PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

(2)

(4) (5) 1706

00 00 10

B 26 1708

00 01 54 1699

80 1710

00 12

1712

3044

3043

1713

1714

13 41

2715

1220

(4 57

20 2719

1722

1734

1735

23 1736

(0) 01

1739

1738

00 04

1742

09 66 1741

20 3017

14 20 1747

(1)

3016

117

4654

(0)

27 3024

( X )

(X)

1748

( 1)

(X)

3013

3012

3010

(0)

2378

3009

2476

(2 48

(X)

00 12

2474

01 2475

00 (1)

00 04

2473

(0)

2465

2450

16 41

01 22 2451

(0)

72 2453

00 (0)

2464

00 06 52

08 24 2457

2455

(0)

(12

21 2461 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(1 )

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4) (5)

2458

00 05 41

2460

( 3) Khodambari (Contd.)

(3) Khodambari (Contd.)

2459

12 23

2436

2440

2441

00 00 10

2439

00 15 56

2537

2418

00 10 68

2417

09 74

(4) Thakur Chak 2552

00 00 51

2416

00 01 40

2553

2414

00 14 59

2412

00 05 73

2580

2411

00 07 06

2575

00 01

2581

00 00 71

2373

2328

2327

00 02 62

2307

2323

01 64

2322

08 14

2309

04 23

2321

00 07 96

2310

09 75

4786

00 12 13

2311

2289

00 00 10

2288

00 01 97

2287

2312

00 01 30

2278

2277

00 08 71

2281

00 00

2275

00 00 87

2276

00 07 35

2235

00 06 79

2236

2237

2241

00 07 47

2123 (2) .

(3) (4) (5) .

2232

00 04 57 2231

00 02 21 2230

00 04 24 2229

00 04 79 2228

00 10 09

2227

01 37 2226

00 00 94 2225

00 00 66 2224

00 00 50 2223

00 00 60

2218

02 14 260

00 01 08 255

00 00 86 256

00 07 81 251

00 00 16

254

12 04 252

00 04 02 253

00 10 97

247

330

00 02 61 329

00 00 10 331

00 10 84 334

00 05 28

333

00 28 336

00 09

335

339

345

06 57

344

00 01 32 346

00 06 22 208

00 04 89 359

06 04

209

12 26

210

00 03 97 204

00 07

211

00 00 94 213

00 00

202

00 06 50 124

00 00

75 55

00 14

203

00 13 37 56

03 48

123

00 85 54

00 06 43 57

00 13 98

132

00 10 87 131

122

(0) 10 14

26 141

117

58 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

2124

(1)

(4) (5)

(3)

(1)

(2)

118

00 01

(5) Jayanpur (Contd.) 115

(4) Thakur Chak (Contd.)

00 09

116

00 01

120

00 01 70

119

00 03

111

00- 09

110 .

00 00 76

107

00 07 24

109

00 10 04

108

00 15 21

00 04 39

483

04 80

102

00 06

100

101

00 04

484

00 36

00 68

340

00 01

332

00 01 40

394

258

00 16

259

246

06 57

1057

(5) Jayanpur

06 91

1056

00 02

1039

00 12 34

1054

1052

01 16

1050

00 02

992

00 ΟΙ

990

00 02

821

26 20

991

00 00

819

02 38

823

822

00 16

817

00 01

825

00 09

824

(6) Pathuria

00 00

816

00 00

829

830

00 10

834

00 21

832

00 07 98

831

735

[ PART II- SC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(4) ( 5) (2)

(3)

37 833

732

731

730

00 03

679

680

00 01

1065

725

00 03

724

678

656

00 (B

671

699

(X )

697

00 09

695

21 694

00 (2

α)

(X)

702

703

691

(X)

692

690

(1)

(0)

1015

473

00 (2

475

२३

476

00 ( X )

471

470

00 02

469

( 17

468

467

200

114

465

114

466

463

(09

464

( 1)

461

00 03

474

08 72

705

(X ) 33

1038

(1)

2:4

(00

1041

(α)

(1)

704

1! 1

1093

472

(0)

441

(0)

331

00 05

330

00 117

329

(0)

(00

XX 333

00 16 21 332

( X )

926

336 2125

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

00 09

334

(3) (4)

(2)

(5)

24 2054

00 00

(7) Bayal ( Contd. )

00 04 03

338

(6) Pathuria (Contd.)

357

00 00

349

348

337

352

00 07 69

03 13

355

00 09

354

306

00 09

353

351

350

00 03

00 06 51

308

Road bet suy

no . 308 & 309

01 33

309

00 004 23

269

307

09 25

937

267

00 04 39

268

266

00 03

00 00

312

00 07 60

264

262

275

00 02 07

280

00 10

08 87

265

921

00 19

274

920

328

442

443

00 06

00 02

444

445

00 01

446

2034

(7) Bayal

00 16 27

2033

0 02

2040

00 04 22

2036

00 07

2035

00 01

2232

00 08

2032

00 07

2028

00 06

2052

2009

2050

00 24

2056

00 01

2037

00 00 10 2086

00 02 97 2060

00 00 13 2062

00 25 68 2057

2025

06 37

00 01 39 58

98 2059

00 00

2076

00 02 51 2064

00 07

2063

00 35 1725

2066

02 13

13 60 2065

00 04 08 2240

1563

2166

00 10

00 02 25 1554

00 00

1715

00 01 37 1609

01 55

1611

01 71 1610

50 1716

00 04

00 00

1707

01 14

1704

02 87 2475

00 03

2474

01 70 1706

67 1717

00 11

00 04 18 1708

1712

1661

00 02

1718

00 07 70 1701

18 09

1553

00 04 10 1702

08 95 1570

06 50

1569

00 15 21 1713

00 10

1735

00 01 49 1564

00 06 48 1711

09 10 1705

00 02 00 1802

04 85

1658

00 04 23 1552

00 10 24 1608

00 00

1710

00 03 81 1613 2126

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

00 00 25 2660

00 16 01

(7) Bayal ( Contd. )

(9) Balarampur Part - II 55

01 06

123

1736

11 78

(Contd.)

00 06 10 00 19 68

1709

00 01

1801

00 03 86 1612

00 09

1573

00 09

00 02 00 13

1656

115

00 06 28 00

2480

22 14

00 16 2246

00 02

04 00 01

1687

03 00 05 17

(0) 09 21 Inbet suy. no . 1687 &

02 09

00 2568

00 01 42

00 04

2568

80 00 05 78

2693

01 00

00 02 (0) 00 14 49

(8 ) Narasinghapur 37 Jalpai

19 23

00 36

00 10

121

00 00 15

00 01

00 00 30 21

13 54

00 (09

113

00 00 08

00 06 20

325

00 02

00 00 74

198

01 00 17 97

197

00 02

36 00 11 45

199

00 03 63

10 53

196

State: West

District:

88 Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk :

195

00 19

00 10 17

191

Nandigram- I Medinipur Bengal 00

00 02 46 190

(1) Bhimkata

00 00

00 04 189

07 187

00 (2

20 00

316

03 62

363

00 01 00

00 224

214

02 00

00 223

00 27

00 06 00 01

78 222

05 02

00 03 23 249

(12 00

00 108

(9 ) Balarampur Part - II

32 42 00

1101

00 17

34 00

00 04 109

15 81

00 02 00 00

107

00 12 37 00 01 66

106

00 05

83 00 04 46

101

00 00 06 31

116

10 96

00 09

105

00 05 50

115

114

13 86

00 05

126

00 06 48

135

00 05

102

136

00 02 07

04 92

137

00 00 24 06

12 49

138

00 12 23

100 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2127

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

(1)

(2)

(1)

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4) 00

00 10

511

22 41 ( 1 ) Bhimkata ( Contd. ) 133

00 22

229

636

14 00

(2) Manu Chak (Contd.)

230

637

00 14 61 231

00 12 29

638

00 12 80 232

00 13 18

632

00 02 60 00

284

631

09 96

08 57 233

00 00

628

47 266

627

00 05 78

267

623

00 07 51 00

283

624

09 03

20 27

00 282

706

02 268

00 01 52

707

00 06 85 00

270

00 11

(3) Manu Chak Jalpai 119

280

00 15 85

781

05 00

782

04 75

279

00 08 43 273

00 00

792

08 00

277

793

08 25

274

791

00 12

275

00 04 97

00 00

783

64 276

784

00 04 61

00 13 61 00

01 51

778

00 Inbet suy.

no . 276 &

203

120

01 91

00 241

00 01

00 12 58 (2) Manu Chak

140

00 18

691

24 00

754

109

00 138

00 03 90

692

24 134

00 35 00

688

00 09 08

133

687

33 95

121

00 15

122

00 114

00 05 52

109

02 06 00

115

00 10 00

116

12 48 00 09

118

17 29

00 112

00 11 04

00 00 10 117

00 00 46

119

00 07 43

122

00 07

02 337

00 01 87

00 338

00 01 71

339

00 02 28

547

15 45

00 548

00 16 83

00 16

57 549

00 05 59

00 00 00

534

16 28

00 15 61 538

00 00 10 536

00 11

00 06 16

718

525

00 10

717

00 06 16 526

00 18 19

730

06 64

00 527

729

00 04 91 00

518

735

00 00 11 00

522

00 33

1110

00 08 89 00

521

00 TI

519

00 09 82

520

00 00 64

[F. No. L- 14014/11 /2011 -GP ] K.K. SHARMA , Under Secy .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) 2128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

No. L- 12012/ 50/2008 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 14-5-2008 , with the following schedule:

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2011

"Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India , Nagpur in awarding punishment

dismissal without notice from the Bank service to

Shri M. M. Bajaj , Assistant (Cash/Accounts ) w.e. 30-12-2005 is just , legal and proper ? To what relict is the workman entitled ? "

का, आ. 683. 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, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. - 12012/50/2008- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2011

2. Though , in this case , the reference had been received by the Tribunal on 22-5-2008 and the union representative on behalf of the workman had been directed to file the statement of claim , till 30-12-2010 , statement claim had not been filed by the union representative . However, in the interest of justice , on 30-12-2010 , a lasa chance was given to the union representative to file the statement ofclaim on 1-2-2011 . On 1-2-2011 , none appeared onbehalf ofthe workman . No statement ofclaim was also filed on that date. Hence the case was closed for passing award.

3. As no statement of claim was filed by th workman, it is found that the workman is not interested te proceed with the case. Hence , it is necessary to pass a "no dispute award" . Hence , it is ordered :

S.O. 683. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/ 2008) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , receivedby the Central Government on 7-2-2011 .

ORDER

[No. L- 12012/50/2008 - IR(B- I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

The case be treated as " no dispute award" , due t the default of the workman .

ANNEXURE

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

नई दिल्ली , 8 फरवरी , 2011

Date: 1-2-2011

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 14/2008

का. आ. 684.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 Petitioner/ PartyNo. 1

The Asstt. General Secretary, State Bank Staff Union , Nagpur Module , C/oDy.General Manager, SBI Zonal Office, S. V. Patel Marg, Kingsway, Nagpur.

Versus

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्राय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 12012/129/2006- आई आर( बी -1 State Bank of India,

Respondent/ : The Chief General Manager , PartyNo. 2

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2011 LHO, Synergey Building,G-Block, Street No. C-6 , Bandra-Kurla Complex , Mumbai-400051 .

AWARD

(Dated: 1st February, 2011 )

S.O. 684. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industri Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governiner. hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2007) of the Centra ! Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Jaupun as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute betwee the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikanar and Jaipur and their workman , received by the Central Government on 7-2-2011 .

]No . L- 12012/ 129/2006- IR ) 13-1 : إ RAMESH SINGH, Desk Office 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 State Bank of India and their workman, Shri M. M. Bajaj for adjudication , as per letter [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PRESENT

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 18/07

Reference No. L - 12012 / 129/2006 - IR( B- I)

Dated: 12-2-2007 The General Secretary Akhil Bhartiya SBBJ Karamchari Sangh C - 13 , Ojhaji Ka Bagh Gandhi Nagar Mod , Jaipur .

V/ s

The Dy. General Manager State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Zonal Office , Sarojini Marg , C-Scheme, Jaipur

AWARD (Dated : 27th January, 2011 )

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause ( d) of sub- section I 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 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur through Dy. General Manager , Zonal Office , Jaipur for utilizing workman Shri Ram Gopal Sharma, Driver as peon instead of driving the vehicle is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?

2. Pursuant to the receipt of reference order, the registered notices were issued to both the parties . On perusal of the proceedings , it appears that the representative who appeared on behalf of the applicant union sought time for filing claim statement on 17-3-10, 26-4-16 , 2-6-10 , 29-7-10 , 14-9-10 and 25-10-10. On 23-11-10 last opportunity was given to file the claim statement on next date i.e. 11-1-11 , but none appeared on behalf of the applicant union on the said date , therefore , ex - party proceedings were drawn against the applicant union.

3. Heard submissions on behalf of the non- applicant.

4. The applicant union has failed to file any claim statement despite several opportunities provided to it and ex - party proceedings have been drawn against the applicant union . It appears that the applicant union is not willing to contest the case further . Under these circumstances, there is no material on record to decide the

2129

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

reference under adjudication on merits . Therefore , "No Claim Award" is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

5. Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT, FresidingOfficer नईदिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2011

.आ. 685. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. एम. पी. एण्ड डी. आई. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 96/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/97/1994- आई आर( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th February, 2011

S.O. 685. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 96/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2011 .

[No. L -22012/97/ 1994- IR(C- II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT:

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. -cum : Labour Court , Bhubaneswar.

I.INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 96/2001 Date of Passing Award - 18th January, 2011

Between

The Managment of the Regional Director, Central Mie Planning and Design Institute Limited, Regional Institute VII , 4th - 7th Floor , Gruba Nirman Bhawan , Schivalaya Marg , Unit - 111 , Bhubaneswar - 751 001 .

IstParty -Management [PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

(And)

Their workman Shri Biswambar Sahu ,

Represented through the Br. Secretary and CCMember,

National Coal Organization Employee's and Design Institute Ltd. , Regional Institute-VII , 4th- 7th Floor, Gruha Nirman Bhawan , Sachivalaya Marg , Unit- III , Bhubaneswar - 751001

.. 2nd Party-Union

APPEARANCES

M/s . N. K. Mishra, For the 1st Party- Advocate

Management

M/s. R. K. Bose, :For the 2nd Party -Union Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred the present industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management of C.M.P.D.I. Limited and their Workman in exercise of the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide their letter No. L-22012/97/94- IR (C. II ) , dated 13-7- 1994.

2. The dispute as mentioned under the schedule of reference reads as follows:

16-10-1991 regarding month and year wise attendance of theworkman . After receiving the telegram the Officer in- charge of the Rampur camp sent a detailed report of the workman on 20-10-1991 . In this report the Management had shown that the disputant- workman had worked for more than 240 days . But the Management withou considering his case again sent a letter to the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Ranchi calling for attendance of seven other casual workmen. One of those workmen Shri Kulamani Moharana had worked only for 194 days from January 1988 to May 1989 and for 147 days from June 1989 to May 1990. But the Management vide their letter dated 22-7-1991 issued to Shri Kulamani Moharana informed him that his service has been regularized . The Management also informed Shri Pradeep Toppo , Shri Debraj Bhaisal , Shri Dibasa Sah and Shri Lochan Singh that their services had been regularized vide office order dated 29-1-1990, though they had not completed 240days of service in any year of employment . The disputant- workman made several representations to the Management for regularization of his service, but to no avail . The Management closed the Rampur camp in September 1992 . but the disputant - workman was allowed to continue till December 1992 in the same camp . On 13-10-1992 he gave a letter to the Officer- in- charge of Rampur camp for regularization ofhis service . But the Management without considering his case retrenched him in January 1993 Thereafter he took shelter before the Asst . Labour Commissioner (Central ) , but nothing fruitful was done . It is therefore prayed that his service as a workman in Category- 1 General Mazdoor be regularized from the year 1990 with back wages from the date of regularization .

"Whether the action of the management of CMPDI in not regularizing the services of Shri Biswambar Sahu , casual workman inspite of the fact that his juniors have been regularized is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

3. A corrigendum substituting the dispute as mentioned in the letter of reference was received from the Ministry of Labour vide their letter of even number dated 31-8-1995 . Accordingly the dispute now stands as mentioned in the preceding para.

5. The 1st Party -Management replied in their written statement that the purported complaint of the Union is beyond the scope of adjudication as it cannot be construed as an industrial dispute . The 2nd Party - workman was engaged as a casual worker intermittently against certair: leave vacancies in exigencies of work on his personai approach . He has never completed 240 days of work during any calendar year. His attendance figure for the last three years preceding cessation of engagement shows a dismal picture which does not justify his claim. H engagerment was never contmuous or uninterrupted. He was engaged in various temporary nature ofjobs and quite fte badli casual worker such as truck helper, security guard, viber helper etc.He was well aware ofhis setus of engage was never in the permanent rolls of Rampur camp CMND.i. Regularization of casual /temporary workers used to be done at the headquarters level . He never completed 240 days of actual working period in a calendar year. Under the certified Standing Order of the C.M.P.D.I. , which came into effect on 7-8-1991 . regularization of casual or temporary workers is done after completion of 240 days of attendance in any post or category either after the operation of the standing orders 4. The 2nd Party -Union representing the disputant- workman filed statement of claim and stated that the disputant-workman Shri Biswambar Sahoo joined as a casual worker at Rampur camp under CMPDI R.I. - VII in February 1986. Along with him five other persons were also engaged as casual workers in different camps . Feeling satisfied with the work of the disputant - workman the Management issued three certificates of conduct in his favour and verbally assured him of regularization of his service.Accordingly the officer- in - charge of Rampur camp sent a letter dated 10-3-1990 to the Regional Director, Bhubaneswar calling for his detailed attendance . Thereupon the Management sent a telegram to the Personnel Officer , CMPDI , R.I. VII , Bhubaneswar on [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

or during one year immediately preceding thereto . Since the case of the disputant workman did not fall in any of the categories for consideration his case could not be considered by the 1st Party- Management . The dispute after being raised before the Asst . Labour Commissioner (Central ), Bhubaneswar , the Management resisted the faise and concocted assertion made by the Union on behalf of the disputant- workman . The conciliation ultimately , failed. The Management never gave any assurance to the disputant- workman for regularization of his service . All such averments are baseless , untrue and misconceived. The letter dated 30-3-1991 was admittedly issued by the 1st Party -Management, but the same was in respect of casual workers engaged at Talcher camp only and it had no relevance whatsoever with the Rampur camp . With regard to the regularization of Kulamani Maharana it has been submitted that his regularization was an outcome of a settlement between the Management and the concerned Union in course of conciliation proceedings . In the cases of other workers their attendance in the year 1988 and thereafter was considered by the Management before issuing letter of regularization . The attendance figures of the 2nd Party -workman during the relevant time fell short of others who were considered for regularization . The Rampur camp was closed in September 1992 for under utilization of manpower and machinery . Hence utilization of service of the disputant - workman till December 1992 did not arise . The question of alleged regularization of juniors to the 2nd Party - workman does not arise in the case of casual workers . Thus the reference is totally misconceived and is liable to be answered in favour of the 1st Party - Management and against the 2nd Party- workman:

6. The 1st Party - Management has further filed an additional written statement in which they have challenged the corrigendum issued by the Government of India on the ground that by substituting the original reference , nature and scope of the present dispute has been changed in material aspect . As such a fresh reference dated 8-9- 1995 is untenable and should be rejected as not maintainable . It is arbitrary, unilateral and violative of principles of natural justice .

7. In his rejoinder to the written statement the 2nd Party -workman has reiterated those facts which were averred in the statement of claim and also explained the points raised by the 1st Party - Management in their written statement .

8. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed for adjudication:

ISSUES

( 1 ) Whether the action of the Management of CMPDI in not regularizing the services of Shri Biswambar Sahu , casual workman inspite of the

2131

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

fact that his juniors have been regularized is justified ?

(2) To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled ?

(3) Whether the reference is maintainable ?

9. The 2nd Party - Union has examined two witnesses , namely Shri Biswambar Sahoo as W. W. - 1 and Shri Pravakar Tripathy as W.W. - 2 on its behalf and filed five numbers of documents proved and exhibited as Ext . - 1 to 5 .

10. The 1st Party - Management has examined three witnesses , namely Shri S. R. Kurandwad as M.W. - 1 , Shri Muralidhar Naik as M. W. -2 and Shri Birendra Prasad Singh as M.W. - 3 on their behalf and filed 23 numbers of documents proved and exhibited as Ext. -A to N.

FINDINGS

lasue No. III

11. As this issue relates to maintainability of the reference it is taken up first .

12. The 1st Party - Management has raised this issue , firstly, on the ground that the order of reference is not maintainable as it does not constitute an industrial dispute and secondly, by issuing corrigendum dated 18-9-1995 the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has changed the nature and scope of the original reference to amaterial extent . The action of the Central Government in substituting the original reference by another reference without giving any opportunity of hearing to the 1st Party- Management is arbitrary , unilateral and also violative of the principles of natural justice . The Government has no power either express or implied to supersede or cancel an old reference hence substituting a new one in its place amounts to withdrawal of a reference validly made .

13. It is an undisputed fact that the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has previously referred the dispute on 13-7-1994 to the following effect:

Whether the action of the Management of CMPDI is justified in not regularizing services of Shri Biswambar Sahu , Casual workman who worked from 1986 to 1993 as per clause 3.7 of certified Standing Order and in view of the fact that his juniors have been regularized ?

14. Subsequently through a corrigendum dated 31st August/ 8-9-1995 issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour schedule of reference made earlier was substituted in the following words:

Whether the action of the Management of CMPDI is not regularizing the services of Shri Biswambar Sahu , casual workman inspite of the fact that his juniors have been regularized is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?

[ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

2132

ultra vires and ordered to go on with the previous two references which have remained pending before the Tribunal for fairly a long time .

17. Now it has to be seen as to whether by issuing corrigendum the Governmnet of India in the Ministry ot Labour has cancelled or superseded the previous reference or itwas only a correction or amendment to the original reference ?

15. It has been stated on behalf of the 2nd Party- Union that the earlier reference dated 13-7-1994 did not include any relief portion . Hence no relief could have been given to the disputant - workman . The disputant - workman took the matter to the appropriate Government and the Government has made necessary correction in the reference through the corrigendum . The impugned corrigendum has neither superseded nor cancelled nor withdrawn the reference . The Government has ample power to correct the reference to enable the Tribunal to give relief. In this reference the case of " State of Bihar - Versus -D . N. Ganguly and others " ( AIR 1958 SC 1018 ) has been relied upon by the 1st Party - Management . In this case the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court was confined to the narrow question as to whether an order of reference made by the appropriate Government under section 10 ( 1 ) can be subsequently cancelled or substituted by it. The question of Government's power to amend or to add to a reference made under section 10 ( 1 ) was not considered here . The Hon'ble Apex Court held that " the Act ( I.D. Act 1947 ) does not expressly confer any power on the appropriate Government to cancel or supersede a reference made under section 10 ( 1 ) of the Act nor can such power be claimed by implication on the strength of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act ,

18. On comparison with the original schedule of reference it comes out that certain words read as " who worked from 1986 to 1993 as per clause 3.7 of certified Standing Order " were deleted in the corrigendum and a relief clause was added which was not there in the earlier schedule of reference . It is not clear as to why the working period of the disputant - workman from 1986 to 1993 was deleted alongwith the words " as per clause 3.7 of the certified Standing Order " . It appears that the service period of the disputant - workman was wrongly mentioned in the earlier schedule of reference as the case of the disputant workman was that he worked as a casual worker from February , 1986 to December , 1992. The certified Standing Order came into operation on 7-8-1991 . According to the version ofthe 1st Party- Management these standing order .. do not apply in the case of the disputant - workman as he was employed prior to coming into force of the certified Standing Order ? Therefore, due to above reasons the above noted portions from the corrigendum of the schedule of reference might have been deleted and the relief clause was added as it was some how left . The corrigendum wholly substituted the original schedule of reference though it was in substance the same with regard to the dispute . Therefore , it cannot be called a new reference superseding the previous one . In my view it was only a correction or amendment of the mistake crept in the original reference. Although Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 doesnot permit the appropriate Government to withdraw or supersede or cancel the reference altogether earlier made , by a subsequent notification , yet under the inherent powers if there comes any mistake that may later be corrected or amended . Likewise if in the schedule of reference anything material with regard to the industrial dispute has been left out mistakenly it may be added by way of corrigendum . Perhaps sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 10 of the Act has been inserted for the purpose which reads out as below :

"Where in an order referring the industrial dispute to a Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal under this section or in a subsequent order ( emphasis laid) the appropriate Government has specified the points ofdispute for adjudication , the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal , as the case may be , shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto " .

16. In the above noted case the Government of Bihar referred an industrial dispute between the Management of Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. Dighaghat (Patna ) and their 31 workmen. The dispute was whether the dismissal of the workmen in question was justified ? If not , whether they were entitled to reinstatement or any other relief ? Later , near about three months thereafter a similar industrial dispute between the same Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. and its 29 other workmen was referred by the Government of Bihar to the same Tribunal . Both the references were consolidated by the Tribunal and it made some progress . The Government of Bihar issued a third notification on 17-9-95 superseding the two earlier notifications to combine the said two disputes into one dispute , to implead the two sets of workmen involved in the two said disputes together and to add the Bata Mazdoor Union to the dispute , and to refer it to the adjudication of the same Industrial Tribunal . The dispute thus referred to the Tribunal was , " Whether the dismissal of the 60 workmen , mentioned in Annexure - B was justified or unjustified , and to what relief, if any , those workmen are entitled" . Consequently the Tribunal passed order cancelling the hearing of the two prior references and directing that the files of the said references should be closed . The Bata Company and its workmen approached the Patna High Court for quashing of the last notification which , in result , was quashed . Then this matter went to the Apex Court in appeal . The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the findings of the Hon'ble Patna High Court cancelling the first two notifications by the Government of Bihar as invalid and [भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]

19. In view of the matter the plea of the 1st Party- Management that the reference is not maintainable on the ground of alteration in the nature and scope of the original reference and it is beyond the powers of the appropriate Government does not hold good . So far as the existence of industrial dispute on the basis of the schedule of reference and consequently on the pleadings of the parties isconcerned they cetainly constitute an industrial dispute and the reference cannot be said to be non - maintainable on the aforesaid ground. Thus all the pleas taken in this regard by the 1st Party- Management shatter down and the issue is decided against the 1st Party - Management .

Issue Nos . 1 and 2

20. As both the issues are inter- dependant and interconnected with each other , they are taken up together for convenience sake .

21. It is an undisputed fact that the disputant- workman Shri Biswambar Sahu had worked as a casual workman under the 1st Party - Management from 21-2-1986 to September , 1992. The disputant - workman has also pleaded that he had worked till December , 1992 even after closure of the Rampur camp of the CMPDI , though it is denied by the 1st Party- Management . But the 1st Party- Management itself has filed the attendance sheet of the disputant- workman for the months ofNovember, 1992 and December , 1992. Though these attendance sheets have not been marked exhibits in the evidence of Management witnesses , perhaps intentionally to deny the allegation of the disputant-workman yet they show that he had worked till December, 1992 in the Rampur camp. However , that is not a material fact to affect the decision of the case . The case of the disputant - workman is that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year during April , 1986 to March , 1987. It is evident from Ext. - E and Ext. - F/ 1 filedby the 1st Party - Management itself. The Ist Party- Management has refuted the allegations of the disputant- workman and contended that the disputant - workman had not completed 240 days continuous service in a calendar year as is reflected from the letter dated 16-4-1993 sent by the Personnel Officer of the CMPDI to the Asst . Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Bhubaneswar . The officer had informed the Asst . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Bhubaneswar that during the period of engagement Shri Biswambar Sahu had not completed 240 days attendance in a calendar year. As such he was not regularized . It was further stated that Shri Biswambar Sahoo was engaged as and when required for temporary or for non - perennial nature ofjob and provisions of certified Standing Order dated 8-7-1991 will not be applicable in his case because he was engaged prior to the certification of the Standing Order. The attendance sheet Shri Biswambar Sahu which was sent to the Regional Director , CMPDI , R.1 . - 7 , Bhubaneswar marked as Ext . - E and F/ 1 shows year-wise attendance of Shri Biswambar Sahu from the year 1986 to 1989. In none of these years Shri Biswambar Sahu had put

2133

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

in 240 days service , but it was written underneath that he has completed 241 days from April , 1986 to March, 1987 . There has not been made any specific provision under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as to from which month , calendar year for calculation of continuous service of 240 days shall start . Clause ( a) of sub- section (2 ) of Section 25 - B of the Industrial Disputes Act only says that:

"(a) for a period of one year, if the workman , during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made has actually worked under the employer for not less than:

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days , in any other case;

22. It is relevant to mention here that the officer in- charge , CMPDI exploration camp , Rampur has sent the attendance sheet of the disputant- workman to the Regional Director CMPDI , R.I. - 7 , Bhubaneswar- 1 by letter dated 10-3-1990 ( Ext . - 3 ) and to the Chief Personnel Manager, CMPDI Headquarters , Ranchi on 20-10-1991 (Ext . -4) . Therefore , it has to be taken to mean that the calculation of 240 days continuous service for the purpose of regularization has to be reckoned either from the month of February, 1990 or September , 1991 to the preceding rest of the 11 months . There is no evidence on record that the disputant- workman has completed 240 days service from the month of February /March , 1990 or September/October 1991 to the preceding 11 months i.e. from February /March , 1989 to January /February , 1990 or from September /October, 1990 to Augutst /September , 1991. Therefore it comes out that on the date of consideration of the matter of regularization of the disputant - workman he had not completed 240 days continuous service as envisaged under Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act . In this view of the matter his case for regularization in service was rightly rejected by the 1st Party- Management , of course, without any regard for discrimination .

23. Now the question arises as to whether the action ofthe Management of CMPDI isjustified in not regularizing the services of the disputant- workman Shri Biswambar Sahoo despite the fact that his juniors were regularized . The Ist Party- Management has taken two stands in his behalf, firstly they alleged that they had not regularized any person purportedly junior to Shri Biswambar Sahoo and secondly, that there is no question of treatment of casual workers as junior or senior. As such the question ofalleged regularization ofjuniors to the disputant- workman does not arise . These assertions of the 1st party- Management explicitly make it clear that juniors to the disputant-workman have been regularized in service by [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )| 2134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

consideration ofhis case . He could not tell anything about the attendance of other casual workers working in other camps who were regularized by the 1st Party- Management . W.W. - 2 Shri P. Tripathy has stated in his evidence that regularization of Kulamani Moharana was done pursuant to a tripartite settlement . Regarding other four persons , who were regularized in service , he expressed his inability to tell about the period of their engagement . Therefore . his evidence also does not help in deciding the fact as to whether juniors to the disputant - workman were regularized in service by the Ist Party - Management .

the 1st Party-Management . Although it is not very much clear as no evidence regarding inter- se - seniority of the disputant-workman has been led by either of the parties , yet there is a statement on record of Exploration Camp at Gopalpur regarding date ofengagement of casual workers duly signed by the Officer- in-charge which shows that except Pradip Topo , Debraj Bhaisal , Debasa Shah and Lochan Singh joined the service after the disputant- workman in the year 1986. But they had been regularized byoffice order dated 19-1-1990 which is Ext.-A. This office order does not disclose as to whether they had completed 240 days of service on the date of consideration preceding the 12 calendar months . M. W. - 1 Shri S. R. Khandual could not teil about any of the workmen regularized in Gopalpur Camp was junior to the 2nd Party - Workman . He has stated that no seniority list or casual workmen is prepared . He has specifically stated that he did not remember if each of the workmen as per Ext . -A had completed 240 days of continuous employment . M.W. - 2 Muralidhar Nayak, who wasofficer- in - charge of Rampur camp from January, 1982 to September, 1989 has stated that engagement of Shri Biswambar Sahoo in Rampur camp was not regular and continuous . It was intermittent in nature . His service was required for exigencies of work. He has denied that the case ofShri Biswambar Sahoo was overlooked though he was senior to Pradip Topo etc. M. W. - 3 Shri B. P. Singh , Personnel Manager at Ranchi Headquarters has stated that the service of Shri Kulamani Moharana working at Talcher camp was regularized by virtue of tripartite settlement vice Ext. - L/ 1 which shows that he had completed 240 days of service . Since the Rampur camp was under closure there was no necessity for regularizing the services of any casual worker . He has also stated that after closure of Rampur camp the disputant- workman was not engaged and no compensation was paid to him . He has denied the fact that Shri Pradip Topo and others were junior to the disputant-workman . He has further stated that seniority as a whole was not maintained, but it was maintained camp wise . But mere oral submissions do not suffice and it remains open to challenge whether juniors to the disputant- workman were regularized in service or not ?

25. The initial burden to prove the fact that juniors to the disputant- workman were regularized in service by the 1st Party -Management though lies on the disputant- workman, yet by asserting that his juniors were regularized bythe 1st Party- Management he has dischrged his burden to prove that fact. Now the burden shifts on the 1st party- Management to deny the fact by specific evidence as the whole service record has to be maintained by the Management . But the Management has not come out with clean hands and led the true facts before this Tribunal to disprove the factum of juniors to the disputant - workman having been regularized in service . Ext . - 5 filed by the contestant union on behalf of the disputant-workman shows that five casual workers excepting Shri Kulamani Moharana were not regularized as they had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. They had put in very lesser number of days in service. The disputant - workman has alleged them junior to him. This fact gains significance as their services were required to be ceased before the disputant- workman on closure of the Rampur Camp . It is not clear as to what has been done with regard to these casual workmen on closure of Rampur Camp . Ext . - D filed by the 1st Party-Management only recites that 20 workmen and two officers ofdrilling camp at Rampur are transferred to Hydeogeological Department, CMPDI Headquarters after closure of the drilling camp at Rampur. It does not name any of the workmen who had been transferred and nothing has been mentioned about the casual workers . Thus it appears with some certainty that the justice has not been meted out to the disputant- workman while ceasing his job as casual workman . Since a long period of about 18 years has elapsed and the drilling camp at Rampur is not in operation , no relief with regard to providing him job of casual worker can be granted . But viewing the high handedness of the 1st Party - Management in violating the principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , I think it proper to award Rs . 50,000 to the disputant - workman as compensation in the facts and the circumstances of the case . The above two issues are decided accordingly. The compensation shall be paid to the disputant - workman within a period of three months from the date of publication of the Award.

26. The reference is answered with the above directions.

Dictated and Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer 24. In this regard the disputant - workman Shri Biswambar Sahoo has stated that four employees , namely, Pradip Toppo, Debraj Bhaisali , Lochan Singh, Dibasa Shah were engaged as casual labourers after him in Gopalpur camp while he was working as a casual worker in Rampur camp. The Officer - in-charge has recommended for his regularization vide Ext . - 3 and sent his attendance vide Ext . - 4 . The working particulars of seven persons junior to him were also sent to the Head Office vide Ext. - 5 . One Kulamani Moharana out of them was regularized in service. He was junior to him. But the contention regarding Kułamani Moharana is not tenable as the office order regarding his regularization speaks out completion of 240 days service , while the disputant - workman has not completed 240 days of continuous service at the time of [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 8 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 686. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.आर.एस. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 582/2005/ 583/2005 और 584/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. -42012/ 82/2003- आई आर( सी- II ) , एल. -42012/8 /2003- आई आर ( सी- II ) , एल.-42012/6/2003- आई आर( सी -11 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th February, 2011

S.O. 686. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 582/ 2005, 583/2005 & 584/2005 ) 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 Central Potato Research Station and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 08-2-2011 .

[No. L-42012/82/2003 - IR(C - II) , L -42012/ 8 /2003 - IR( C - II) , L-42012/ 6/2003 - IR( C - II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH Present :

Sri A.K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer.

1. Case No. I.D. 582/2005 Registered in 23-08-2005

Sh . Salig Ram S/ o Sh . Shiv Ram , Village Tathakar , P.O. Majhar, Tehsil Theog , District Shimla ( H.P. ) 2. Case No. I.D. 583/2005 Registered on 23-08-2005

Sh . Balak Ram S/ o Sh . Mansa Ram R/ o Village Makhrol , P.O. Fagu , Tehsil Theog , District Shimla ( H.P. )

3. Case No. I.D. 584/2005 Registered on 23-08-2005

Narotam Ram S/ o . Sh. Padma Ram , R/ o Village Bagha , P.O. Fagu , Tehsil Theog, District Shimla (HP) .... Applicants

Versus

The Office In - charge , Central Potato Research Station , Kufri , Shimla Hills , Shimla ( HP )-171012 Responde

2135

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

APPEARANCES :

For the workmen : Sh . Pawan Sharma , Advocate in 1.D. No. 582/2005

Sh . Vivek Sharma & Archana Sharma, Advocates in I.D No. 583/2005 and ID No. 584/2005 For the Management S/Sh Raj Kumar Sharma, Arun Batra & Amit Sharma , ARs .

AWARD

Passed on 28th December , 2010

Central Government vide Notification No. L -42012 / 82/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) Dated 06-04-2004 ( in ID No. 582/2005 ), Notification No. L - 42012/ 8 /2003 IR( CM - II ) Dated 12-05-2004 (in ID No. 583/2005 ) and Notification No. L-42012/6 /2003 - IR (CM- II ) Dated 12-05-2004 (In ID No. 584/ 2005), 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 disputes respectively for adjudication to this Tribunal :

1. "Whether the action of the management of Central Potato Research Station , Kufri , Shimla Hills (HP) in terminating the services of Sh . Salig Ram , Ex- Beldar(Daily Wage basis) in the year 1997 without any notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date ? " 2. "Whether the action of the management of Central Potato Research Station , Kufri , Shimla Hills ( HP) in terminating the services ofSh . Balak Ram , Beldar (Daily Wage basis ) without any notice and without any payment of retrechment compensation is just , fair and legal ? If not , to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled and from which date ? "

3. "Whether the action of the management of Central Potato Research Station , Kufri , Shimla Hills ( HP ) in terminating the services of Sh . Narotam Ram , Ex- Beldar (Daily Wage basis ) without any notice and without any payment of retrechment compensation is just , fair and legal ? If not , to whatrelief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date ?"

In all the above three references common questions of law and facts are involved , hence , they are being adjudicated upon by this single award . In I.D. No. 582/2005 vide reference No. L -42012/ 82 /2003 - IR ( CM - II ) ) Dated 06-04-2004, in I.D. No. 583/2005 vide reference No. L-42012/ 236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

8/2003 - IR ( CM - II) ) Dated 12-05-2004 and I.D. No. 584/2005 vide reference No. L - 42012 /6/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) ) Dated 12-05-2004.

The workmen were engaged as Beldars on daily wage basis in different years by the management . Their services were terminated in the year 1997. The specific date of termination of service has not been given in the claim statements . The workmen have raised an industrial dispute by stating that their services were terminated without giving any termination notice or retrenchment compensation as per provisions of Section 25F of the Act though they have completed more than 240 days in every preceding year during their engagement and persons junior to the claimants were retained and engaged by the respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 25H of theAct.

In I.D. No. 582/2005 the workman Salig Ram had additionally pleaded that he is entitled to regularization in Group ' D' post and also for temporary status as per Government of India D.P. & T. OM No. 49014 / 18 / 84 - DS + C dated07-05-1985 .

The workman have prayed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits .

The claim was contested by the respondent . It was stated that management is not an industry and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the management and workman . In O.A. No. 233 /HP /2001 the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal has held that the claimants along with others were being kept for work by the contractor and also that the workmen have not completed 240 days including broken days . The workmen cannot reagitate the same pleas before this Tribunal . Their claims are time barred also . Workmen had moved earlier another Original Application in O.A. No. 234/HP /98 . They had claimed many reliefs in the aforesaid Original Applications , which will be deemed to have been declined by the Hon'ble Tribunal and the present reference before this Tribunal is liable to be declined on this ground alone . SinceApril 1998 the work which is ofpurely seasonal nature , is being given to contractors and no direct casual worker was engaged after April 1998 .

In I.D. No. 582/2005 , the workman Salig Ram has named certain persons as junior to him and retained or re- engaged by the management in villation of Section 25H of the Act . Regarding these persons the management in its written statement has stated that having completed 240 days in the preceding year and being on Muster Roll in the year 1993 these persons had fulfilled the eligibility criteria and therefore , were conferred temporary status as per judgment ofHon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & another Versus Mohan Pal J.T. 2002 ( Suppl . ) ( 1 ) SC 312 and clarification dated 06-06-2002 issued by ICAR.

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] In I.D. No. 583/2005 and 584/2005 workmen have filed rejoinder also . It was submitted that at the time when OA No. 233 /HP /2001 was disposed the workmen were engaged through contractor but the employment of the workmen had been terminated in 1997 and the respondent , in the authority below, has admitted that the workmen had completed 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months and were in the employment of the respondent . The workmeni cannot be denied relief under the Act on the basis of the findings recorded in OA No. 233 /HP/ 2001 . There is a relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the workmen . The man days shown in the written statement are not correctly calculated . They were entitled to temporary status.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues arise for consideration :

1. Whether the management is an industry , if not itseffect ?

2. Whether there is a relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and workmen ?

3. What is the effect of the order of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 234 /HP / 98 and OA No. 233 /HP/2001 ?

4. Whether the reference can be invalidated on the grounds of its being time barred ?

5. Whether the workmen are entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Act and whether their services were terminated in violation of the aforesaid provisions ?

6. Whether persons junior to workmen were retained by the respondent in violation of Section 25G of the Act , if so , its effect ?

7. Whether subsequent to the termination of the workmen , persons junior to them were engaged by respondents in violation of Section 25H of the Act , if so , its effect ?

8. To what relief, if any , are the workmen entitled to ?

It will be relevant to clarify here that the plea raised by workman Salig Ram in ID No. 582/2005 that he is entitled to regularization in Group ' D ' post and also for temporary status as per Government of India DP & T OM No. 49014/ 18 /84 - DS + C dated 07-05-1985 is beyond the scope of the reference . The reference is with regard to the legality and justification ofthe termination of the service of the workman without any notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation and not whether the workman is entitled to regularization or to a temporary status . The plea raised by the workman in this regard is not incidental भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

either to any of the issues involved for the adjudication of the disputes .

In support oftheir claims the workmen have tendered their affidavits , while on behalf of respondent the affidavit ofA.S. Koprate , Assistant Administrative Officer has been tendered in evidence along with certain Annexures .

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. My findings on the various issues are as follows :

Issue No. 1

The management hastaken a plea that it is an institute conducting research activities in the Potato to guide the Potato grewers and there is no commercial activity it is not producing and distributing services, which are intended or meant for specifying huraan wants and needs . It is more an institution discharging governmental functions than a commercial enterprise. The urisdiction ofthe Tribunal has been denied on this ground.

Regarding this plea the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the leading case Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Versus A. Rajappa & another 1978-1 LLJ 349 is important . Regarding Research Institute , the Hon'ble Court held:

"Even though a Research Institute may be a separate entity disconnected from the main industries which founded the institute itself it can be regarded as an organization , propelled by systematic activity, modeled on cooperation between employer and employee and calculated to throw up discoveries and inventions and useful solutions which benefit individual industries and the nation in terms of goods and services and wealth . It follows that research institute , albeit run without profit motive , are industries . "

In view ofthe law laid down by the Apex Court , it is ciear that the respondent in the case is an industry. Issue No. 1 is decided against the management/respondent, Issue Nos . 2 & 3

On the basis of the order passed by the Hon'bie CentralAdministrative Tribunal in OA No. 233 /HP/2001 it was arguedby the learned counsel for the management that it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal that the work.com are contractor's men and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the workmen . The management has made available order ofthe Hon'ble Tribunal in the aforesaid case . It is Annexure R- i on the record of ID No. 583/2005 .

The learned counsel for workmen disputed this argument. In OA No. 233 /HP/2001 work..an Balak Ram of IDNo. 583/2005 and Narotam Ram of ID No. 584/2005 were also applicants. It is important to note that the application 5 : 11-22

2137 in the said case was moved in 2001 i.e. subsequent to the termination ofthe workmen in 1997. In that case the case of the workman was that since 1997 they were deemed retrenched without any notice and without any retrenchment benefits and since then the Seed Potato cultivation job was declared to have been assigned to contractor.

Pon the written statement of the management also it is che that the work is being done through contractors since April 1998. Obviously, the contract system was not prevalent during the employment of the workmen which lasted upto 1997 only. The plea of the management, therefore, that the workmen are the men of contractor on the basis ofthe order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 233 /HP/2001 does not hold ground.

In OA No. 234/ HP/ 1998 the rights of any party were not decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal . The applicants, however, were given liberty to file a representation for the consideration of the authority concerned by detailing all the reliefs which they were entitledto.

Thus , the orders of the Tribunal have no effect on the dispute involved in the present references .

The management on merits in para No. 1 has admitted in their written statement that the workmen had been engaged by it and they worked up to the season period of 1997. It is , therefore , clear that there was a relationship of employer and employce between the workmen and respondent.

IssueNos. 2 and 3 is therefore, decided against the managerment .

Issue No. 4

Management has agitated that the claim petition is time barred but from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karan Singh Versus Executive Engineer Haryana State Marketing Board 2007 (4) RSJ 675 the Industrial Tribunal cannot invalidate the reference on the ground ofdelay. The employer may challenge the reference by way of writ petition and say that since claim is belated there is no industrial dispute Issue No. 4 is decided against the management .

Issue No. 5

The workman Balak Ram and Narotam Ram in ID No. 583/2005 and 584/2005 have stated to have completed more thar. 240 days in each preceding 12 months in a calendar year. Similarly the workman Salig Ram in ID No. 582/2005 had alleged that he has completed 240 days in every preceding 12 calendar months during his engagement . The workmen have not alleged to have completed 240days service in 12 calendar months preceding to the date of their termination . They have not given the date and month of their termination either. For the protection of Section 25F of the Act only the working days of 12 calendar months 2138

[PART I THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011/PHALGUNA 14, 1932

Temporary Status and Regularization ) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 , teruporary status was conferred on all casual labourers who were in employment on the dates of issue of the OM ( namely 10-09-1993 ) ; ifthey had rendered a continuous service of atleast one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the cases of offices observing 5days' week) .

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & another Vs. Mohan Pal etc. (Supra) held:

preceding to the date of termination are relevant. It is not relevant that how many days a workman worked in earlier years .Therefore, the workmen have failed to plead even that theyhad completed 240 days service in the 12 calendar months preceding to the date of termination of their services.As per written statements in ID No. 583/2005 , the workman Balak Ram in the year 1997 worked for 121 days including the broken period and in ID No. 584/2005 the workman Narotam Ram worked in 1997 for 231 days indluding broken period of 13 days . Thus , according to management in the year 1997 , the said workmen did not complete 240days of service. It is important to note that the initial burden is on the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding to the date of termination . The aforesaid workmen have failed to discharge their burden . Obviously, they are not entitled to the protection of Section 25F of theAct .

"The scherne of 01-09-13 is not a ongoing scheme and the temporary status can be conferred on the casual labourers under that scheme only in fulfilling the conditions incorporated in Clause IV of the Scheme namely ; they should have been casual labourers in the employment on the date of commencing of the scheme and they should have rendered continuous service of at least one year i.e. at least 240 days in a year or 206 days ( in case of offices having 5 days; a week) . "

The case of workman Salig Ram of ID No. 582/2005 is, however, different. In Annexure 2 ofthe written statement ofthe respondent, the workman Salig Ram has been shown tohave worked for 242 days including broken period in the year 1997. Obviously, he was entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Act and his services could not have been terminated without notice and without paying retrenchment compensation .

The workmen have not alleged that the persons junior to them and named in thoclaim stateinent of ID No. 582/2005 were not entitled to the benefit ofthe scheme . It is clear that persons junior to workmen were retained in service on fulfilling the conditio stipulated in the aforesaid scheme and there is no violation of Section. 25G of the Act . Issue No. 6 isdecided against the workmen .

Issue No. 7

Itis, therefore , held that the termination of the services ofworkman Balak Ram in ID No. 583/2005 and Narotam Ram, in ID No. 584/2005 without notice and paying retrenchment compensation as per provisions of Section 25F oftheAct are legal andjustified while the termination ofservice of Salig Ram in ID No. 582/2005 is illegal and unjustified being inviolation of the provisions of Section 25F oftheAct . Issue No. 5 is accordingly decided against Bala Ram, Narotam Ram in ID No. 583/2005 and ID No. 584/2005 respectively and in favour of Salig Ram in ID No. 582/2005.

IssueNo. 6

The workmen alleged the violation of Section 25H of the Act also and had stated that subsequent to the termination of their services , fresh hands were employed . Butthe workmen have not given the specific instance . The respondent on the other hand pleaded that no direct casual workerhas been engaged after A.pri: 998 as work is being done through contractor . The wormen have failed in discharging the burden to prove the iolation if Section 25H of the Act aiso . Issue No 7 is thereford , decided against the workmen .

Issue No. &

Workmen have alleged that persons junior to them were retained by the respondent in violation of Section 25G oftheAct. Workman Salig Ram in ID No. 582/2005 has named persons who werejuniors to him and were retained by the respondent. The other workmen have not named these persons .

From the above going disqussion , is ear that Worteme Balak Ram in ID No. 580/2005 and Narol am Ram 94-2005 are not entitiked to my relie as the terminatanoftheir services was at in violation . Section 25F of the ACL

According to the learned counsel for the respondent the persons named had been conferred temporary status asthey had completed 240 days in the preceding year and were on the Muster Roll in the year 1993 as a one time measure as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & another Versus Mohan Pal JT 2002 (Suppl . ) ( 1 ) SC 312. From the Office Memorandum dated06-06-2002 Annexure R-4 on the file of ID No. 582/ 2005 it appears that in the Casual Labourers (Grant of

In ID No. 582/2005 it has been held that the workman Salig Ram was entitled to the protection of Section 25F of theAct.Admittedly, his services were terminated without compliance of the said provisions which was illegal and unjustified . Question is to what relief he is entitled? The respondent has not alleged that the workman had been [भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

engaged by an authority not competent to appoint him. However , there is nothing on record to show that the workman had been engaged through a regular process and against a sanctioned post, his name has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the had been issued an appointment letter . I am , therefore of the view that he cannot claim his reinstatement as a matter of right particularlywhen the work has been assigned to contractor now. I however , find him entitled to just and proper compensation . As per Annexure R- 2 of the written statement in ID No.582/2005 , the workman Salig Ram has been in service since 1980 to 1997 except in the years 1985 ; 1986 , 1988 , 1990 and 1993. Considering his length of service I am of the view that a compensation of Rs . 80,000 will be just and proper for him . The management isdirected to pay the aforesaid compensation to workman Salig Ram within a month from receiving the copy of the award. Reference in 583/2005 and 584/2005 is answered against the respective workmen Balak Ram and Narotam Ram . The reference in ID No. 582/2005 is answered in favour ofworkman Salig Ram accordingly. Copy ofaward be placed on the record of ID Nos . 582/2005 , 583/2005 and 584/2005 each .

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 , 8 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 687. 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 अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. -41012/193/2001- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th February, 2011

S.O. 687.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2002 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 07-2-2011 .

[No. L-41012/ 193 /2001 - IR(B -J) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

2139

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 19/2002 Dated02-02-2011

Petitioner/

PartyNo. 2

: Sh . Vijay Shravan Jagtap, Church Hill Road, Dak Bungiow No. 244, Out House, Igatpuri , Dist. Nasik (M.S. )

Versus

Respondent/

PartyNo. 1

: The Divisional Manager, Central Railway, Bhusawal , Dist. Jalgaon (M.S. )

AWARD

(Dated: 2nd February, 2011 )

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 Railway, Bhusawal and their workman , Shri Vijay Shravan Jagtap for adjudication , as per letter No. L-41012/ 193 /2001 - IR (B- 1) dated 29-03-2002, with the following schedule:

"Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusawal in removing from the services of Shri Vijay Shravan Jagtap , Hospital Attendant, Igatpuri , w.e.f. 30-09-1977 after imposing penalty is justified? Ifnot, what relief the said workman is entitled ? "

2. After receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim andwritten statement . In response to such notice , the workman, Shri Vijay Shravan Jagtab ( " the workman " in short ) filed his statement of claim and the management ofCentral Railway ("the party No. I " in short) filed its written statement.

The case ofthe workman as projected in his statement of claim is that in the year 1976 , the Party No. 1 issued a charge sheet against him leveling false allegations of misbehavior with a staff nurse and conducted the departmental enquiry inconsistent to the provisions of the railway servants ( D & A) Rules , 68 and due to the result of the faulty enquiry conducted with pre -determined mind to punish him , he was dismissed from service and the format of the charge sheet was wrong and the said charge sheet did not contain, which ofthe conduct rules were violated by him and the list of relied upon documents and list of witnesses were supplied to him in haphazard manner and not in a proper format and one and the same person was the charge sheet issuing authority , Inquiry Officer and the 2140

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( i ) ) Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer submitted two reports , i.e. one on 7-6-1976 and the other on 21-8-1977 and on his objection , he was taken back on duty and the reports submitted by the Inquiry Officer dated 7-6-1976 was set aside, but, he was removed from service on the basis of the first report of the Inquiry Officer , which was set aside and there were serious lacunae and latches in the two reports of the Inquiry Officer and there were also contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 and the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer was without any basis and not based on the evidence on record and the appeals preferred by him were dismissed without assigning any reason for the same and he made mercy petition to the higher authorities of the Party No. 1 and to the Hon'ble Railway Minister, but without any result , so he sent notice through his advocate and lastly filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Mumbai Bench, Mumbai bearing No. 165/95 , praying for reinstatement in service w.e.f. 20-12-1988 and the findings ofthe Inquiry Officer are perverse and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and payment ofback wages.

abusing and shouting at persons in the department and the patients and all of a sudden entered into the nurse duty room with a thick red and broke the telephone receiver and three glass windows pane without any reasons and the sister on duty was frightened and ran away from the office and the workm an was placed under suspension from 6-2-76 to 10-4-76 ar d on 19-12-75, a complaint had been filed by Mrs. Merri D'Souza , a female hospital attendant stating that on 12-171-75 , at 9.30 PM the workman abused and threatened her without any reason and in the departmental enquiry, the principles ofnatural justice were adhered to and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record and the punishment imposed against the workman is justified , in view of the serious misconducts proved against him and the workman isnot entitled for ny relief. It is also pleaded by the Party No. I that the workman had also preferred the second appeal on 22-1-19 78 and the second Appellate Authority also upheld the pranishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter the workman filed original application No. 165/95 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Mumbai challenging the impugned order and subsequently he withdrew the application and as such , the present reference is barred under the principles of res judicata and as such , the reference is liable to be dismissed .

4. As this is a case of removal from service of the workman, after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity of the departmental eraquiry was taken for determination as a preliminary issue and as per orders dated 24-3-2009, the departmental enquiry was held to the legal , proper and following the principles of natural justice.

5. The points remain for consideration are regarding the perversity of the findings and the quantum of punishment.

3. The Party No. 1 in its written statement pleaded inter-alia that the workman was initially appointed in its office as a Hospital Attendant in 1969 and he was made permanent in the said post on 25-12-72 and on 5-5-76, the workman committed serious misconduct by entering into the duty room of the nurses unauthorizedly, mishandled and assaulted the nurse, namely, Ms. V.S. Mhaiske , also abused her in abusive language , threatened her and disturbed the indoor patients by creating commotion and noise and for the said act of misconduct , a proper departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman and the punishment of removal from service was imposed upon him on 26-9-77 and thereafter, the workman filed an appeal to the prescribed Appellate Authority on 12-11-1977 and his appeal was dismissed by order dated 15-11-1977 by the Appellate Authority and prior to submission of charge sheet also , there were complaints against the workman and on 14-4-1975 , the staff nurse Mrs. A.D. Jadhav had submitted a report against the workman stating that the work of the workman was very unsatisfactory and he used to remain unauthorized absent and as such , the workman was warned and on 10-11-1975 , nursing sister MissBalani had made complaint to the Divisional Medical Officer that on that day at 1.30 PM , the workman threatened her of dire consequences in case of her talking with staff nurse Miss . Mhaiske and an enquiry had been conducted and the workman was found guilty of misbehaving with nursing sister Miss Balani and on 3-2-1976, the sister on duty, Mrs. V.R. Vohol had also submitted a report that the workman while on duty found absent from 7.30 PM till 9.00 PM and thereafter he came in a drunken state and started

In the writters notes of argument , it has been submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the charge sheet dated 12-5-1976 does not contain any thing about the violation of any rules , under which the charge memorandum has been issued and as such , itis not understood as to whether major penalty charges or minor penalty charges were levelled against the workman and the charge sheet issuing authority, Enquiry Authority and Disciplinary Authority were the same and one man and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 7-6-1977 anci again on 21-8-1977 and the second report was submitted as per the order of theAppellate Authority vide letter dated 15-4-1977, but the Appellate Authority did not mention the reason for reordering t'ne enquiry and as such , the order was not legal and the same cannot be sustained. In support ofsuch submission , reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the workman on the भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

decision reported in Alok De Roy Vs. Union of India andOthers, 20101 CLR 228 ( Calcutta High Court ). It has also been submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that though according to the allegation , the workman misbehaved with Ms V.S. Mhaiske in presence of the DMO , the DMO was not examined in the enquiry and the evidence was not sufficient to hold the workman guilty of the charges and the findings are perverse and the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the workman and as such, the same is liable to set aside . In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the decision reported in State of UP and Others Vs. Ram Daras Yadav, 2010 (4) Mh . L.J. 58.

6. On the other hand , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that in the departmental enquiry, though the workman was intimated bout the date of the enquiry and was given all reasonable opportunity to be presented in the enquiry, he remained absent and as such, the enquiry was proceeded as per rules and the Disciplinary Authority after considering the enquiry proceedings found the charges leveled against he workman to have been proved and imposed the penalty ofremoval from service w.e.f. 8-7-1976 and being aggrieved, the workman preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 4-8-1976 and Appellate Authority upheld the punishment imposed against the workman by a reasoned order dated 11-8-1976 and the workman preferred the second appeal on 19-8-1976 to the prescribed Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the Inquiry Officer to conduct a de novo enquiry to give the workman to be present at the time of the enquiry, by order dated 15-4-1977 and in view of such remand the enquiry was conducted afresh and the workman was present during the enquiry and he was also given all reasonable opportunity to defend himself and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority found the charges levelled against the workman to have been proved, imposed the punishment of removal from service on 26-9-1977 and as such there is no question of imposing the sentence basing onthe first report submitted on 7-6-1976 and the findings ofthe Inquiry Officer are not preserved and the same are based on the evidence on record and the punishment imposed against the workman is also not shockingly disproportionate and as such , no interference can be made with the punishment .

7. Perused the record including the documents filed by the parties and found that the second Appellate Authority to give a fair chance to the workman to take part in the departmental enquiry, set aside the first order of punishment imposed against him and remanded the case for fresh enquiry and accordingly, the enquiry was held afresh giving all opportunity to the workman to take part in

2141 the enquiry and to defend himselfin the enquiry. Therefore, with respect, I am of the view that the decision reported in 2010 1 CLR 228 (supia) has no application in this case, as in the case referred in the decision , the first charge sheet was dropped and the second charge sheet was issued without disclosing sufficient reason for issuance of the second charge sheet, so , the Hon'ble Court held that submission of the second charge sheet without assigning anyreason is bad, in view ofrule 9(a )( i ) ofRS (D&A) Rules , 1968. However, in this case , no second charge sheet was submitted after dropping of the first charge sheet , but, the enquiry was conducted afresh on the same charge sheet togive a scope to the workman to take part in the enquiry. Hence, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman .

8. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse. Reasons have been assigned in support of the findings and the findings are based on evidence on record. It is well settled that in a departmental proceeding, it is not necessary to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts like in a criminal case , but the charges are to be proved by preponderance of probability. It is also well settled that unless the punishment imposed against the workman is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him , the Tribunal is not authorized to interfere with the same. In this case , taking into consideration , the serious misconduct proved against the workman and his previous conducts , I find that the sentence ofremoval from service imposed against the workman is not shockingly disproportionate and as such, there is no scope to interfere with the said punishment . As the facts and circumstances of the present case at hand are quite different from the facts and circumstance of the case referred in the decision reported in the decision , 2010 (4) Mh . L.J. 58 (supra), with respect, I am of the view that the principles enunciated in the said decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court are not applicable to this case.

In view ofthe evidence on record and the discussion made above, it is found that the action of the Party No. 1 in removing the workman from service isjustified. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusawal in removing from the services to Shri Vijay Shravan Jagtap , Hospital Attendant, Igatpuri , w.e.f. 30-09-1977 after imposing penalty is justified. The workman is not entitled for any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 688.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट 2142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. - 12012/186/96- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th February, 2011

S.O. 688.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/98) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 07-2-2011.

[No. L- 12012/ 186/96- IR( B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 18 /98

PRESENT :

Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan , Presiding Officer Shri Shriniwas Tiwari ,

S/o Ram Aashray Tiwari , R/o Hal Mukam Post Hardwahi , Distt. Panna

Workman

Versus

TheAsstt . General Manager,

State Bank of India ,

Region -III , Regional Office , Civic Centre,Marhatal ,

Jabalpur

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21st day of January, 2011 1.The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No. L- 12012 / 186/96 - IR ( B - I ) dated 27/28-1-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Jabalpur in not regularizing the services of Shriniwas Tiwari and not giving the benefits applicable to regular employees is legal andjustified ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 2. The case of the Union/ Workman in short is that the workman was appointed on 30-3-92 on daily wages in Hardwahi Branch of State Bank of India and was continuouslyworking as messenger for more than 8 years . Heapplied many times for his regularization on the post of waterman/messenger but the management did not take any decision . The workman claims that the management be directed to regularize his service w.e.f. 30-3-92 with all benefits .

3. The management appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement . The case of the management Bank in short is that the workman was engaged on casual basis only for 74 days and he said engagement did not create any statutory right for appointment in the Bank . The further case of the management is that there is a welfare committee and the Branch Manager is the President. The Bank provides subsidy to the committee for running the canteen and catering services for the staff members working at the Branch . The said committee recruits Canteen Boy. The Bank has nothing to do with the said recruitment. The alleged workman was engaged as a Canteen Boy from 1-10-1992 to 30-4-1995 and again from July 1995 to April 1996. The work done by the Canteen Boy in the canteen run by the Local Implementation Committee cannot be said to be the employee of the Bank . Onthese grounds , it is submitted that the alleged workman isnot entitled to any relief.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties . the following are issues reframed:

(i) Whether there was relationship ofemployer and employee between the management Bank and the workman ?

(ii) Whether the workman is entitled to be regularized in the service of the Bank ?

(iii) To what relief, the workman is entitled ?

5. The Union/Workman became absent and therefore the reference proceeded ex parte against the Union/ Workman on 16-10-2009 .

6. Issue No.I

The management has examined one witness to establish the case . The management witness Shri Sushil Kumar is Branch Manager ofHardwahi Branch ofSBI . He has stated that the alleged workman was engaged as a Canteen Boy by the Local Implementation Committee for the Canteen . The Bank has nothing to do with the said recruitment . The Bank has no right to control and supervise the canteen boy employed by the committee and the canteen boy cannot be said to be the employee of Bank . Hisevidence is unrebutted . There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence .

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

7. The Learned counsel for the management has relied a decision reported in (2000 ) 5 S.C.C. 531 , State Bank of India and others versus State Bank of India Canteen Employee's Union ( Bengal Circle ) and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :

"We, therefore , hold that employees of the canteens which are run at various branches by the Local Implementation Committee as per the welfare scheme framed by SBI would not become employees of the Bank as the Bank is not having any statutory or contractual obligation or obligation arising under the award to run such canteens . Hence , it is not necessary to decide the second question that fresh petition for the same cause was not maintainable in view of the order dated 14-10-1985 passed by this Court in Civil AppealNo. 840 of 1977. "

Thus it is clear that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman . This issue is decided in favour of the management .

8. Issue Nos . II & MI

Onthe basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the workman is not the employee of the Bank and therefore he is not entitled to be regularized in the service ofthe Bank . He is also not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .

costs. 9. In the result, the award is passed without any 10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Office नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 689 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की एक 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं भारतीय खः निगम के प्रबंधन के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल.- 22013/ 1 /2011- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th February, 2011

S.O. 689 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to th

2143 management of FCI and their workmen , which was received bythe Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L-22013 / 1 /2011 - IR( C - II ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT:

Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of December , 2010 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 19/2005 Between:

Sri Shaik Mahaboob Ali , S/ o Ameer Ali , C/o Saheb Ali , Beside Court , Building, Vidyanagar, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District

Petitioner

AND

1. The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India , Haca Bhawan , Hydreabad

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India , Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

Respondents APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :M/ s . Jalli Kanakaiah and Jalli Narendar, Advocates For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy and B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates AWARD

Sri Shaik Mahaboob Ali has filed this petition under Sec . 2A (2 ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 .

2. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that during the year 1975-76 due to heavy procurement and bumper paddy crop . The Food Corporation of India was entrusted and entered into procurement of the paddy on war footing in 1977 and opened number of procurement centres in the entire state ofAndhra Pradesh including Nalgonda District . TheFood Corporation of India opened centres atBhongir , Aleru , Chittial , Suruapet , Huzurnagar , Miryalguda , Nidamanuru etc. obtained godowns and opened storage units and also employed local persons to discharge the duty of a storage and procurement of the paddy . The 2144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

Petitioner was also appointed as casual labour along with many other persons in the year 1976 on daily wage of Rs. 6/ - per day and he continued to work upto 1981 . Thereafter his services were terminated without following thedue process of law. It is stated that some of the workers approached this tribunal by raising I.D. No. 33/1982 and another I.D. which were disposed off and the tribunal was pleased to direct the Respondent to consider the case of the workman of those IDs for re - appointment under Sec . 25H ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The Respondent preferred W.P. Nos . 1618 and 11320 of 1985 which was disposed of after hearing both sides and the Hon'ble High Court also directed Respondent to consider re - appointment of the Petitioners of that cases . It has been further contended that Petitioner of this case could not file any ID due to financial constraints and he was under the impression that the benefit given to the Petitioners of those IDs would also be extended to the Petitioner of the present case. Under same misunderstanding the Petitioner filed W.P. No. 21564/2001 which was disposed of on 2-5-2001 . After receiving the order , the Respondent management did not acted upon the direction of the Hon'ble High Court , as such , contempt case was filed which was dismissed hence, the present petition .

3. It has been contended by the Petitioner that he worked alongwith other co- workers under the direct control of Food Corporation of India. Petitioner was sponsored through District Employment Exchange , Nalgonda . No notice was given to the Petitioner under Sec . 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before termination, as such, thetermination order was violative of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , it is discriminatory, illegal and unjust and deserves to be quashed and the Petitioner deserves to be reinstated or re- employed in the service.

4. Counter statement has been filed by the Respondent management stating therein that Petitioner of this case had never worked as casual labour at any point of time in Food Corporation of India. The casual labours who worked in Food Corporation of India had raised an industrial dispute through ID No. 33/1982 and by virtue of the award passed therein they were considered for the appointment in the corporation. The Petitioner has not worked in the corporation and there is no relation of employee and employer between the Petitioner and the Respondent . The Petitioner alongwith 12 other persons filed W.P. No. 21564/2000 before Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , and Hon'ble High Court has directed the Petitioner to makefresh representation giving all the particulars . He filed contempt Case No. 90/2002 which was dismissed. Though the Petitioner has stated in the present ID that he had not filed any ID prior to this petition and he was not a party in IDNo. 33/1982, one Mr. Shaik Mahaboob Ali S/o Hussain Saheb filed LCID No. 65/2003 and another ID No. 165/2003 was filed by Mr. Shaik Mahaboob Ali and present ID is also filed by Mr. Shaik Mahaboob Ali , every time he has

[PART II-SEC. 30) givendifferent particulars . One Sri Shaik Mahaboob Al S/ o Imam Saheb who had worked as casual labour and who is one of the Petitioner of ID No. 33/1982, he was given appointment as watchman. The Petitioner is taking advantage of identity of names with sole intention of gaining employment in the corporation. The Petitioner has filed this petition after 20 years of the alleged disengagement from the service and it is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

5. Parties were directed to file their respectiv .: evidence . Petitioner Sri Shaik Mahaboob Ali s/o Amir 1 has filed his affidavit in support of his claim statement and has presented himself for cross -examination and has been cross -examined at length . Apart from the oral evidence the Petitioner has filed copy of the judgment in W.P. No. 21564/2000 Ex . WI , copy of the letter addressed by Respondent to the Petitioner dated 16-3-2000 Ex. W2 and 12-6-2001 Ex . W3 , memo issued by Respondent dateci 14-3-2002 Ex . W4 , copy ofrepresentation dated 21-4-2001 Ex. W5, copy of order in CC No.90 /2002 dated 19-7-2002 Ex . W6, Copy ofthe memo dated 14-3-2002 Ex . W7 . Respondent has filed affidavit of Sri . P. C. Krishna Naik , Area Manager MWI and has filed the documents Ex . Ml to M10 which have been marked by the MW1 and has presented Sri P.C. KrishnaNaik for cross - examination.

6. I have heard Learned Counsels for Petitioner and Respondent and I have gone through the pleadings and evidence available on the record . This Tribunal has to consider the following points in the present case :

(1) Whether the relationship of employee and employer exists between the Petitioner workman and the Food Corporation of India management at any time before filing of this petition ?

(II) Whether the Petitioner's services were terminated without following the procedure , due process of the law ?

(Ill) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for any relief?

7. Point No. ( I) : It has been allegedby the Petitioner in his claim statement that he was engaged for the year 1975-76 as casual labour at Food Corporation of India , Naigonda district alongwith other casual workers on the payment of Rs . 6/- per day as wage . In the year 1981 he was dismissed from the service without following any process and procedure. The Respondent has alleged that the Petitioner has never worked in the Food Corporation of India and no person in the name of Mr. Shaik Mahaboob Alí S/ o Amir Ali has ever been employed in the Food Corporation of India in any of its godowns or: units . It has been alleged by the Respondent that one Mr. Shaik Mahaboob Ali S/o Iman Saheb was casual labour and he was one of the claimant in ID No. 33/1982 , in which the award was passed in favour of the workmen and they ...ge [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

were re-employed by the corporation. Taking advantage of the identity of the name the Petitioner has several times filed claim statement with different contentions . He filed Writpetition before the Hon'ble High Court bearing No. 21564/2000 wherein Hon'ble High Court directed the Petitioner to make fresh representation giving true particulars with reference to their parentage , date of employment and member of writ petition and has further directed the Respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner . It appears that no action was taken by Respondent .

8. The Petitioner of this case filed contempt Case No. 90/2002, the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the contempt petition on the ground that in the earlier W.P. no direction was given by the Hon'ble High Court to pass the order by Respondent in a particular manner. This shows that the contention of the Respondent management that the Petitioner has worked with the management was considered by Hon'ble High Court vide order passed in the Writ Petition and on the basis of the assertion made by the Respondent before Hon'ble High Court the contempt petition was dismissed. It is the responsibility of the Petitioner workman to prove before this Tribunal that he has ever worked with the Respondent or the Petitioner of this case was appointed by the Respondent, as casual worker at the rate of Rs . 6/- per day in 1976 , no document or paper has been filed by the Petitioner nor the Petitioner has been able to produce a single working employee ofthe Food Corporation of India in support of his claim that the Petitioner Mr. Shaik Mahaboob Ali S/o Amir Ali has ever worked alongwith the working employees of the corporation in Food Corporation of India . No doubt, the Petitioner workman has filed Ex . W1 to W7 , to prove that Petitioner was asked to submit original certificate in light ofthe direction passed in W.P. No. 21564/2000, by Ex . W3 he was informed by the management that appointment has already been given to Mr. Shaik Mahaboob Ali vide proceeding No. Estt/1/2 /97 dated 30-12-1997 in terms ofthe judgement passed in W.P. No. 17766/97 and a fresh appointment does not arise .

9. It has further been informed that if the Petitioner feel that he is right person and the person working with the management is an impersonate person, then the Petitioner was advised to prove his identity through a competent court of law. The Petitioner was not able to produce a single piece ofpaper to show that he has ever worked in the Food Corporation of India. If the Petitioner has worked in the year 1976-1981 what was the reason not to join the Petitioners of ID No. 33/1982 . In case Petitioner was actually retrenched from the service of Food Corporation of India management he would have surely joined with the Petitioners in ID No. 33/1982 . His contention that he could not join Petitioners of ID 33/1982 due to financial constraints is nothing but an eye wash. The Petitioner filed W.P. No 21564/2000 he would have proved before the 655 G/ 11-23

2145

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

Respondent management that he is the right person who has worked with the management and who was entitled for re -employment The management has specifically informed the Petitioner to prove his identity and challenged the identity of Shaik Mahaboob Ali s/o Imam Saheb but the Petitioner has not taken any step to challenge the identity of Shaik Mahaboob Alt S/o Imam Saheb . There is no other evidence on the record in the form of documentary or in the form of oral evidence to prove that the Petitioner has ever worked as casual labour in the management corperation. The management has produced Sri P. C. KrishnaNaik and he has been cross -examined at length by the Petitioner workman's counsel but nothing has come out from the oral testimony of the MWI that present Petitioner has ever worked in the organization in the Food Corporation of India management . The Petitioner himself has admitted in his cross-examination that Shaik Mahaboob Ali S/o Imam Saheb was given appointment as per I.D. No. 33/1982 this itself is sufficient to prove that the Petitioner of this case does not challenging the identity of Shaik Mahaboob Ali S/ o Imam Saheb or he does not claim that Shaik Mahaboob Ali S/o Imam Saheb has impersonated the present Petitioner.

10. The Petitioner has stated in the claim statement that he filed W.P. No. 21564/2000 and also filed contempt petition No. 90/2002 but when he was cross - examined and questioned on this point he denied of filing the writ petition orcontempt petition . This proves that the Petitioner is not atrust worthy witness and no credence can be given to the testimony of this witness . The management has filed 10 documents Ex . Ml to M10 which prove that Petitioner has already raised the same dispute before Hon'ble High Court and he was not able to prove his identity or his relationship of master and servant or employer and employee before this court also . The Petitioner has not been able to produce any piece of paper or witness to prove that he has worked in the organization of Food Corporation of India management . Hence , this tribunal is of the opinion that there was no employee and employer relationship between the Petitioner and the management of Food Corporation of India. Point No. (1 ) is decided accordingly.

11. Point No. (II) : From the discussion of point No. (1) this tribunal is of the conclusion that the Petitioner was rever appointed and never worked with the management of Food Corporation of India , hence, he was neither terininated nor retrenched nor disengaged fromthe service , as such , the question of determination of its legality or otherwise doe not arise . Point No. (II ) is decided accordingly.

12. Point No. ( III) : From the above conclusion and discussion this tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner has not been able to establish the relationship of employee and employer nor he has been able to prove that he has ever worked in the Food Corporation of India as casual 2146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

labour hence , there is no question of his re - employment or reinstatement . He is not entitled for any relief. Point No. ( III ) is decided accordingly.

13. From the above discussion , this tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Petition deserves to be dismissed , it is dismissed , hence , this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 29th day of December,2010 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

WW1 : Sri Sk . Mahaboob : MW1 : Sri P. C. Krishna Naik Ali

Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex . W1 : Copy of order of Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.21564/2000.

Ex. W2: Copy of Ir . No. IR 32 (2 )/2000 dt . 16-3-2001 by Respondent to WW1 .

Ex. W3: Copy of Ir . No. IR 32 (2 )/2000 dt . 12-3-2001 by Respondent to WW1 .

Ex. W4: Copyofmemo No. IR 32 (2)/2000 dt. 14-3-2002 by Respondent to WW1 .

Ex. W5: Copy of representation to Respondent dt . 21-4-2001 .

Ex. W6: Copy of order of Hon'ble High Court in contempt Case No. 90/2002 .

Ex. W7: Copy ofmemo No. IR 32 (2 )/2000 dt. 14-3-2002 by Respondent to WW1.

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. MI : Copy of order of Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 1776/97 dt . 22-9-97.

Ex. M2: Copy of order No. Estt . 1/2/97 , dt . 30-12-97 offer of appointment to Sk . Mahaboob Ali S/ o Late Sk . Imam Saheb .

Ex . M3 : Copyofmemo No. IR 32 (2 )/2000 dt . 15-3-2002 by Respondent to concerned Petitioners .

Ex. M4: Copyofcounter affidavit filed by Respondent against ID No. 65/2003 .

Ex. M5 : Copy of counter affidavit filed by Respondent against ID No. 165/2003 .

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Ex. M6: Copy of order of Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 21564/2000 .

Ex.M7: Copy of counter affidavit filed by Respondent in W. P. No. 21564/2000 .

Ex. M8: Copy of counter affidavit filed by Respondent in contempt Case No. 90/2002 .

Ex. M9: Copy of order of Hon'ble High Court in contempt Case No. 90/2002 dt . 22-2-2002 .

Ex.M10 : Copy of order of Hon'ble High Court in contempt Case No. 90/2002 dt . 19-7-2002 .

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 690.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- II , चण्डीगढ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1042/ 2k5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. - 42012 / 295 /2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस . एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th February , 2011

S.O. 690.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 1042 2k5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure . in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Public Works Department . and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L -42012/ 295 /2003 - IR ( CM - 11 ) | D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . 11 . CHANDIGARH

TRES INT : SriA. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer Case No. I.D. 1042 /2K5

Registered on 19-9-2005

All India CPWD ( MRM ) Karamchari Sanghathan , CPWD Store Building , Sector 7 -B . Chandigarh ... Applicant

Versus [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

The Executive Engineer, Chandigarh Central Divn . 11 , CPWD , Chandigarh , Kendriya Sadan , 2nd Floor , Sector 9 - А , Chandigarh [ Vide Carrigendum No. L -42012 /295 / 2003 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 16-9-2003 ]

2147

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Sh . S. D. Sharma, Advocate For the Management : Sh . Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 1st February, 2011

Central Govemment vide Notification No. L -42012/ 295/2003 - IR ( CM - II) dated 23-8-2004 by exercising its power under Section 10 , Sub - section ( 1 ) ( d ) and Sub -section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of CPWD , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh , Shakti Chand S/ o Sh . Ridku Ram , Cook - cum-Caretaker w.e.f. 1-8-2003 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

Although in the reference order only All India CPWD ( MRM ) Karamchari Sanghathan Registored (hereinafter called as Karamchari Sanghathan ) is a claimant but in the claim statement the concerned workman Shakti Chand S/ o Sh . Ridku Ram has also joined as a claimant , For the purpose of the dispute under reference only this much of the case of the claimants is relevant that Claimant - 1 Karamchari Sanghathan is a Registered Union whereof concerned workman Claimant - 2 is a member. The concerned workman was employed on the basis of work order issued from time to time by the management as Cook- cum- Caretaker at Inspection Bungalow, Chandigarh w.e.f. 1-9-1992 for attending the work of perennial nature and he continued as such till 8-1-2003 when his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act , while he had completed more than 240 days in a year and had worked for about 11 years .He discharged his duties under the control and direction of the authority of the management and his employment was not concurrent or simultaneous with the award of any particular contract. While terminating the services of the Claimant -2 , persons junior to him were retained.

The claimants have mentioned the judgment of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Delhi in O.A. No. 845/2000 and have claimed regularization of concerned workman on the sanctioned vacant post of Cook- cum- Caretaker and have also demanded equal pay for equal work.

The claim was contested by the management . In the written statement two preliminary objections have been taken; firstly, that the Claimant - 2 being a contrator is not a workman under the Act and has no locus standi to file the claim petition . There is no relationship of master and servant. And, secondly the Claimant No. 1 Karamchari Sangathan is not a recognized body and Claimant No. 2 being a contractor cannot be a member of Claimant No. 1. Claimant No. 1 is not competent to file the claim petition.

It was further stated in the written statement that there is no post of Cook -cum - Caretaker and the job ofCook is not of a perennial nature and Claimant - 2 was not appointed as Cook - cum- Caretaker. He was a contractor. His services were not terminated . Rather on completion of work order, the work was not extend further and there was no violation of the provision of the Act . It was denied that he worked under the direct supervision and control of the management . Regarding the cessation of the employment of Claimant - 2 it was stated that the tender had been refloated but the rates quoted by Claimant - 2 were not the lowest. Hence , the work was assigned to another person , whose rates were lowest . According to the management , the claimants are not entitled to any relief.

In a rejoinder the workman has pleaded that if the veil is pierced , then it would be established beyond any iota of doubt that there eixisted a relationship of employer and employee and the contract was sham and a camouflage.

From the pleadings of the parties for the purpose of the present reference , following issues arise for consideration :

1. Whether the Karamchari Sanghathan not being a recognized body is not competent to raise the dispute. If yes , its effect ?

2. Whether Claimant- 2 Shakti Chand is a workman and there is a relationship of master and servant between the management and the workman as alleged by the claimants ?

3. Whether Claimant - 2 Shakti Chand was a contractor as alleged by the management ? If yes, its effect ?

4. Whether the services of Claimant No. 2 Shakti Chand were terminated by the management in . violation of Section 25F of the Act ?

5. Whether juniors were retained by the management while terminating the services of the Claimant No. 2 ?

6. To what relief the Claimant No. 2 is entitled ?

Itisworth mentioning that claimant's demand ofequal pay for equal work is beyond the scope of reference .

2148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

Insupport ofhis claim the concerned claimant Shakti Chand has filed his own affidavit and the affidavit of Raj Kumar, Chowkidar, Central Sub Division - IV, Sector 7 -B , Chandigarh , while on behalf of management, affidavit of Executive Engineer D. K. Gupta was filed. Both the parties have relied on certain papers , which will be discussed as and when necessary.

Parties have filed the written arguments in the case , whichwere perused by me alongwith materials on record. My findings on various issues are as follows :

Issue No. 1

As it has been stated above the Zonal Secretary of the Karamchari Sanghathan is a party in the order of the Central Government and claim statement has been filed by the Karamchari Sanghathan and concerned workman . Management has taken a plea that Karamchari Sanghathan may be a Registered Trade Union but is not a body recognized by the Government , hence , it could not raise the dispute and the reference should be declined on this ground alone . I find the arguments of the management not acceptable for the following reasons:

1. Management has not cited or referred any provisions or rule under which only a Trade Union recognized by the Government is entitled to raise a dispute .

2. The Central Government itself has referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal mentioning the Karamchari Sanghathan as a party.

3. As per definition clause Section 2 ( qq) of Act 'Trade Union ' means a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act and under Section 36 , Sub - section ( 1 ) Clause ( a) of the Act aworkman may be represented by any member of the Executive or other office bearer of a Registered Trade Union of which he is a member. There is no requirement that the Trade Union must be recognized by the Government to represent a workman.

I see no reason to disbelieve the statement made in the claim petition and in the affidavit of claimant Shakti Chand that he is a member of Claimant- 1 .

1, therefore , hold that Karamchari Sanghathan is competent to raise the dispute . Reference cannot be declined on the ground that the Karamchari Sanghathan not being a recognized Body is not competent to raise the dispute. Issue No. 2 is decided against the management .

Issue Nos . 2 and 3

Boththe issues being inter -connected are being taken together. The claimant's case is that Claimant No. 2, Shakti Chandwas a workman employed by the management on a

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] work order . He had worked from 1-9-1992 till his services were terminated on 8-1-2003 . His work was of perennial nature and he worked under the control and direction of theauthority ofthe management. His employment was not concurrent and simultaneous with the award of any particular contract .

Management also says that Claimant No. 2 had worked on work order. It however, denied the status of workmanto Claimant No. 2. According to it, Claimant No. 2 was a contractor . His services were not terminated . Rather on completion of work order, the work was not extended further and there was no violation of the provisions of the Act. Claimant No. 2 never worked under the direct supervision and control of the management. There is no postofCook-cum- Caretaker and the job of a cook is not of a perennial nature and Claimant No. 2 was never appointed asCook- cum-Caretaker.

Itisthus admitted to both the parties that Claimant No. 2 throughout his tenure of about 11 years worked on work order. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the workman is that Claimant No. 2 is a workman . In support of his arguments the Learned Counsel placed reliance on the order of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in MA No. 1082 of2000 in OA No. 845 of 2000 titled as All India CPWD ( MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan and others Versus Union of India and Another, a copy whereof is paper No. 29 on record . Claimant No. 2 was an applicant in this case and his name figures at Sl . No. 13. The Hon'ble Tribunal has mentioned in this order " As regards the fact that these applicants are working on Muster Roll for a long time, the same is not disputed . " The learned counsel for workman argues that the Hon'ble Tribunal recognized the status of the Claimant No. 2 as a Muster Roll Employee . He further invited my attention to letters MW- 1 /7 to MW- 1 / 9 and MW- 12 filedby management . All these letters are a fall out ofthe order of the Hon'ble Tribunal . They show the follow up action taken by the management in the case . Nowhere in these letters it has been stated that the concerned claimant was a contractor and not a workman .

The Learned Counsel for the workman also argued that the claimant had moved an application for summoning theAttendance Register , Takeover and Handover Register of Inspection Bungalow CPWD . Sector 7 , Chandigarh. Photo copies whereof had been filed by the claimant but themanagement did not produce the record , which shows the mala fide intention ofthe management and presumption should be drawn against the management .

The argument of the management on the other hand is that workman was working as a contractor on the basis ofwork order placed on him from time to time on the basis of rates approved . He was neither engaged as a casual labour nor on scroll and nor as a daily wager. Regarding the order of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal it was argued that it was obtained by the claimant by भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

misrepresentation . There was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the Claimant No. 2 and the latter was neither engaged as an employee nor he was paid wages.

So far as this argument of the management is concerned that the order of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal is based on misrepresentation by the claimant , it is simply not acceptable . If it was passed on misrepresentation , why the management did not seek the proper remedy and why it proceeded to take up the follow up action in the matter ? There is no escape from the order ofthe Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal .

It is interesting to note that the management has filed the work orders dated 10-8-92 and 30-6-2000 of concerned clamant Shakti Chand as Ex . MW- 6 but has not filed the last work order relating to him . In the order dated 10-8-92 the description of work has been given as " Care taker- cum- Cook for the guest house in Sector 7 -B , Chandigarh , Central Division No. II , CPWD , Chandigarh for six months from 10-8-92 to ( illegible). " In the work order dated 30-6-2000 the description of work is mentioned as " to run and maintenance of CPWD Inspection Bungalow, In-charge cooking , serving and attending the guest as and when required keeping proper watch and ward. " It was for aperiod from 1-7-2000 to 30-9-2000 . From these work orders it is clear that the claimant has been employed as a worker and not as a contractor as defined in Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. As per definition clause Section 2( 1 ) (c) of the said Act in relation to an establishment, contractor means " a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment other than a mere supply of goods or article of manufacture to such establishment through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment...... " Management does not say that the contract awarded to the Claimant - 2 was according to the provisions of the said Act and he is a licensed contractor under the said Act.

Further from the work orders mentioned above it is clear that Claimant-2 was not to act as an independent contractor but under the control and supervision of the management . Work order dated 10-8-92 shows that Claimant-2was to keep the record of the Guest House in a proper register and as per directions of the Assistant Engineer, Guest House . The same condition is mentioned inthe work order dated 30-6-2000 also .

It isalso amply clear that the work was of continuous and perennial nature . The workman continued for about 11 years . He was to maintain the Guest House in proper and running condition , look after the guests , to keep the record ofthe Guest House in a proper register and to arrange the cooking material .

2149 Thus , Claimant- 2 does not appear as contractor from any angle. It is clearly established that he was a workman and there is a relationship of master and servant between the management and him . Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the Claimant- 2 and Issue No. 3 against the management .

Issue No. 4

Admittedly, the Claimant - 2 worked from the date of his employment in 9/1992 till 8-1-2003 continuously. Therefore , it can be accepted without any fear of contradiction that he worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination .

Admittedly also the services of the Claimant - 2 were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act . Neither he was paid retrenchment compensation nor he was given any notice or was paid compensation in lieu of notice . The case ofthe management is that on completion of work order the work was not extended further and tenders were refloated and as the rates quoted by Claimant - 2 were not the lowest hence, the work was assigned to another person whose rates were lowest . Management papers MW- 1 /2 to MW- 1 /5 are the copies of the same notice inviting quotations . It appears that the device of inviting quotations was adopted for the first time. No such notice inviting quotations has been filed by the management before placing work order on Claimant -2 . Claimant - 2 , Shakti Chand in his statement during cross -examination has specifically stated that earlier no quotations were called when the work was assigned to him.

Obviously, the device of inviting quotations was adopted by the management to make out a case of Section 2(oo) (bb) but the law in such cases is very clear. In PWD through Deputy Director, Horiculture Versus Satyapal 2007- I- LLJ 500 where the appellant had engaged respondent- workman as driver continuously for three years on work orders and terminated his services without notice without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It was held by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that " the device of issuing work orders was to satisfy the letter of law as contained in Section 2 (oo) (bb) but in fact it was nothing but an employment on continuous basis . The very purpose for which Section 2 (oo ) (bb ) was introduced was to avoid saddling an employer with the liability under Section 25F, where a worker had been engaged for a very short period to say two or three months . It was not meant to be invoked in a situation where the worker is in continuous employment for over three years . If one were to interpret Section 2 (oo) (bb ) in the manner that the appellant suggests it would permit the law to be misused to avoid a statutoty liability. It must be kept in mind that the I.D. Act is intended to protect a workman whose services have been continuously engaged for a 2150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

considerable period of time . It is in this background that theprovisions of Section 2( 00) ( bb) should be interpreted . " It is clear that the work orders issued by the management were only a camouflage to avoid the liability ofthe management under the Industrial Disputes Act and to deprive Claimant - 2 from the benefits of the Act . His services cannot be treated to have been terminated on completion ofwork order . The work still exists and it was assigned to another person . Obviously, the termination of the services of the Claimant- 2 is in violation of the Section 25F of the Act and is void ab - initio . Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in favour of the workman and against the management.

Issue No. 5

Workman/ claimant have taken a plea that while terminating the services of Claimant - 2 , persons junior to him were retained but there is no evidence in this regard . The person to whom the job was assigned in place of Claimant - 2 cannot be regarded as a person junior to Claimant - 2 . Issue No. 5 is therefore , decided against the workman and in favour of the management .

Issue No. 6

From the above going discussions it is clear that Claimant- 2 was a workman and there was a relationship of employer and employee between the management / respondent and Claimant - 2 . His services were terminated without compliance of Section 25F of the Act . He remained for about 11 years in the employment of the management . The termination of his services is void ab- initio, for want of compliance of Section 25 of the Act . The question is to what relief Claimant - 2 is entitled . He has claimed regularization on sanctioned post of Cook- cum - Caretaker and pay parity with regular employees .

As stated earlier pay parity is not a matter under reference. Regarding regularization of service there is already an order of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 845/2000 . In this reference I find Claimant- 2 entitled to the relief of reinstatement and full back wages . The management/ respondent is directed to reinstate Claimant - 2 /workman on the same conditions , which were applicable at the time of the termination ofhis services and pay full back wages to him within 15 days of receiving the copy of the award . Reference is accordingly answered in favour of the workman and against the management . Let two copies of award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action .

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2011

काआ. 691.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल डेयरी

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) | रिसर्च इन्स्टीट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 102/ 2K5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल. 42012/146/ 2004-आई आर ( सीएम -11 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th February, 2011

S.O. 691. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 102 / 2K5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Dairy Research Institute , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L -42012 / 146/ 2004- IR ( CM - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARII Case No. I.D. 102/2K5

Registered on 18-07-2005

Shri Rajesh Kumar, S/ o. Shri Maman Ram , Village Khetri Naru Teh . & District Karnal .... Applicant

Versus

The Director , National Dairy Research Institute , Karnal (Haryana) Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri D. R. Kaith , Advocate For the management : Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate AWARD

Passed on 18th January, 2011

Central Government vide Notification No. L -42012 / 146/ 2004 / IR ( CM - II ) dated 27-06-2005 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 of Sub - section ( 1 ) Clause ( d ) and Sub - section 2 ( A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of National Dairy Research Institute , Karnal in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh Kumar S / o . Shri Mamman Ram , AI & Vety. First Aid w.e.f. 7-1-2003 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? " [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

Theworkman has raised an industrial dispute stating thathe had been selected for training in Certificate in Al & Vety. FirstAid under the management and after completion ofthe Course he was deputed for training under one Shri Ram Yatan Rai , In -charge ofArtificial Insemination Center, village Ranwar. Subsequently, he was appointed on 14-7-1997 atAl Centre , Birchpur, Extension Division NDRI, Karnal . The aforesaid Ram Yatan Rai and the workman both workedthere till 16-9-1997 when Ram Yatan Rai was shifted to Bhagwanur and the workman was made the In- charge of the Al Center Birchpur. Thereafter in 1998 Ram Yatan Rai was again transferred to some other place and the charge of Al Centre Bhagwanur was also handed over to the workman. The workman continuously worked from 16-09-1997 under the supervision and control of the respondent/management and of respective panchayats for whose benefit the centers are run by the management till 7-01-2003 when his services were terminated . The workman has alleged that his services were terminated without any notice and without payment of compensation in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation and while terminating his services , the management retained the persons junior to him and after the termination of his services the management appointed one Jai Bhagwan Sharma in his place and thus there is a violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the act . The workman has prayed for his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages .

The claim was contested by the respondents . It was denied that the management is an industry and the Tribunal hasjurisdiction in the matter. According to the management it is an Institute , conducting research activities and discharging governmental functions . On facts it was alleged that the institute organizes long and short term vocational course in agriculture and allied vocations for the farmers and rural youths with emphasis on " learning by doing " for higher production on farms and generating self employment . The workman had undertaken training under the said programme for two months but he was never deputed to work at Al Center Ranwar. He had been verbally allowed on his reqst to have field/practical experience at Al Center Birchpur. The chargeof the said Center was never handed over to him. Ram Yatan Rai referred to in the claim is a regular employee of the institute and he was working at Birchpur Center. The Birchpur Center was never shifted to Budha Khera as alleged by the workman . It was further alleged that Jai Bhagwan was employed after adopting due procedure. The workman was never appointed/terminated by the management and no violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is involved in the case .

From the pleadings of the parties following issues arises for consideration :

1. Whether the management/ respondent is an industry and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter ?

2151

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

2. Whether the workman was an employee of the management and his services were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Act ? If so , its effect ?

3. Whether there is a violation of Section 25G and 25H ofthe Act in the matter ? If so , its effect ?

4. To what relief the workman is entitled ?

In evidence the workman has filed his affidavit and the affidavit of Smt. Rupali Devi , Sarpanch of village Birchpur . He relied on certain papers and summoned the record relating to his demand notice from the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, which was produced by Baldev Raj , U.D.C. another workman witness . He summoned certain records from the management also .

Onbehalf of management the affidavit of Dr. Om Vir Singh, Technical Officer , N.D.R.I. , Karnal was filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record . My findings on the above issues are as follows :

Issue No. 1

The management has taken a plea that the respondent institute is not an industry. It is carrying on activities of research in a systematic manner with the help of its employees/ contractors but that element alone cannot make it an organization carrying on an activity which may be analogous to be carrying on trade or business because it is not producing and distributing services , which are intended and meant for satisfying human wants and needs .

The learned counsel for workman has misread the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Raghbir Singh Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Punjab 2004(4 ) RSJ 488 in placing the burden of proof on the management to establish that institute is not an industry. The Hon'ble High Court has held the opposite .

Asper law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board versus A.Rajappa and another 1978-1 - LLJ 349 a Research Institute can also be regarded as an organization propelled by systematic activities, modeled on cooperation between the employer and employee and calculated to through up discoveries and inventions and useful solutions which benefit the nation in terms of goods , services and wealth though they are run without profit motives , and is , therefore , an industry.

From the statement of MW- 1 , it is clear that the institute is not concerned with research only but provides the services of First Aid and Artificial Insemination also and it has been admitted in the written statement that the institute is carrying the activities in a systematic manner with the help of employees . It is therefore , held that respondent/management is an industry and the Tribunal 2152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly against the management .

Issue No. 2

The important question is whether the workman was an employee of the management and there was a contract of service between the management and the workman ? It isimportant to note that he has specifically pleaded that he had been appointed at Al Centre Birchpur Extension Division NDRI on 14-7-1997 . During cross -examination he has stated that he had been appointed as Storeman and his job was Artificial Insemination and Veterinary First Aid to animals and that he was registered in Employment Exchange and he had applied for the job of Stock Assistant to the Head of the Department and he was getting Rs . 1500 P.M. as salary. He , however, did not produce any appointment letter nor he placed on record his application for the job . There is no evidence of payment of salary. Thus , there is no document to prove the employment of the claimant with the management .

The learned counsel for the claimant has referred various documents filed by the workman as the proof of his being employee of the management . Annexure W- 2 is being referred as the charge certificate by the claimant but as it was argued by the management it is simply a list of articles given in the custody of the claimant. It cannot be regarded as a proof of employment . Annexure W- 3 is a copy ofAttendance Register but it does not bear any stamp , seal ofOfficer of the management. Annexure W - 4 is a copy ofArtificial Insemination Register on its basis also it cannot be inferred that the claimant was an employee of the management . Annexure W- 5 is a Field Experience Training Group Report in its acknowledgement the name of the claimant figures as Vet . Live Stock Development Assistant but it cannot be regarded as an acknowledgement by the management that the claimant was an employee of the management . Annexure W- 6 the reply of the management before the Assistant Labour Commissioner , Annexure W-7, a copy of the working register or ICAR , Karnal , Annexure W-8 , the statements regarding the work done in village Birchpur and bearing the signatures of the claimant as Stockman , Annexure W - 9 a certificate of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, who has filed her affidavit also cannot be regarded as an evidence of the employment. It is important that the management is not denying the working of the claimant with the management but according to the management the claimant was undergoing training only.

Another document relied on by the claimant is the report of investigation as per directions of the Conciliation OfficerandAssistant Labour Commissioner , Faridabad . The investigator had reported that the monthly reports of the Insemination of Live Stock substantiate the claim of the claimant having worked for NDRI and the representative of the management did not contest the fact that they had not engaged the claimant as learning worker but they had

[PART U- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] claimed that they had not paid him officially any wages . The investigator concluded that the claimant had rendered his service to NDRI , Karnal as field staff.

As it has been held above , the working of the claimant for the management is not in dispute but the dispute is about the capacity in which the claimant worked. There is no appointment letter and no evidence to show that the management was the pay master and claimant worked under the supervision and control of the management . I am of the viewthat the workman cannot be regarded as an employee ofthe management and I , therefore, hold accordingly. When the claimant was not an employee of the management , the question of terminating his services by the management does not arise and the question of violation or compliance ofSection 25 of the Act becomes irrelevant . Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly, against the workman.

Issue No. 3

Because the workman was not an employee of the management and he was not a retrenchee , therefore , the question of violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act does not arise . Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided against theworkman .

Issue No. 4

From the above going discussion it is clear that the claimant was not an employee of the management and his services were not terminated by the management . He is no entitled to any relief. Reference is answered against him . Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action .

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 692.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कोचीन के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 22011 / 49/2008- आई आर ( सीएम- ।। ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th February , 2011

S.O. 692. 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) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Cochin as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Food $2153 [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र ; मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

Corporation of India and their workmen , which was received bythe Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

System instead of the present method of marking attendance results in change in service condition ? If so , to what relief is the union concerned entitled for???

[No. L-22011 /49/2008 - IR ( CM-II) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

Shri D. Sreevallabhan , B.Sc. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer

I. D. 13/2009

Union : The State Secretary,

BKNK Sangh ,

Food Corporation of India,

District Office , Kundankulathi

Towers,

M.G. Road, Cochin.

By Adv. Shri P. M. Mohammad Shiraz .

The General Manager (Kerala) ,

Management :

Food Corporation of India ,

Regional Office,

Kesavadasapuram ,

Trivandrum -04

By M/ s . Sukumaran & Usha .

This case coming up for hearing on 31-01-2011 , this Tribunal - cum- Labour Court on 3-2-2011 passed the foliowing.

AWARD

As part ofmodernization and administrative reforms computerized Bio- metric Punching System was introduced for marking attendance by the members of the staff and officers of the various offices of the Food Corporation of india in Kerala replacing the system of manual marking of attendance in the attendance register. The union , though not against the implementation of computerized Bio -metric Punching System , opened its armory to fight against it or to the launching of the system by resorting to end ofnon compliance of the prescribed procedure we was its weapon and the battle still continues with herence under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

2 The reference is :

3. BKNK Sangh, claiming to be the only recognised .. union of the employees of the Food Corporation of India , field claim statement by making the allegations that the service conditions of the employees of Food Corporation of India are governed by the FCI Manual and para 3.2 in Volume I.of the manual provides for marking of attendance . a the attendance register in the custody of the Assistant Manager and hence it requires amendment of the provisions in the manual for the implementation of Bio- metric Punching System for marking attendance. The provision contained . therein as to the hours of attendance is a condition of service in respect of a matter specified in the, Fourth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act which makes it mandatory to give notice to the workmen or the union .... representing the workmen in the prescribed manner No .. such notice was given to the workmen or union representing the workmenbefore the, introduction of the new system The nature of the work in. FCI requires adjustments as to the attendance of the employees during office hours and the exercise ofdiscretion in granting permission to come to the office late or leave the office early cannot be exercised? due to the introduction of the computerized Bio-Metric Punching System . Punctuality can be ensured by the continuance of the manual system of marking attendance. Parliamentary Standing Committee of Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution recommended introduction ofBio- metric Punching System for marking attendance of labourers by the management to prevent proxy attendance.... But the same could not have been introduced due to their protest and thereby it was introduced for the members of the staff. The introduction of Bio - metric Punching System. in lieu of the existing system is a measure to be taken at the national level in all the offices with sufficient safeguards for protecting the interests of the workmen and the management . The Computerized Bio - metric Punching System after its introduction in the head quarters of the Food Corporation Df India was withdrawn due to protest from the unions and ane to Jack of practicability in the son office Bangalore. Hence thể uniel prays forgiv directto the management to stop the use of the Computerized Bio- Metric Punching Syste to mark attendance of employees ofthe Food Corporation of Inulin Kersid region after entering into aa finding that the Tatrodiction or that sustent instead of the earlier Systein of mas dar marking of attendance resulted in the change in "Whether the action of the management of FCI in introducing Computerized Bio - metric Punching

24 2154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

service condition of the employees of the Food Corporation of India.

4. The contentions put forward by the management inthe written statement are that as per the recommendation ofthe Parliamentary Standing Committee initially the Bio- Metric Punching System was installed in the Depots ofthe Food Corporation of India and as it was found to be more effective and fruitful making it easy for calculation of salary, O.T.etc. It was introduced in the Regional Office and District Offices of Trivandrum and Kochi and later in all theDistrict Offices and Food Storage Depots of the Food Corporation of India in Kerala. The F.C.I. Manual 1965 provides guidelines on functioning and set up of F.C.I. offices whereas the service conditions as per the requirement of I.D. Act does not speak about the mode of marking attendance . The marking of attendance and keeping record of the same is being continued in the new system and the only difference is in the marking of attendance through the computerized finger print reader instead of affixing the signature in the attendance register manually. There is absolutely no change in any service condition as to the items mentioned under item No. 9 of the Fourth Schedule which renders it necessary to issue notice as provided under Section 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Several practical difficulties can be avoided and the work load can be reduced through the installation of the Bio-Metric Punching System . The union representing the workmen were called for a discussion with regard to the installation ofBio- Metric Printing Reader on 30-11-2007 and there was again a meeting on 24-01-2008 with the representatives of the unions about the practical viability of the new system . As there is no change of service condition ofthe employees in respect of any of the matters specified in the Fourth Schedule of the l.D. Act union is not entitled to the relief claimed in the claim statement .

5. Union filed rejoinder denying the contentions in the written statement and reaffirming the allegations made in the claim statement . It is further stated that the attendance register is the record showing the hours of attendance of an employee and the provision regarding hours of attendance is a condition of service in respect of a matter specified in Fourth Schedule ofthe I.D. Act. Any change in the system ofmanual marking of attendance will affect the hours of attendance and hence there is change of service condition making it necessary to issue notice in the prescribed manner to the workmen and the union representing the workmen. The introduction of the new system without prior discussion and without considering the unsuitability to the conditions of work in FCI

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | necessitated the union to oppose it even though it is not against the implementation of the computerized Bio -Metric Punching System.

6. The point for determination is :

Whether the action of the management of FCI in introducing the computerized Bio- Metric Punching System instead of the method of marking attendance manually in the attendance register results in change in service condition , and if so what relief the union is entitled for ?

7. The evidence consists of the deposition ofWWI and Exts . W1 to W7 on the side of the workmen and MWI and Exts . M1 to M5 on the side of the management.

8. The Point : The introduction of the computerized Bio -Metric Punching Systein was done in a phased manner in the offices of the Food Corporation of India in Kerala and the same is evidenced by Exts ..W2 and M3 το Μ5. There was vehement opposition from the union for the implementation of such a mode of marking attendance in lieu of the manual marking of attendance in the attendance register even though union has specifically averred that there is no objection for introducing such a new system and their objection is only with regard to the unsuitability of the newly introduced system considering the work of the employees in the offices of the Food Corporation of India. They have put forward the specific case that the use of the Computerized Bio - Metric Punching System affect the condition of service with regard to items specifically provided in Fourth Schedule of the I.D. Act and hence required the mandatory procedural compliance under Section 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act . For that purpose they relied on para 3.2 in Vol . I of the Food Corporation of India manual which provides provisions as to hours of attendance and the procedure for marking attendance by the employees of the Food Corporation of India . It is contained in Ext . W5 and the same is extracted below:

3.2 . Hours ofAttendance :

(1) For all members of the Establishment , the hours ... ttendance are from 10a.m. to 5.50 p.m. on all working days with a luncheon interval of halt an hour between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. All offices will remain closed on the second Saturday of each month and on other declared holidays . Every member of the Establishment is expected to be in his seat and attend to his work from 10 a.m. In specific cases , the Assistant Manager may permit [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

members of the staff to come late or leave the officeearly.

(ii) An attendance register in form 3.2 will be kept in the custody of the Assistant Manager. The Assistant Manager, Assistants ( Grade I and II) and the typist must initial it as soon as they come to office . It will be closed ten minutes after the office opens and will be laid down before the Assistant Manager with the casual leave and late attendance reports ,

(iii) If any member of the staff does not attend office punctually, the word ' late ' will be entered against hisname in the column for that date . If he comes later on , the hour at which he arrives should be entered by the Assistant Manager. On the Ist of each month , Attendance Registers will be submitted to the Head ofthe Office . Forfeiture of a day's casual leave will ordinarily be the penalty for every two days late attendance without permission.

(iv) Staff who require the permission to attend late must apply for it beforehand wherever possible . Any day on which a person attends office after one o'clock whether with or without permission will be treated as on casual leave" .

9. The learned counsel for the union has argued that there will be change in the hours of attendance if the Computerized Bio - Metric Punching System is used for marking attendance . It is the specific contention of the management that the introduction ofthe ComputerizedBio- Metric Punching System will only change the modality of marking attendance and it will not in any way effect any condition of service in the Fourth Schedule ofthe I.D. Act. There will not be any change in the working hours due to the marking of attendance through the ComputerizedBio- Metric Punching System . The hours of attendance is from 10 a.m , to 5.30 p.m. with a lunch interval of an hour between I p.m. and 2 p.m. and with regard to it if any change is made it can be pointed out as a reason to satisfy that there is a change of condition of service coming under item No. 4 of Fourth Schedule of the 1.D. Act . The provisions provided for exercise of the discretion to grant permission to come late or leave the office early and the forfeiture of a day's casual leave or two days ' late attendance without permission can be duly complied with even if the marking of attendance is through the Computerized Bio -Metric Punching System. Para 3.2 (iv ) provides that staff who require the permission to attend late must apply for it before-

2155

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

hand wherever possible . So the member of the staffwho is to be granted permission to attend late must apply for it and the same is to be considered by the Assistant Manager. The permission can be granted even if the marking of attendance is through the Computerized Bio -metric Punching Systèm . The forfeiture of casual leave for late attendance willbe considered only once in a month and for that purpose also it is not necessary to have the marking of the attendance manually in the attendance register. The time of arrival is not to be entered in the attendance register as itcanbe clearly ascertained with the Computerized Bio- Metric Punching System . The change in the method of marking attendance cannot in any way be said to be a reason to hold that it will affect any condition of service in the Fourth Schedule of the I.D. Act .

10. The union mainly makes the challenge based on S. 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act by contending that notice was not given as provided under that Section as the change of the system of marking attendance resulted in change of condition of service . S. 9 -A ofthe 1.D. Act relied uponby the union provides that no employer , who proposes toeffect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Act cannot affect such change without giving to the workmen notice in the prescribed manner . The provisions of the section are no doubt mandatory. But the preconditions to their applicability. are:

(i) there must be a change in the conditions of service;

(ii) the change must be such that it adversely affect the workmen;

(iii) the change must be in respect of any matter provided in the Fourth Schedule to the Act. All the change are not required to be notified. The Fourth Schedule provides for eleven conditions of service for change of which notice is to be given . There may be conditions which by a process of interpretation can be included within one or other eleven listed . The conditions of service for change of which notice is to be given under the Fourth Schedule do not in turn include the matters providedunder para 3.2 of the F.C.I. Manual . At thisjuncture it is also to be pointed out that the F.C.I. Manual contains the regulations and those are not Rules promulgated in exercise of the powers under Section 44 of the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964. Punctuality can be strictly maintained by the introduction of the new system and it :

2156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

will notmake any change in the existing rules ofdiscipline. It cannot be said that it is a case of introduction of new rules ofdiscipline or alteration of existing rules to being it under item No. 9 in the Fourth Schedule ofthe I.D. Act. The management is not bound under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act to give notice about the introduction ofComputerized Bio-Metric Punching System for marking the attendance as itwill not affect the conditions of service in anymanner.

11. Though there are allegations from both sides as to the merits and demerits, success and failure of the ComputerizedBio-Metric Punching System, it does not assume any relevance to answer the reference...

12. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances there is no reason to enter into a finding that the Computerized Bio- Metric Punching System of marking attendance affect the conditions of service. There was discussion with the union before the introduction of the ComputerizedBio- Metric Punching System and the same is evidencedby Exts. M1 and M2 , Whatever it be , there is no necessity to give notice under: Section 9 -A to the workmen or union about the introduction of a new system for marking attendance .

13. In view of the above discussion I hold that the action of the management of Food Corporation of India introducing new system has not resulted in change in service condition .

In the result an award is passed finding that the action ofthe management of Food Corporation of India in introducing Computerized Bio - Metric Punching System instead of the method of marking attendance in the attendance register manually has not resulted in change in service condition and hence the union concerned is not entitledtoany relief.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .

Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 3rd dayofFebruary, 2011 .

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix ...

Witness for the Union :

WWI Shri K. Devaraja Panicker, State Secretary, BKNK Sangh .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Witness for the Management :

MWI Smt. Sosamma Punnen, Manager ( IR) , FCI Regional Office , Trivandrum.

Exhibits for the Union :

WI Copy of letterNo. BKNKS/SS /Kerala/07 dated 29-10-2007 submitted by union to the General Manager (Kerala ) , Food Corporation of India.

W2 CopyofCircular No. IR. 32 (5 )/2007dated 19-11-2007 issued by General Manager (Kerala) to all Officers and Staff, FCI , Regional office, Trivandrum.

W3 Copyof letterNo. BKNKS/SS/ Kerala/2007 dated23-11-07 submitted by union to the General Manager (Kerala) , Food Corporation of India ,

W4 Copy ofcomplaint letter dated 27-11-2007 submitted by union to General Manager (Kerala), FCI .

W5 Copyofextract of FCI Manual, Vol . 1 .

W6 Copy of the Minutes of the conciliation proceedings held on 23-4-2008 in the industrial dispute between the union representatives and the management.

W7 Copy ofNotice No. Estt . 38 ( 2 )/AS/2008- 09dated 9-9-2010.

Exhibits for the Management :

Copyofthe relevant page of file No. IR( S ) / 32(5 )/2007 dated 25-10-2007 maintained inthe Regional Office of FCI , Trivandrum.

M2 Copy of the Office Copy of Attendance Certificate No. IR/ 14( 3 )/2007 /ID/ Pouching dated 6-12-2007 issued by Sosamma Punnen ,Manager ( IR) ; ..

M3 Copy of Circular No. 1R/ 32 ( 5 )/ 07 dated 1-12-2007 .

M4 Copy of the Office Circular No. IR/32 ( 5 ) 07 dated 3-12-2007:

M5 Copy of the Circular No. IR/ 32 ( 5 )/2007 dated 7-12-2007 .

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 693. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्लू.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 150/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. - 22012/ 167/ 2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

डी एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th February , 2011

S.O. 693.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Giovernment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 150/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kawadi Open Cast Mine of Western Coalfield Ltd. , and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L -22012/ 167 /2001 - 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 / 150/2002 Dated 31-01-2011

Party No. 1

: The Sub Area Manager , Kawadi Open Cast Mine of Western Coalfield Ltd. , Post-Shivjinagar, Chandrapur

Versus

: The President ,

PartyNo. 2

Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union , ( CITU) , New Majri Colliery, Near Kali Tanki , Double Stories , Post- Shivjinagar, Chandrapur

AWARD

(Dated: 31st January , 2011 )

This is a reference made by the Central Government 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 ) , of the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

2157

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

to the management of Kawadi Open Cast Mine of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workman , Shri Rajdeo Nathuni Yadav for adjudication , as per letter No. L -22012/ 167 /2001 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 27-08-2002, with the following Schedule :

"Whether the action of the management of M / s . Western Coalfields Ltd. , in relation to their Kawadi Open Cast Mine in fixing the pay of Sh . Rajdeo Nathuni Yadav, consequent upon his transfer from Pench Area to Kawadi Open Cast Mine in Majri Area as per letter No. WCL/Pench/K.V. / STR/ 23 / 134/ 98 dated 1-4-1998 of Personnel Manager , Pench Area initially at Rs . 72.96 p.d. in category - l and then revising it to Rs . 80.94 p.d. in category - Il is legal and justified? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly the workman , Shri Rajdeo ( " the workman " in short ) filed his statement of claim and the management of the W.C.L. ( " the Party No. 1 " in short ) filed their written statement :

In the statement of claim , it is averred by the workman that he was working as a Tub Loader in the piece - rated category in East Donger Chikhali Colliery, Pench Area of W.C.L. with the basic pay of Rs . 135.51 per day and for exigency of work , he was asked to give his consent to be posted at Majri Area as General Mazdoor Cat . - I on conversion to time rated category and vide his letter dated 17-4-1998 , he gave his consent for the transfer, subject to the condition of full protection of his pay and payment of T.A. , DA and quarters facility as applicable to loaders and accordingly, he came to be transferred on administrative grounds to Majri Open Cast Mine w.e.f 20-7-1998 in time rated category, as General Mazdoor - Cat . - I and vide office order dated 22-1-1999 , the Party No. 1 illegally fixed his basic wages firstly in Cat . - 1 at Rs . 72.96 and revised to Cat. - Ill at Rs . 80.94 per day, though he was getting a basic pay of Rs . 133.51 per day , prior to his transfer to time rated category and thus his basic pay was reduced by Rs . 52.57 per day and such reduction of pay was contrary to clause 5 of the settlement dated 31-10-1995 , which postulates that such piece rated workman , who may be put in time rated by managerial decisions will continue to get protection of piece rated wages and there was no conceivable nexus or sound reasoning advanced by Party No. 1 to fix his basic wages in the middle of category - III at Rs . 80.94 per day and the impugned action was arbitrary and in colourable exercise of employer's rights and without due application of mind and wholly illegal and unjustified . The workman has 21598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] prayed to declare the fixation of his pay at Rs . 72.96 and then at Rs . 80.94 per day as illegal and unjustified and further declaration that he is entitled to protection of pay, which he was drawing prior to his conversion on transfer and payment of back wages and consequential benefits .

resolved and he continued to receive the wages fixed as above and subsequently another union namely Lalzenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union took up his case after about 1½ years and raised an industrial dispute , before the ALC( C) , Chandrapur, vide its letter dated 4-5-2000 and the management clarified its position and as no settlement could be arrived at, failure report was submitted to the Government by the ALC( C) , which ultimately led to the present reference and from the facts , it would be clear that the decision about the coversion and placement of the workman was strictly in accordance with the settlement dated 31-10-1995 and the workman never demanded to be posted back as loader and the management is ready to put him back in his original job as loader and the offer is open to him and in case he does not accept the offer , then it becomes transparently clear that he wants to reap the benefit of lower category job and higher category wage and the settlement dated 31-10-1995 clearly stipulates that from the date of his settlement , the piece rated workers engaged in time rated job would be paid as per the nature of the job performed by them and as the worker was deployed in time rated job , he was rightly paid the wages ofthe corresponding category. It is further pleaded by the Party No. I that the workman was not drawing a basic pay of Rs . 133.51 per day and the wage of a piece rated loader is not fixed and the same goes on varying according to the work done by him on day - to-day basis and piece rated workers , who are engaged in time rates against notification and in exercise of option are not entitled for the benefit of protection as stated in clause 5 of the settlement dated 31-10-1995 and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. The parties were allowed to lead evidence in support of their respective claims . The workman has examined himself as a witness and has reiterated the facts mentioned in his statement of claim . One A.M. Bogawar . Personnel Manager , New Majri O.C. II has been examined as a witness on behalf of Party No. 1. The evidence of this witness is also in the same line of the stands taken by the management is , the written statement . This witness filed the documents relating to the notification , option of the workman , transfer and fixation of the pay of the workman and has proved the same .

The option letter of the workman, office orders dated 20-7-1998 , 20 /22-1-1999 and the representation of the workman dated 29-1-1999 have been marked as Exts .W-3, W-4, W- 5 and W-6 respectively, whereas, documents filed by the Party No. 1 have been marked as Exts . M - IV and M-XIII .

3. The Party No. 1 in its written statement pleaded inter alia that a notification was issued by the Area Personnel Manager, Pench Area of WCL dated 1-4-1998 , inviting options from the workmen of Pench , who were willing to go to other areas in time rated jobs , for which there was urgent requirement and the said notification had a separate clause for the piece rated workers , which stated that such piece rated workers , who were willing to go in time rated jobs would be converted and transferred intime - rate, this would be applicable from the date they would assume charge in the time rate and the workman, who was a piece- rated loader at E.D.C. Colliery of Pench Area applied for transfer in time rated job and his option was voluntary and he was aware that according to the policy decision of the company, on his change over to time rate, he would get the wage of the Cai . , in which he would be deployed and fixed at the mid point of the time rate and in the notification , no assurance was given for giving protection of his basic wage of piece rate , which he was enjoying at Pench Area and he was fully aware of the consequence of his option to switch over to time rate and its impact upon his wage and the workman while opted for his transfer in time rated job , though put a condition of protection of his piece rated basic , as in the notification, there was no stipulation of any conditional option of wage protection , this aspect of his option was not considered and he was transferred to Majri Area in time rated vide order dated 3-6-1998 issued by the Dy. ChiefPersonnel Manager ( I.R. ) and he was relieved from E.D.C. Colliery of Pench Area vide office order dated 15-7- 1998 ofthe Mines Manager , with advise to report at Majri Area to be deployed in time rated job and on his reporting to Majri Area , he was posted to Kawadi open cast in Coal Handling Plant as General Mazdoor Cat. - I vide office order No. WCL/MA/GM/PER/ 98/ 108 / 4080 dated 20-7-98 issued by the Personnel Manager , Majri Area and it was stipulated in the said office order that on his conversion from piece rate to time rate, his wage fixation wouldbe done as per the relevant clause of the settlement dated 31-10-95 and accordingly, his wages was fixed at the mid point of Cat . -I i.e. Rs . 72.96 basic per day, but as per the result of the decision with the representatives of the INTUC union held on 18-1-1999, the case of the workman was review in consultation with the concerned department and he was posted as conveyor khalasi/ operator vide office order dated 21 /22-1-1999 and accordingly, his wage wasfixed at Rs . 80.94 in Cat . - III , which was the mid- point of Cat . - III and thereafter , he case stood settled and

grievance raised by the workman in this regard was-

5. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties , the documents on record and the oral evidence adduced by the parties that on 1-4-1998, the Party No. I made a notification inviting options from the workers of Pench Area, who were willing to work as time rated workers in [ भाग [ 1-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

other areas except Kanhan Area , as there was urgent requirement of time rated workers in other areas and in response to such notification , the workman vide his letter dated 17-4-1998 ( document Ext . W-3- from the side of the workman and Ext . M - XII from the side of management) submitted his option for such transfer and to work as time rated workers , with the conditions of protection of his basic pay and of providing quarters , T.A. and D.A. and thereafter , the Party No. 1 as per orders dated 3-6-1998 transferred the workman and twenty two piece rated workers to different areas of WCL and out of them , the workman and two others were transferred to Majri Area and then , the workman was relieved from E.D.C. Colliery, Pench Area and joined at Majri Area on his conversion in time rated category as General Mazdoor Cat . - I and posted to Kawadi open cast colliery in coal handling plant and then his pay was fixed at Rs . 72.95 per day at first and later on , the same was refixed at Rs . 80.94 . There is also no dispute that fixation of pay of workers like the workman is required to be made in accordance with the settlement dated 31-10-1995 .

6. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that as the option submitted by the workman was a conditional option and the workman had specifically mentioned for protection of his basic pay and thereafter his transfer was made by the Party No. 1 on administrative grounds and in the transfer order , it was mentioned by the Party No. 1 that the workers , who were transferred would get all the benefits of transfer , the workman is entitled for protection of his basic pay, which he was getting as a piece rated loader prior to his transfer. It was further argued that in view of clause 5 of the Agreement dated 31-10-1995 also , the workman is entitled for protection of his basic pay. In support of such contentions , the learned advocate for the workman placed reliance on the decision reported in 2000 LAB I.C. 3624 ( Karnataka High Court ) ( S.G. Koragar Vs. the Managing Director , Karnataka S.T.C. ) .. :

7. In reply, it was submitted by the learned advocate for they No. I that as in the notification dated 1-4-1998 , there was no stipulation of any conditional option of wage protection , the condition of protection of basic pay of the workman was not considered and in the notification dated 1-4-1998 , it was clearly mentioned that the piece rated workers , willing to go in time rated jobs would be converted and transferred in time rate and in the transferred order also , it was specifically mentioned that the workman and 22 others piece rated workers are transferred on the basis of the applications submitted by them and on their joining in the respective area , they would be allowed to work as time rated workers and their pay would be fixed in accordance with the agreement dated 31-10-1995 and thereafter , the workman was relieved from duty and he willingly joined in Majri Area as a time rated worker , so there is no question of the protection of his

2159

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

basic pay. It was also submitted that no doubt , in the said transfer order , it had been mentioned that as the transfer is on administrative ground , the workers would be entitled to transfer TA and Transit period.etc . in accordance with the Rules , the same does not mean that the basic pay of the workers would be protected . It was further subinitted that in the relieved order also , it had been mentioned that the workman would be entitled to transfer T.A. and Transit period , as the transfer was done for administrative exigency and in the posting order issued by the Personnel Manager dated 20-7-1998 also , it had been specifically mentioned that, " his fixation on coversion shall be done as per relevant clause of settlement dated 31-10-1995 and according to clause 1 and 3 of the settlement dated 31-10-1995 , which were applicable to the case of the workmarn , the wages of the workman was fixed and as such , the workman was and is not entitled for protection of his basic pay and the action of the Party No. I is justified ."

8. Peruse the documents filed by the parties . From the document , Ext . M - IV, it is found that the Party No. I had called for the options of the piece rated workers of Pench Area to work as time rated workers in other Areas and it was specifically mentioned in the same that the workers have to give their willingness by filing application and as the transfer would be due to administrative exigency, the workers would get the benefit of transfer , such as , T.A./D.A . and transfer grants . It was also specifically mentioned in Ext . M - IV that the piece rated workers would be converted into time rated workers on their joining at the new Areas of their posting . It is also found that though the workman in his application had given his option for such transfer , he had asked for protection of his basic pay, but Party No. 1 did not consider such request and made the transfer order dated 3-6-1998 and in the said order, there was specific mention about fixation of pay as per the settlement dated 31-10-1995 . From the documents filed by the parties , it is found that there was no stipulation in any of the documents of the Party No. 1 of giving protection of pay to the workers including the workman and as such , on that score , the workman is not entitled for protection of pay.

9. The settlement dated 31-10-1995 has been marked as Ext . M - VII . Clauses 1 , 3 and 5 of the said settlement read as follows :

( 1 ) Item Nos . 1 , 3 Demand No. 1 ( 111 ) reads as below:

" That the management shall on conversion from PR to TR/ MR will fully protect the group wages including SPRA wherever applicable . The basic nay so fixed in the TR MR category/ grade if exceeds the maximum ofthe category/grade , the balance be treated as personal pay to the person concerned 2160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

which shall be adjusted in the subsequent revision ofpay / promotion . This decision shall be effective from 1-1-1992 . It is also agreed that the cases already converted between 14-11-1990 to 31-12-1991 shall be considered for notional fixation only and earlier cases will not be considered .

The above will be modified as below from 1-11-1995.

All such piece rated workers who have given ormay give option for time rated / monthly rated jobs or in case of their selection through internal notification for any time rated / monthly rated jobs will be fixed in the middle of commensurate category for which they in the time rated only and no personal pay will be allowed w.e.f. 1-11-1995 . "

(3) Hence forth the piece rated workers who are engaged on time rated jobs will be paid as per the nature of work performed by them .

(5) Such piece rated workman who may be put in time rated/monthly rated in future by managerial decisions i.e. , without seeking option for time rated/ monthly rated or without going through the selection process against internal notification for time rated / monthly rated , will continue to get protection of piece rated wages . Such piece rated workman who comes to TR as per option given by them will not get the benefit .

In this case , there was a notification by the Party No. inviting options from piece rated workers of Pench Area to work as time rated workers in other Area with free consent and willigness and in response to such notification , the workman submitted his option and thereafter, the Party No. 1 selected the workman and 22 others and transferred them and as such , it cannot be said that the conversion of the workman from piece rated category to time rated category was by managerial decision i.e. , without seeking option for time rated category or without going through the selection process against internal notification , which are the requirements of getting the protection of piece rated wages . Hence , it is found that the workman , who submitted his option to work as a time rated worker in response to the notification dated 1-4-1998 of Party No. 1 is not entitled for protection of his piece rated wages under clause 5 of the settlement dated 31-10-1995.

So far the decision reported in 2000 LAB IC - 3624 (supra) , on which reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the workman is concerned , with respect , 1 am of the view that the same has no application to the present case at hand as the facts and circumstances of

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | the case referred in the said decision are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the case at hand . In the case referred in the decision , there was no regulation but in this case , there is a settlement dated 31-10-1995 providing the procedures for fixation and protection of wages of the workmen and the Party No. I are bound by such agreement . Hence , it is ordered :

ORDER

The action of the management of M / s . Western Coalfields Ltd. in fixation of the pay of Shri Rajdeo Nathuni Yadav , the workman at Rs . 72.96 per day initially and at Rs . 80.94 per day in category - III is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 694. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्लू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 268/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. - 22012/67/2000- आई आर ( सी -11 ) । डी. एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th February, 2011

S.O. 694 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 268 / 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation t the management of W.C.L. , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 09-2-2011 .

[No. L - 22012/67 / 2000 - IR ( C - 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 /268/ 2000 Dated 3-2-2011

Party No. 1

: 1. The Sub Area Manager , WCL Pipla Sub -Area , Pipla , Tah . Saoner , Dist. Nagpur

2. The General Manager, WCL Area , Jaripatka , Nagpur

Versus 2161 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

PartyNo. 2

: Shri Kashinath C. Sawarkar, Pipla Colliery, At & Post- Pipla, Dakbangala, Taq . Saoner, Dist.Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 3rd February, 2011 ) .

The Central Government being of the opinion of having the existence of an industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the General Manager , WCL and their workman , Shri Kashinath C. Sawarkar, Clerk Grade - II (LDC ) have referred the dispute for adjudication by exercising 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 ), as per letter No. L- 22012/67/ 2000- IR( CM- II ) dated 21-08-2000, with the following schedule:

"Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd. through its Sub Area Manager , Pipla Sub Area , Pipla & General Manager , Nagpur Area, Nagpur in dismissing/ terminating the services of Sh . Kashinath C. Sawarkar , Clerk Gr. II ( LDC ) , Pipla Colliery, Distt . Nagpur w.e.f. 17-2-1999 is legal , proper and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

2. After receipt of the reference and being noticed, the workman , Shri Kashinath C. Sawarkar ( " the workman " in short) filed his statement of claim and the management of WCL ( " Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement.

misconducts and he . denied the allegations of misconduct stating that the attendance of loaders was marked in the MT/C section and the Munshi used to fill up the Foon No. 4 and on the basis of Form No. 4, Form No. 10 was being filed up by him and he had correctly filled up Form No. 10 in respect of those two employees and he had not committed any mistake and for the mistake , if any, he was not responsible and the statements of the aforesaid two employees were not recorded either by the department or by the Enquiry Officer during the departmental enquiry proceeding and he was not guilty of the misconducts under standing orders 26.1 and 26.3 and the departmental enquiry was conducted by Shri Arun Khobragade, a Senior Personnel Officer and the enquiry commenced on 7-12-1998 and was completed on 21-1-1999 and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding him guilty of the charges and under office memorandum dated 12-2-1999 , the second show cause notice was served on him alongwith the copy of the enquiry asking him to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service and by order dated 17-2-1999 ofthe Party No. 1 , he was dismissed from service and the appeal preferred by him on 22-2-1999 was not considered by the Appellate Authority. It is further pleaded by the workman that the Inquiry Officer did not follow the established procedure of departmental enquiry and he did not direct the management representative at the beginning of the enquiry to submit list of witnesses and documents and as such, did not follow the principles of natural justice and the original documents were not filed in enquiry, instead of which, xerox copies were filed and copies of the documents were not supplied to him and statements of material witnessses were not recorded, in violation ofthe basic of departmental enquiry and he was not allowed to re - exaraine witnesses , Shri Kaka Gulab and Shri Hari Santosh and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse , illegal and based upon no evidence and the enquiry was held while he was on sick leave from 7-12-1998 to 6-1-1999 , which is against the principles of natural justice and his past clean service record of 24 years was not taken into consideration , while awarding the punishment of dismissal and the punishment imposed against him is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. The workman has made prayer for his reinstatement in his original post with continuity in

service and payment of full back wages .

3. The Party No. 1 , in its written statement has/ pleaded that the workman was involved in various acts of misconduct, breach of trust and cheating in connection with the day -to-day affairs entrusted to him , resulting in It is averred by the workman in his statement of claim inter alia that he joined the services of the Party No. 1 on 19-3-1975 and was promoted as Clerk Grade - 111 in 1984 and as Clerk Grade- II in 1995 and his service record during the said period was clean and excellent without any adverse remark but he was served with a charge sheet dated 16-11-1998, for the act of misconducts alleged to be committed by him , punishable under clauses 26.1 and 26.3 of the certified standing orders , applicable to the operatives of the Party No. 1 and he was not given sufficient time to reply to the said notice and as a L.D.C. , his duty was to prepare the wage sheets of the employees every month and it was alleged that while he was checking the wage sheets of the employees in computer section, Silwara, deliberately increased the days ofattendance of Shri Kaka Gulab from 3 and 6 days to 25 and 26 days in the wage sheets for the months of May and June , 1998 respectively and the days of attendance of Shri Hari Santosh from 12 days to 25 days in the wage sheet for the month of May, 1998 and due to his said acts , the aforesaid two employees had received the increased salary for the month of May and June , 1998 and thus he was held responsible for committing

555 G / 11-25 2162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

[PART SPC . 3 ( 16 )|

Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur. The Hon'ble Courtby order dated 3-7- 2003 was pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 27-11-2002 and directed to first take up the issue of fairness of enquiry as a preliminary issue and to dispose of the case in accordance with law.

5. According to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in writ petition No. 1528/2003 , the validity of the departmental enquiry was considered as a preliminary issue . After taking into consideration , the pleading of the parties , the materials on record and the submissions made by the parties,by order dated 3-8-2006 , the departmental enquiry was held to be invalid and the management was giventhe libertyto prove the charges before the Tribunal .

6. The Party No. 1 , to prove the charge against the workman examined two witnesses , namely, Shri Arun Antoni Khobragade and Shri Hansraj Bhagwandas Khandekar, who were in Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer in the departmental enquiry held against the workman respectively, besides relying on documentary evidence. The workman examined himself as a witness in hisdefence.

7. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that as the departmental enquiry held against the workman has been found to be invalid by the Tribunal , the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry cannot be taken into consideration and cannot be relied on . In support of such contention, reliance hasbeenplaced on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of judicature, Bombay reported in 2001 ( III ) CLR - 306 (Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. U.S.V. Limited and another ) . The further submission made by the learned advocate for the workman was that the Party No. 1 has not been able to prove the charge levelled against the workman and as such , the punishment imposed against the workman can be safely held to be unjustified and unwarranted and as such, the punishment imposed against the workman is to be quashed and set aside and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and back wages .

issuance of the charge sheet on 16-11-1998 on various grounds stated therein and after the charges were proved against the workman, he was dismissed from services vide the order of the Disciplinary Authoritydated 17-2- 1999 and the workman had been demoted from post of Clerk Grade- 11 to H/Kh . Category - III in the year 1991 , on account of theft , fraud and dishonesty in connection with the jobs entrusted to him and the said charges were proved against him , but on consideration of his mercy appeal , the workman was allowed to continue on the same post and as such , it can be safely said that the act and conduct of theworkman was willful and no leniency could have been shown towards an employee who was dishonest to the organization and the workman indulged himself into certain acts, which were due to willful omission and negligence of the workman and he was dismissed from services as his acts were of the nature involving moral turpitude and the workman tampered the attendance sheets maintained by the Party No. 1 in Form ' C ' of the months of May and June, 1998 and increased the attendance in respect of Shri Kaka Gulab from 3 and 6 days to 25 and 26 days in the month of May and June, 1998 respectively and from 12 days to 22 days in May, 98 in respect of Shri Hari Santosh in the wage sheets in Form No. ' X' prepared by him and the charge sheer dated 16-11-1998 was served on the workman on 21-11-1998 and sufficient time was given to him on his request but tilf 2-12-1998 , no reply was received from him and the workman did not commit any mistake but his act was willful for unlawful gain and he was guilty of the misconduct as enumerated under the standing orders 26.1 and 26.3 and the appea , filed by the workman was rightly rejected as he committed fraud intentionally knowing fully well that the same is against the interest, of the management , for unlawful gains and the enquiry was held by following the principles of natural justice and sufficient opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself in the enquiry and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perversed but the same are based on evidence on record and the punishment of dismissal from services imposed against the workman is not at all disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and as such, the workman is not entitled for any relief,

4.It isnecessary to mention here that after filing of the statement of claim and written statement , all the issues involved in the case were taken for consideration at a time by the Tribunal and parties were allowed to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims . After taking into consideration the materials on record and the submissions made by the parties , the Tribunal passed the award on 27-11-2002, answering the reference in favour of the workman and directing for his reinstatement in the original post with continuity of service and 50% of the ack wages . Challenging the award dated 27-11-2002 , the Pa tyNo. 1 filed writ petition No. 1528 of2003 before the

8. On the other hand , the learned advocate for the management submitted that the workman was involved in several acts of malpractices , fraud , negligence , cheating undue influence , gross violation of various laid down norme and rules of the Party No. 1 , while dealing with co- workers and as such various complaints were received against him and on the basis of various complaints and after the charges have been fully proved, the workman wasdismissed from the services . Before mentioning about the further contentions raised by the learned advocate for the management, I think it proper to mention here that the first part of the aforestated contention is not proper, as there is no material on record in support of the same and the same is without any basis . Moreover, such allegations भाग ।।-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

have neither been made in the charge sheet submitted against the workman nor any evidence , oral or documentary has been adduced by the Party No. 1 in this respect. Hence , I find no force in the said contention .

The further contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. I was that in 1991 , the workman had been found guilty of theft , fraud and dishonesty in the departmental enquiry held against him and he had been punished with demotion from Clerk Grade - II to H/ Khalasi category - III but on consideration of his mercy appeal , he was allowed to continue on the same post and though in this case , the domestic enquiry has been held to be illegal by the Tribunal , it can be held from the evidence adduced by the Party No. 1 , both oral and documentary and the evidence of the workman himself that the charge leveled against the workman to have been proved. It was also contended that once it is held that the charges leveled again the workman to have been proved, there is no scope for the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman and the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate to the charges of serious misconduct committed by the workman . In support of such contention , reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in 1996 LAB IC -462 (В.С. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India ) , 1996 LAB IC - 469 (Allahabad Bank Vs. Prem Narain Pande ) , 2005 LAB IC- 4158 Vs. A.P. SRTC and 2005 LAB J.C. 854 ( Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manoher Nakate ) .

At this juncture , I think it proper to mention that as in this case , the disciplinary proceeding has been held to be invalid , the questions of consideration of the past record of the workman and regarding the scope of interference with the punishment imposed against the workman will be arised , if the charge leveled against the workman will be found to have been proved from the evidence adduced by the Party No. 1 .

9. Before delving into the merit of the matter , I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay as reported in 2001 ( III ) CLR 306 ( supra) . The Hon'ble High Court, following the judgement ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeta Kapilash Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court & Anr. ( 1999 I LLJ 95 ) have held that ,

"Held: Labour Court , in the circumstances of the case, erred in relying on the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry once it was held vitiated" .

It is necessary to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 1999 1 LLJ - 95 ( supra) have held that :

"The record pertaining to the domestic enquiry would not constitute " fresh evidence " as those proceedings have already been found by the Labour Court to be defective . Such record would also not

2163 contribute "material on record " as contended by the counsel for the respondents , within the meaning of Section 11 - A , as the enquiry proceeding , on being found to be bad , have to be ignored altogether. The proceedings of the , domestic enquiry could be , and were , in fact relied upon by the management for the limited purpose of showing at the preliminary stage that the action taken against the appellant was just and proper and that full opportunity of hearing was given to her in consonance with the principles of natural justice . This contention has not been accepted by the Labour Court and the enquiry has been held to be bad . In view of the nature of the objections raised by the appellant, the record of enquiry held by the management ceased to be "material on record " within the meaning of Section 11 - A of the Act and the only course open of the management was to justify its action by leading fresh evidence as required by the Labour Court, if such evidence has not been led, the management has to suffer the consequences ."

In view of the settled principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Courts as mentioned above , now, it is to be considered as to whether , the Party No. 1 has been able to prove the charge levelled against the workman on the basis of the fresh evidence adduced before this Tribunal .

10. The first witness of the Party No. 1 is Arun , the Inquiry Officer, who had conducted the domestic enquiry against the workman . He has stated that the workman was working as Lower Division Clerk and was entrusted with the jobs ofBilling Clerk and his duties were to check and prepare the wage bills as per the information contained in Form ' X' and the workman prepared the wage bills of the employees till September , 1998 and complaints dated 9-11-1998 and 12-11-1998 submitted by Shri Namdeo Shamji Shinde, who was working as the Senior Clerk, Pipla were received against the workman regarding tampering of the attendance records and on the basis of the said complaints , preliminary enqiry was held by the committee consisting of Office Superintendent , Sr. Accounts Officer and Dy. Personnel Manager of Pipla Colliery and it was found that there was valid ground for initiating an enquiry against the workman and on the basis of such enquiry , charge sheet was issued against the workman and he was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. This witness has stated aboutthe procedures adopted by him in the departmental enquiry and his findings , but the same is of no consequence as the said enquiry is already found to be invalid. In his cross - examination , this witness has admitted that he had not gone through the complaints dated 9-11-1998 and 12-11-1998 and he cannot say about the complaints of Shri Namdeo and " Form C " is maintained marking the attendance by a Register Keeper of the workers and on the basis of the same , " Form X " is filled up and then the same is loaded in the computer by the Billing 2164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

[PART II--SEC . 3 ( ii ) j Clerk and "Form C" and " Form X " were never signed by the Personnel Manager and upto November 1 , he had no knowledge about the incident .

and Form No. 4 is used to be filled in by " Munshi " and Form No. ' X' is used to fill in by concerned relay Clerk , on the strength of Form No. 4 and he had correctly filled in Form No. 10 in his relay and in the month of May and June, 1998 , he was working in ' B ' relay and as such , he was not concerned with the incident , as mentioned in the charge sheet and the two complaints filed by Shri Namdeo are false and he has been falsely implicated in this case and the punishment of dismissal from service imposed against him is disproportionate to the misconducts alleged to have been committed by him .

In his cross -examination , this witness has stated thathe had filed an affidavit on 27-7-2001 and he cannot say if there is difference between the two affidavits filed by him on 27-7-2001 and 6-10-2008 , because his advocate had prepared the affidavits and he cannot say the contents of both the affidavits . He has further stated that the work ofpreparing of muster roll and salary are to be pertormed with responsibilities and in case of commission of mistakes . the benefits goto others . It is also admitted by the workman that extra salary had been paid to Shri Kaka Gulab and Shri Hari Santosh had he has read the evidence at Exts. M - IV and M - V and the contents of Exts . M - IV and M -V are correct and though there is provision for filing appeal as per the standing orders of WCL , he did not file any appeal against the order of his dismissal . He has also admitted that he had been cross - examined on 16-1-2002 .

Itis necessary to mention here that during the cross- examination of the workman , the learned advocate for the management adopted the earlier cross - examination of the workman and this Tribunal passed orders to treat the earlier cross - examination as cross - examination on the affidavit filed on6-10-2008 .

11. The other witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 is Shri Hansraj , who was the management representative in the departmental enquiry held against the workman . This witness has also stated that the duty ofthe workman was to check and prepare the wage bills as perthe information contained in Form ' C ' and the workman was incharge of preparation of the wage bills of the employees till 1998 and two complaints dated 9-11-1998 and 13-11-1998 sitbmitted by Shri Namdeo , the Senior Clerk , Pipla were received by the Party No. 1, about tampering of attendance records and on the basis of the complaints preliminary enquiry was done by a committee and he was a member of the said committee and the committee found valid ground for initiating an enquiry against the workman and he personally verified the records and came to know that the records were tampered and in the attendance sheet maintained by the Party No. 1 in Form ' C' for the months of May and June , 1998 , the attendance in respect of Shri Kaka Gulab , Loader was shown as 3 and 6 days respectively and the attendance of Shri Hari Santosh, Loader for the month of May , 1998 was shown as 12 days but in Form No. ' X ' , which was maintained by the workman and on the basis ofwhich , the wage sheet was prepared , the workman mentioned the same as 25 and 26 days respectively in respect of Shri KakaGulab and 22 days including hazri work on 9-5-1998 in respect of Shri Hari Santosh for May, 1998 , which goes to show the conduct and intention of the workman . This witness has also stated about the departmental proceeding held against the workman in details , which is not required to be considered in view of the findings that the departmental enquiry is invalid . This witness has proved the recommendation of the Committee constituted for making the preliminary investigation as Ext . M - 7 , the copy of the two complaints submitted against the workman dated 9-11-1998 and 13-11-1998 as Exts . M - 8 and M - 9 respectively, the charge sheet as Ext . M - 10 , the papers of the enquiry proceedings as Exts . 12( i) to 12 ( xxii ) , the findings ofthe Inquiry Officer as Ext. M - 13 , the extracts of pay slip and Form ' X ' as Exts . M - 14 and M - 15 , order of dismissal and second show -cause notice as Exts . M - 16 and M - 17 respectively.

In his cross - examination dated 16-1-2002 . the workman has stated that in 1995, he was promoted as Clerk Grade -II and he was the Bill Clerk and he was preparing pay bills etc. and basis on the attendance sheet prepared by the Munshi , he was preparing the pay bills of all the workmen and he was making entry of attendance in Form 'C' and on the basis of Form ' C ' prepared by him salary was used to be paid to the workmen in Computer Section. He has further admitted that in 1998 , he was preparing the pay bills of Shri Kaka Gulab and Shri Hari Santosh and management document Nos . 17 and 18 are true and all the excerpts attached to them are also true and management document No. 18 was prepared by him in his own hand and the same is correct.

12. The workman in his evidence has stated that false charges were levelled against him in the charge sheet dated 16-11-1998 and the allegations that he increased the days of attendance of Shri Kaka Gulab , Loader in Form X' from 3 days and 6 days to 25 and 26 days in the month of May, 1998 and June , 1998 respectively and increased the days of attendance of Shri Hari Santosh , Loader from 12 days to 22 days in the month of May, 1998 are false and he had not increased the days of attendance of the said loaders and he had not signed the Form ' X '

The workman in his evidence filed on affidavit on 6-10-2008 has stated that he did not increase the days of work of the loaders and he has not signed the Form X and Form No. 4 was used to be filled in by Munshi and Form No. 'X' was used to be filled in by respective relay Clerk, on the strength of Form No. 4 ' and he had correctly prepared Form No. X ' in his relay and in the months of 2165 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

May and June , 1998 , he was working in ' B ' relay and he was not connected with the incident as mentioned in the charge sheet. No reliance can be placed on such evidence of the workman , as because , firstly he has not taken such a stand in his statement of claim and secondly in view of his admission about preparation of Form No. ' X' , in his cross-examination and statement ofclaim . In his statement, the workman has pleaded that he was L.D.C. and was preparing the wage sheets of the employees every month and the attendance of the loaders was marked in the MT/ C section of WCL and the Munshi used to fill up the Form No. 4 and on the strength of Form No. 4 , Form No. 10 was being filed in by him and he had correctly filled in Form No. 10, wherein, the attendance of above two employees / loaders was rightly marked by him and he has not committed any mistake in it and for the mistake ifany, he was not at all responsible. In paragraph 14 of his statement of claim , the workman has mentioned that , now, he is out ofjob and suffered a lot with his family, which punishment is itself more than what he ought to be awarded and the mistake committed by him unknowingly were corrected by deducting the over payments made to the loaders by him . In his evidence on affidavit filed on 27-7-2001 , the workman has also stated the above- mentioned facts . The above facts mentioned by the workman in his statement of claim and affidavit dated 27- 7-2001 can be taken as indirect admission of the workman ofhisguilt .

In this case , Management Witness No. 2 , Hansraj has proved the Forms No. IV and X( 10 ) for the months ofMay and June , 1998 in respect of Shri Kaka Gulab and Shri Hari Santosh as Ext. M - 14 and Ext. M- 15 respectively. The said documents have been admitted into evidence without any objection. Though , the workman in his affidavit dated 6-10- 2008 has denied to have prepared Ext . M- 15 , it is clear from his pleading in the statement of claim and affidavit dated 27-7-2001 that Ext . M - 15 was prepared by him . On perusal of Ext. M- 15, it is found that the workman has shown the working days of Shri KalkaGulab for May and June , 1998 , as 25 and 26 days respectively and the working days of Hari Santosh for May, 1998 as 25 days . However, according to Ext. M - 14 , the Form No. IV (4 ) the working days of Shri Kaka Gulab for May and June . 1998 were 3 days and 6 days respectively and the working days of Hari Shantosh for May, 1998 were 12 days . So it is clear from Exts . M - 14 and M -15 that the workman knowingly increased the working days of Shri Kaka Gulab and Shri Hari Santosh . The workman has also admitted that excess payment was made to Shri Kaka Gulab and Shri Hari Santosh and such excess payment was recovered. In view of such documentary and oral evidence on record , no adverse inference can be drawn for non -production ofpay sheet and non - examination of Shri Kaka Gulab , Hari Santosh and Namdeo Shamji Sindhe . It is clear from the evidence adduced by the Party No. 1 that the workman committed fraud and dishonesty in connection with the employees business and property and tampered with the company's record with ulterior motive . Hence, it is held that Party No. 1 has been able to prove both the charges under clauses 26.1 and26. 13 of the standing order against the workman .

14. So far the quantum of punishment is concerned, from the evidence of the management witnesses and document Ext. M -6 , it is found that earlier there was demotion of the workman to Grade - III Clerk as per the order dated 14-11-1991 after consideration of the appeal filed by him , on sympathetical ground , though originally he was demoted to H/ Kh Cat . III . In this case also the misconducts of the workman which are very serious in nature have been proved against the workman . So taking into consideration the proved serious misconducts ofthe workman and his previous service record, I find the imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service is not shockingly disproportionate and there is no reason to interfere with the punishment . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Western Coalfield Ltd. in dismissing the service of Shri Kashinath C. Sawarkar, ClerkGrade- 11 w.e.f. 17-2-1999 is legal and justified and the working is not entitled for any relief.

J.P. CHAND , PresidingOfficer 13. The learned advocate for the workman at the time of argument submitted that though according to the management , the workman increased the working days of Shri Kaka Gulab in the month of May, 1998 from 3 days to 25 days , thereby there was increase of 22 working days , but the annexure attached to the document Ext . M - 7 shows that the excess working days of Shri Kaka Gulab were 19 days and Management Witness No. 2 has admitted the said fact in his evidence and according to the said annexure , excess payment alleged to have been made to Shri Kaka Gulab also in March , July, August and September, 1998 , due to increase of the working days , but nobody was held responsible for such increased attendance and as such , no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Management Witness No. 2, Shri Hansraj . It was also submitted that there is also nothing in the evidence of Management Witness No. 1 , Shri Arun to prove the charge against the workman , but, on the other hand, the evidence of the workman given on affidavit has not been shaken in the cross - examination and as in this case, the relevant documents, such as , the pay sheet and other connected documents have not been filed and material witnesses , Shri Kaka Gulab , Hari Santosh and Namdeo Shamji Sindhe have not been examined, it can be held that management has failed to prove the charges levelled against the workman . However, I do not find any force in the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the workman due to the discussions made earlier about the evidence of the witnesses of the parties and for the reasons mentioned below :

2166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )] नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2011

का, आ. 695. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एन. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरपण, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 60/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 22012/69/2008- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 9th February, 2011

partyhasterminated his services after conductingdomestic inquiry, after issuing a charge sheet dated 31-12-2004 . It is alleged that there is standing order of the opposite party. According to the standing order an employee of the opposite party can be issued charge sheet only when he hascommitted misconduct thrice in a year, whereas he has been issued charge sheet for one misconduct which is against the provisions of standing order and therefore the charge sheet is illegal and any punishment based on the said charge sheet is liable to be set aside , which cannot be termed misconduct . Therefore , the opposite party has committed the breach of the provisions of the standing order. Thus he is entitled for the aforesaid relief.

S.O. 695. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/ 2008) 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 ofM/ s . Northern Coalfield Limited, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L-22012/69/2008 - IR (CM - II)] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 60 of2008

SriAnil Kumar Srivastava , Through RamGopal Srivastava, Chilkadand Basti , Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra , Uttar Pradesh

AND

TheChief General Manager , M/ s. Northern Coalfield Limited, Khadiya Pariyojna Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh

AWARD

1. Central Government , Mol , New Delhi , vide notification No. L -22012/69/2008 - IR (CM - II) dated 30-6- 2008, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to thistribunal.

4. Opposite party in its written statement has vehemently denied the entire allegations ofthe claimant . It is stated that the claimant was also caught red handed for theft ofdiesel as he was a driver and he was charge sheeted, previously also dated 16-7-2002 , after due inquiry he was dismissed but on appeal he was reinstated in service but he was posted at the post of Mazdoor Category but he could not mend his ways and again committed a serious misconduct of theft, forgery and dishonesty of the property of the employer. He was caught red handed of theft of machine parts on 28-12-2004 , and FIR was lodged against the workman . After inquiry he was suspended and charge sheeted as per certified standing orders , a domestic inquiry as per law was conducted. He was given opportunity to defend his case . He fully participated in the domestic inquiry. Inquiry officer conducted an inquiry . The charges were found fully established by the inquiry officer and he submitted his inquiry report to the management. Again a show cause notice was issued to the workman but he did not submit any reply. Disciplinary authority examined the inquiry report seriously and after examination dismissed the workman from the service vide order dated 18-4-2005 which is fully legal and valid in the eye of law. It is also pleaded by the opposite party that while conducting domestic inquiry against the claimant they have not committed any breach of the provisions of the standing order. It is stated that there is no standing order which requires that a person concern cannot be dismissed from the service for committing serious misconduct of theft , forgery anddishonesty. Lastly it is pleaded that the inquiry was fairly conducted by the inquiry officer and ali reasonable opportunity of defence was afforded to the claimant by the inquiry officer, therefore , the punishment awarded to the claimant does not call for interference at the hands ofthis Hon'ble Tribunal . It is therefore, prayed that the claim of the claimant is liable to rejected being devoid ofmerit.

2. Whether the action of the management of M/s . NCL in dismissing Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava from service with effect from 18-04-2005 is legal and justified ? To what relief is the claimant entitled ?

3. Brief facts are that claimant Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava has filed his claim statement alleging that the order of termination passed by the opposite party is illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated. It is stated that opposite

5. Claimant has filed certain papers along with claim statement . First paper is copy of the order of dismissal ; second is photocopy of suspension order and photocopy of standing orders .

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

6. Opposite party has also filed 43 documents vide list 10-9-2002 . All these documents are related to the inquiry.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. The claimant has not adduced any evidence in support of his pleadings . He has not appeared at the time ofarguments . Claimant has alleged that the opposite party has committed mala - fide act but he has not adduced any evidence in support of his pleadings . Initially the burden lies on the claimant to prove a fact but he has failed to prove the fact . Opposite party has refuted the claim ofthe claimant alleging that there was a gross - misconduct committed by the claimant and a proper and legal inquiry was conducted against him .

9. Opposite party has argued his case.

10. Opposite party has placed reliance upon a decision 2005 LLR 1229 Allahabad High Court , Vinod Kumar Il versus P.O. Labour Court Agra and Others . In this case a driver was terminated for causing loss of Rs . 50,000 . It was held that the burden of proof lies heavily on workman. He did not give any evidence .

11. Therefore , in the present case also a heavy burden lies on the claimant but he has failed to discharge the said burden .

12. Therefore , considering all the facts and circumstances ofthe case , I am of the view that the claimant is not entitled for any relief.

13. Reference is accordingly decided against the claimant and in favour of management .

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 696. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस. ई. सी. एल. के. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 182/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 22012/286/ 1994- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस.. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 9th February, 2011

S.O. 696. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 182/ 1994 ) 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

2167 management of SECL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L-22012/286/ 1994- IR (C - II ) ! D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC /R/182/94

Present:

PresidingOfficer Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan TheSecretary,

Koyla Mazdoor Sabha ( UTUC ), Camp Lusai ,

POKotma,

Workman Distt. Shahdol (M.P. )

Versus

The Sub Area Manager, Bhadra Colliery of SECL ,

Management Distt. Shahdol (MP).

AWARD

Passed on this 28th day of January, 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012 (286)/94- IR-C- II dated 28-9-1994 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, Bhadra Sub Area of J & K Area of SECL in dismissing Shri Suddu , S /o Dayali , loader w.e. f. 26-9-1990 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case of the Union/ workman in short is that the workman Suddu was appointed by the non - applicant as a loader in the year 1976. He fell sick and was under treatment of the colliery doctor. When he was declared fit, he submitted medical certificate for resuming duty but he was not allowed and served with a charge sheet on 17-5- 1990. The enquiry was held without given opportunity of hearing in violation of natural justice . The relevant record was not shown and the finding was perverse which was contraryto law. The punishment awarded for unauthorized absence is too harsh . On these grounds , it is submitted thatdismissal order be declared illegal and the workman be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

3. The management appeared and filed written statement to contest the reference . The case of the management , inter alia , is that admittedly the workman was working as a loader in Bhadra Colliery but he was absenting unauthorisedly without any permission or sanction leave . Accordingly, chargesheet was issued on 12-5-1990 . Не replied but it was found not satisfactory. The Disciplinary Authority initiated a departmental proceeding and 2168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14, 1932

appointed Enquiry Officer and management Representative . The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted enquiry report holding him guilty ofcharges . The Disciplinary authority after considering the evidence found that the principle of natural justice was followed and the charges of habitual absenteeism was proved and awarded punishment of dismissal from the service . It is also stated that in case the departmental enquiry is vitiated , the managementbe given opportunityto prove misconduct inCourt . It is submitted that the action of the management is justified and the reference be answered in favour of the management.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are framed for adjudication :

1. Whether the enquiry is just , proper and legal ?

2. Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence before this Tribunal ?

3. Whether the charges of misconduct are proved onthe facts of the case ?

4. Whether the punishment awarded is proper and legal?

5. Relief and costs .

5. Issue Nos . 1 & 2 :

These issues are taken up as a preliminary issue . The then Tribunal after considering the materials on record passed order on 1-8-2001 and held that the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was just and proper. The management is not required to lead any more evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman . Thus these issues are already decided in favour of the management.

6. Issue No. 3 :

On the basis of discussion made above , it is clear that the then Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no more requirement to the management to prove misconduct. This itself shows that the then Tribunal was in an opinion that the misconduct was proved by the management in the departmental proceeding .

7 Issue Nos . 4 & 5:

Theonlypoint for determination is as to whether the punishment was harsh and the workman is entitled to any relief. I appears from the record that after findings on the preliminary issues, no evidence is adduced and the Union / workmanbecame absent subsequently. The then Tribunal , thereafter proceeded the proceeding ex parte on 9-4-2008 against the workman/Union . The evidence adduced during the departmental proceeding shows that he was habitual absentee without any permission or leave . The evidence adduced during departmental enquiry shows that he was habitual absentee without sufficient cause . This shows

[ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) | that there is nojustification to interfere with the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. I do not find any merit and it is found that the action of the management is justified.Accordingly, these issues are decided against theworkman/ Union and in favour of the management The reference is thus 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 and Employment as per rules .

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 697. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/1991 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. 22012/287/1990- आई आर ( सी- II ) | डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th February , 2011

S.O.697.-- In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 19/199 ; ) 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 SECL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L-22012/287 / 1990 - IR ( C - II ) | D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC / R/ 19 /91

PRESENT:

Presiding Officer Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan TheSecretary, Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh , P.O. Nowrozabad Colliery, Distt. Shahdol --Workman

Versus

The Manager,

Nowrozabad Colliery of SECL, PONowrozabad Colliery. Distt . Shahdol ---Management [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

2169

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of January, 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012(287)/90 - IR ( C - II ) dated 7-2-1994 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Nowrozabad colliery of SECL in terminating services oftheir workman Shri Jagaiya , Trammer, T. No. 1632 is legal andjustified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman isentitled ? י

2. The case of the workman/ Union in short is th the workman Shri Jagaiya was initially appointed as Mazdoor on 15-7-1952 at Birsinghpur colliery. Distt . Shahdol . After nationalization of the coal mines , he became employee of the SECL . He was served with a charge - sheet on 7-7-1988 for committing alleged misconduct . Subsequently departmental enquiry was initiated and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. After enquiry the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal on 19/20-9-1988 . It is stated that unparliamentary language was used by the workman but the words used were not disclosed . The defence was also not considered by the Disciplinary Authority. The punishment awarded to the workman was shockingly disproportionate taking in view the past record ofhis service . Under the circumstances the order of dismissal be set aside and the workman be reinstated with full back wages .

3. The management appeared in the reference and filed Written Statement to contest the case . The case of the management, inter alia , is that admittedly the workman was working as Trammer in Nowrozabad colliery of SECL . It is alleged that on 7-7-1988 at about 7.45 A.M. while Shri Sateshwar Rai, Under Manager was approaching near Token Office No. 8 , Incline , the said workman chased him and hit him with shoes and used unparliamentary language against him . Shri Rai reports the occurrence to the management and therefore , a charge- sheet dated 7-7-1986 wasissued to the workman . He submitted his reply but the management initiated departmental proceeding against him . Shri S. K. Ghosh , Sr. Under Manager was appointed as EnquiryOfficer . The co - worker ofthe workman participated in the proceeding alongwith delinquent workman . The E.O. after concluding the enquiry submitted the enquiry report holding him guilty of the charges . The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings agreed and passed the order of dismissal from service . The management alternatively has prayed that if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is not proper then the management be given opportunity to prove misconduct in the Court . On the above grounds , the action of the management is justified and the workman is not entitled to anyrelief.

655 G11-26

4. On the basis of the pleadings ofboth the parties . the issues are settled as follows:

1. Whether the enquiry is just , proper and legal ?

II. Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence before the Tribunal ?

III . Whether the charges of misconduct are proved on the facts of the case ?

IV Whether the punishment awarded is proper and legal?

V Relief and costs .

5. Issue Nos. 1 & 11 :

These issues are taken up as preliminary issues and the then Tribunal after hearing and perusing the evidence heid that the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is not legal and proper and the management is entitled to prove the misconduct of the workman vide order dated 1-7-2006 . Thus these issues are already answered earlier.

6. Issue No. III :

Now the very important for consideration is as to whether the management is able to prove the charges of misconduct in Court . To establish the charges the management has examined two witnesses . The management witness Shri Sateshwar Rai is the main complainant of the alleged occurence . He has supported the alleged occurrence in his evidence . He was Under Manager at the relevant time . He has stated that at about 7.15 A.M. on 7-7-1988 the workman Shri Jagaiya came at his place and told for light work . On his telling , he told him to give in writing to the Manager but he refused and came behind him . When he reached near lamp room , he again told him to go to tell the Manager. Then he threatened him and abused him and assaulted with shoes on the shoulder. He tried to save himself with hand as a result he sustained injury on the thumb and blood was oozing out . He has been cross- examined at lergiin but there is nothing to disbelieve his evidence . He has filed report regarding the occurrence . He has proved the original complaint filed before the authority which is Paper No. 2. The original complaint also corroborates the evidence of Shri Siteshwar Rai . He appears to be not inimical to the workman nor he had any grudge forfalsely implicating him being an officer of the Mines , it appears to be not probable that he would falsely say that he was assaulted by shoes . He appears to be trustworthy. Another management witness Shri Arun Nigam was Electrician at the relevant time . On that day, he was also on duty. His presence at the place of occurrence was obvious . Ile is also named in the complain petition by the complainant (paper No. 2 ) as a witness . He has also corroborated the evidence of the complainant Shri Sateshwar Rai . He has supported the fact that the workman assaulted Shri Siteshwar with shoes on left shoulder. He has also supported that the workman was abusing him in 2170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

the names ofmother and sister . There is minor contradiction which is bound to occur otherwise it is said to be a tutored witness. It also occurs by lapse of time but it is not detrimental to the case . He is also not inimical to the workman . He has also been cross-examined at length but there is nothing to disbelieve his evidence . The factum of assault and abuse is proved. Thus the evidence of both the witnesses establishes that the workman assaulted and abused Shri Siteshwar Rai as he had not given him light work. This shows that the workman was guilty of serious misconduct .

7. On the other hand , the workman has not adduced any evidence . Workman is examined at the time of preliminary issues regarding the legality of departmental enquiry. Thus there is only evidence of the management on the point of misconduct committed by the workman . Considering the evidence discussed above , it is clear that the management has succeeded in proving misconduct against the workman. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour ofthe managementand against the workman .

8. IssueNos . IV & V:

Considering the evidence as has been discussed above, it is established that a worker assaulted with shoes tohisofficer for not giving him light work . This appears to be a serious misconduct . The learned counsel for the workman has argued that for similar charges criminal case wasalso lodged but there is nothing on the record to show thatthere was any criminal case and the same was disposed of on merit and he had been acquitted honourably. The learned counsel for the workman has cited decision reported in (2006) 5 S.C.C. 446 G. M. Tank vrs . State of Gujarat and Others and AIR 1996 S.C. 486 B. C. Chaturvedi versus Union ofIndia an others . These decisions are not applicable in the case. I find that the charges of misconduct was of serious nature against the workman and therefore , I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of punishment passed by the management . Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the management and against the workman. The reference is , thus , answered.

costs. 9. In the result, the award is passed without any 10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour and Employment as per rules .

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 698. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

[PART II -SFC. 3 ( ii ) | अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 120/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल.- 22012/86/1994- आई आर( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th February, 2011

S.O. 698 .--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 120 1994) ofthe 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 SECL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L-22012/ 86/1994 - IR (C- 11 ) | D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 120/94

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN The Vice President,

National Colliery Workers Federation ,

PÖ Rajnagar Colliery,

Workman/ Union Distt. Shahdol (MP)

Versus

SubArea Manager ,

Ramnagar R.O. of SECL , PO Jhimar Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

-Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27th day of January, 2011 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012/86/94- IR ( C- II ) dated 2-8-104 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal:

"Whether the demand of the Vice President, National Colliery Workers Federation , Hasico Area that the SubArea Manager , Ramnagar R.O. , of Hasdeo Are of SECL should take 26 workers ( list enclosedi engaged in the work ofwater carriers should be taken the roll of the management is legal and justified? When is whe relief the workers are entitleu to ?" 2 The case of the Union/workmen in short is that 20 workers ( list enclosed in the reference ) are performing the perennial and permanent nature ofjob of supplying water to the staffs and officers living in Block No. 1 of the Ramnagar Colliery and surface building of the management since 1-7-1982 . The Wage Board Award, 1967 and the National Coal Wage Agreements ( in short NCWA ) coming [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

2171 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14, 1932

into force w.e.f. 1975 covered to the workmen employed for carrying water as Category No. 1 , unskilled employees.

purpose of supply of drinking water in the Ramnagar Block- I. This work is not at all of a permanent and perennial nature ofjob rather it is purely temporary and casual in nature. They do not do work every day and are not required to work eight hours . It is stated that the payment to the workers employed by the contractors are paid from colliery counter under the supervision of the authorized representative of the management to ensure proper payment. The contractors were getting instruction from the management to carry the drinking water in particular quarter/residence at Ramnagar Block - I . Shri Mangal Singh and Siya Saran are contractors . The work is awarded to the contractors and as soon as the work is completed , the contract of the contractors is automatically terminated. The contractors are drawing the payment and disbursing the same amongst the contractor workers . If the contractors also work then it is their own business and the management has nothing todo. The work was awarded to the contractors after proper tender and after observing other formalities . The contractors workers have no right for regularization on the company's roll as they are engaged on temporary and casual nature ofjob . It is stated that the issue has also already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P in M.P No. 1674/88 . On these grounds , it is submitted that these contractors' workers claimbe rejected.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties , the following issues are framed for adjudication:

1. Whether there is relationship of employer and employees between the management and water carrier workers ?

II . Whether the demand of the union for taking the water carrier workers on the roll of the management isjustified and legal ?

III . To what relief the workers are entitled ?

5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties it appears that the following facts are admitted.

I. The water carrier workers as in the list ofreference are supplying water to the staffs and officers living in Block- 1 of the Ramnagar Colliery of Hasdeo Area.

They are working under the direct control ofthe Ramnagar Colliery and the relationship of master and servant exists between the management and the workmen. These workmen are not brought into the roll of the management though earlier the water carrier workers were brought on the roll of the management and are getting salary of Cat -I mazdoor. The payment to all such workers was/ is drawn in the name of the persons who were leaders of the gang and such persons were also performing the same work alongwith other water carrier workers . In the instant case , the management was drawing payment in the name of Shri Mangal Singh and Shri Siya Saran as per directions of the Area Headquarter of Hasdeo Area . They are also doing the same work alongwith other workers . The workmen are entitled to be given the salary of Category I ( unskilled ) Mazdoor from the date of their initial appointments . Shri Mangal Singh and Shri Siya Saran were never engaged as contractors . They had no registration as contractors by the competent authority as has been provided under the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970 ( in shart) C.L. ( R & A) Act , 1970. It was only a device to avoid the regularization of such workers . It is stated that the management has never issued any tender notice nor even has ever published in any Newspaper for engaging contractor labours for supply of water. The payment shown in the names of contractors is nothing but an artificial system created by the management to avoid the claim of regularization by the workers . These workers through Union filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court as M.P. No. 1530/92 wherein the Hon'ble Court passed order dated 29-6-92 directing the Union to resort remedy as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short I.D. Act , 1947 ) . It is alleged that this is an unfair labour practice of the management to avoid to pay the regular wages though the workers are under the direct control and supervision of the management . They are getting @ Rs . 52 paise per "Kawar" wages which is less than the minimum wages . It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the workmen/Union by giving direction to the management to take the workmen on the roll of the management and to pay the wages of Category I Mazdoor under NCWA along with arrears .

II . The workers are supplying water on piece rated as per Kanwar.

III . They receive payment from the colliery counter under the supervision of the authorized representative of the management.

IV. Shri Mangal Singh and Siya Saran , who are alleged to be contractors , are also doing the same job of water carrier as other water carrier workers are doing.

V There is no water supply system to the staffs and officers in Block No. I of Ramnagar Colliery.

3. The management appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement . The case of the management , interalia , is that the reference is not maintainable . The contractors were engaged for the supply of water to the residential colony of the staffs and Executives of Ramnagar Block No. I as the pipeline work for water supply was pending . The management has not engaged any water carrier worker. There is no relationship of employer and employees between the management and individual worker. These workmen are not covered under the provisions of the CL ( R & A) Act, 1970. These contractor workers were employed by different contractors for the 2172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

6. Issue No. I

The very important point for determination is as to whether there is relationship of the employer and employees between the management and the water carrier workers. The only case of the water carrier workers is that they are in the direct control and supervision of the management and he is their employer whereas the management states that these workers are the workers of the contractors and the management has no concern . There is no other case that the management had engaged them as on casual and temporary basis rather the work of supply of water is of temporary nature of job . To establish the relationship the Union / workmen has adduced oral and documentary evidence . The Union has filed evidence of28 witnesses by way of affidavits but only four witnesses namely Shri Parkash Singh , Senior clerk , Lagandhari , Siyaram , the alleged contractor and Mangal Singh, the alleged contractor have appeared and have been cross- examined . Thereafter the evidence of the Union was closed on his prayer .

7. Now the evidence of these four witnesses are to be examined to determine the point for consideration. Shri Parkash Singh is a Senior Clerk . He is residing in Block I , at Ramnagar residential colony of the company since 1976. He has supported the case of the Union/workmen that the water was being supplied by the company. The water carrier workers used to supply water in houses which was fixed by the company. They supply water at the rate of per Kawar. The residents signed that how many Kawar they had supplied in a month . There is no contractor of water carrier workers . They worked from 3 A.M. to 12 A.M. He has further stated that he is a member of the Union . He was supplied 15 Kawars every day and the management fixed the quantity of water according to the category and status of the Staffs and officer. His evidence shows that there is no contractor and the supervision and control on the water workers was of the management who supplied water on piece rated basis .

8. Another witness Lagandhari was a water carrier worker. He has come to support the fact that he was regularized by the company on 3-7-1982 alongwith 14 others as Mazdoor Category - 1 . There is no denial by the management that he was not water carrier worker and had not been regularized. He has stated that Shri Mangal Singh and Union had told him that he had prepared the affidavit but he cannot say what is written in it as he is illiterate . It does not mean that he had not dictated the contents of the affidavit, because he has stated then he had prepared the affidavit . His evidence shows that water carrier workers were earlier regularized in Category 1 and the work was being done by the department from water carrier workers and was not being done by any contractor .

9. Another Union witness Shri Siya Saran is water carrier worker . The management alleges that he is a contractor . He has stated that 40 persons are engaged by

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | the management for supply of water to the houses of the staffs in Ramnagar Block - I colliery. He is working this work since 1982 and earlier 16 persons were regularized and they had been engaged in their place . He has further stated that from 1987 they are getting payment from the counter of the company. He has stated that Civil Engineer and Overseer of the company supervise the work . They work from 3 A.M. to 12 A.M. of supply of water. He has denied that he had given quotation for supply of water . He has stated that Engineer and Overseer maintained accounts of water supply and he did not keep any account . He has denied that he engaged other water carrier workers and he received payments . He has stated that he got payment on the basis of per " Kawar " . His evidence clearly shows that there was control of the management . There was no contractor and the liability ofpayment to individual workers and to organize work were of the management.

10. The another Union witness Shri Mangal Singh has also supported the case of the Union / workmen . He is also alleged to be a contractor of the management for supply of water. He has denied this fact in his evidence . He has stated that he is not a contractor , nor he has submitted any tender . He has stated that Supervisor and Engineer supervised the work and gave direction . He has denied that he had engaged other water carrier workers . The attention is drawn to his previous statement adduced before Deputy CLC , Mumbai in a case to contradict his evidence where he has stated that he and Siya Saran look after the supply of work and he and Siya Saran had quoted the less rate. I do not feel it a vital contradiction specially because he had denied that he is a contractor and had engaged -10 water carrier workers . The work is admittedly piece rated and therefore the rate agreed before engaging workers shows that there was agreement of payment of wages on piece rated.

11. The Union / workmen has also filed documents 10 prove the case that Shri Siya Saran and Shri Mangal Singh were not contractors rather there was relationship of employer and employee between the management and water carrier workers . Annexure R/4 is photocopy of the direction issuedby Dy . CME / Sub area Manager, Ramgarh whereby it is clear that as per the directions of Area Headquarter , Hasdeo Area payment to water carrier workers of Ramnagar Block - I will be made as one of the water carrier as contractor Moreover further it is directed that the payment to the water carriers at Ramnagar Block No. I will be made from the colliery counter in presence of Dy . P.M , Ramnagar Sub Area on 1-1-1988 . This direction appears to have been given after they had already worked . This letter of the management itself shows that there was no contractor rather it further shows that the alleged contractor was sham and bogus and it was only an internal arrangement made by the management .

12. The Union / workmen has filed work orders which isAnnexure R - 11 series from Paper Nos . 150 to 167. The [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

copiesof the work orders are said to be obtained from the office of the management to show that these are sham and bogus . These work orders are admitted by the management witness Shri P.A.N. Murty in his evidence at para - 17. These work orders are ante dated when the works ended then the work orders are issued and prepared . Annexure R - 11 ( paper No. 150) shows that the work order was issued on 14-5-92 for the work of supply of water to staffs from 1-4-92 to 30-4-92 . This itself shows that the work order was issued after the work done and as such it is antedated . It is evident that the work orders are simply paper works and the contract was sham and bogus and practically there was no contract . Similarly all work orders till reference and thereafter appears to be issued in the same manner .

13. The Union has also filed the alleged final bills which are said to have been obtained from the management to show sham and bogus contract . Annexure R - 10 series are the alleged final bills . These bills also show that it were bills of antedated work orders of the period of 1994 onwards .

The learned counsel for the management Shri A. K. Shashi argued that these bills show the signature of Mangal Singh and therefore it is clear that it was submitted by the contractor Mangal Singh . I donot agree with this view of thelearned counsel Shri Shashi because these bills are for antedated work orders . Moreover the management appears tobe in a position to dominate the will of the water carriers in view of the employment . It looks more probable and obvious that to remain in employment , Shri Mangal Singh and Shri Siya Saran signed over the antedated documents which had been prepared by the management antedated after the work was completed . This fact and circumstances of the case establish that the alleged contract was sham and bogus and practically there was no contract and the water carrier workmen were in the direct employment of the management .

14. The Union has also filed photocopies of payment sheets from the year 1989 onwards which are Annexure R- 5 series ( Paper Nos . 26 to 117) . These payment sheets show that the payment of wages are made to the water carrier -workmen from the counter of the colliery individually by the management . The payment sheets show that Mangal Singh and Siya Saran received wages as water carrier workers only along with other workers in the same payment sheet . This shows that Mangal Singh or Siya Saran had not received payment of all the workers separately as contractors for payment to the workers . It further shows that one of the worker used to sign on the payment sheets as a witness as payment of wages to the water carrier workers . Mangal Singh , Birbahadur , Siya Saran , Jit Partap etc. signed on the payment sheets in different months as a witness of payment to the workers . The payment sheets also corroborate the case of the Union/ workmen that the workmen are in direct employment of the management. The bill further shows that the water carrier workers worked continuously and the payment was made monthly on piece rated basis .

2173

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

15. On the other hand , the management has also adduced oral and documentary evidence . The management has examined three witnesses in the case . The management witness Shri R. C. Yadav is presently Personnel Manager atJanuna and Kotma Area of SECL . At the relevant time according to him , he was Welfare Officer ( trainee ) at Ramnagar Sub Area of SECL . He has come to support the case of the management that Mangal Singh and Siya Saran were contractors for supply of water to the staffs and officers quarters at Block No. I Colony of Ramnagar . He has referred the documents which are to be discussed later . Most of the same documents are also filed by the Union/ workmen and have already been discussed earlier . In cross- examination he has stated that in the year 1982 , he was not posted at Ramnagar colliery. He cannot say that the workmen were working in the year 1986-87 and Mangal Singh and Siya Saran etc. did strike in year 92-93 to take them on the roll of the management . This shows that he is not competent to say that Mangal Singh and Siya Saran were contractor because at that time he was not posted at Ramnagar colliery.

16. Another management witness Shri P.A.Ν. Murthy is presently Finance Manager at Ramnagar Sub Area , SECL , Hasdeo Area . He has stated that drinking water facility is provided to the staffs and officers . The Individuat supplied water to the staffs and officers and for this supply the amount were being paid according to the quantum of water supplied by the contractors . In cross -examination , he has admitted the fact that the tender was invited after the work done . This itself shows that the documents filed by the management is antedated and these are created for the reason best known to the management. Thus his evidence shows that no rate of supply of water was fixed at the time when the water was being supplied to the staffs and officers and there was no contractor at that time because the tender was invited after the work . This fact substantiate the case of the Union/ workmen that they had been employed by the management directly and there was relationship of employer and employee . He has admitted the payment sheets filed by the Union / workmen which are Annexure R/ S series . He has also admitted the work orders filed by the Union / workmen which are Annexure R - 11 series . Hehas also admitted the direction dated 30-12-87 whereby it is stated that the payment be made to the water carrier workers through one contractor . The relevancy of all these documents have been discussed earlier. These documents clearly show that the alleged contract through contractors was sham and bogus and the water carrier workers are in the direct employment of the management .

17. The last management witness Shri Bipin Kumar ispresently Superintending Engineer ( C) . He was Executive Engineer ( Civil ) at Ramnagar at the relevant time . He has also come to support the case of the management by saying the facts that Mangal Singh and Siya Saran were awarded contract for supply of drinking water who used to supply 2174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

water by engaging persons but the documents filed by the Union/workmen and the management have disclosed that the documents are antedated whereby the contract was alleged to have been awarded for supply of drinking water. The management witness Shri P.A.N. Murty has also stated that tender was invited when the work of supply ofdrinking water was completed . This itself shows that alleged contract was awarded to the contractors when the work was completed. Moreover Mangal Singh and Siya Saran had denied themselves that they were contractors rather they claim themselves as water carrier workers alongwith 24 others . In cross - examination , the management witness has stated that the office gave instruction to the workers as to how much quantity of water was to be given to which of the officer and the staffs and to whom water was supplied, they certified the quantity of water supplied to them for payment. This fact further shows that the work wascontrolled by the management . Thus it is evident that the alleged contract was sham and bogus and the water carrier workers were in direct employment of the management.

18. The management has also filed photocopies of documents in support of his case but these documents clearly show that it is only a paper work and there was no contractor for supply of drinking water The management has filed photocopies of three tender committee recommendations which are marked as Annexures M/25 , M/40 and M/47 . Let us examine these tender committee recommendations . Annexure M/25 shows that the Committee recommended on 6-1-1994 i.e. in January 1994 for supply of water for the month of December 1993. This itself shows that without deciding the contractors , Shri Siya Saran and Mangal Singh supplied the water in the month of December 1993 without any basis for which payment was made . Moreover tender was invited on 3-1-94 and committee recommended on 6-1-94 but water was supplied earlier. These facts clearly show that it was a paper work and there was no contractor and the water carrier workers were in the direct employment of the management . Another two Tender Committee recommendations are Annexure M/40 and M /47. These recommendations also show that it is a paper work of the management and are created for the purpose of the reference case, The notice of tender for supply of drinking water to the staffs and officers quarter for the month of December 1998 was invited vide No. 208 dated 10-1-99 and No. 265 dated 10-1-99 and the tender was opened on 13-1-99 by the committee and thereafter the name of Mangal Singh and Siya Saran were recommended whereas the water was already supplied in the month of December 1998 itself by the water carrier workers . Thus these recommendations are nothing but paper works .

19. The management has also filed photocopies of work orders , bills , pay order and payment sheets which are Annexure M/ 1 to M/37 except M/25 which is Tender

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Committee Recommendation . Some of these work orders , bills and payment sheets were also filed by the Union. The relevancy of those documents have already been discussed earlier. It is true that the above documents also bear the signature of Shri Mangal Singh and Siya Saran . It can be safely concluded that these signatures were obtained by the management on antedated documents because the management was dominating on the will of Shri Mangal Singh and Siya Saran who had signed on the threat oftheir employment . However, the documents clearly show that there is no contract and the workmen are in direct employment of the management .

20. Shri A. K. Shashi , learned counsel for the management urged that a case under Rule 25 ( 2 )(V) ( a ) ofCl . (Rand A) Rule 1971 was filed by the Vice President of the Union before the Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ), New Delhi which was transferred and was taken up by the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner and was decided by hiin vide order dated 11-2-2000 wherein it is held that Shri Mangal Singh is a contractor and in the present reference case , the issue is same which appears to have been decided by the Authority under CL ( R and A) Act .

21. It is true that a case was filed by the Union for similar wages for similar work and the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Mumbai passed an order on 11-2-2000 wherein he had held that:

"Then I can safely conclude that the whole contract is sham arrangement and workers are to be treated as directly employed by the Respondent Management . But I am not the Authority to decide accordingly. Hence I proceed further assuming that the workers involved in this issue are contract workmen . " Thisitselfshows that the learned Dy: CLC(C) , Mumbai had also concluded that the water carrier workers are in direct employment of the management and on assumption he had decided the wages . However he had rightly concluded that he had no authority to decide that the contract is sham arrangement . Thus 1 find that the reference is maintainable and the Tribunal has right to decide the reference .

22. Shri Shashi , learned counsel for the management further argued that two similar references were filed by the Unions which were numbered No. CGIT /LC /R/30/ 1986 and CGIT/ IC/ R/ 178 / 89 . In these references , the awards were passed on 4-12-91 and 22-11-99 respectively. In these awards , the water carrier workman had claimed for regularization and for payment of wages in Category 1. In these references , the then Tribunal held that the workman cannot be said to be the employee of the management as relevant documents were not filed to prove the case and the references were decided in favour of the management .

23. The learned counsel for the Union submits that both the references were of different collieries . CGIT/ C R/30/86 was of Mohan colliery of WCL, Junnardeo , Distt .

[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

Chhindwara and CGIT/LC/R/ 178/89 was of Eklehra Colliery ofWCL , Pench Area, Chhindwara whereas the instant reference is of Ramnagar Colliery, Hasdeo Area. Moreover in those references on the basis of facts and evidence of the case, it was held that there was no relationship of employer and employees between the management and the water carrier workmen . Whereas in this reference, the facts and evidence are different and it clearly show that there is direct relationship of employer and employees on the basis of evidence adduced in the case .

24. Considering the discussion made above, I also find that there is sufficient evidence to establish that there is relationship of employer and employees between the management and water carrier workmen and there was no contract worth the name with Shri Mangal Singh and Siya Saran and with the management rather the management had created antedated documents to frustrate the claim of the workinan.

25. Shri Shashi , Learned Counsel for the management argued that the claimants were not sponsored by the employment exchange nor employed by the management of SECL and as such they cannot seek to cut down the constitutional right of other persons employment . Right of persons temporarily engaged by way of stop gap arrangements cannot be read so as to defeat the constitutional right of equal opportunity. He referred decisions reported in:

1. 1998 (2) LLJ 627 Municipal Corporation , Bilaspur versus Veer Singh Rajput .

2. 1998 (2) LLJ 15 , Himanshu Kumar Vidharthi and 2 Ors , versus State of Bihar and Ors .

3. 2007 ( 1 ) LLJ 236 State of Rajasthan versus Sarjeet Singh and Another.

4. 2007 ( 1 ) LLJ 1042 Accounts Officer (A and I ) APSRTC and Ors . versus K. V. Ramana and 2 Ors .

5. 2007 ( 1 ) LLJ 262 Ajay Kumar Sharma versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court Nos . 1 , 2 and Other.

6. 2005 S.C.C. 209 , Binod Kr. Gupta and Ors . versus ain Ashru Mahto and Ors .

26. The Learned Counsel for the Union/workmen submited that above decisions are not applicable in the instant case. It is submitted that the management case is that the workmen are not in his employment and they are employees of the contractors . There is no case of the management that these workmen are employed for a fixed period or as daily wagers or temporary or adhoc employees of the management de hors the rules and constitutional scheme . The Learned Counsel has relied a decision reported in 2010 ( 125 ) FLR 629 Anoop Sharma versus Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :

"The judgment of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi

2175

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011/फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

(supra) and other decisions in which this Court considered the right of casual, daily wage, temporary and adhoc employees to be regularized/ continued in service or paid salary in the regular time scale , appears to have unduly influenced the High Court's approach in dealing with the appellant's challenge to the award of the Labour Court . In our view, none of those judgments has any bearing on the interpretation of Section 25 - F of the Act, and employer's obligation to comply with the conditions enumerated in that Section.

At the cost of repetition , we consider it necessary to mention that it was not the pleaded case of the respondent before the Labour Court and even before the High Court that the appellant was engaged/ employed without following the statutory rules or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that was the basis for discontinuing his engagement . Therefore, the High Court was notjustified in relying upon the alleged illegality of the engagement / employment of the appellant for upsetting the award of reinstatement . "

27. The pleading of the management is only that the supply of drinking water to the staff and officers of the Ramnagar Colliery colony is through contractors . There is no other case that the water carrier workers are employed either temporarily or for a fixed period or on casual basis then the management cannot travel beyond his pleading . Ashas been discussed that the management has failedto prove that Shri Mangal Singh and Siya Saran are contractors for supply of drinking water to the staff and officers rather it has been established that they are also water carrier workers along with others and then the story of the union/ workmen is to be accepted that they are in direct employment of the management specially because admittedly they are supplying water to the staff and officers since 1982 as has been claimed and are continuing even after reference .

28. Shri A. K. Shashi , Learned Counsel for the management cited a decision reported in 2010 (2) L.L.N. 184 Employees in Relation to management of " D" Ropeways of Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. , Bhulan Bararee Camp, Dhanbad, versus workmen , Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union , Dhanbad wherein the Hon'ble Jharkahand High Court held that :

" Thus I hold that neither there was relationship of emplover and employee between the management and the concerned workmen nor the dispute raised was an industrial dispute . Even the nature of job performed by the concerned workmer was not of permanent nature , and therefore, the Tribunal committed error in directing regularization of the services of the concerned workmen . "

Itissubmitted that these workmen are also water carrier workmen and the water system is pending and 2176

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14, 1932

therefore the work of water supply is not of permanent nature and they are not entitled to be brought on the roll of the management .

piece rated basis . These payment sheets appear to have been admitted by the management because some of the payment sheets are also filed by the management . These sheets show that they are working as water carrier from a long period and deserves to be brought on the roll of the management . Moreover the earned Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central ) Mumbai in his order dated 11-2- 2000 justified the fixation of wages of Category - I under NCWA.

29. The Learned Counsel for the Union submitted that the said decision is not applicable because firstly in the Instant case there is relationship of employer and employees and in the case subsequently the colony was closed and there was no work of supply of water. Moreover similarly situated water carrier workers were regularized and were brought on the roll of the management .

34. The Learned Counsel for the Union has cited a decision reported in 2010 ( II ) LLJ 277 (S.C ) Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :

30. I also agree with the view ofthe Learned Counsel for the Union because in this case , it is established that the workmen are in direct employment of the management and there is relationship of employer and employee and the said colony is still in existence. Thus considering the entire evidence on record , I find that there is relationship of employer and employee between the management and water carrier workmen . Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the Union/workmen and against the management.

31. Issue Nos , II and III

According to the Union/ workmen , they are working as water carrier workmen since 1982 in the direct control of themanagement continuously and earlier similarly situated workmen are brought on the roll of the management and are getting salary of Category No , I Mazdoor . NCWA also coveredworkman employed for carrying water in category No. 1 unskilled Mazdoor whereas the management has denied that such workers are not regularized in Cat - 1 Mazdoor.

32. The Union has examined Shri Lagandhari . He worked from 1977 to 1982 as water carrier worker at Ramnagar Block No. 1 and supplied water with Kawar . He has stated that on 3-7-82, he alongwith 14 others were regularized as Mazdoor Category No. 1. Now he is working as Category IV. There is no denial by the management that he was not water carrier worker and was not regularized . This fact establishes that earlier the water carriers were regularized and brought on the roll of the management.

"Of late , there has been a visible shift in the Courts approach in dealing with the cases involving the interpretation of social welfare legislations . The attractive mantras of globalization and liberalization are fast becoming the raison d'etre of the judicial process and an impression has been created that the constitutional courts are no longer sympathetic towards the plight of industrial and unorganized workers . in large number of cases like the present one, relief has been denied to the employees falling in the category of workmen , who are illegally retrenched from service by creating by lanes and side lanes in the jurisprudence developed by this court in three decades . The stock plea raised by the public employer in such cases is that the initial employment/engagement of the workman - employee was contrary to some or the other statute or thai reinstatement of the workman will put unbearable burden on the financial health of the establishment . The Courts have readily accepted such piea unmindful of the accountability of the wrong door and indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the employment for years together and that micro wages earned by him may be the only source of his livelihood . It need no emphasis that if a man is deprived of his livelihood , he is deprived of all his fundamental and constitutional rights and for him the goal of social and economic justice , equality of status and of opportunity, the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution remain illusory. Therefore , the approach of the Courts must be compatible with the constitutional philosophy of which the Directive Principles of State Policy constitute an integral part andjustice due to the workman should not be denied by entertaining the specious and untenable grounds put forward by the employer - public or pricate ." 33. The Union has filed documents to show that those water carrier workers are getting pay as Cat- I Mazdoor who had been regularized earlier. The Union has filed last pay certificates of those workers which are Annexure R/3 (Paper No. 18 to Paper No. 24 ) . The last pay slips show that Shri Hiralal and others are water cartier workers and they have been transferred to Jhimar Colliery from Ramnagar. They are getting pay of Category No. 1. These pay slips further show that they are on the roll of the management . The Union has filed payment sheets which are annexure R/ S series . These payment sheets show that the present workmen are working continuously under the direct employment ofthe management and even they are working on holidays and are continuing even after reference on

It is submitted that similarly situated water carrier workers were brought on the roll of management as Mazdoor Category I and these workmen who have worked for a long time should be taken on the roll of the management specially in view of their continuous service.

[भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

35. Considering the evidence on record , it is clear that these water carrier workers are in the direct employment ofthe management of SECL for a pretty long time. Moreover, there was no contractor and thus the workmen are entitled to be taken on the roll of the management as previously the water carrier workers were brought on the roll of the management as Cat - I Mazdoor. The management is , therefore , directed to take them on the roll as Category - I Mazdoor with all monetary benefits . Accordingly, both the issues are decided in favour of the Union/Workmen and against the management . The reference is answered accordingly.

costs . 36. In the result , the award is passed without any 37. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employment as per rules .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 699.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर पूर्व रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल.-41012/07/2008- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th February, 2011

S.O. 699. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2008 ) ofthe 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 North East Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2011 .

[No. L-41012/07 /2008 - IR(B- I ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

Dr. Manju Nigam , Presiding Officer.

I.D. No. 31/2008

Ref. No. L-41012/07/2008 - IR (B- 1 ) dated 13-5-2008

BETWEEN

655 G / 11-27

2177 Mandal Mantri

Purvottar Railway Shramik Sangh , C/o Shri P. K. Tiwari , 96/196, Purana Ganeshganj , Lucknow (Espousing case of Shri Rangi Lal )

AND

1. Senior Section Engineer (Rail -Path ) Purvottar Railway, Sitapur (U.P. )

2. Section Engineer (Rail- Path) Purvottar Railway, Lakhimpur

3. Avar Mandal Abhiyanta , Purvottar Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow

AWARD

1. By Order No. L -41012/ 07 /2008 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 13-5-2008 and its subsequent corrigendum dated 4-6-2008, 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 industrial dispute between Mandal Mantri , Purvottar Railway, Shramik Sangh C/o Shri P. K. Tiwari , 96/196 , Purana Ganeshganj , Lucknow ( Espousing case of Shri Rangi Lal ) and Senior Section Engineer (Rail - Path ) , Purvottar Railway, Sitapur ( U.P. ) and Section Engineer ( Rail- Path) Purvottar Railway Lakhimpur and Avar Mandal Abhiyanta , Purvottar Railway, DRM Office , Ashok Marg . Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the management of Purvottar Railway in deducting wages from the pay of Sri Rangi Lal Sio Late Sri Satya Narayana , Senior Trakman on account of not present on duty from 13-10-2004 to 21-11-2004 is legal and justified ? If not, what retiel he is entitled to ? "

3. The order of reference was endorsed to the opposite parties and to this Tribunal and accordingly on receipt of the same the case was registered but notice to the worker could not be issued due to reason that the address of the workman was not mentioned in the reference order dated 13-5-2008 , as such , the Ministry was requested to make necessary corrections in the said reference order. The Ministry vide their corrigendum dated 4-6-2008 incorporated the address of the representative union and endorsed the copy of the same to the workman's union .

4. As per provision contained in the Ruie 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) , Rules , 1957, the party 2178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 / PHALGUNA 14. 1932

raising the dispute was required to file the statement of claim alongwith relevant documents , list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved, in this dispute but the workman's union failed to comply with the said requirement ; and accordingly on receipt of the corrigendum order dated 4-6-2008 , the notice was issued to the workman's union for filing their statement of claim alongwith relevant documents , list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal on 25-7-2008 , but none turned up from workman's side . None appeared from workman on the successive dates i.e , on 12-9-2008 and 6-10-2008 . On the next date fixed i.e. 14-11-2008 on Shri P. K. Tiwari in capacity ofauthorized representative of the workman's union , filed adjournment and sought time to file the statement of claim , and accordingly , 19-12-2008 was fixed for filing statement of claim . Again none appeared on behalf of the workman on 19-12-2008 , 16-1-2009 and 6-3-2009 . On 17-4-2009 , Shri P. K Tiwari again appeared and moved adjournment , seeking time to file statement of claim and he was granted last opportunity for filing the statement of claim on 22-5-2009 . On 22-5-2009, the A/R of the workman's union again moved an application seeking adjournment which was allowed at the dost of Rs . 100/- and next date 24-7-2009 was fixed for statement of claim . On 24-7-2009 , Shri Tiwari again requested for time to file the statement of claim and he was granted time for filing statement of claim at the cost of Rs. 100 and next date 18-9-2009 was fixed.

5. The opposite party was also issued registered notices vide order dated 24-7-2009 to appear on 18-9-2009; but none turned up on 18-9-2009 and on successive date i.e. on 23-10-2009 . However , on 11-12-2009 Shri Rahul Nigam filed its authority for the opposite party. None appeared on 5-2-2010 , 18-3-2010 ; whereas both the parties appeared on 26-5-2010 and next date was fixed for 25-6-2010 for filing of statement of claim. No statement of claim was filed even on 25-6-2010 , 1-8-2010 , 23-9-2010 , 16-11-2010, 24-12-2010 and 28-1-2011 ; accordingly, the case was reserved for award .

6. From perusal of the records it is very much evident that after registration of the case on 23-5-2008 , the authorized representative of the workman put up his appearance on 14-11-2008 ; and since then he has been seeking adjournments for filing statement of claim at one pretext or the other ; but filed to file any statement of claim , even after lapse of considerable time of more than two years Thus , failure of the workman's union in filing of the statement of claim indicates that the workman's union is not willing to contest its case any more .

7. In the above circumstances , it appears that the workman's union does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of which it has raised present industrial dispute ; therefore , the present reference order is decided as if there ne grievance left with the workman . Resultantly no relief

[PART II-- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | is required to be given to the workman concerned . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

8. Award as above

[Lucknow, 28-1-2011

Dr. MANJU NIGAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 700.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा । मार्च , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है । के उपबंध गुजरात राज्य के चांगोदर गांव , जिला अहमदाबाद की संपूर्ण राजस्व, नगरपालिका एवं ग्राम पंचायत सीमाओं में प्रवृत्त होंगे ।

[सं. एस -38013/23/ 2011 - एस.एस. । एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th February, 2011

S.O. 700. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March , 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter V and VI ( except sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ) of the said Act shall come into force in the entire Revenue , Municipal and Gram Panchayat limits of the village Changodar , District Ahmedabad in the State of Gujarat.

[ No. S- 38013 /23 / 2011 - S.S . I | S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ . 701.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दिल्ली डेवलपमेन्ट ऑथोरिटी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल . 42011 / 77/2009- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) । डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास , डेस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S.O. 701.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 29/2010 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Delhi Development Authority and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-2-2011 .

[No. L-42011 /77/2009 - IR(DU) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I.D. No. 29/2010

Smt . Sapna w/ o Late Shri Subhash Through Municipal Employees Union, Agarwal Bhawan , G. T. Road, Tis Hazari , Delhi-110054

Workman

Versus

The Director, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan , INA Market , NewDelhi

2179

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

failure report to the appropriate Government . On consideration of the failure report , so submitted , the appropriate Government declined to refer the dispute for adjudication , vide order dated 25-3-2010. The Union made a representation and on reconsideration of its decision dated 25-3-2010, the appropriate Government decided to refer the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . Consequently, vide order No. L- 42011 /77/2009 - IR (DU), New Delhi dated 17th of May, 2010 , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with following terms of reference :

"Whether the demand of the Municipal Employees Union for grant of compassionate appointment to Smt . Sapna, legal representative of late Shri Subhash by the management of Delhi Development Authority islegal andjustified ? If yes , what relief the claimant is entitled to ? "

.. Management

AWARD

On 6-1-1983 one Shri Subhash was appointed on work charge basis by the Executive Engineer, Development Division IX, Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) . On his involvement in a murder case . he was arrested and as such could not attend his duries w.e.f. 3-4-1983 . His unauthorized absence led the Authority to dispense with his services . He raised an industrial dispute , which was referred to a Labour Court, constituted by Government of N.C.T. , Delhi . The Labour Court passed an award on 4-10-89 , directing the Authority to reinstatement his services . The Authority assailed award before High Court of Delhi , by way of a writ petition, but it could not succeed. Shri Subhash was reinstated in service by the Authority, vide order dated 3rd of June , 2003. On 13th of February, 2007 , Shri Subhash died in harness . He was survived by his wife and five sons . Smt . Sapna, his wife, raised a demand for compassionate appointment . Since her demand was not conceded to, she approached Municipal Employees Union ( hereinafter referred to as the Union) for redressal of her grievances . The Union raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Authority resisted the claim , conciliation proceedings resulted into a failure . Conciliation Officer submitted his 2. Claim statement was filed by the Union pleading therein that Shri Subhash joined service with the Authority in 1979 as a daily wager. His services were regularizod w.e.f. 6-1-83 . The Authority terminated his services , resultantly an industrial dispute was raised before Labour Court constituted by Government of N.C.T. , Delhi . Labour Court passed an award dated 4-8-89 declaring that Shri Subhash was entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages . Shri Subhash was reinstated . He expired on 13-2-2007, leaving behind Smt. Sapna, his widow and Amit , Sonu , Sachin, Gaurav and Shiva , all sons . After death of Subhash , Smt . Sapna approached the Authority for compassionate appointment. It has been claimed that after death of Shri Subhash , survivors have reached on verge of starvation . Smt. Sapna is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds on group " D " post . A claim has been made by the Union that this Tribunal may declare that Smt. Sapna is entitled for appointment as group " D " employee , on compassionate grounds.

3. The Authority demurred the claim pleading that Smt. Sapna was never an employee , hence she is not a workmanwithin the meaning of clause (s ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act ) . It has beenagitated that no industrial dispute came into existence, either under clause (k) of Section 2 or under Section 2- A of the Act . It has been projected that she is not the wife muchless a legally wedded wife of late Shri Subhash . However, facts relating to employment of Shri Subhash on work charge basis w.e.f. 6-1-83 are not disputed. It has beenprojectedthat Shri Subhash came in conflict with law and was arrested in a murder case . His services were dispensed with , when he did not report for his duty w.e.f. 3-4-83 . Fact relating to raising of an industrial dispute before a Labour Court , constituted by Government of N.C.T. Delhi . and adjudication of that dispute vide award dated 4-8-89 are not disputed . It has been projected that when " petition filed by the Authority came to be disnis 2180

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

moved an application for compassionate appointment. whichwas supported by photocopy of ration card wherein she has been projected as widow of Shri Subhash .

Shri Subhash was reinstated in service on 3rd of June , 2003. No issue was raised by the Authority on the proposition that on 13-2-2007 Shri Subhash died in harness. The Authority projects that the claimant , namely, Smt . Sapna is not a legal heir of Shri Subhash , hence not entitled for compassionate appointment . A prayer has been made that claim statement may be discarded , being devoid of merits.

4.On pleadings of the parties , following issues were settled:

(1 ) Whether the claimant was a legally wedded wife ofShri Subhash, who expired on 13-2-2007 ?

(2) Whether conditions ofpolicy ofcompassionate appointment are satisfiedby Smt . Sapnawidow ofSubhash ?

(3) As in terms of reference .

(4) Relief.

5. Smt . Sapna ( WW1 ) and Shri Surender Bhardwaj (WW2) were examined to substantiate the claim . Shri J. N. Gupta (MW1) and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma ( MW2 ) were examined by the Authority, to project its defence .

6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Modh. Farrukh, authorised representative, advanced arguments on behalf of the Union . Ms. Raavi Birbal , authorised representative , assisted by Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Executive Engineer, raised submissions on behalf of the Authority. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved the controversy are as follows:

IssueNo. 1

9.As claimed , Smt. Sapna married Shri Subhash about 14 years ago . At that time first wife of Shri Subhash had expired. Her marriage took place in accordance with customs prevalent in their community. No evidence worth name has emerged as to which faith Smt . Sapna profess . By her name and name of her husband , every presumption lies in favour ofthe fact that they are Hindus . Provisions of Hindu Jaw are to be considered to find out as to whether marriage between Sapna and Subhash was legal and valid . According to tenets ofHindu Law marriage between man and woman is ofreligious or holy character and not a contractual union . Marriage is a sacrament , hence sacrosanct . Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Marriage Act) has reformed Hindu Law on marriage . Sections 5 , 7 , 11 and 12 of the Marriage Act, are pertinent provisions . Section 5 deals with conditions for marriage . Bigamy is prohibited by clause ( i ) . which includes both polygamy and polyandry Section 11 makes a bigamous marriage void and Section 17 makes it penal for both Hindu male and female under Section 494 and 495of the Penal Code . Clause ( ii) of the said section deals with mental capacity, clause ( iii ) lays down that at the timeof marriage groom should have completed the age of 21 years and bride the age of 18 years . The age of marriage and soundness of mind relate to consensual element for marriage . If marriage is looked upon as a contract consent of both parties is a condition precedent to marriage . A contract entered into by a minor or a person of unsound mind is void , as declaredby Section 11 of the Contract Act . 1872. But marriage is not regarded as a contract . Consequently marriage of a person who is of a unsound mind is a valid marriage under the Marriage Act . Not merely this, violation of requirements of clauses ( ii) and ( iii ) does not render the marriage void . Under Section 12 , violation ofthe former requirement renders marriage merely voidable while violation of the latter condition does not render the marriage void or voidable, the marriage , if performed , ist perfectly valid marriage . Even after enactment of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act , 1976, which has reframead clause ( ii ) of the said section , the Marriage Act does not saythat a valid consent in necessary for marriage . Thus it isamply clear that the Marriage Act does not consider the question of consent as of much importance. A marriage without consent is valid .

Smt . Sapna swears in her affidavit Ex . WWI /A that her husband, namely, Shri Subhash , expired on 13-2-2007 , who was survived by her and Amit , Sonu , Sachin , Gaurav and Shiva , all sons . During the course of her cross- examination she projects that she moved an application for compassionate appointment with the Authority, since her husband died in harness . She asserts that she was married to Shri Subhash about 12-14 years ago . She was 16-17 year old at that time . It was her customary marriage . Four children were born out of first marriage ofher husband and one child was born out of her wedlock with Shri Subhash . When she married Shri Subhash , at that time his first wife had expired.

8. Shri J. N. Gupta deposed that while in service Shri Subhash never informed the Authority about his marriage with Sapna. He went on to unfold that he had not filed any nomination form in respect of his provident fund etc. , declaring Smt . Sapna as his wife . He concedes that after his death , Smt. Sapna approached the Authority climing herself to be widow of Shri Subhash . In 2009 , she

10. Section 7( 1 ) of the Marriage Act enacts that a marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rights and ceremony of either party thereto . Sub-section ( 2) of the said section lays down that when such rights and ceremonies include the saptpadi , the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. Therefore , the ceremony and rites , which are to be performed, fall under two heads ( a) the shastric ceremonies and rites as prescribed by Hindu Law, or ( b ) [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

the customary ceremony and rites which prevail in the cast or community to which one of the parties ( or both ) belongs . Thus the shastric ceremonies and rites are still necessary. These can be dispensed with only if one of the parties to the marriage establishes that customary ceremony is prevalent in his/her community in substitution of the shstric ceremony. If customary ceremony is prevalent on the side of the either party, its performance will be enough for the validity of the marriage . Customary ceremony may not include any one of the shastric ceremonies , such as kanyadana, panigrahan , vivahahoma and saptpadi .

11. A customary ceremony may be totally non- religious or very simple cermony. For instance , among Santhals smearing of vermilon by bridegroom on the forehead ofthe bride is the only essential ceremony. Among the Nayahans of the South India , the only ceremony necessary is the tying of a vadu veeta thali into the neck of the bride , which completes customary ceremony for the marriage . Similarly, pat marriage ( the marriage of a widow) is valid marriage in approved form. In chadar andazi marriage among the Jats no other ceremony is necessary. In karewa marriage , which is prevalent among lower castes ofHindus , no ceremony is necessary, if parties live together as husband and wife with an intention to live as such that is enough for the validity of the marriage .

12. As testified by Smt . Sapna, when she married Shri Subhash he was having no spouse living at that time. Smt. Sapna was aged about 16-17 years the time of her marriage . Her marriage was performed in accordance with customary ceremonies . No eye brows were raised by the Authority that marriage of Sapna was not performed with Shri Subhash in accordance with customary ceremonies . Admittedly, Shri Subhash and Sapna belong to a lower caste. In their caste Karewa marriage is also a valid marriage . Galanding each either is also a form of marriage prevalent in lower castes of Hindus . When testimony of Sapna that she married Shri Subhash according to customary ceremonies has not been dispelled , it establishes that she validly married Shri Subhash about 14-15 years ago . She could discharge the onus and prove herself to be legally wedded wife of deceased Shri Subhash . On the other hand , Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma concedes that all retiral benefits ofShri Subhash were released in favour of Smt . Sapna . By releasing retiral benefits in favour of the lady, the Authority had dispensed with its objection relating to the validity of marriage of Sapna with deceased Shri Subhash . In view of these facts it is concluded that Smt . Sapna is legally wedded wife of deceased Shri Subhash . The issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the claimant and against the Authority.

Issue No. 2

It is not a matter of dispute that the Authority has a policy of compassionate appointments . The circumstances ,

2181 in which appointment on compassionate grounds may be made , are as follows:

(i) When servants of the Authority lose their lives in the course of duty or get so crippled that they cannot do any work .

( ii) When employee of the Authority die in harness while in service before retirement .

(iii) When employees of the Authority commit suicide.

(iv) When an employee's whereabouts are not known , for a period of seven years and the settlement of dues of the employees are or are not paid to the family on this account . This limit of seven years may be relaxed to three years by the Vice - Chairman , of the Authority subject to the condition that the service of the person appointed on compassionate grounds wouldbe terminated in case the missing employee is traced subsequently.

(v) In exceptional cases when a Department is satisfied that the condition of the family is indigent and in great distress the benefit of compassionate appointment may be extended to widow/ son/daughter/ near relative of a servant of the Authority retired on medical grounds before attaining the age of 55 years . In case ofGroup ' D ' employees whose normal age of superannuation is 60 years , compassionate appointment may be considered where they are retired on medical grounds before attaining the age of 57 years .

14. Persons , eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds , are son , daughter , widow or widower. Compassionate appointment can be given on group ' C ' or a group ' D ' posts , against direct recruitment quota. Applicants for compassionate appointments should be appointed only if they are eligible and suitable for the post in all respect under the provisions of the Recruitment Rules . However, upper age limit can be freely relaxed on merit of the case . On consideration of merits of an individual case relaxation of minimum educational qualification can also be granted . Procedure which shall be followed by the Authority for compassionate appointment , has been detailed as follows:

"(a) In case widow / son/ daughter / near relative applies for appointment , they will be asked to apply for the same in the prescribed format in English /Hindi version both . They will also be supposed to fulfil the code / formalities/ documentary formalities as required and contained in the letter which also be supplied to them which is framed in Hindi version . After 2182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

completion of the prescribed format for compassionate appointment , the case of the applicant will be enrolled in the Registers maintained for the purpose of seniority/ consideration of the Screening Committee indicating the details ( seniority for the purpose of consideration of case for compassionate appointment will be taken from the date of filling ofapplication) .The Welfare Department will also perform the role and conduct the physical verification to assess the financial status of the applicant and verify the contents tendered by theapplicant.

(b ) The candidates applying for appointments on compassionate grounds should be subject to a suitability test by a Screening Committee . The suitability of those proposed to be appointed on compassionate grounds should be properly assessed by a strict test . In case the candidate has the necessary minimum qualification for employment in a Group ' C ' post , his suitability for all types of Group ' C ' posts in the order of suitability, should be judged and recorded by the Screening Committee , which should also clearly indicate the categories for which the candidate has not been considered suitable . Final offer of appointment will , however, be subject to the availability of vacancies , passing ofmedical examination , production of necessary certificatesetc.

(c) It is not necessary the ward of a Group D ' employee should be appointed on Group 'D' post only. If such a ward possesses the required qualification prescribed for Group ' C ' posts and is also adjudged suitable for the post , he should be considered for such Group ' C ' posts .

(d) All cases of compassionate appointments needs to be dealt with on top priority.basis .

A final decision on the application should invariable be taken within 60 days of the receipt of the application duly completed.

(e) While giving intimation for non- acceptance of the request for compassionate appointinents , reasons for rejection should be indicated in the communication to the applicant , but the level of rejection need not and should not be communicated .

( f) The cases referred to Screening Committee for approval should contain full details as required inthe application form" .

15. The object of the policy to grant appointment to a dependent family member ofan employee dying in harness

[PART 11--SEC. 3 ( ii) | or who retired on medical grounds , thereby leaving his family in penuiary and without means of livelihood. The policy is to relieve the family of the employee concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Appointment on compassionate grounds are to be made in such a way that persons appointed to the post do have essential educational and technical qualifications and experience required for the post. An application for compassionate appointment is not to be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received the benefits under various welfare schemes . While considering a request for appointment on compassionate grounds , a balanced and objective assessment of financial condition of the family has to be made , taking into account its assets and liabilities ( including the benefits received in various welfare schemes ) and all other relevant factors such as number of earning member, size of the family, age of the children and the essential needs of the family. Compassionate appointment should be made available to the person concerned , if there is a vacancy and he or she is found eligible and suitable under the policy. An application for compassionate appointment . consequent on death of a group " D " staff, is to be considered with sympathy,by applying relaxed standards . depending on facts and circumstances of the case. Such appointments are to have precedence over absorption of surplus employees and regularization of daily wage casual workers.

16. The Apex Court in G. Anantha Rajeshwa [ 1994 ( 1 ) SCC 192 ] had considered the scheme of compassionate appointments formulated by the Government of India and ruled that appointment on grounds of descent clearly violates Article 16 (2 ) of the Constitution , but if the appointment is confined to the son or daughter or widow of the Government servant who died in harness , who need immediate appointment on the ground ofimmediate need of assistance in the event of there being no other earning member in the family to supplement the loss of income from the bread winner to relieve the economic distress of the members of the family. it is unexceptionable. Again in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [ JT 1993 (3) SC 525 ] , the Apex Court considered the scheme and laid down following principles in that regard :

( 1 ) Only dependents of an employee dying in harness, leaving his family in penuiary and without any source of livelihood , can be appointed on compassionate grounds .

(2) The posts in group " C" and " D " are the lowes posts in non -manual and manual categories and hence , those posts alone can be oftered on compassionate grounds .

(3) The whole object of granting compassionate appointments is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

2183 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.

(4) Offering compassionate appointments as a matter of course , irrespective of financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant, is legally impermissible.

(5) Neither the qualification of the applicant (dependent family member ) nor the post heldby the deceased or medically retired Government servant is relevant. If the applicant finds it below hisdignity to accept the post offered , he is free not to accept it . The post is not to be offered to cater his status but to see family through the economic calamity.

(6) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable peroid and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future , and

manner , providing opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process . Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit . Dependents of employees who died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public service other then the one conferred. if any, by the employer . The claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the claimant, out of the executive instructions , rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds . There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointments on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of schemes or instructions , as the case may be . The Court made it clear that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the familyto tide over the sudden crisis . The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less than the post held by the deceased . In M. T. Latheesh [2006 (7) SCC 350 ] , the Apex Court cautioned that indiscriminate grant of employment on compassionate grounds would shut the door for employment to the ever growing population of an unemployed youth .

(7) Compassionate appointment cannot be offered by an individual functionary on an ad hoc basis .

17. In Asha Ram Chander Ambedkar and others [ JT 1994 ( 2 ) SC 183 ] the Apex Court ruled that the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot give directions for appointment of a person on compassionate ground but can merely direct consideration of the claim for such appointment . In Dinesh Kumar [ JT 1996 ( 5 ) SC 319 ] and Smt . A. Radhika Therumalai [ JT 1996 (9 ) SC 197 ] it was announced that appointment on compassionate ground canbe made only, if a vacancy is available for that purpose . In Rani Devi and others [ JT 1996 ( 6 ) SC 646 ] it was ruled thatif the scheme relating to appointment on compassionate ground is extended to all sort of casual , ad hoc employees , including those who are working as apprentice , then the scheme cannot be justified on constitutional grounds.

19. Now factual matrix of the controversy are to be addressed . As projected by Smt . Sapna , her husband expired in harness. She is legally wedded wife of Shri Subhash . Other dependents of Shri Subhash had given no objection in her favour for her appointment to a group ' D ' post . There is no dispute to the proposition that after death of Shri Subhash , Smt . Sapna and other family members reached stage of starvation . Therefore , it is evident that Smt . Sapna could establish all requirements for her appointment to a group ' D ' post on compassionate grounds. Shri J. N. Gupta and Manoj Kumar Sharma project that case of Smt . Sapna had been recommended for compassionate appointment . They concede that other legal heirs of Shri Subhash have not moved any application for compassionate appointment . They filed affidavits giving no objection in favour of Smt . Sapna for compassionate appointment . Therefore , admission of fact so made by these two witnesses make it clear that Smt . Sapna could satisfy all conditions laid down in policy of compassionate appointment , for her appointment to a group ' D ' post . On 3-12-2010 her application for compassionate appointment has been recommended . Consequently , the issue is answered in favour of the claimant and against the Authority.

Issue No. 3

20. Though the Authority raised issue that no industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate Government as defined by clause ( k ) of Section 2 of the Actfor adjudication , yet during the course of adjudication it was not passed . However , I consider it expedient to assess 18. Cantena ofdecision were considered by the Apex Court in Mohd . Rajodian [ 2003 ( 7 ) SCC 511 ] and it was laid therein that the purpose of providing compassionate appointments is to mitigate the harship , caused due to sudden death of the bread winner in the family. It is to relieve the distress of the family that such appointments are made . But these considerations cannot operate when the application is made after a long delay. In Ankur Gupta [ 2003 ( 7 ) SCC 704 ] the Apex Court reiterated that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right . In Somveer Singh [ 2007 (4 ) SCC 778 ] it was laid that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception carved out of the general rule that recruitment to public service is to be made in a transparent and acceptable 2184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

whether an industrial dispute was referred. Therefore , definition of industrial dispute given in clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act is to be scanned . Said definition is reproducedthus :

"Industrial dispute " means any dispute or difference between employers and employers , or between employers and workman, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or withthe conditions of labour, of any person . " 21. The definition of the word " industrial dispute" referred above can be divided into four parts viz . (i ) factum ofdispute, ( ii) parties to the disputes , viz . (a) employers and employers (b) employers and employees or ( c) workmen and workmen, (iii) subject matter of the dispute, which should be connected with ( i ) employment or non- employment, or ( ii) terms of employment, or ( iii ) conditions of labour of any person , and ( iv) it should relateto an industry" .

22.Thedefinition of the word " industrial dispute" is worded in wide terms and unless it is narrowed by the meaning given to the word " workman " it would seem to include all " employers " , " all employments " and " all workmen" whatever nature of the scope of the employment may be . Therefore except in the case where there can be dispute between the employer and employers and workmen and workmen , one of the parties to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of employees . The first point, therefore , to be noted, perhaps self evident, is that the phrase " employer and workmen , the plural may include singularon either side , or any permutation of singular , the mesculine including the feminine . In order, therefore, to determine as to whether a controversy or difference or a dispute is an' industrial dispute ' or not it must be determined whether the workman concerned or workmen sponsoring hiscase satisfy the conditions of clause (s) of Section 2 of theAct".

23. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt . ) Ltd. [ 1958 (2) LLJ 660 ] Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute need not be a dispute between the employer and his workman and that the definition of the expression industrial dispute " is wide enough to cater a dispute raised bythe employer's workman with regard to non -employment ofothers , who may not be employed as workman at the relevant time. Hence in order to acquire character of an industrial dispute , a dispute or difference must relate to dither the employment or non - employmentor the terms of employment or the conditions of labour of any person . Reference can be made to a precedent in State Bank Staff Union (Madras Circle) [ 1991 ( 1 ) LLJ 163 ] .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) | 24. As is evident , a dispute has been raised by the Union relating to terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of deceased Shri Subhash . The Union adapted the dispute on 2-10-2008 , when resolution Ex. WW1 / 5 was passed in that regard . Thereafter, the Union filed a case before the Conciliation Officer. All these facts make it clear that an industrial dispute was raised by the Union relating to terms of employment of deceased Shri Subhash as well as non -employment ofhis wife, when he died in harness . Objection raised by the Authoritythat no industrial dispute was raised , is unfounded.

25. The claimant could project that after death ofher husband she reached the stage of starvation. Her family needs support . She could project her eligibility for appointment to a group " D" post . On the other hand her application for appointment to group " D " post has been recommended, as testified by Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma . ExecutiveEngineer. Considering all these facts it is evident that the Authority is taking every step to grant application of Smt . Sapna for her compassionate appointment to a group " D " post . Considering all these facts , the demand raised by the Union for compassionate appointment of Smt. Sapna on a group " D " post is found to be legal and justified. Issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the claimant and against the Authority.

Relief

26. Ms. Raavi projects that this Tribunal should ask the Authority only for consideration of application of Smt . Sapna for compassionate appointment . She projects that no command should be given in that regard . She places a reliance on a precedent in Ram Kesh Yadav [2007 ( 9 ) S.C.C. 531 ] wherein the Apex Court concluded that an employer cannot be permitted to act contrary to the terms of its policy governing compassionate appointment nor compassionate appointment be permitted de hors the policy. The precedent relied is not applicable to the facts of the present controversy since Smt . Sapna does not claim her compassionate appointment de hors the rules or policy. Herapplication was considered and then recommended . It is not the case that there is no vacancy for her appointment . When there is a recommendation in her favour, in that situation discretion cannot be left to the Authority to brush it aside on whims . Taking into account all these facts the Authority is commanded to appoint Smt . Sapna on a group "D" post on compassionate grounds , on availability of a post for her in that regard. An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated:30-12-2010

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 702.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डिपार्टमेन्ट ऑफ टेलीकॉम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. 40012 / 183/ 2002- आई आर ( डीयू) ] डीएस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S.O. 702. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , No. 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department ofTelecom and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10-2- 2011.

[No. L-40012/ 183 /2002 - IR(DU) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. 57 of2003

Prem Singh son of Shri Amar Singh , resident of Jamni , Tehsil Safidon , District Jind , Haryana Applicant

Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, BSNL ( Electrical Wing ) , Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Shri Arun Batra

: Shri G.C. Babbar

For the management

AWARD

Passed on 27-1-2011

Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide letter No. L-40012/183 /2002- IR( DU) dated 11th of March, 2003 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Department of Telecom , Saffidon , in terminating the services of Prem Singh Son of Shri Amar Singh , Generator Operator w.e.f. 15-7-2000 is just and legal ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 655 GI/11-28

2185 The case of the workman as per his claim petition in nutshell is that he was appointed as peon cum generator operator in Tele Communication Department by Sub- Divisional Officer, Telephones Safidon on 5-4-1992 on daily wages basis @ Rs . 50/ - per day. He was paid consolidated salary of Rs . 1500/- per month. The management was obtaining his signatures on Rs . 2500/- but in fact was paid Rs. 1500/- per month . He was working with the department sincerely. Apart from the working on generator operator, he was entrusted with other work of the peon . His services were terminated without disclosing reason , without any notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation on 15-7-2000 . Не hascompleted 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of termination . Juniors to him were retained in service . Fresh hands were also engaged after his termination which make his termination illegal . On the basis ofthe above facts the workman has prayed for setting aside of the termination order with consequential order for reinstatement in service with all other benefits .

Management appeared and opposed the claim by filing written statement . Preliminary objection has been raised in para No. 1 of the written statement that relief is not against SDO Safidon but claimed against SDO Ambala, hence the reference is not maintainable . Another objection has also been raised that workman was not engaged by the management of telecommunication department at any point of time. He has not served with the department. Contract for maintenance was given to M/s . Patiala Agency Jind vide contract No. 21 /AEE/E/ JD/99-2000 for the period 7-9-99 to 6-3-2000 and again for the period 27-4-2000 to 11-9-2000 vide contract No. 3 /AEE/E/ JD/2000-2001 . On the basis of the above facts the management has also stated that there is no master and servant relationship between the management and the workman .

Parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . The evidence of the workman Prem Singh was recorded in open court on 20-7-2010 . On behalf of the management, evidence of Shri Ram Bhaj , SDO Safidon and Shri Baljit Singh, SDE ( E) Electrical Divisional BSNL, Jind was recorded. Documents relevant to the contract for the above mentioned period have been filed by the management. On behalf of Prem Singh , Workman original log book for the period he worked with the management has been filed .

I have heard the parties at length .

Onperusal ofthe material on record, it will be proper to adjudicate the preliminary objection raised by the management of telecommunication. The preliminary objection is that the claim is against the management of department of telecommunication , Ambala , Safidon and not against the Executive Engineer , BSNL Electricity DivisionAmbala which at present is at Rohtak . After hearing the parties , this Tribunal adjudicated this preliminary :186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] bjection on 10-8-2010 impleading the parties from Ambala nd Safidon which falls in the jurisdiction of Rohtak at resent and allowing them the right to hearing . After the ermination of the services of the workman , as informed rally by the learned counsel for the parties , there has been some administrative changes in the jurisdiction of ome offices . This administrative change cannot deny the awful claim ofthe workman . Hence adopting the liberal and positive attitude for justice delivery, away from the echnicalities , this Tribunal has directed the parties to present their view point before this Tribunal . Accordingly, all the parties were heard . At present there is no force in the reliminary objection because the same has already been answered by this Tribunal vide order dated 0-8-2010.

Nowthe question arises , whether there exists master and servant relationship between the management of elecommunication department and the workman ? The ssue of master/servant relationship has elaborately been lealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Steel Authority of ndia Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Workers ind others AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3527 ( 1 ) . Thereafter, Hon'ble High Court ofPunjab & Haryana relying upon the atio ofjudgment ofApex Court in Steel Authority of India td.'s case , elaborately discussed this issue in Food Corporationof India Vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT, Chandigarh and others 2008 LLR 391 .

Hon'bleApex Court in 2008 has also discussed this ssue in GM ONGC Silcher Vs. ONGC Contractual Workers Jnion 2008 LLR 801. If the ratio of the above mentioned udgments is applied in the present case, to prove direct elationship with the management , a workman has to prove hefollowing facts:

1. That the workman was directly engaged by the management of telecommunication department .

2. That the services of the workman were under the administrative control and of the department and not by any 3rd Party.

3. There was no 3rd person ( contractor) in between the workman and the management .

4. That the payment of wages were made good by the management directly and not through any contractor.

7-9-99 to 6-3-2000 and 27-4-2000 to 11-9-2000 . Meaning thereby, there was no contractor in between the workman andthe management from 5-4-92 to 6-9-99 . The complete documents relating to the supply of labour to the management by the contractor like payment of wages by the management to the contractor and thereafter payment ofwages by the contractor to the workman in presence of any official ofthe telecommunication department have noi been filed. Thus , it seems to be a casual defence by the management because the related documents for the entire period in question have not been filed. On the other hand, theworkman has filed the log book ofthe period he worked with the management barring few months . It is an old document and the way it is maintained prima facie there seems to be no doubt about its genuineness . Even entries contained the signatures of the workman, the purpose of work is written in English by some other person . As per the contention of the workman , this endorsementhas been made by SDO Electricity Safidon . Entire log book contained seal of department on every page. In fact the entire register was sealed in a similar way after its proper pagination . It is the strong circumstance to prove the contention of the workman that this logbook was prepared by him when he was in the employment of the management in course of his business with the management. Not a single question by the management has been asked to the workman regarding genuiness of this document . The witness of the management Shri Ram Bhaj has denied the working of the workman with the management at any point of time. Surprisingly, he knows the workman personally . The reason mentioned by the witness of knowing the workman is that the village of the workman is about 20 Kms . away from the village ofthe witness and this is the reason of knowing the workman . This statement of the witness cannot be relied upon because in the ordinary course of nature it is not possible for a man of prudence to recognize every person resides within 20 Kms . from his residence . Moreover , the Tribunal has also recorded the demeanour of this witness and on one query the witness has angrily asked the workmanwhen he has asked the workman to maintain the document ? This demeanour shows that the witness has accepted the presence of the workman in department while this witness was working in the same department . Another witness of the management MW2 Baljit Singh has not specifically denied this fact . On every fact he has stated, he does not know, he does not know, he does not know. Thus, the statement of the witness MW2 cannot be relied upon because he has no knowledge regarding the working ofthe workman in the department of telecommunication.

From the above discussion it is clear that very strong evidence has been filed by the workman to prove that he was working with the management. Naturally, all the documents relating to attendance , payment ofwages are / were lying with the management. The management was directed vide order dated, 6-5-2010 to file the entire documents, but no document was filed. Accordingly, adverse I have gone through the entire materials on record . It s specifically pleaded by the workman that he was engaged by the management as generator operator- cura - peon on -4-92 and his services were terminated on 5-7-2000. The management has not specifically denied his period but has denied this fact for want of knowledge . Moreover, the contention of the management that services of the workman were provided with to the management hrough contractor does not find favour by the documents rovided by the management. The documents relating to he contract for supply certain labour is for the period

- [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

inference is taken by this Tribunal . It is hereby made clear that prima facie, workman has proved by fling the original log book that he had worked with the management . Now the burden is on the management to prove by filing the documents relating to the attendance and payment to the workman and the management has failed to file the documents even after directions by this Tribunal vide order dated 6-5-2010 . Accordingly adverse inference is drawn against the management .

I have discussed above that Hon'ble Apex Court in two judgments in Steel Authority of India's case (Supra) and ONGC Silchar's case ( Supra) and the Hon'ble High Court ofPunjab & Haryana in Food Corporation of India's case ( supra) have specifically mentioned in the conditions under which a workman can be held direct employee of principle employer.

2187

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5, 2011/फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

the services . Thus , on account of his illegal termination , compensation is the only remedy.

This Tribunal should not award the compensation without considering the facts which leads to determine the reasonable compensation . The factors are , age of the workman , wages he was getting at the time of his termination , the length of service with the management , amount of retrenchment compensation and interest thereon , one month wages in lieu of notice and interest thereon and considering the present economic trend of inflation . This Tribunal should be sensitized for socio economic scenario of society, while determining the compensation . A particular article at present has increased to about 20 times than it was available at the time the workman was working with the department . More over the cost of litigation should also be considered because the workman was dragged into litigation by the illegal act of the management . Considering all the above facts , a compensation of Rs . 300000 ( Three lakhs only) is determined in lieu of reinstatmeent . In my view this amount will be reasonable to meet the ends of justice . The management is directed to pay the above amount within one month from the date of publication of the award. If the management fails to pay the amount within one month from the date of publication of this award , workman shall also be entitled for the interest calculated at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the final payment . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned thereafter.

Chandigarh

In this case the workman has pleaded that he was working with the management under its administrative control . No doubt, he fails to file any document relating to payment of wages, the record of which are lying with the management and the management also failed to produce the same. Thus , it will be considered and presumed that thewages were made good by the management directly to the workman . Moreover, the documents filed by the management are not of relevant period. Admittedly no notice, one month pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at the time of his termination which makeshis termination illegal . I am not considering other pleas taken by the workman because that has not been proved. The workman has also contended that the persons juniors to him were retained/ engaged in service after his termination but he failed to provide the names , address of the persons said to be retained/ engaged after his termination .

This issue is proved beyond doubt that workman was engagedby the management directly and he was under the administrative control of the management and he was paid wages directly by the management. He has completed 240 days ofwork proceeding to the date of termination and his termination was illegal being against the provisions of the 1. D. Act 1947 .

When the termination is declared illegal , there are two possible remedies . First is reinstatement in service and another is reasonable compensation . Considering the recent trend of service jurisprudence, priority should be given to protect the right to work . In exceptional circumstances , where it is not possible to reinstate the workman , reasonable compensation should be awarded in lieu of reinstatement. The workman is overaged now. It is not possible to reinstate him in the services . To the notice of this Tribunal , when the workman was engaged in the year 1992 he was 40 years of age. This Tribunal has also interacted with the workman personally and is of the view thatbecause of his age it is not possible to reinstate him in

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 703.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डिपार्टमेन्ट ऑफ टेलीकॉम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. -40012/200/2002- आई आर( डी.यू. ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S.O. 703. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , No. I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workmar: which was received by the Central Government on 10-2-2011 .

[No. L-40012/200/2002- IR (DL ) D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 2188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- I , CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 61 of 2003

... Applicant Satish Kumar son of Jai Kishan , resident of Village Lal Kotlu , PO Sudhiar , Tehsil Nadon , Distirct Hamirpur (HP)

Versus

1. The Managing Director , Telecom Project , BSNL , Madhav Kunj Good Wood Estate , Bharti Road , Shimla (H.P. )

Respondent APPEARANCES :

: Shri O.P. Batra

For the workman

: Shri I.S. Sidhu

For the management

AWARD

Passed on 27-1-2011

Central Govt . Ministry of Labour vide letter No. L-40012/200/2002 IR ( DU ) dated 11th of March 2003 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Managing Director , Telecom Project , ( BSNL ) , Shimla in terminating the services of Shri Satish Kumar, Security Chowkidar w.e.f. 1-1-1998 without complying with the provisions of the ID Act , 1947 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

After receiving the reference , parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . Both parties were afforded the opportunity of leading evidence . Oral evidence was recorded . Apart from Ex . M2 and M3 , no documents have been filed by any of the parties .

Case of the workman in nutshell is that he was appointed as chowkidar on 15-12-1993 in the Micro Wave Station at Solan under the administrative control of Director Telecom Project , Madhav Kunj Good Wood Estate , Bharati Road, Shimla - 1 and the Divisional Engineer ( Telecom ) Project , Sanjay Sadan , Shimla. The services of the workman were transferred to Shimla Telecom project in December 1994 and he stayed there till August 1995. Thereafter , the workınan was posted in Store at Sheghi where he worked without any break up to 31-12-1997 . He was paid daily wages initially Rs . 45 and thereafter @ Rs . 56 per day . He has completed 240 days of work in every calendar year . Hisjuniors were retained in services and their services have been regularised , whereas , the services of the workman were terminated without any compensation w.e.f. 1-1-1998 . Workman preferred an industrial dispute and on failure of conciliation report , this reference .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) | The management appeared and oppose the claim of the workman by filing written statement . It is admitted that workman was engaged as chowkidar in Microwave Station Solan purely on temporary basis on daily wages against project work . The appointment of the workman was conditional to the completion of the project . As soon as the project work was over , the services of the workman were no more required and accordingly his services were terminated by giving one month notice dated 1-1-1998 (M3 ) . Nojunior were retained . It is no where specifically denied in the written statement that workman has not completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of the termination .

Parties were heard at length . The relevant record of working is lying in the custody of the management . Excepi the copy of notice , the management fails to file any document relating to the services of the workman. It is admitted that initial appointment of the workman was lawful . It is the only contention ofthe management that workman was engaged against a projet and on cessation of work on project , his service were terminated . But the management failed to prove when the project was commissioned after is completion ? The management has not specifically denied that workman after the said project had worked as chowkidar in Sheghi . It is also proved that payment of wages were made good to the workman directly by the management . It is admitted by the witness of the management Shri Balbir Singh MW I that services of Shri Manjoor Alam , Parveen Kumar and Kali Ram were regularised respectively on 1-8-95 , 1-12-95 and 1-1-1997 . This witness denied having any knowledge about the initial appointment of all the three persons on daily wages in the department working on temporary basis . It is the specific claim of the workman that all these three persons were junior to him . It is nowhere denied by the management that these three persons were not the junior to the workman . Moreover , non filing the relevant documents relatingto the initial appointment of workman and all these three persons provide the opportunity to this Tribunal to take the inference against the management to the effect that all these three persons were junior to the workman .

As stated earlier the workman has contended that he has completed 240 days of work in preceding year to the date of his termination and his services were terminated without payment of any compensation . This fact has also not been denied by the management. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 does not bar the termination of services of any daily wage workman but the same regulates it . If the services of any daily wager workman arc no more required. the same can be terminated by giving a month's notice and reasonable compensation to be calculated as per the provisions of the 1.D. Act , 1947. The Phrase " the services ofdaily wage worker are no more required" means that the decision of the management should not be whimsical or arbitrary . It should be factually based on some reasonable 2189 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 88/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute of Petroleum and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10-2-2011 .

[No. L-42012/33 / 1997 - JR ( DU ) ]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ID No. 88/2002

Workman

Shri Balwant Rai Patel

S/ o Shri B.D. Tyagi 16 -A,

Raipur Road, Dehradun.

and lawful criteria . In this case , the management has failed to provide any reasonable and lawful criteria that services of the workman were no more required , though the management has continued the services of three persons namely Manjoor Alam , Parveen Kumar and Kali Ram . It shows that services of the workman were required . In violation of the principle of natural justice and in violation ofthe provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , by giving one month's notice , the workman was directed not to attend the office without payment of retrenchment compensation . It was arbitrary decision of the management which has no legs to stand being against the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947. The act of the management is against the law and arbitrary on two folds . Firstly the workman has completed 240 days in preceding year from the date of termination and no compensation as per the provisions of the I.D. Act was given to him. Secondly, his juniors were retained in services . Their services were regularized but the service of the workman were arbitrarily terminated.

Versus

The Director,

Management

Indian Institute of Petroleum ,

Mohkampur , Dehradun .

APPEARANCES

Forthe workmen : Shri O.P. Batra

: Shri I.S. Sidhu

For the management

AWARD

Accordingly, the act of the management terminating the services of the workman was bad in law and is accordingly quashed . The only remedy in this case is , reinstatement of the workman in the service alongwith back wages because the juniors to the workman were allowed to continue in the services and their services were regularized. Accordingly , the management is directed to reinstate the workman and pay him all the back wages within one month from the date of publication of the award. The management is also directed to consider the workman for regularization of his services in the same way and manner as the services of three juniors to the workman namely Shri Manjoor Alam , Parveen Kumar and Kali Ram were regularised . While so considering the workman , his seniority shall also be protected . This Tribunal is hopeful that management shall have a reasonable ana generous approach towards workman . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned.

Chandigarh

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 704. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , .947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन इन्सटीट्यूट ऑफ पेट्रोलियम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 88/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. 42012/33/ 1997 - आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th February , 2011

Post of Senior Scientific Assistant was advertised by Indian Institute of Petroleum , Dehradun , ( hereinafter referred to as the Institute ) , which advertisement was responded to by Shri Balwant Rai Patel (hereinafter referred toas the claimant ). Selection Committee met on 2-5-64 and recommended appointment of the claimant to that post. Deputy Director , incharge of the Institute , issued appointment letter to the claimant on 19th of May, 66 , whereby making it clear that his appointment to the post was temporary and his services may be terminatedby one month notice on either side , viz . the appointee or the appointing authority , without assigning any reason . A right was reserved by the appointing authority to terminate services ofthe claimant forthwith or before expiry of period of notice by making payment of a sum equivalent to pay and allowances for the period of notice or unexpired portion thereof. The claimant joined the services with the Institute on 18-6-64 . Claimant earned adverse remarks for service rendered by him for the year 1965 and 1966. Post of Scientist Grade B was advertised by the Institute in 1965 as well as in 1966. Claimant submitted his application for appointment to that post in those years . However, he was not called for an interview . In 1967 post Scientist Grade B was again advertised . Claimant applied for the post . Though he was called for an interview but not selected He south an S.O. 704. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central 2190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

grievances for adjudication . Hence a " no dispute " award dated 4-12-2003 was passed .

appointment with the Director and misbehaved with him. Hewas suspended on 7-6-68 and charge sheeted . Claimant assailed his suspension order before the Civil Judge, Dehradun . On 22-8-74, his suspension was revoked . Shri D.S. Sharma, Assistant (Vigilance ) served order dated 22-8-74 on the claimant in person , but he refused to accept it. On 23rd of August, 2004 , Shri Sharma tendered his affidavit in that regard before the Civil Judge , Dehradun, when Civil suit , referred above , came for hearing that day. Despite revocation of suspension order , the claimant opted not to join his duties .

5. On 19th ofApril , 2007, an application was moved by the claimant for recalling the award , so passed . His application was declined by the Tribunal vide its order dated 21st of July, 2009 , which order was assailed by him before High Court of Uttrakhand . Vide order dated 16-8-2010 , High Court commanded this Tribunal to pass a consequential order on the application of the claimant for setting aside the ex parte award . Application of the claimant was allowed by the Tribunal , when it formed an opinion that it was expedient to call the claimant to have disposal of the matter on merits .

2. On 1-9-74 he went to the office ofthe Institute and received his subsistence allowance for August , 1974. Не did not submit his joining report . He again went to the office of the Institute on 1-10-74, on which date neither his wages nor subsistence allowance was paid to him . On 29-10-74, he filed a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction against the Institute . Despite an order in his favqurpassed by the Civil Court, he opted not tojoin his duties . The Civil Judge dismissed his suit . He assailed the decree before the District Judge , by way of an appeal . During hearing ofthat appeal , Shri M.S. Chawla, Section Officer ofthe Institute , filed his affidavit , swearing therein that service ofthe claimant were terminated on 23-12-80. He also affirmed that copy of the order was sent to the claimant, who refused to accept it . On consideration ofthe affidavit so tendered by Shri Chawla, his appeal came to be dismissed.

3. When the claimant lost his battle before Civil Court and the First Appellae Court at Dehradun , he approached the Conciliation Officer, by way of filing a claim statement. The Institute put in its appearacne before the Conciliation Officer and resisted the claim . In view of the facts, detailed above , conciliation proceedings failed. ConciliationOfficer submitted his failure report before the appropriate Government . On consideration of failure report , so submitted by the Conciliation Officer , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. L-42012/33 / 1997- IR (DU) , New Delhi dated 31st ofDecember, 2002, with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Indian Institute of Petroleum , Dehradun , in terminating the services of Shri B.R. Patel , Ex -Senior Scientific Assistant w.e.f. 23-12-80 is just , fair and legal ? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from whatdate ?"

6. Claim statement was filed by the claimant pleading therein that he was appointed as Senior Scientific Assistant bythe Institute on 12-6-64 , with three advance increments in pay scale of Rs . 250-575 . He is B.Sc. , B.Sc. ( Chemical Engineer) , M.Sc. (Technology) , M.Sc. ( Maths ) ,Associate Member ofOil Technologist Association , Aota India British Institute of Engineering and Technology ( BIET), (Petroleum) , London. In the end of 1964 an anonymous letter was written to the Director General , Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi , castingas persions on attitude and conduct of then Director of the Institute , namely, Dr. M.G. Krishna , for discouraging scientific staff from improving their qualifications . The letterwas transmitted by the Director General , CSIR, New Delhi , to the Director of the Institute , who suspected the claimant to be its author. He started harassing the claimant by devising means and ways . In 1965 and 1966 post of Scientist Grade B was advertised , for which post he was not called for an interview. Persons , having less qualification and experience , who were juniors to him were givenpreference . In 1967 Director General , C.S.I.R. visited the Institute, before whom he placed his grievances . It resulted incalling him for interview for the post of Scientist Grade B in the year 1967. Though he was not selected for that post, yet his name was sponsored for deputation to U.S.S.R. Persons , less qualified and experienced andjuniors to him, were selected to the post of Scientists Grade B. It frustrated him a lot . Dr. Krishna concocted a cock and bull story and illegally placed him under suspension on 7-8-68 . Hissuspension was followed by a charge sheet . A protracted enquiry stated flouting provisions ofCCS ( CCA) Rules , 1965 ( in short the rules) . Left with no alternative he filed a civil suit as an indegent person . On 23-8-74 the Institute made a false claim before the Civil Judge , Dehradun , projecting that his suspension orders were revoked. However , order revoking his suspension was never served upon him , as required by rule 30 ofthe Rules . Even after deceptive claim of revocation of suspension order, he was given subsistence allowance for the period 23-8-74 to 31-8-74. His entry was restrained inside the premises of the Institute and subsistence allowance was also stopped . Left with no option he filed another Civil 4 Despite directions to the claimant in reference order to file his claim statement within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the said order, he opted not to file it . Notices were sent by the Tribunal to the claimant in that behalf, which also proved futile . Claim statement was not filed by the claimant . This situation led the Tribunal to believe that the claimant was not interested in agitating his 2191 [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

8. The Institute pleads that it was learnt that after termination of his services , the claimant joined Welham Boys School as a Teacher in December , 1983. His service was terminated by the said school on 24-04-1984 . He filed a suit against the school challenging his order of termination . Hissuit was dismissed on 15-7-07 , against which he filed an appeal , which also came to be dismissed on 22-5-09 . During pendency of suit against the school , he filed a case under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 seeking a sum of Rs. 1,56,400/- towards his wages and allowances from May, 84 to September , 1985. The said case was dismissed on 27-2-98 . He preferred an appeal against the said order , which was also dismissed .

suitfor declaration and injunction before Munsif, Dehradun , who granted an injunction order in his favour. On 2nd of May, 1995, a termination letter was received by post . After availing departmental remedy , he approached the Conciliation Officer . He presents that alleged termination order was never served upon him , in accordance with the provisions of rule 30 ofthe Rules . No charge sheet preceded the termination order . Neither an enquiry was conducted nor a show cause notice was served upon him . He claims that termination order may be declared illegal , invalid , inoperative , void ab initio and he may be reinstated in services of the Institute . He further claims that he may be elevated to the post of Director of the Institute . In the alternative he claims adequate compensation , besides an interest of 9% per annum . Cost of litigation has also been claimed.

9. The claimant had intentionally and deliberately abandoned his employment out of his own accord and volition , pleads the Institute . His claim suffers from delay and latches . On 7-3-1994 he made a request for refund of hisprovident fund amount and service benefits . That fact makes it clear that he was well aware about his termination order. It has been claimed that his services were liable to be terminated in terms of clause 3 of his appointment letter . The Institute presents that the claimant is not entitled for any relief much less relief of reinstatement in service or his elevation to the post of Director of the Institute . A prayer has been made that his claim may be discarded.

10. On pleadings of the parties , following issues were settled:

1. Whether the management is an Industry within the meaning of clause (j ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ?

2. Whether the claimant abandoned his services w.e.f. 23-8-74 ?

3. As in terms of reference .

4. Relief.

11. Claimant entered the witness box to substantiate his claim . Shri Pankaj Kumar, Section Officer , stepped in the witness box to substantiate defence of the Institute . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

12. Arguments were heard at the bar. Claimant raised hissubmissions in person . Shri Pankaj Kumar , Section Officer , presented his point of view on behalf of the Institute . Written submissions were also filed on behalf of the claimant . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows :

Issue No. 1

13. Though during the course of arguments neither the Institute raised the issue that it is not an industry nor the claimant opted to answer objection taken in the written statement , yet I think it expedient to deal with that 7. Claim was demurred by the Institute pleading that itbeing purely a Research Institute is not engaged in any activity which can be called business trade or manufacture . It cannot be said to be an undertaking analogous to business or trade , hence not an industry within the meaning of clause (j ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) . It has further been pleaded that the claimant is not a workman within the meaning of clause (s) of Section 2 of the Act . However, it is not disputed that the claimant was appointed as a temorary Senior Scientific Assistant , who joined his duties on 18th ofJune , 64. He was placed under suspension on 7-8-68 , when he misbehaved with the Director of the Institute . However his suspension order was revoked on 22-8-74 , as a sequitur of penalty imposed upon him by the Director General , C.S.I.R. , after a domestic enquiry. Order dated 22-8-74 was delivered to him in the Court of Civil Judge , Dehradun, but he refused to accept the order. Therefore , Shri D.D. Sharma filed his affidavit before the Civil Judge on that very day alongwith copy of order . These facts make it clear that the claimant was well aware of the order dated 22-8-74 , on the strength of which his suspension was revoked . Claimant was supposed to join his duties on 24-8-74 but he opted not to do so . On 22-9-74 a letter was written to him informing him about his unauthorized absence . On 31-10-74 he was again informed that his suspension order has been revoked . In spite of these communications he failed to resume his duties. Later on it was learnt that he was gainfully employed with some establishment . On 22-4-76 he was informed that there was no question of granting him permission to join law classes , since after revocation of his suspension order he had not resumed his duties . On 1-7-78 his request for grant of permission to register in High Court of Allahabad and for issuance of library card was declined . On 23-12-80 a notice was given to him that his services shall stand terminated in terms of appointment letter on expiry ofperiod of one month from the date of the notice . Notice was dispatched by registered post .

2192

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

theApex Court has been guided more by empirical rather than a strictly analytical approach. Most of the decisions have centered around the expression " undertaking" used inthe definition . In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ( 1978 Lab . I.C. 778 ) the Apex Court reviewed the earlier decisions on interpretation of the wide words encompassed in the definition and formulated positive and negative principles for identifying " industry " as enacted by clause (j ) of Section 2 of the Act. It would be expedient to reproduce the authoritative pronouncement of the Court 、 in the very words set out in the majority decision , handed downby Justice Krishna Iyer, which are extracted thus :

I. " Industry" as defined in S.2(j ) and explained in Banerji (AIR 1953 S.C. 58 ) has a wide import.

proposition . The Institute pleads in its written statement that it being purely a Research Institute , is not engaged in any activity which can be called business , trade or manufacture . No activity is being carried on by it which may be analogous to trade or business . It is not engaged in any commercial or industrial activity, hence it cannot be described as an economic venture or commercial enterprise. The Institute nowhere produced any object or render service to satisfy wants and need of the community at large. It has been asserted that the Institute discharges functions as a domestic enterprises . In the light of these pleadings it was claimed that the Institute is not an Industry within the meaning of clause (j ) of Section 2 ofthe Act . The claimant disputes that the proposition raised by the Institute, as aforesaid. To appreciate submissions of rival parties , it is expedient to have a glance on definition of word " industry " , defined in clause (j ) of Section 2 of the Act, whichdefinition is extracted thus :

"Industry" means any business , trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling , service , employment , handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen".

(a) Where ( i ) systematic activity, ( ii ) organized by Co-opertion between employer and employce (the direct and substantial element is chimerical ) (iii) for the production and/ or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes ( not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making , on a large scale prasad or foods) prima facie. there is an " industry " in that enterprise.

(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective isirrelevant , be the venture in the public, joint , private or other sector.

(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer- employee relations .

(d) Ifthe organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the undertaking.

II. Although Section 2 (j ) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs , the re- meaning cannot be magnified to overreach itself.

14. The definition of " industry " is both exhaustive and inclusive . It is in two parts . The first part says that it " means any business , trade , undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers " and then goes to say that it " includes any calling , service , employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workman " . Thus one part defined it from the stand point of the employer , and the other part from the stand point of the employees . The first part of the definition gives statutory meaning of the industry, whereas the second part deliberately refers to several other items of industry and bring them in the definition in an inclusive way. The first part ofthe definition determines any industry by reference to occupation of employers in respect of certain activities viz. , business , trade, undertaking , manufacture or calling. The second part views the matter from the angle of employees and is designed to include something more in what the term primarilydenotes . By this part of the definition any calling , employment , handicraft, industrial occupation or avocation of workmen is included in the concept of industry. This part gives extended connotation .

(a) " Undertaking " must suffer a contextual and associational shrinkage as explained in Banerjee and in this judgement , so also . service , calling and the like . This yields the inference that all organized activity possessing the triple elements in 1 ( supra) , although not trade or business , may still be ' industry' provided the nature of activity, viz . the employer - employee basis , bears resemblance to what we find in trade or business . This takes into the fold ' industry ' undertaking , calling and services , adventures , " analogous to the carrying on the trade or business" .All features , other than the methodology of carrying on the activity viz . in organizing the co - operation between employer and employee , may be 15. Gloss was put on the definition of word "Industry" by the High Courts and the Apex Court time and again . The question as to what is " industry " has continuously baffled and perplexed the courts . A graph of the cases decided by the Apex Court, if plotted on the background of the expression used in two parts of the definition of " Industry " , would represent rather a zig zag curve. There have been various judicial ventures in this rather volatile area of law, The decided cases show that the efforts were made to evolve test by reference to characteristics regarded as essential for constituting an activity as an " Industry " . Various cases would show that [ भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]

dissimilar. It does not matter, if on the employment terms there is analogy.

III. Application of these guidelines should not short of their logical reach by invocation of creeds , cults or inner sense of incongruity or outer sense of motivation for or resultant of the economic operations . The ideology of the act being industrial peace , regulation and resolution of industrial disputes between employer and workmen the range of their statutory ideology must inform the reach of the statutory definition . Nothing less , nothing more .

(a) The consequences are-( i) profession , ( ii) clubs ( iii) education institutions , (iv) co - operatives ( v) research institutes , ( vi) charitable projects and ( vii ) other kindered adventures , ifthey fulfil the triple tests listed in 1 (supra) , cannot be exempted from the scope of Section 2(j) .

(b) A restricted category of professions, clubs , co-operatives and even Gurukuls and little research labs may qualify for exemption if in simple ventures , substantially, and going by the dominant nature criterion , substantively no employees are entertained but in menial matters , marginal employees are hired without destroying the non - employee character of the unit .

(c) If, in a pious or altruistic mission many employ themselves , free or for small honoraria or like return , mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or cause , such as lawyers volunteering to run a free legal services clinic or doctors serving in their spare hours in a free medical centre or ashramites working at the bidding of the holiness , divinity or like central personality, and the services are supplied free or at nominal cost and those who serve are not engaged for remuneration or on the basis of master and servant relationship , then, the institution is not an industry even if stray servants , manual or technical , are hired . Such eleemosynary or like undertakings alone are exempt not other generosity, compassion , developmental passion or project .

IV. The dominant nature test :

(a) Where a complex of activities , some ofwhich qualify for exemption, other not , involves employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are not " workmen " as in the University of Delhi case (AIR 1963 S.C. 1873 ) or some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated, even then , the predominant nature ofthe services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation ofNagpur (AIR 1960 S.C. 657) will 655GI/11-29

2193

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

be the true test. The whole undertaking will be industry although those who are not "workmen" by definition may not benefit by the status .

(b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses , sovereign functions , strictly understood (alone) qualify for exemption , not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaking by govt . or statutory bodies .

(c) Even in department discharging sovereign functions , ifthere are units which are industries and they are substantially severable , then they can be considered to come within S.2 (j ) .

(d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may remove from the scope ofthe at categories which otherwise may be covered thereby.

V. We overrule Safdarjung ( AIR 1970 S.C. 1407 ) , Solicitors case (AIR 1962 S.C. 1080 ) , Gymkhana (AIR 1968 S.C. 554 ) , Delhi University (AIR 1963 S.C. 1873 ), Dhanraj Giriji Hospital (AIR 1975 S.C. 2032 ) and other rulings whose ratio runs counter to the principles enunciated above , and the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (AIR 1960 S.C. 610) is , hereby, rehabilitated . " 16. Principles laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ( supra ) hold ground. Therefore , the controversy raised will be adjudicated in view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the precedent referred above . The Institute agitates that it is not an industry. The view point held by the Institute is that no profit motive activities are being carried on by it , being purely a research institute. No business is being run , hence the Institute cannot be termed as an " industry " . Except the facts referred above , the Institute nowhere projects any other factors to lay emphasis on the proposition that it is not an ' industry' . Contra to it the claimant agitates that the Corporation is an ' industry' .

17. In BarodaBorough Municipality [ 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ8 ] theApex Court held that through municipal activity could not be truly regarded as business or trade , yet it would fall within the scope of expression ' undertaking ' . Non -profit undertaking of the municipality were included in the concept of' industry ' even if there is no private enterprise . The court reiterated that branches of work that can be regarded as analogous to carrying out of a trade or business would fall within the meaning of ' industry ' in clause (j ) of Section 2 of the Act . In reaching the decision , the Apex Court relied precedent in D. N. Banerji ( supra) and ruled that it would be sufficient that the activity is an 'undertaking' analogous to the carrying on of a trade or business and involves cooperation between the employers and employees . This result was reached by extending the meaning of the expression ' undertaking ' to cover adventures not strictly trade or business but ' objects vary [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | 2194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

similar' . Reference can also be made to Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union (supra) .

18. In Indian Standard Institute [ 1966 ( 1 ) LLJ 33 ] the Apex Court suggested that in order to be recognized as an undertaking analogous to trade or business , the activity mustbe an economical activity in the sense that it is productive of material goods or material services . In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra ) , the Court laiddown that an activity systematically or habitually undertaken for the production or distribution of goods for rendering material services to the communityat large or a part of such community with the help of employees is an undertaking . An ' industry ' thus was said to involve cooperation between the employer and employee for the object ofsatisfying material human need but not for oneself nor for pleasure nor necessity for profit . Lack of business and profit motive or capital investment would not take out an activity from the sweep of ' industry' , if other conditions are satisfied . It is the activity in question which attracts the definition and the absence of investment of any capital or the fact that the activity is conducted for profit motive or not, would not make material difference. Converselymere existence ofprofit motive will not necessarily convert the activity into " industry " if other tests are not satisfied.

Petrolieum from British Institute of Engineering and Technology ( London) . Someone wrote to Director General , C.S.I.R. , alleging that Director of the Institute was not allowing employees to improve their educational qualifications . Director suspected him as the person who wrote that letter. In 1965 as well as 1966 , the Institute conducted interview for recruitment to the post of Scientist Grade B. Though he had sent his application , yet he was not called for an interview. Personsjunior and having lesser qualification were called for inte , view and selected. In 1967 hesought an interview from the Director General C.S.I.R. , whenhe visited the Institute. He presented his grievances before the Director General , in rcsence of the Director of the Institute . Director Genera ' 'Deard him patiently and nodded in his favour. In 1968 , he was called for an interview for the post of Scientist Grade B , however, he was not selected . He performed excellently in the interview. When he was not selected , he felt frustrated . He sought an interview with the Director. He erred from the Director as to why he was not selected . Director heard him in presence of four officers . He had not given any reply but served him with a charge sheet . He was suspended and remained in that state for a period of six years . He filed a suit as an indigent person , which was resisted by the Institute . Shri D. D. Sharma filed his afridavit in the said suit on 23-8-74 , copy of which is Ex . WW1 /6 . He wentto the Institute on 1-9-74 to receive his wages . Subsistence allowance for whole of August , 74 was paid to him . He went again to the Institute on 1-10-74. on which date concerned clerk told him that no subsistence allowance would be paid to him . He met the Administrative Officer. who told him that a letter would be written in that regard. He filed a civil suit before Munsif, Dehradun , on 29-10-7-4 seeking declaration and injuncion . Munsif granted an injunction in his favour. He had not gore to join his duties . since the Institute had paid him subsistence, allowance for whole of August, 74. No subsistence alle wance was paid to him for September , 74 and thereafter. On 2-5-95 a termination order was served on him . Herrojects that when letter Ex . WW1 /M2 was served upon hi : n . he wrote to the Director General , C.S.I.R. but no response was received . He admits that on 2-8-83 he joined his services with Welham Boys School . He concedes that copy of affidavit Ex . WWI /6 was supplied to his counse ' on 23-8-74.

19. As projected by the Institute it is a research institute. The Institute agitates that it does not carry out ahy profit motive activity. Lack of business , profit motive or capital investment would not take out the Institute from the sweep of definition of word ' industry' , when other standards laid by the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Board ( supra) stand satisfied. For an answer, it is expedient to bring it over the record that there were systematic activities , organized by cooperation between the employer and employee , for production and/ or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy Human wants and wishes . Absence of profit motive or gainful objective would not take the venture out of the ambitof the definition . As detailed above an educational dr research institute would fall within the ambit of the definition . Claim projected by the Institute that it carries research activities , which cannot be termed as an undertaking analogous to business or trade , is irrelevant . Ratio of law laid by the Apex Court in Safdarjung Hospital (supra), Delhi University ( supra ) were over ruled and a research institute has been declared to be an industry' which answers all standards of the definition given in clause (j ) of Section 2 ofthe Act . In view of the proposition of law laidby the Apex Court contention advanced by the Institute that it is not an industry is unfour: ded . Issue is , therefore answered in favour of the claimant and against the Institute . Issue No. 2

21. Shri Pankaj Kumar claimed in his testimony that written statement of the Institute riay be treated as its evidence .He explains that subsistence allowance for whole ofAugust , 74 was given to the claimant inadvertently. Vide order Ex. WW1 /M3 , the claimant was called upon to deposit amount of subsistence allowance , which was paid to him due to inadvertence . Mistake occurred since suspension of the claimant was revoked on 22-8-74 and salary bills were submitted by that date. Bill for entire amount of subsistence allowance for August , 74 was submitted. projects Shri Kumar. He unfolds tha: letter Ex. MWI/ W2 20. Claimant projects that he joined as Senior Scientific Assistant with the Institute in June , 64. He unfolds thathe is B. Sc . , B.Sc. (Chemical Engineering) , M.Sc. (Technical ) and M. Sc . (Maths ) . He did his diploma in [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

was written to the claimant . He does not dispute copy of affidavit of Shri M. S. Chawla , which is Ex . MWI / W6 .

22. When facts testified by the claimant and those projected by Shri Pankaj Kumar are appreciated , it came to light that the claimant was placed under suspension on 7-8-68. The claimant attempts to raise en issue that since Director ofthe Institute become vindictive , he was harassed and victimized . To project his point of view, he highlights that in 1965-66 he was not called for an interview to the post of Scientist Grade - B despite being qualified for it . Whether vindictive attitude of the Director of the Institute was the reason for not calling the claimant for an interview ? Answer has been given by the claimant himself in documents Ex . W12 and W13 . These two documents were writtenby the claimant on 15-3-77 to the President , C.S.I.R. , Rafi Marg, New Delhi and Hemwati Nar.dan Bahuguna, the thenMinister of Horticulture and Chemicals , Government of India , New Delhi . In these documents , he projects that his confidential report for the year 1965-66 contained adverse entries . He tried to explain that those adverse entries were made on flimsy grounds . Thus it came is light that confidential reports of the claimant for 1965-66 were not upto the mark . No evidence worth name has been brought over the record by the claimant to the effect that he made representations against adverse entries to the Reviewing Authority. The events detailed above make it clear that adverse entries recorded in confidential reports for 1965-66 became final . In the light of those adverse entries , the claimant lost his right to be considered for the postof Scientist Grade B. In such a situation it cannotLe said that claimant was not called for an interview for the post of Scientist Gr . ' B ' in 1965-66 on account of vindictive attitude of the Director of the Institute .

23. As projected by the claimant , he was called for interview to the post of Scientist Grade ' B ' in the year 1967 . He presents that though he performed well but was not selected . As per the case , the claimantjoined services with the Institute in June , 1964. His confidential reports for 1965-66 contained adverse entries . A candidate who does not perform well for consecutive two years cannot be found suitable for a higher post in the subsequent year . Therefore . it is evident that on account of bad performance, the claimant was not selected to the post of Scientist Grade B in 1967. His allegations that the Director made the members of Selection Committee not to recommend him for appointment to the post , are unfounded . An ordinary prudent man cannot derive an inference that on account oi vindictive behaviour of the Director , the claimant lost his ight for selection to the post of Scientist Grade B in the year 1967.

24. As unfolded by the claimant , he sought an inte : view from the Director and questioned him as to why the former was not selected for the post of Sr. Scientist

2195

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

Grade B. This misdemeanour on his part led authorities to contemplate a domestic action . Claimant was suspended on7-8-68 . Domestic enquiry was constituted and ultimately penalty was awarded to him vide order dated 22-8-74 . Initiation of domestic enquiry and award of penalty to the claimant were not questioned . Therefore , it is an admitted proposition that the claimant was punished by the Disciplinary Authority for his misconduct , vide order dated 22-8-74 . It does not lie in his mouth to allege that on account of grudge being nurtured by the Director of the Institute , he was placed under suspension .

25. The claimant dragged the Institute in litigation . He filed a civil suit before the Civil Court , Dehradun . He presents that Shri D. D. Sharma has filed his affidavit before the court on 23-8-75 , copy of which affidavit is Ex . WW1 / 6. When Ex . WW1 / 6 is scanned , it came to light that Shri D. D. Sharma informed Civil Judge , Dehradun that order dated 22-8-74 was passed , revoking suspension of the claimant. He tendered that order to the claimant , who refused to accept it . He presents that refusal of the claimant amounts. service of that order on him . Copy of the order alongwith envelope were filed by Shri Sharma , supported by his affidavit before the Ld . Civil Judge . The claimant admits that copy of that affidavit was supplied to his counsel on 23-8-74 . Therefore , it is emerging over the record that on 23-8-74 order revoking suspension of the claimant was tendered to him by Shri Sharma . The claimant opted not to accept the order . Shri Sharma was constrained to file his affidavit alongwith a copy of the order and envelope in the court of Civil Judge , Dehradun , copy of the affidavit was supplied to the counsel of the claimant . Hence it is evident that on 23-8-74 order revoking suspension of the claimant was made known to him before the Ld . Civił Judge , Dehradun .

26. Whether claim , made by the claimant , that order revoking his suspension on 22-8-74 was not served on him, is based on facts ? For an answer documents relied by the claimant are scanned . In Ex . W 12 and W13 , the claimant projects to the authorities that on 22-8-74 his suspension wasrevoked by the Under Secretary , C.S.I.R. , New Delhi . Henowhere explained as to from what source he came to know that his suspension was revoked on 22-8-74 . Contents ofthese two documents make it clear that the claimant was well aware about the order revoking his suspension , which was passed on 22-8-74 . In these two documents he had admitted that fact . Hence claimant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate facts . Out of his own admission it isemerging over the record that claimant was served with the order revoking his suspension on 22-8-74 . Hence his claim that order dated 22-8-74 was not served, is unfounded, since it is not supported by facts either direct of circumstantiel

27. A case has been projected by the claimant th his suspension order was never revoked , since he was 2196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

paid subsistence allowance for the period from 23-8-74 to 31-8-74. He agitates that no subsistence allowance for the month of September, 74 and thereafter was paid to him .He concedes the he never submitted his joining report to the Institute. An explanation was offered by Shri Pankaj Kumar jas to under what circumstances subsistence allowance for whole ofAugust, 74 was paid to the claimant . He presents that since his suspension was revoked on 22-8-74 by then bills for subsistence allowance to be paid to the claimant for August. 74 were submitted. This inadvertent act was corrected vice order Ex . WW1 /M3 , on the strength ofwhich claimant was called upon to refund excess amount of subsistence allowance paid to him . Ex . WW1 /M3 was written to the claimant on 21-10-74 , wherein it was emphasized that he was absent from his duties in an unauthorized manner w.e.f. 24-8-74 . Service of Ex . WW1 / M3 has not been a matter of dispute . Consequently it stands established that due to inadvertence subsistence allowance for whose of August, 74 was paid to the claimant and at the earliest possible opportunity he was called upon to refund subsistence allowance paid for the period from 24-8-74 to 31-8-74. The Institute projected a claim of his unauthorized absence since 24-8-74, which fact was brought to his notice through communication Ex . WWI /M3 . Consequently the claim projected by the claimant that the Institute had not recalled his suspension order, goes to doldrums on the basis of this communication too .

28. Admittedly the claimant had not joined his duties, knowingwell that his suspension order stood revoked w.e.f. 22-8-74. He was made known to this effect before the Civil Judge, Dehradun , before whor : Shri D. D. Sharma filed his affidavitEx . WW 1/6 . Instead of joining his duties , claimant approached Civil Judge, Dehradun again . His plaint came tobe dismissed. He filed an appeal before District Judge , Dehradun . Ex. W9 is a document proved by the claimant himself. On the strength of this document a notice was served upon the claimant informing him that he was absent in unauthorized manner and his services shall stand terminated w.e.f. the date ofexpiry ofa period of one month from the date of service of the notice . Ex. W9 is signed by Dr. I. B. Gulati , Director ofthe Institute . Despite service of hisnotice the claimant opted not to join his duties. When appeal before the District Judge was pending adjudication , Shri M. S. Chawla, Section Officer, filed his affidavit , which is Ex. WW1 /W6 . This affidavit was proved by the claimant himself. Contents of this affidavit highliglits that services ofthe claimant were done away in terms of conditions of hisappointment . When affidavit of Shri Chawla was served on the claimant in the year 1982 , he came to know about termination order passed by the Institute . Since the claimant admits that he had not joined his duties w.e.r. 23-8-74 till supply ofcopy ofaffidavit Ex. WW1 /M6 , it is crystal clear that the claimant opted to abstain himself from his duties .

29. As detailed above , a case is projected by the Institute that the claimant has abandoned his services , for

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii)] he opted not to join his duties despite service of notice dated23-12-1980. Therefore, it would be expedient to know what words " abandon " and " abandonment " mean . Ordinarily , word " abandon" does not mean merely " leaving" but " leaving completely and finally " . Word "abandonment " would indicate that it has a connotation of finality, which would mean relinquishment or extinguichment of a right , giving up of something absolutely, giving up with an intent of never claining a right or interest, to renounce or forsake utterly. In order to constitute on " abandonment " there must be a total or complete giving up of duties , so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same . Abandonment must be total and under circumstances which clearly indicate an absolute relinquishment . A failure to perform duties pertaining to an office must be with an actual or imputed intention on the part ofthe officer to abandon and relinquish the office .

30. Abandonment is a voluntary positive Art . A man must expressly say that he gives up his right . If he remains quite, it cannot be said that he is forsaking his tille to property or his interest therein . An office is abandoned by ceasing to perform its duties . A temporary absence is not , ordinarily sufficient to constitute an abandonment of an office. A mere absence of a workman from duty c; nnot be treated as an abandonment of service . Abandonnent or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to m employee without adequate evidence in that behalf. However, the " intention " may be inferred from the ants and conduct of the party. The question as to whether the job . i: fact has been abandoned or not, is a question of fact which is to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case .

31. As per own admission of the claimant he had not joined his duties with the Institute despite revocation of his suspension order . He went to the Institute to receive his subsistence allowance but opted not to join his duties . He again went to the Institute on 1-10-74 but not submitted his joining report . Various communications were sent bat the claimant did not join his duties . Notice Ex. W9 was served , which could evoke no response . No efforts were ever made by the claimant to join his services . All these facts make it crystal clear that the claimant had abandoned his services . Issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the Institute and against the claimant.

Issue No. 3.

32. The Institute projects that services of the claimant were done away in pursuance of service conditions contained in his letter of appointment Ex . WWI / M1 . On perusal of Ex . WW1 / M1 it came to light that the Institute had reserved a right in its favour to terminate services of the claimant on service of one month's notice . For sake of convenience that clause is reproduced thus :

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

"The services of a temporary employee may be termirated by a month's notice on either side , viz . the appointee or the appointing authority, without assigning any reasons . The appointing authority also reserves the right of terminating the services of the appointee forthwith or before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him on a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof."

33. Pright reserved by the Institute in appointment letter Ex. WW1 / M1 projects powers of administrative adjudication . Administrative decision making is a by- product of ar intensive form of government and consequently socialisation of law. Vast expansion of state activity has taken place and government has to embark on ambitious , massive plans of public health , education , planning , social security, transport , agriculture , industrialisation and national assistance . It is impossible to carry out such programmes and determine legal questions involved therein . Therefore , if social control over this area of action is desirable , administrative decision making process has to develop , viz . instrumentalities of the State developing itself under justice system , which supplements the existing one . Power of administrative adjudication has been reorganized by the Apex Court in catena of decisions . Precedents in Barreli Electricity Supply Company [ 1971 (2) SCC 617 ] , Rattan Singh [ 1977 (2 ) SCC 491 ] , Tara Chand [ 1977 ( 1 ) SCC472] , Nand Kishore Prasad [ 1978 ( 3 ) SCC 366 ] and S. N. Mukherjee , [ 1990 ( 4) S.t' . 594 ] are a few which can be quoted in that regard .

34. Whether the Institute , which is an instrurnentality of the State , is required to initiate enquiry against the claimant before exercising powers of administrative adjudication available to it , under terms of service contained in appointment letter Ex. WW1 /M1 . In Suresh Chand (2007 LLR 344) contention of the workman that no domestic enquiry was conducted and termination of his services was illegal , was brushed aside and it was ruled that when a workman absents from duty without any intinzation or prior permission , termination of his services without holding an enquiry will bejustified . In Vijay Pal (2007 L.L.R. 7 ) andGT. Lad ( 1979 Lab . I.C. 2910 ) same proposition of law was laid . However in G.T. Lad (supra) it was ruled by the Apex Court that absence of an employee because of strike for enforcement of their demands does not amount to abandonment of their services . In Syndicate: Bank (AIR 2000 S.C. 2198 ) the Apex Court was confronted with such a proposition , as exists in the present controversy . Workman absented himself from his work place for a period of 90 or more consecutive days . A notice was served calling upon

2197

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

him to report for duty within 30 days of notice , alongwith the grounds on which bank came to the conclusion that the workman had no intention to join his duties . The workman did not respond to that notice at all . Bank passed orders to the effect that the workman had voluntarily retired from service of the bank. Apex court laid that as far as principles of natural justice are concerned the court was to consider ( 1 ) whether show cause notice detailing the contents of the complaint or accusation was served (2) whether an opportunity was there for the workinan to state his case , and (3 ) whether the management acted in good faith and has been fair reasonable and just . It was ruled therein that on the facts and circumstances of the case the principles of natural justice were inbuilt in the clause relating to voluntary cessation of employment and when workman had not opted to join his duties on service of notice , principles of natural justice were complied with .

35. As detailed above Institute was clothed with a right to dispense with services of the claimant , after serving one month's notice . Notice Ex . W9 was served on the claimant . Despite service of the said notice , the claimant opted not to join his duties . Thus it emerged over the record thatservices of the claimant were dispensed with in terms of conditions contained in appointment letter Ex . WWI / M1 . Claimant agitates that termination order was served upon him 1995. Facts in that regard stood dispelled out of contents of affidavit Ex . WW1 / W6 . Affidavit Ex . WWI/ W6 was proved by the claimant, contents of which make it clear that it was tendered to the c'aimant by the authorities of the Institute before District Judge , Dehradun , in 1982. Thus it is evident that he was well aware in 1982 itself that hisservices were terminated by the Institute in accor lance with terms contained in his appointment letter. His agitation that he was served with a termination order in 1995 is contrary to the record . A stale claim was filed by him be fore Conciliation Officer in 1997. In view of these facts it is evident that action of the Institute ir . terminating his services is just, fair and legal . Claimant could not show any illegality , unjustifiability or arbitrariness in the termination order. Issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the institute and against the claimant .

Relief.

36. Since services of the claimant were dispensed with in accordance with terms of his appointment letter , he isnot entitled to any relief muchless relief of reinstatement in service . His claim is liable to be discarded . Accordingly, discarding his claim an award is , passed . It be sent to the appropriate government for publication .

Dated: 31-12-2010 Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer 2198

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2011

union in respect of challenging the termination of 11 workmen whose names are mentioned in the Schedule along with list and for determination of the relief to which the said workmen are entitled .

का. आ. 705.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का( 4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन आमामेंट टेक्नोलॉजी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पुणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल. 14011 / 13/97 - आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] डी. एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S.O. 705. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Pune as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Armament Technology and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-2-2011 .

[No. L- 14011 / 13 / 1997 - IR ( DU ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI M.G CHOUDHARY, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE

Reference ( IT) No. 12 of 2004

FirstParty

The Director & Dean, Indian Armament Technology , Girinagar, Pune -411025

AND

...Second Party

The Secretary , Pune Zilla Mazdoor Sangh , 185 , Shaniwar Peth , Pune -30

In the matter of reinstatement

CORAM : Shri M.G. Choudhary, Presiding Officer

Appearances : Smt . B.M. Kadam , Advocate for first party.

Shr: A.Y. Shikarkhane , Advocate for second party.

2. The workmen concerned represented by Pune Zilla Mazdoor Sangh appeared in the matter and filed their statement of claim at Exh . U - 4 in which it is contended that first party designs , manufactures and stores various types of engineering products in the workshops and other facilities located in its premises . It is producing various goods with the help of power and employs more than 50 employees and is a factory under the Factories Act , 1948 . According to the second party apart from the manufactures as above items the first party is also a Research Institute . It trains civilian and defence officers in various techniques and runs regular courses . The first party is controlled by the Defence Research & Development Organization of Central Government . The first party runs an Officers Mess in its premises which also has loading facility. This Mess is run as a statutory facility as per Sec . 46 of the Factories Act. According to the second party, the first party employs the following permanent workmen in the said Officers Mess whose names are mentioned in the statement of claim . According to the second party in addition to the above permanent workmen as there is sufficient work year round the first party has been employing about 400 employees since more than 15 years in the capacity of Room Attendants , waiters , washer , cook & helpers . These workmen cannot enter the premises of the first party unless they are issued entry pass and the first party has been issuing them with entry pass for every month for all these years . According to the second party the first party also provides with rent free quarters on the premises of the first party to some of these workmen . According to the second party workmen they are doing the same work as done by the permanent workmen , but they are exploited like bonded labour by the first party, they are forced to work for long hours , abused and top of it are paid wages of Rs . 500 to Rs . 600 p.in. The first party does not pay them minimum wages fixed by the Central Government nor paid them wages @ 1 /3rd of the wages paid to the permanent workmen as per the directives of the Central Government . According to the second party, the first party has been flouting every labour law in respect of these workmen even after the breach were pointed out by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( Central ) . According to the second party , the first party has terminated the services of 11 workmen out of the above 40 odd workmen from 24- AWARD

(11-10-2010)

The Central Government through Ministry of Labour by order dtd . 23-4-04 , in exercise of powers conferred under Section - 10 ( 1 ) , Clause (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the industrial dispute between above named parties for adjudication of the demand of the second party

4-97 by way of retrenchment and did not pay them one month's wages and retrenchment compensation as per Sec . 25F of the I.D. Act , even though they were in continuous employment for more than one year . According to the second party the said termination is illegal and unjustified by way of victimization and in oper . Lastly requested to reinstate them in their origina post with continuity of service and full back wages from 24-4-97 .

2199 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

nothing to do with the affairs of the said Mess anddoes not concerned to the Mess and the employees of Mess are not in fact the employees of Institute of Armament Technology i.e. first party. According to the first party the entry passes were / are issued to these workers so as to avoid any security hazard since it is a defence installation and visitors are given entry pass after thorough security checkup . According to the first party the workers were provided accommodation in Mess servant quarters by the management committee of the Officers Mess and not by the Institute of Armament Technology . According to the first party the second party Pune Zilla Mazdoor Sangh is not a recognized union by the Central Government and has no locus standi to file this reference and lastly requested to reject the reference .

4. The following issues are framed in the matter at Exh . 06 by my Ld . Predecesor which arise for my determination :

( 1 ) Whether the reference as framed is tenable under law ?

(2) Does the second pary union proves that the action of the first par y company in respect of terminating the services of workmen ( involved in the reference) is illegal and unjustified ?

(3) Whether second party union is entitled for relief as prayed ?

(4) In what manner the reference is answered ?

My findings to above issues for the reasons recorded below are as under :

(1 ) Yes;

(2) Yes;

(3) Partly yes ;

(4) Reference is answered partly in affirmative as per order below.

REASONS

5. Both the parties have produced the documents on record . The second party union gave notice of documents , the first party gave inspection of documents to the second party and the inspection report is submitted by the second party at Exh . U - 9 and the documents are also produced by the first party in the matter with list Exh . C- 12& C -13 .

3. The first party in his written statement at Exh . C- 7 contended that statement of claim contents therein and demands in prayer clauses are illegal , false and wrong . According to the first the second party has no locus standi to file this complaint and there is no relationship of employer - employee between the first party and second party. According to the first party, the second party has no. given prior notice U/ s . 80 of CPC while making the party to the government officers . According to the first party it is not a factory under the Factories Act and not an industry under the I.D. Act . According to the first party , it is a institute ofArmament Technology of Defence Research & Development Organization under the Ministry of Defence , Government of India , is imparting training/ education on defence related subject to the Armed Forces officers and civilian officers of Ministry of Defence and foreign students of friendly nation . It is denied that the first party is manufacturing and storing various types of engineering products in workshop . It is also contended that though the designing of engineering tools / equipment for purely academic and research purpose is carried out on need basis under Mechanical Engineering section under the supervision of specialists / research officers . The institute is not engaged in producing any goods . Accordingto the first party it is not an industry, as such the dispute is not maintainable. According to the first party he is engaged in discharging sovereign functions . According to the first party the Officers Mess is purely a hostel facility run on the contribution of its members and managed by a managing committee , appointed by the Gene : al Body of the Officers Mess members . There is no provision to run the Mess as a statutory /non statutory/ department canteen . The persons employed purely on ad hoc basis by the Officers Mess as private arrangement . These ad hoc workers were not paid out of any contingency grant for which there is no provision under the existing government rules / orders . According to the first party it has never employed the mentioned workmen in the Officers Mess and they are not permanent but ad hoc in nature . It is contention of the first party that the special recruitment drives were launched by government for clearing the back logs in reservations for SC / ST in direct recruitment from the year 1993 till 1996. During these special recruitment drives the appointment in Group - C and Group - D categories were made in Institute of Armament Technology, through local Employment Exchange , Pune strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules . Whenever such requisitions were sent to employment exchange wide publicity was invariably given to the Officers Mess ad hoc workers for getting the eligible candidate , name sponsored from employment exchange for the concerned posts. According to the first party the workmen were rather employedby Officers Mess , which is purely a hostel facility run on the subscription from the members of the said Mess and managed by the management committee

appointed by the members of Mess . The first party has

6. The second party in order to prove his case examined Mr. Nandu Londhe at Exh . U - 10 . In his examination in chief by way of affidavit he has stated that he is in the employment of the first party Officers Mess from 1-9-96 . He is not given appointment letter. Initially he was given work as Room Attendant and at the time of termination he was working as Room Attendant . He was 2200

[PART I ! SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

thefirst party and his quarter No. is F / 1 /9 and stated the same thing as per the statement of earlier witness . In cross- examination he has stated that he is studied upto 8th Std . He does not know the signatory of the statement of claim and presently he is working in the employment ofthe first party on contract basis . He has admitted that he was in the employment of first party from 1-1-97. Questions were putto him about Employment Exchange , Advertisement, first party belongs to Central Government , contribution paid by the officers to the Mess . He has admitted that in the year 1997 he was being paid Rs . 20 per day. He has denied other suggestions given to him in the cross- examination .

given servant quarter and for that purpose Rs . 90/ - was deducted from his salary. He was given identity card. He has stated that he has continuously worked from the date of his appointment even on 26th January, 1st May and 15th August. He was not enjoying the holidays , he worked for more than 12 hours in 365 days in a year . At the time of his termination w.e.f. 16-4-97 no notice pay and retrenchment compensation was given to him. In cross- examination questions were put to him about his educational qualification and he has stated that he studied upto 4th Std . He does not remember his date of birth . He filed this case through his union . He does not know the name of the union . Initially he was given Rs . 350 p.m. towards wages and was not given any appointment letter. He has admitted that he was appointed by the persons from Mess . He has admitted that he was in the employment from 1-9-96 to 16-4-97 and his name was not recommended by Employment Exchange. He does not know members of the Mess . He has admitted that he was given work orally. He has not filed any documentary evidence regarding allotment of the quarter. He has denied other suggestions given to him in cross -examination .

The fourth witness is examined by the second party at Exh . U - 14 Smt . Janabai Laxman Gundgal . In her examination - in- chief by way of Affidavit she has stated that she was in the employment of the first party Officers Mess from 16-5-91 as washer - up and stated same thing as per statement made by earlier witness of the second party. In cross -examination she has stated that she is educated upto 8th Std . She does not remember her date of birth . Shewas working in first party Officers Mess since 11 years but she cannot tell the exact date of year of the appointment. She was doing the work of washing utensils . Initially she was getting Rs . 300/-p.m . And lastly she was getting Rs . 700/- p.m. She has admitted that wages were deducted for absence on holiday. She stated that there are 3 to 4 Mess in the first party and the officers of the OfficersMess was giving her wages . She has denied other suggestions given to her in the cross -examination .

The second witness deposed in the matter at Exh . U- 12 Mr. Lewis Joseph Thomas . In his examination in chief by way of affidavit he has ated that he was working with the first party from 4-8-8 and he is studied upto 7th Std. Hewas working as a Waiver. He was given quarter No. 2/181 and he has stated the sme things as per deposition of earlier witness . In cross - xamination he has admitted that he has not filed any documentary evidence to show that the union is registered and recognized by the Government . He has not filed any documentary evidence to show that he is member of the union. He has admitted that he was given work of Waiter in the Officers Mess which was in the premises of the first party. He was not given any appointment letter.

The second party has examined the fifth witness Smt . Kusum Dadu Gnadsinghat Exh . U - 15 . In her examination in chief by way of affidavit stated that she wasworkingwith first party from 25-10-87 as Washer- up and stated the same things as per earlier witness. In cross- examination she has stated that statement of claim is not signed by her. She has not filed any documentary evidence in respect of quarter . She has stated that she was working since 25-10-87 as mentioned in the affidavit , in the Officers Mess . She has denied other suggestions given to her in cross .

There was no advertisement in the local newspaper. His name was not recommended by Employment Exchange. He was getting monthly wages . He has no documentary evidence to show that he worked more than 12 hours in 365 days in a year. He has not made any written complaint to the authority for non - payment of wages as perMinimum Wages Act and worked more than 12 hours in a day. He does not know whether the Mess runs from the subscription received from the officers . He has admitted that he was being paid by the officers of the Mess and Mess officer was keeping record about his work. He has denied other suggestions given to him in cross- examination.

The sixth witness of the second party is examined at Exh . U - 16 Smt . Rukmani Pandurang Navgire . In her examination in chief by way of affidavit stated that she was working with first party Officers Mess from 17-5-91 as Washer-up and stated the same thing as per the earlier witness . In cross - examination she has stated that she is not having any documentary evidence to show that she wasworking since 17-5-91 as Washer - up in Officers Mess . The questions were put to her about identity card given by first party, she has not filed any documentary evidence regarding her uninterrupted service . She has not entered her name with Employment Exchange . She has denied other suggestions given to her in cross - examination .

The third witness of the second party examined at Exh . U- 13 is Mr. Muniswamy Selvraj . In his examination in chief by way ofaffidavit stated that he was working with the first party from 1-1-97 in Officers Mess as Waiter and he was staying in the quarter which was allotted to him by [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

The seventh witness of the second party Smt. Shanta Ankush Jagtap is examined at Exh . U- 17 . In her examination in chief by way of affidavit stated that she was working with first party Officers Mess from 22-5-96 as Kitchen helper. She was staying in the quarters No. F/ 11 / 06 and made statement as like earlier witnesses . In cross- examination she has stated that affidavit was drafted by her counsel as per her instruction . She has no documentary evidence with her in respect of her employment with the first party. She has denied other suggestions given to her in cross - examination .

The eighth witness of the second party Mr. Krishnan Mayavelu is examined at Exh. U - 18 . In his examination in chief by way of affidavit stated that he was in the employment of the first party from 1-9-93 as Msalchi and made statement as like other witnesses of the second party. In cross- examintion he has stated that he was doing the work of cutting vegetables . The work was allottedto him by the officers of the Officers Mess . He has admitted that there was fluctuations in the members of the Officers Mess . He has denied other suggestions given to him in cross - examination .

The first party has examined Mr. Damodar Wasudeo Nandanwar at Exh . C - 22 . In his examination in chief by way of affidavit stated the same thing as per the stand of first party in written statement . In cross- examination questions were put to him about xerox copy of notification dtd. 17-4-79 which isat Exh.C- 12/A . Questions were put to him about the letter dtd . 19-12-05 which is issued by Defence Research & Development which is at Exh . C- 12/B by which the first party was approved as Deemed University. Another letter dtd . 15-10-99 issued by UGCby which the establishment of the first party was declared as Deemed University which is at Exh . C- 12/ C . The questions were put to this witness about regular employees of the first party working in Officers Mess since 1997. Questions were put to the witness about various persons working with the first party company as gardener, cook, waiter whether belongs to open category or reserved category. He has admitted that the first party decides regarding allotment of the quarters to the employees and further admitted that some of the employees involved in the reference are residing in residential quarters . Questions were put to him about various letters produced on record . Questions were put to him about various courses conducted in the first party institute . He has admitted that candidates from Defence as well as from Civil Service participate in the course . He has stated that the first party gave training to the candidates who are not in Government services . He does not have any personal knowledge about service conditions of the employees who are working in the Officers Mess . He has further admitted that Officers Mess is not registered under any law and officers of the IAT used to look after the day-to -day management of the Officers Mess . He has 655Gl / 11-30

2201

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14, 1932

denied other suggestions given to him in the cross- examination .

The second witness of the first party is examined at Exh . C -25 . Mr. Rabindrababu Banwari Varma in his examination in chief by way of affidavit stated the same thing as per the stand of the first party in written statement aswell as the documents produced on record by the first party. In cross -examination he has stated that he is working in the establishment of the first party since 1987. He was appointed on the application submitted by him and not through the employment exchange . He has no concern with the recruitment or appointment of the staff. He used to visit the Officers Mess once in a week as he is the member of the Officers Mess . He has stated that about 250 Class - I officers are the members of the Officers Mess . It includes civilian , army , navy and foreign officers . Questions were put to him about all the departments available in the Mess . He has admitted that building premises of Officers Mess belongs to first party. The building and furniture of Officers Mess belongs to first party. The questions were put to him about the documents produced on record. He has stated that Officers Mess is maintaining the muster- roll and payment register of the employees working in the Officers Mess . He has stated that first party is giving M. Tech . degree and also conducting defence in short courses and these courses are allowed for civilians also . He is not aware about W.P. No. 131/99 in respect of these employees . He has denied other suggestions given to him in the cross- examination .

7. With the help of material on record I have heard the argument of advocates for both the parties at length and both of them have submitted their case as per material on record .

I have already pointed out that the Central Government through Ministry of Labour referred the present industrial dispute under exercise of powers conferred under Sec - 10( 1) ( d) of the I.D. Act in respect of Il workmen involved in the present Reference whose names are mentioned in the list attached to the schedule to the order of the Reference . It appears from record the name of Smt . D. Kusumbai Gadsingh , Room Attendant was deleted as per order of My Ld . Predecessor on 20-2-09 as per purshies Exh . / U - 21 . Thus now the dispute is in respect of 10 workmen involved in the present reference .

According to the second party it is registered trade union and present Reference is filed on behalf of the workmen involved in present Reference . However according to the first party the second party union has no locus standi to file the present Reference , but the workmen deposed in the matter whose evidence is referred above have categorically stated that they are workmen involved in the present reference and they are prosecuting their demand through present Reference through union . [ can understand that if general demands are there , there [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )| THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14 , 1932

2202

can be a question whether union has locus standi to prosecute the general demands of the workmen working in the establishment of the employer, but in the present Reference the termination is under challenge and workmen in their individual capacity has every right to prosecute their demand in respect of their reinstatement with continuity ofservice and full back wages by challenging their termination . Under these circumstances in my opinion the present Reference is perfectly maintainable in this court and the second party union has every right to represent the workmen involved in the present Reference .

the present Reference have categorically stated in their statement of claim as well as in their evidence that they are the workmen working with the Officers Mess of the first party and this position is not denied by the first party inthis matter. It is pertinent to note that the witness of the first party has admitted in the cross -examination that Officers Mess is not a statutory body nor it is registered under the Trust or Society Act , but Officers Mess isformed by the officers of the first party and workmen involved in the present Reference were working in the Officers Mess and this position is also admittedby the second party as well as first party in the present Reference . It is pertinent to note that the Central Government while making the Reference to this Tribunal made following reference in the Reference order mentioned in the schedule reads as under:

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Armament Technology , Girinagar , Pune in terminating the services of 11 workmen ( list enclosed ) of Officers Mess appended hereto is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the said workmen are entitled to ?"י

8. It is contention of the second party that first party designs , manufactures and stores various types of engineering products in the workshop and producing various goods with the help of power and employs more than 50 employees and is a factory under the Factories Act and also an industry . The second party also contended that the first party is also a Research Institute, it trains civilians and defence officers in various techniques and runs regular courses . The first party in written statement contended that it is engaged in discharging sovereign functions as such it is not an Industry. There is no employer - employee relationship between the workmen involved in the present Reference and the first party. The first party is not an industry, the first party is not a factory. Thus according to the first partythe Reference itself is not maintainable .

The first witness of the first party has categorically admitted in cross -examination that UGC as well as Defence Ministry have declared first party institute as Deemed University. The first party is conducting short term courses and also conducting degree courses . It is pertinent to note that first party himself has produced on record with list Exh . C- 12 notification dtd . 17-4-1979 issued by the appropriate Government in relation to Factories Act i.e. Government of Maharashtra in relation to first party institute giving exemption in respect of certain provision (not all ) in respect of Factories Act and the said notification is at Exh . C- 12/A , which is proved document . Thus it is clear that first party is also a factory therefore first party requested for exemption under the Factories Act from certain provisions and accordingly exemptions were granted but not in relation to Sec -46 of Factories Act .

were If the wording in the schedule to the Reference is properly seen it can be said that Reference is made to this tribunal in respect of workmen of the Officers Mess of the first party, and present reference is not in relation to the workmen of the first party . Once it is admitted position on the record that these workmen were working in Officers Mess of the first party, it is clear that first party has ultimate control over these workmen as these workmen working in the premises of the first party. The first party has provided premises to the Officers Mess , under the Factories Act canteen is statutory facility . There were and there are some direct employees ofthe first party viz . cook . waiter of the first party are working in the Mess . It is pertinent to note that first party has allotted quarters to some of the workmen involved in the present reference this is an admitted position . These workmen in their evidence have categorically stated that they were continuously working with the first party Officers mess from the date of their appointment and they were given entry pass , identity card by the first party for security purposes . Under these circumstances in absence of any contract in between these workmen and the first party it cannot be said that first party has no relation with these workmen involved in the present reference . Thus on this background I am of the considered view that the present dispute between the workmen involved in the present reference who were workmen of Officers Mess is perfectly maintainable in this Tribunal , hence I answer Issue No. I in affirmative.

10. I have already pointed out that 10 workmen involved in the present Reference were working with the first partyOfficers Mess from the date of their appointment 9. Now in view of the ratio of Bangalore Water Supply case Industries like educational institutes are an industry. As such admitedly the first party institute is an industry within the meaning of Sec - 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act . No doubt as per Sec -2 (s ) of the I.D. Act the category of workmen who is subject to Air- Force Act, Army Act and Navy Act are not included in definition of workman , but it is not the case of the workmen involved in the present Reference or the second party in this matter the workmen involved in the present Reference are the workmen of first party. The second party as well as workmen involved in 2203 [ भाग II ---खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

AWARD

1. The Reference is partly allowed in respect of 10 workmen involved in the present Reference . The reference in relation to workman Smt . D. Kusumbai Gadsingh , Room Attendant stands rejected .

2. The 10 workmen involved in the present reference are entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages w.e.f. 24-4-97.

3. The Officers Mess of first party to implement the said award .

4. No order as to costs .

5. Copies be sent to the appropriate authorities .

Pune :

M.G CHOUDHARY, Presiding Officer

Date 11-10-2010

Sd/- (D.G Dake) Secretary,

Industrial Tribunal , Pune .

नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2011 as mentioned in the statement of claim and documents produced on record , they were continuously working with the Officers Mess of the first party and completed 240 days service in each year and it was obligatory on the part of the Officers Mess of the first party while terminating their services to follow the mandatory provisions of Sec - 25F of the I.D. Act and admittedly none of the provisions of labour laws is followed by the first party Officers Mess in this matter . After reading the Reference Order it appears that as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 3214/99 the present Reference is made to this Tribunal . Thus the workmen involved in the present reference might be appointed on temporary basis , on ad hoc or on daily wage basis , but it is proved on record that they were continuously working with the first party Officers Mess and completed 240 days of their services in each year . As such it was obligatory on the part of the first party Officers Mess to follow mandatory provisions of labour laws while terminating . their services and admittedly the Mandatory provisions ofSect - 25F of the I.D. Act have not been followed as such the second party has proved in this matter the termination ofthe workmen involved in the present reference is illegal and totally unjustified, hence I answer Issue No. 2 in affirmative .

का. आ. 706. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 120/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 17012/13/2005- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th February , 2011

S.O. 706. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/ 2005) ofthe 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2011 .

[No. L - 17012 / 13 /2005 - IR ( B - 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PRESENT :

N. K. Purohit , Presiding Officer.

11. In view of my findings on above Issues it is clear that the second party workmen are entitled for relief of reinstatement and continuity of service as referred . The evidence in respect of gainful employment of 10 workmen is totally silent in the present Reference, nor the first party has disputed that these workmen were gainfully employed after their termination . Thus considering that these workmen worked on meagre wages even inspite of direction of the Commissioner of Labour Central these workmen were not paid minimum wages by the Officers Mess of the first party. In my opinion this is a fit case to direct the first party Officers Mess to pay full back wages to the 10 workmen involved in the present reference . However if statement of claim of the second party Exh . U-4 is perused what is their prayer in their statement of claim that workmen to be reinstated in their original post with continuity of service and full back wages from 24-4- 97. In my opinion this a fit case of reliefto the 10 workmen involved in the present Reference is granted as it is in respect of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from 24-4-97 is tollay justified having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case . However, as pointed out above the name of one workman Smt . D. Kusumbai Gadsingh , Room Attendant is deleted from the present Reference , hence to that effect she is not entitled for any relief in the present reference . In view of this it is clear that the present reference is liable to partly allowed , hence , I answer Issue Nos . 3 & 4 accordingly and proceed to pass the following award :

2204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

I.D. No. 120/05

Reference No. L- 17012/13/2005- IR ( B- I ) dated 21-10-2005

Shri Surendra Kumar, S/ o Shri Raja Ram Giri , R/ o Dhan Mandi , Q. No.15, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan

V/s.

TheDivisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sagar Raod , JN Vyas Colony, Bikaner.

AWARD

Dated : 28-01-2011

1. The Central Government in exercise ofthe powers conferred under clause ( d) of Sub - sections ( 1) & 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 947 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication which runs as under :

"Whether the Claimant Shri Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Raja Ram was in continuous service as defined under Section 25B of the I.D. Act, 1947 in LIC of India, branch Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar as class IV employee from 1-4-2001 to 30-12-2003 . If yes, his discontinuation from service by the management from 30-12-2003 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief claimant is entitled to and from which date ? "

2. The applicant workman in his claim statement has averred that he was initially appointed as class IV employee by the Branch Manager of the non- applicant bank w.e.f. 1-4-2001 . He was appointed against a vacant and permanent post and his salary was fixed as Rs . 1800 per month which was increased after 3-4 months and fixed as Rs . 2000 per month . He has further averred that initially the applicant was paid salary in his own name but thereafter for some intervals fictitious names of class IV employees were mentioned while throughout the tenure from 1-4-2001 to 25-9-2001 , the applicant had continuously performed the duty of class IV employee . The salary for the said period was also drawn by him. It has also been averred that despite the applicant had regularly and continuously performed duties w.e.f. 1-4-2001 to 30-12- 2003 and has completed more than 240 day in a calender year, his service was terminated on 30-12-2003 in violation of Section of 25( F) of I.D. Act , It has been alleged that whileterminating his services juniors to the applicant were working with the non - applicant and no seniority list was prepared by the employer . Therefore , his termination is in violation of Section 25 (G ) and Rule 77 of the Central Rules . It has also been alleged that after his termination new fecruitments have been made without affording him an

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] opportunity of employment in violation of the Section 25(H) and Rule 78 of the Central Rules . The applicant has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits .

3. The non- applicant in its written counter has submitted that the applicant was appointed as temporary Waterman for the period 17-4-2002 to 8-7-2002 for 83 days only. His services automatically come to an end on 8-7-2002. Thereafter, he was again appointed as Waterman for the period 8-7-2003 to 30-9-2003 for 85 days on temporary basis under Regulation 8 of Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulation , 1960 and after expiry ofthe said period of 85 days the services of the applicant automatically come to an end. Thus , the claim of the applicant is not maintainable as per Section 2 (oo) ( bb ) of the I.D. Act

4. The non- applicant has denied that the applicant had continously worked from 1-4-2001 to 30-12-2003 and has completed 240 days in any calendar year . It has also been denied that for some intervals fictitious names of class IV employees were mentioned. It has also been denied that junior to the applicant were retained in violation of Section 25 ( G) and new recruitments were made in violation ofSection 25 ( H ) of the I.D. Act.

5. The claim statement was filed on 27-1-2006 and document in support of the claim were filed on 15-5-2006. Subsequently, at the stage of filing document on behalf of the non-applicant ex - party proceedings were drawn against the applicant on 19-8-2010 . In above factual backdrop there is no oral evidence in support of the claim statement .

6. The non -applicant has submitted the affidavit of management witness Shri M.P. Singhal on 9-12-2010 m support of its case .

7. Heard the arguments of the learned representative on behalf of the non - applicant and perused the record.

8. The following points crop - up for consideration (i) Whether the applicant was in continuous service as defined under Section 25 ( F ) of the I.D. Act with non- applicant from 1-4-2001 10 30-12-2003 whose service was terminated on 30-12-2003 in violation of Section 25 ( F ) of the I.D. Act ?

( ii) Whether junior to the workman were retained while terminating the service of the applicant in violation of Section 25( G) of the I.D. Act ?

(iii) Whether after termination of services of the applicant , without offer of employment to the applicant new persons have been recruited in his place in violation of Section 25 (H ) of the I.D. Act ?

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

2205 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

Point No. 1 :

to maximum amount of Rs . 1560 per month and his services automatically come to an end on the expiry of the said periods.

9. It is well settled that to attract he provisions of Section 25 ( F ) initial burden is on the workman to establish that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination . In the present case the non - applicant has denied the claim of the applicant . Therefore , it was for the applicant to prove that he had worked for at least 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination i.e. 30-12-2003 or he had worked continously for one year during any calendar year .

10. The applicant has only produced photo copies offollowing documents :

13. The non - applicant has produced documents Ex . M-2 to Ex . M-6 . Ex . M -2 is appointment letter dated 8-4-2002 for temporary workman for the period 17-4-2002 to 8-7-2002 ( 85 days ) . Ex . M -3 is applicant's application for appointing him as Waterman . Ex . M - 4 is another appointment letter dated 8-7-2003 whereby he was appointed as Waterman for the period 8-7-03 to 30-9-2003 . Ex .M -5 is appointment letter dated 16-7-2003 appointing him for 85 days w.e.f. 8-7-2003 . Ex. M -6 is an application of the applicant wherein request has been made to appoint him as class IV employee . The deposition of the management witness also finds support from the said documents Ex . M -2 to Ex . M-5 adducedby the non- applicant.

( i ) Letter of the Branch Manager , LIC dated 21-4-2003 addressed to Branch Manager , SBI , Sriganganagar pertaining to challans of income-tax.

(ii) Letter of the Branch Manager , LIC to the Post Master for issuing revenue tickets to the applicant dated 24-4-2003 .

(iii) Vouchers dated 1-5-2003 and 2-6-2003 . pertaining toHarjendra .

14. There is no cross - examination on the affidavit of the management witness . There is no oral evidence in rebuttal. Thus , there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the non - applicant . The applicant has failed to prove that he had continuously worked with the non- applicant during period 1-4-2001 to 30-12-2003 . He has also failed to prove that he had at least worked for 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date of his termination i.e. 30-12-2003 .

( iv) Letter of the Branch Manager , LIC to Income Tax Officer for income - tax challan form dated 5-6-2003 .

Point Nos . 2 & 3 :

(v) Letter received from Assistant Director, Social Welfare dated 21-6-2003 to the Branch Manager, LIC for issuing LIC Schedules .

(vi) Letter ofthe branch Manager , LIC addressed to Branch Manager , SBBJ , Sriganganagar for giving T - 6 challan form service tax dated 5-7-2003.

(viii) Payment vouchers dated 1-8-2003 , 1-9-2003 and one payment voucher undated whereby some payments were made to the applicant .

15. it has been alleged in the claim statement that juniors to the applicant were retained in the service and no seniority list was prepared . It has also been alleged that after termination , without offer of employment to the applicant new persons have been recruited in his place . But there is neither oral evidence nor any documentary evidence of the applicant in support of above pleadings . Merepleadings are no substitute for proof. Therefore , the applicant has also failed to establish alleged violation of theprovisions under Section 25 (G ) and 25 (H). (viii ) Appreciation letter issued by District President of Rajasthan Sahayak Karamchari Singh , Sriganganagar.

16. In view of the above discussions the reference under adjudication is answered in negative . Resultantly, the applicant workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

17. Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2011 11. On perusal of the documents produced by the applicant , it is evident that they are pertaining to the period fromApril , 2003 to September , 2003 only. Therefore , on the basis of said documents , it is not established that prior to his alleged date of termination i.e. 30-12-2003 , he had worked for more than 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination .

का. आ. 707.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी एस एन एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 12. The management has submitted the affidavit of Shri M. P. Singhal in support of his case who has deposed that the applicant had worked as Waterman only during the period from 17-4-2002 to 8-7-2002 for 83 days and for the period 17-4-2002 to 8-7-2002 on Rs. 60 per day subject 2206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. - 40012/86/2004- आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S.O. 707. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/ 2006) 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 BSNL and their workman , received by the Central Government on 10-2-2011 .

[No. L-40012/ 86/2004 - IR ( DU ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Dr. Manju Nigam, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 20/2006

Reference No. L- 40012/86/2004- IR (DU) dated :

4-8-2006

BETWEEN

Shri Phool Kunwar , S /o Late Shri Ram Samujh Choudhary, Village Girdharpur , PO-Chokhra, Distt. Sidharthnagar (UP) .

AND

1. The Chief General Manager , BSNL , Telecom, UP (East) Circle, Lucknow

2. The Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Telecom (Maintenance), Telephone Exchange , Kesar Baugh , Lucknow

AWARD

1. By Order No. L-40012/ 86/2004- IR ( DU) dated 4-8- 2006 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise ofpowers 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 industrial dispute between Shri Phool Kunwar , S / o Late Shri Ram Samujh Choudhary, Village- Girdharpur , PO- Chokhra, Distt . Sidharthnagar (UP) and the Chief General Manager , BSNL , Telecom , UP (East ) Circle , Lucknow and the Divisional Engineer , BSNL , Telecom

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] (Maintenance ) , Telephone Exchange , Kesar Baugh . Lucknow for adjudication .

2. The reference under adjudication is :

"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager , BSNL , Telecom , U.P. Circle. Lucknow/Divisional Engineer, BSNL , Telecom (Maintenance), Telephone Exchange , Kesar Baugh , Lucknow in terminating the services of their workman Shri Phool Kunwar, w.e.f. 27-7-2001 is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

3. The case of the workman in brief is that the workman was appointed by the management of BSNL , on 26-3-1991 on the sanctioned post of Lorry / Jeep Driver on being his name sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he worked accordingly, up to 2001 for more than 240 days in each year , in a stipulated pay scale/salary like regular Driver's salary. It has been alleged by the workman that his services were terminated in an arbitrary manner vide impugned order dated 27-7-2001 , without affording any opportunity to the workman , such as notice or notice pay in lieu thereof, in violation of Section 25 - F. It has further been alleged by the workman the opposite party has not only retained workmen junior to him but also has granted them temporary status ; and accordingly, the management has violated the provisions of Section 25-11 . He has referred name of one Shri Udai Bhan Mishra in this respect . The workman has also alleged that the management after terminating his services appointed several casual labourers and granted them temporary status , in this regard he has referred names , such as Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla , Shri Om Prakash and Shri Rudra Mani Pandey . Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the impugned order dated 27-7-2001 , terminating the services of workman , in contravention to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , be set aside and he be reinstated with all consequential benefits , including continuity in service. back wages and regularization in service etc.

4. The opposite party has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement wherein it has submitted that the workman was engaged as casual Lorry Driver, as stop gap arrangement , in March, 1991 and worked as such up to 24-5-2001 ; and when regular Lorry Driver joined his duties , his casual engagement came to an end for which he was paid salary of one month in lieu ofnotice . as such , it has not contravened any provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Further, it has been submitted by the management that the grant of temporary status is irrelevant in the present case as the workman was engaged on casual basis against Group ' C ' post of Lorry Driver whereas the claim for grant of temporary status is available to casual labourer equivalent to Group 'D' staff. The opposite party has also raised objection regarding maintainability of the present reference order [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

on the ground that the workman is not a workman as he had worked as casual employee performing the work of Lorry Driver . Accordingly, the opposite party has prayed that the claim of the workınan be rejected without any reliefto him,

5. The workman has filed rejoinder whereby he has only reiterated his averments in the statement of claim and has introduced nothing new.

6. The workman has filed documents in support of his claim whereas the opposite party did not file any. The workman has examined himself; whereas the opposite party examined Shri Chandra Shekhar Mishra , SDE ( Admin. ) , in support of their respective cases . The parties filed their written arguments apart from submitting oral submissions in support of their case .

7. Heard , representatives of both the parties and scanned the entire evidence on record .

8. The workman Shri Phool Kunwar has stated in hisstatement on oath that he had worked as casual Driver from March , 1991 to 27-7-2001 ; and at last he was getting @about Rs . 134 per day and bonus as payable to Group ' D' employee . He has further stated that his services were terminated on joining of regular driver . He has alleged that Uday Bhan Mishra and Pankaj Tiwari , who were junior to him were regularized by the opposite party .

9. In rebuttal , the management witness Shri Chandra Shekhar Mishra , SDE has stated that the workman was engaged as casual Lorry Driver in March 1991 , as the regularly recruited Lorry Driver were not available accordingly, the engagement of the workman was purely as a stop gap arrangement on casual basis . The engagement of the workman came to end after the availability of regular driver . He was also paid one month salary in lieu of the notice . The management witness has also stated that the claim of grant of temporary status is not applicable to the employees who are working against the Group ' C' post of Lorry Driver . In cross examination , the witness , Shri Chandra Shekhar Mishra has reiterated that the workman worked from March , 1991 to 20-5-2001 as Group ' C ' worker accordingly, he was given for disengagement from Group ' C ' category.

10. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that the workman was engaged as daily wager though work of Driver was taken . The opposite party has treated the workman in Group ' C ' category of the employee without paying wages payable to the casual driver i.e. Rs.176.15 per day. Since the workman had worked for 10 years continuously, therefore he was entitled for the grant of temporary status . The opposite party has granted temporary status to the junior casual labours ignoring the claim of the workman . He has also contended that issue raised in representation dated 22-9-2000 submitted to the Chief General Manager , Telecom

2207

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

BSNL to treat the workman as casual labour was not involved in the O.A decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Lucknow . Further the workman was getting wages and bonus available to the casual labour of group 'D' . He has further contended that post of group ' C ' and ' D' employees are available but the opposite party has adopted a pick and choose policy & retained the juniors to the workman in the services and terminated the services of the workman illegally. Thus , the termination order is unjustified and illegal .

11. Per contra, the learned representative on behalf of the management has urged that the workman was engaged as casual Lorry Driver in purely stop gap arrangement till the availability of the regular Lorry Driver. Hisservices were disengaged when the regular Lorry Driver joined his duty on 24-5-2001 after paying one month salary in lieu of notice . He has further urged that earlier the workman had approached to the Central Administrative Tribunal , Lucknow for regularization on the post of Lorry Driver on the ground that he had been working as Lorry Driver and also claimed the benefit of the scheme of granting of temporary status but his claim was rejected on the ground that the scheme of grant of temporary status was not applicable to Lorry Drivers which is a group ' C ' post. The workman filed writ petition against the said order but the same was withdrawn . The workman has failed to prove that he was basically performing the work of casual labour and whenever there was any need he used to drive the vehicle also . He has further urged that the workman himself has admitted in his representation dated 22-8-2000 that he was working as casual Lorry Driver, thus , he is not entitled for any relief.

12. Having gone through the rival submissions made by both the parties , it reveals that it is not disputed that the workman had worked under the opposite party from March , 1991 to 24-5-2001 . The contention of the workman is that he was appointed as temporary lorry driver and has completed more than 240 days since 1991 to 2001 against duly sanctioned post in the pay scale of regularized drivers salary. Even after completion of 11 years of service, his services were not regularized like other persons who were juniors to him , in accordance with provision of law . Further, itwas also contended in the claim statement that workman and two other casual lorry drivers requested to appoint them against 50 % quota on the post of regular Lorry Drivers but no heed were given on his request and was thus , illegally deprived of the appointment while the casual labours have been granted temporary status . His claim for the post of regular lorry driver was ignored and his services were terminated in arbitrary and punitive manner , in violation of principles of natural justice and provisions of Section 25F and 25G and H of the I.D. Act . It was submitted that several daily wager / casual labour has been appointed after the termination of the services of the applicant and had been granted temporary status e.g. Om Prakash who 2208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

joined duty on 4-6-1991 and was given temporary status on 12-2-1999 and Chandra Bhushan Singh who joined services on 12-2-1999 got temporary status mazdoor on 12-2-1999 . One Udai Bhan Mishra who was too junior to the applicant was appointed on the post of temporary Lorry Driver in the pay scale of Rs . 4720-6970 vide order dated 2-4-2004by GMTD, Gorakhpur. Besides it was also submitted that applicant was entitled to get a temporary status after three years on the basis of Scheme of 89 .

13. It is well settled that if a party challenges the illegality ofthe order , the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order. In the instant case , the burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity ofthe termination order and to prove the illegality intermination .

14. It was the case of the workman that he was engaged as casual lorry driver and he had worked as such for 10 years , therefore , the action of the management in not granting temporary status and not regularizing and disengaging him from the services is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claim of the workman has been denied by the management and it was contended that scheme of grant of temporary status is not applicable to lorry drivers which are group ' C ' post . The burden is on the workman to prove that casual lorry drivers were regularized or given temporary status.

15. Admittedly, the Original Application No. 544/ 2000 was filed by the workman before the Central AdministrativeTribunal , Lucknow for regularizing him as Lorry Driver and the said O.A. was disposed of by order dated 12-1-2001 , with direction to make individual representation to the department in this regard .

16 , In pursuance of the above order of the CAT, Lucknow dated 12-1-2001 , the opposite party after considering the representation of the workman dated 22-1-2001 , SDE , Telephone , Kesar Baugh , Lucknow intimated him vide its letter dated 21-3-2001 that the post of Lorry Driver comes under Group ' C ' cadre as such regularization cannot be done in the cadre ofLorry Driver.

17. Subsequently, aggrieved with the said order dated 21-3-2001 , the workman filed O.A. No. 217/2001 and 333/2001 for regularization of his services on the post of Lorry driver and challenged the order of management dated 21-3-2001 by which his representation for regularization was rejected and for quashing the order dated 24-5-2001 by which he was disengaged. On the above said O.A. of the applicant and O.A. of the other two applicants No. 215/2001 and 334/2001 , in respect ofOm Prakash and O.A. No. 2/8/2001 and 325/2001 in respect of Ravindra Kumar Verma, which was disposed ofby single order , it was observedby the Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 21-12-2001 that " earlier three applicants filed different O.As forgrant of temporary status and regularization . However,

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) | as the representation had not been decided all the three O.As were decided with the directions to the respondents to take decision on the representation and to communicate the same to the applicant . " The other submissions of the learned authorized representative of the applicant is that the post on which applicant was working has been filled up by transfer and not by making fresh recruitment . Same pointwas takes before the Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 217/2001 and 333/2001 wherein it was observedby the Administrative Tribunal " that vacant post can be filled by promotion by direct recruitment or even by transfer. It was further held that since the three posts on which the applicants were working have been filled by transfer of regular employees , hence the applicants have no claim to continue on such post . A casual lorry driver has no right on a post to which a regular lorry driver has been transferred . " It was submitted before the Administrative Tribunal that applicant alongwith two others had already sent a representation on 22-9-2000 to Chief General Manager, Telecom for treating applicants as casual labour, in this regard Administrative Tribunal has observed that 'such issue was not involved in the O.A. sơ , no such direction can be given . ' All the OAs , including OA No. 217/2001 and 333/2001 in respect of the workman , were dismissed . Aggrieved by said order of CAT dated 21-12-2001 , the workmen preferred a writ before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow bench , but the same was withdrawn by him .

18. Thus , it is evident from the claim statement as well as from the representation , paper No. 6/20 that workman was initially engaged as a casual Lorry Driver and has worked for nine years as such . Since the post of Lorry Driver comes under Group ' C' hence , he is not entitled to get the benefit of scheme for grant of temporary status . It was submitted by the learned authorized representative that many casual Lorry Drivers have been granted temporary status but there is not a single iota of evidence to prove the workman's contention . It was submitted by the opposite party that the labours who were granted temporary status were casual labours not casual Lorry Drivers . The workman could not adduce any evidence which shows that any causal Lorry Driver has been granted temporary status .

19. It is the case the workman that he was appointed as casual Lorry Driver which is Group' C' cadre . Therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit of scheme of regularization or for grant of temporary status and also not entitled for regularization. As has been observed by the Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 217/2001 and 333 2001 , in respect of the workman , vide their order dated 21-12-2001 as under :

" The question of regularization on the post of Lorry Driver, which is a group ' C ' post does not arise . The applicant's claim for regularization is therefore , without [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011/फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

merit. Consequently, all the three O.As No. 215 , 217 and 218 of2001 are found devoid of merit and are liable to the rejected."

Aggrieved from said order dated 21-12-2001 of the Administrative Tribunal , the workman filed a Writ petition before Hon'ble High Court but same was withdrawn by him and accordingly, the order dated 21-12-2001 becomes final .

20. Thus , in view of the above discussions , the workman has failed to prove that casual Lorry Driver has been absorbed or given temporary status. He has also failed to prove that he was engaged as casual labour and he had worked as such under group ' D' cadre for 10 years and his services have been teminated in violation of provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

21. Therefore , the action of the opposite party in not granting temporary status and terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 27-7-2001 is neither illegal nor unjustified . Accordingly, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

22. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

23. Award as above .

LUCKNOW

25-9-2011

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 708. 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, भुवनेशवर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल.-12012/117/2008- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th February, 2011

S.O. 708. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/ 2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneshwar 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, which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 117/2008 - IR (B - 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 655G1/ 11-31

2209 ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer , C.GI.T. -cum-Labour Court , Bhubaneshwar

Industrial Dispute Case No. 42/2009 Dateof Passing Award-31st January, 2011 Between:

TheManagement of the Chief General Manager, StateBank of India, LHO , Pt . Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bhubaneshwar , Orissa

The Branch Manager , State Bank of India, At./P.O./Distt. Phulbani

1st Party-Management

AND

Their workman Shri Bijay Nayak, At . Darada, P.O. Arapaju , Via. Khajuriguda , Distt. Kandhamal , Orissa

2nd Party - Workman

Appearances :

Shri P. K. Mohanty, ChiefManager (Law)

For the 1st Party- Management None

For the 2nd Party- Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred the present industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of State Bank of india, LHO and their workman in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section ( 1 ) and Sub- Sections 2(A) of Section 10 of the Indus rial DisputesAct , 1947 vide letterNo. L- 12012/ 117 /2008 - IR (B - I) , dated 9-11- 2009 in respect of the matter specified in the schedule as quoted below :

"Whether the action of the Management of Chief GeneralManager , State Bank of India , Orissa Circle , innot re-employing Shri Bijay Nayak, Ex - Temporary Messenger in services , is justified ? If not , what relief is the applicant entitled ? " [PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

failed and the matter was referred to the Government of India. The Government of India declined to send the references of dispute in respect of Shri Maheswar Behera. Shri Bharat Behera, Shri Kamraj Behera etc. observing that the Ministry did not consider the dispute fit for adjudication . But the same government has referred the present dispute in respect of the 2nd Party- workman which is the result of non- application of mind and is bad in law. The 2nd Party-workman was employed on temporary basis for a specified period and by afflux of time such temporary employment came to an end and so it cannot be termed as retrenchment . He was afforded an opportunity for permanent appointment and was empanelled after interview but the panel had expired on 31-3-1997 . Thereafter he has no right to claim re - employment .

4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled for adjudication:

ISSUES

(1) Whether this reference cannot be entertained In view of the allegations made in Para 10 of the written statement of the 1st Party- Management ?

2. In pursuance of the order of reference the 2nd Party-workman has filed the statement of claim . The case of the 2nd Party- workman is that he had worked as a temporarymessenger in Gochhapara Branch of State Bank of Indiafrom1-10-1985 to 31-3-1986 and as daily wage messenger at Phulbani Branch of State Bank of India from the year 1986 to 31-7-1989. He was called for interview in the year 1989 for the post of messenger and was placed at Sl . No. 17 in the panel list . He waited till 1995, but he was not engaged . In the year 1995 he approached the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa by filing O.J.C. No. 6784/1995 . The Hon'ble High Court directed the 1st Party - Management to consider the representation of the petitioners including the 2nd Party- workman , if the petitioners make any representation to the Management within a period of four weeks . The 2nd Party- workman and other petitioners attended the interview held for personal hearing at Regional Office Branch , Phulbani on 22-3-2007 in pursuance ofthe order of the Hon'ble High Court . But the joint representation of the petitioners including the 2nd Party -workman was rejected by the Chief Regional Manager on 26-3-2007. It was also learnt that the panel list of 1997 was cancelled. Although he had completed 280 days service in one calendar year, yet he was not given any appointment while those who had completed 140days have been given appointment . Therefore he has prayed for re - employment as messenger in the State Bank of India with payment of accrued benefits .

(2) Whether the action of the Management of Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Orissa Circle , in not re -employing Shri Bijay Nayak, Ex - Temporary Messenger in services is justified?

(3 ) If not , what relief is the applicant entitled ?

5. The 2nd Party - workman since remained absent on the last date preceding the settlement of issues , a notice under registered cover was issued to him for the date fixed for his evidence . But he did not turn up on any of the dates fixed thereafter for hearing of the reference . Therefore the case was set ex parte against the 2nd Party-workman and on evidence from the side of the 2nd Party - workman could be recorded in the case .

6. The 1st Party - Management has examined Shri Dhananjay Dalai as M.W. - 1 and proved and exhibited documents marked as Ext . -A to F.

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1

7. The 1st Farty Management has taken the plea יי itswritten statement that the Government of India in similar cases of Sun Maheswar Behera , Shri Bharat Behera . Shri Kamraj Pelura etc. has rejected the disputes for reference as it did not find the disputes fit for adjudication . Butthe same Government has referred the present dispute of the 2nd Party - workman which is the result of non application ofmind and is bad in law and therefore it cannot be entertained .

3. The 1st Party-Management has stated in its written statement that the appointment of messengers pursuant to different settlements between the Management of State Bank of India and All India State Bank Staff Federation has attained finality after the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa in the matter of " Abhimanyu Mandal and others - versus- State Bank of India " decided on 15-5-1998 . Any re - employment or direction for re- appointment would be totally against the spirit of the Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa as well as Apex Court of India . Moreover all the panels have expired with effect from 1-4-1997. Now the disputant- workman is estopped from challenging the same after lapse of the panel . The disputant - workman alongwith 10 others were given a personal hearing as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa in O.J.C. No. 6784/95 . Their grievances were heard on their representations and their representation was rejected on 26-3-2007 by a reasoned order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Uma Devi - versus-State Bank of Karnataka" has held that there is no fundamental right in those who have been employed as daily wagers or on temporary/ contractual basis to claim right of absorption in service . Being aggrieved by the rejection of their representation by the Management of State Bank of India the petitioners raised a dispute before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( Central ) who entered into the conciliation proceeding . But the conciliation proceedings [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

8. It is well settled that the act of referring the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is an administrative act and it rests upon the sole discretion , of course , on some sound principle of the appropriate Government to refer or reject to refer a dispute for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court . This Tribunal cannot sit over the order of reference of the Government and decide whether the reference is to be entertained for adjudication or not . The allegations made by the 1st Party - Management in Para 10 of its written statement are not valid and sufficient to deny hearing of reference . Therefore this issue is decided against the 1st Party- Management and it is held that the order of reference is well within the competence of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour making reference to this Tribunal for adjudication .

Issue No. 2

9. The stand of the 1st Party - Management with regard to disengagement of the 2nd Party - workman is that he had worked intermittently at the time of exigencies for a specified period in temporary or casual capacity . He had not completed 240 days of temporary service in any of the calender year in the years he worked under the 1st Party- Management . He was interviewed for permanent appointment in the Bank and kept at Sl . No. 17 in the panel list , but due to expiry of the panel on 31-3-1997 he could not be accommodated . He alongwith some other workman filed an O.J.C. No. 6785/95 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in which order for consideration of their representation for re - engagement was passed and the petitioners were asked to file representations in this regard. After consideration , their representation was rejected . As such he is not entitled to re - employment . In the case of "Secretary, State of Karnataka and others - versus- Umadevi and Others " relied by the 1st Party - Management it has been clearly laid down that temporary or casual or daily wage workers cannot claim as a fundamental right to be absorbed in service . The 2nd Party - workman has taken all legal recourse for his re -employment under the Ist Party- Management , but having no right or title to such relief he was not given re - employment . Under law also he cannot be given re - employment on the basis of his previous engagement as a temporary or casual or daily wage worker , under the 1st Party - Management as he could not make out any ground for such a direction to be issued to the 1st Party - Management . As such the action of the 1st Party- Management cannot be held illegal and unjustified in not re-employing the 2nd Party- workman Shri Bijay Nayak , Ex-temporary messenger. This issue is accordingly decided against the 2nd Party - workman .

Issue No. 3

10. Since the claim of the 2nd Party -workman is not valid and justified on the grounds stated above , he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for .

2211

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

11. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated and Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 709.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर 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 115/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. - 12012/ 14/2005 - आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th February, 2011 S.O. 709.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 115 / 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 Bikaner and Jaipur and their workman , received by the Central Government on 11-2-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 14/2005 - IR (B - 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Present :

N. K. Purohit , Presiding Officer I.D. 115/2005

Reference No. L - 12012 / 14 /2005 - IR ( B - I ) dated : 14-9-2005 Shri Mohan Singh , S / o Shri Ramcharan Through -Secretary , Hind Mazdoor Sabha , Bengali Colony, Chawani , Kota (Raj . )

Vs.

The General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur , Regional Office , Industrial Area , Jhalawar Road , Kota ( Raj .) 2212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 14, 1932

AWARD

31-1-2011

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause ( d) of sub -sections 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:

" क्या कर्मकार श्री मोहन सिंह पुत्र श्री रामचरण ने दिनांक 1-6-96 से 29-2-2000 की अवधि में स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर की समरानिया शाखा में रु. 240 प्रतिमाह वेतन पर 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया है ? यदि हां , तो क्या प्रबन्धक स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर द्वारा 1-3-2000 से कर्मकार को नौकरी से हटाने की कार्यवाही वैध एवं युक्तिसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ?

2.The applicant is his claim statement has pleaded that he was employed by the non - applicant Bank on 1-6-1996 at Samarai Branch of the Bank as class IV employee and he was paid Rs . 240 per month as salary. He was performing job of filling water and cleaning in the morning and thereafter job of class IV during office time . He has further pleaded that despite he had worked continuously from 1-6-1996 to 29-2-2000 and had worked for more than 240 days , he was terminated on 1-3-2000 without any notice or compensation in lieu of notice in viplation of section 25 ( F) of the I.D. Act . The applicant hasalso pleaded that non- applicant did not prepare any seniority list andjunior to him were working with the non- applicant therefore, his termination was in violation of section 25 (G) of the I.D. Act. The applicant has alleged that after termination of his service, Shri Shivaji Sen has beenemployed without any offer of employment to him . Thus, the applicant has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits .

3. The non -applicant Bank in its counter statement has deniedthe claim of the applicant and has averred that the applicant was engaged for a specified periods on the basis oforal contract for filing water. He had not worked in the year 1999 and 2000 and he had never worked for 240 days in any calendar year. It has been further averred that employer employee relation never existed between the parties and provisions of Sections 25F, G and H are not applicable in this matter. Therefore , the claim of the applicant deserves to be rejected .

4. In rejoinder, the applicant has only reiterated his earlier averments made by him in his claim statement .

5.The applicant did not appear at the stage of applicant'sevidence therefore , ex - party proceedings were drawn against him on 25-11-10 . The non - applicant has also not adduced any oral evidence . Under these circumstances , there is no oral evidence of either party in support of their respective case. The documents which

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] were desired by the applicant vide his applications dated 24-2-06 and 26-4-06 have been produced by the non- applicant on 28-6-06 .

6.Heard submissions of the learned representative for the non-applicant and perused the record.

7.Onpleading of the parties following points crop- up for consideration :

(i) Whether the applicant had worked continuously from 1-6-96 to 29-2-2000 with non- applicant and had worked for more than 240 days whose service was terminated on 1-3-2000 inviolation of Section 25 (F) ofthe I.D. Act ?

(ii ) Whether at the time of terminating the service of the applicant juniors to him have been retained in violation of Section 25 (G ) of 1.D. Act?

( iii ) Whether after termination of service of the applicant Shri Shivaji Sen workman was employed without any offer of employment to the applicant as required under Section 25 ( 11 ) ofthe I.D. Act ?

(iv) Relief?

Point No. 1

8. Before a workman can claim retrenchment not being in compliance with Section 25F of the I.D. Act , he has to show that he has been in continuous service of not less than one year with the employer who had retrenched him . As per sub- section ( 1 ) 25B of the Act , the workman shall be said to be in continuous service for one year if he has been in the employment of the employer for the continuous, uninterrupted period of one year except the period the absence is permissible under the said section . Asper sub - section 1 of Section 25B even if the workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) of sub - section ( 1 ) of 25B for the period of one year, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked for 240days in the preceding period of twelve months from the date of his termination .

9. Since the non - applicant has denied the claim of the applicant initial burden was on the applicant to show that he had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months prior to his alleged termination or he was in continuous service within the meaning of clause ( 1 ) of sub - section ( 1 ) ofSection 25B for the period of one year.

10. The applicant has not adduced any oral evidence in support of his claim . On perusal of the record , it reveals that vide application dated 24-2-06 and 26-4-06 a request was made by the applicant to summon the documents mentioned therein from the non - applicant . It further reveals thatfollowingdocuments have been produced by the non- [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

applicant on 28-6-06 :

(1) Copy of Payment vouchers and applications submitted by the applicant for payment for the period from 27-6-96 to 7-12-98 of the applicant .

2213

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 5 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 14 , 1932

without offer of employment but there is no evidence that without offer of employment to the applicant the above name person was engage in his place . Therefore , the applicant has failed to prove that the non - applicant has violated the provisions of section 25 (H) of the I.D. Act .

Point No. IV

(ii) Copy of Payment vouchers pertaining to Shri Shivaji Sen.

( iii) Copy of Register of Employment for the period January , 96 to December , 2000 .

( iv) Copy of Petty charges register for the period 1-6-96 to 31-12-2000 .

(v) Copy of Certificate pertaining to meter connection in the branch .

(vi) Copy of Statement of the bank account of the applicant.

(vii) Copy of the applicant for granting loan for business .

11. On perusal of the copies of payment vouchers , applications , petty charges register, it is evident that during period from 27-6-96 to 7-12-98 payments were made to the applicant for filling water on different dates on the basis of applications submitted by him . It is also evident that regular salary was not being paid and the payments of different amount were made on the basis of number of days he had performed the job and nature of job viz . cleaning , filling water etc. From the register of employment it further reveals that he was not marking his attendance in the said register as class IV employee . The other documents which are on the record are not relevant for the purpose of calculating working days of the applicant. The workman has not adduced any oral evidence in support of his claim. Apart from this even from the material on the record and on reckoning the number of working days figuring therefrom neither it is established that the applicant was in continuous service within the meaning of clause ( II ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 2 (b ) nor it is established that he had worked for at least 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination i.e. 1-3-2000 , this point is decided against the applicant.

Point No. II

12. The applicant has not disclosed the name of the junior person said to be retained while terminating his service . Moreover , there is neither any oral nor any documentary evidence on the record to show that while terminating service of the applicant any junior to him was working with the non - applicant , hence, this point is also decided against the applicant .

Point No. III

13. The applicant has pleaded that after terminating ofhis service Shri Shivaji Sen was employed in his place 14. In the result , the reference is answered in negative . Resultantly, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

15. Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 710. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-। , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 06/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.-41012/63/2006- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th February , 2011

S.O. 710. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 06/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - 1 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 10-2-2011 .

[No. L -41012 /63 /2006 - IR ( B - 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . - 1 , MUMBAI Present :

Justice G.S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-6 of 2007

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Western Railway

AND

Their workman (Shri Radka Bhima) 2214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 14, 1932

[PART 1 ]-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | Appearances:

Absent

For the Management

Absent

For the Workman

जोकि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 13 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 25-8-2010 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

Maharashtra

State

Mumbai , dated the 2nd day of February, 2011

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

AWARD

अतः , अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप - खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 25-2-2011 से छः मास की कालाषधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है । 1. This is a reference made by the Cental Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d ) of Sub-section (1) and Sub - section (2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 vide Government of India , Ministry of Labour New Delhi Order No. L - 41012/63 /2006 - IR (B - 1 ) dated 24-1-2007 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

[फा. सं. एस-11017/ 11/97 - आई आर ( पी.एल. ) रवि माथुर , अपर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011 "Whether the action of the management ofWestern Railways , Mumbai is justified and proper is imposing the penalty of removal from services on Shri Radka Bhima ? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2.None present on behalf of the Western Railway .

S.O.711 .---Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so required that in pursuance of the provisions of Sub- clause (vi ) of the clause (n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 18-8-2010 the service in the Copper Mining Industry which is covered by item 13 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) to be a Public Utility Service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 25th August , 2010 .

3. The workman appeared after service ofnotice and prayed for time to file statement of claim but thereafter he remained absent continuously. A notice issued to the workman Radka Bhima in compliance of the Orderdt. 30-11-2010 has been served on the workman but still the workman is not present and no statement of claim has been filed on his behalf.

4. In view of the above , this reference stands disposed of for want of prosecution .

And whereas, the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .

JUSTICE Q S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली , 18 फरवरी, 2011

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub - clause (vi) of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a Public Utility Service for the purposes of the said Act, for a period ofsix months from the 25th February, 2011 .

का. आ. 711. केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो , जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड (vi ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना दिनांक 18-8-2010 द्वारा ताम्बा खनन उद्योग,

[F. No. S - 11017/ 11 /97 -IR ( PL) | RAVI MATHUR , Addl . Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press , Ring Road , Maya Puri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi -110054, 2011