This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

NO.D.L. REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 11]

नई दिल्ली, मार्च 6 मार्च 12 , 2011 , शनिवार/फाल्गुन 15 फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

No. 11 ] NEW DELHI , MARCH 6- MARCH 12, 2011, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 15- PHALGUNA 21 , 1932 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके SeparatePaging 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 , 1 मार्च , 2011

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 ), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shreesh Chandra, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment ( Central Bureau of Investigation ) in the Lucknow Bench ofAllahabad High Court in CBI Case No. RC . 2 (S) /1988-SCU.V/SIC.II/New Delhi ( Syed Modi Murder Case) .

[F. No. 225/20/2010-AVD- II] V. M. RATHNAM, Dy. Secy.

का.आ. 712.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए इलाहाबाद , उच्च न्यायालय की लखनऊ बैंच में के.अ.ब्यूरो केस सं. आर.सी. 2 ( एस )/88 - एस. सी.यू.वी. /एस.सी. II ( सैयद मोदी हत्या संबंधी मामला ) में श्री श्रीष चंद्र , वकील को दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( के.अ.ब्यूरो ) के विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

कार्यालयः मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त सं. 4/2010-11 जोधपुर , 1 मार्च , 2011

[फा. सं. 225/20/2010-ए वी डी- II ]

वी. एम. रत्नम्, उप सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department ofPersonnel and Training ) New Delhi , the 1st March, 2011

का.आ. 713, आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां) की धारा 10 (237 ) के खण्ड ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 गए द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जोधपुर एतद्‌द्वारा " मरूधर महिला शिक्षण संघ, पोस्ट- विद्यावाडी (खीमेल ) , स्टेशन - रामी, जिला- पाली " को उक्त धारा के प्रयोजनार्थ निर्धारण वर्ष 2011-2012 से आगे तक निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित करते हैं:-

S.O. 712. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( 8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

768G1/2011

(2215) 2216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

1. कर निर्धारिती उसकी आय का प्रयोग अथवा उसकी आय का प्रयोग करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतः तथा अनन्यतः उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई;

2. कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर-जेवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न ) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा;

3. यह आदेश किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगा , जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक ऐसा करोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;

4. कर निर्धारित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगा;

5. विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियां और परिसंपत्तियां समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएगी और उसका कोई भी भाग संस्थान के किसी सदस्य को नहीं दिया जाएगा;

6. यह अधिसूचना तब तक जारी रहेगी जब तक इसे वापस न लिया जाए ।

[सं. मु.आ.आ./आ.अ. ( तक. ) /जोध/2010-11 /4944 ]

दिलीप शिवपुरी , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX No. 4/2010-11- Jodh Pur , the 1st March , 2011

S.O. 713. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( vi) of section 10 (23C) of the Income - tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income Tax Rules , 1962 , I , the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax , Jodhpur hereby approve " MARUDHAR MAHILA SIKSHAN SANGH , POST- VIDHYAWADI ( KHIMEL) , STATION RANI , DISTT. PALI " for the purpose of the said section for the assessment year 2011-12 onwards , subject to the following conditions :---

1. the assessee will apply its income , or accumulate for application wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2. the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds ( other than voluntary contribution received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in anyone or more of the forms or modes specified in sub- section ( 5) of section 11 ;

3. this order will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gain of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business ;

4. the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the income - tax authority in accordance with the provisions of Income - tax Act, 1961;

5. that in the event of dissolution , its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organization with similar objectives and no part of the same will go to any of the members of the Institution .

6. This notification will remain in force until it is withdrawn.

[No. CCIT /ITO ( Tech . ) / Ju/2010-11 /4944 ] DILEEP SHIVPURI , Chief Commissioner of Income - Tax

वित्त मंत्रालय

( राजस्व विभाग )

( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 714.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ दिनांक 1-4-2003 के आगे से संगठन कर्नाटक स्टेट सेरिकल्चर रिसर्च एंड डवलपमेंट इंस्टीट्यूट , बंगलौर को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में अंशतः लगी ' संस्था ' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्: -

( i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

(ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा ;

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि उसमें दर्शाई गई हो , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता- बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ;

(iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखां परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा । 2. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन :-

(क) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप - पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अलग बही खाता नहीं रखेंगा; अथवा

( ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप - पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा ; अथवा ( ग ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत्त नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(घ ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा (ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 13 /2011/फा. सं. 203/57/2009- आ.क.नि.- II ]

अजय गोयल , निर्देशक MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue ) (Central Board of Direct Taxes) New Delhi , the 7th March, 2011

S.O. 714.- lt is hereby notified for general information that the organization Karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development Institute , Banglore has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (said Act) , read with Rules 5C and 5E ofthe Income - tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules ), with effect from 1-4-2003 onwards in the category of ' Institution ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely :-

(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

2217

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

( ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income - tax or the Director of Income -tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act;

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization :-

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub- paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; ог

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub -paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or (c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub- paragraph ( iv) of paragraph 1 ; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and 5E of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 13 /2011 /F. No. 203 /57/2009/ITA- II ]

AJAY GOYAL, Director (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 8 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 715.- जीवन बीमा निगम अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 31 ) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्द्वारा , श्री शशि कांत शर्मा ,सचिव , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग 2218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

को तत्काल प्रभाव से अगले आदेशों तक , उक्त निगम के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा.सं. 14/3/2003 - बीमा- IV ] ललित कुमार , निदेशक , ( बीमा ) (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , the 8th March , 2011

S.O. 715. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 ofthe Life Insurance CorporationAct, 1956 (31 of 1956) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shashi Kant Sharma, Secretary, Department of Financial Services as Member of the said Corporation with immediate effect till further orders .

[F.No. 14/3 /2003 - Ins.IV] LALIT KUMAR, Director (Insurance ) सूचना एवं प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 1 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 716. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 10-11-2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार श्री जे. सुप्रीत मणिकान्तन , ईरानी बिल्डिंग , सेकेंड फ्लोर , आर/ 25 , रामभाऊ भोगले मार्ग , मजगांव , मुंबई -400010 को दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुंबई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/7 /2009- एफ ( सी ) ]

अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म ) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi , the 1st March , 2011

S.O. 716. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri J. Supreeth Manikantan , Irani Building , 2nd Floor , R/25 , Rambhau Bhogle Marg , Mazgaon , Mumbai -400010 as a member ofthe Mumbai Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 809/7/2009 - F ( C) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films )

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] उपभोक्ता मामले और सार्बजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय ( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 717.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खखंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है, वह रद्द कर दिया गया है , और वापस लिया गया है,;

अनुसूची

भारत के राजपत्र टिप्पणी क्रम रद्द किये गये मानक संख्या की संख्या और वर्ष भाग 2 , खंड 3 ,

उपखंड ( ii ) में

का.आ. संख्या और

तिथि प्रकाशित

(2)

( 1)

(4)

(3)

1391 और मई , 1995- 1994 घरेलू और समान

आई एस 302-2-205: विद्युत साधित्रों की सुरक्षाः भाग 2 विशेष अपेक्षाएं अनुभाग 205 भाप इस्त्री

[संदर्भः ईटी. - 32/टी-107 ] आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञा. एफ एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of ConsumerAffairs) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S.O. 717. In pursuance of the 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 ofwhich are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter , have been cancelled and stand withdrawn .

SCHEDULE

Remarks SI . No. & Year of

S.O. No. & Date

No. the Indian Stan- published in the

dards Cancelled Gazette of India .

Part- II , Section- 3 ,

Sub-section (ii )

(3)

(4) (1) (2)

1 IS 302-2-205 : 1994 1391 & May, 1995 Safety of Household and Similar Electrical Appliances Part 2 Particular Requirernent Section 205 Steam irons

[Ref. ET- 32/T- 107 ] R. K. TREHAN , Scientist F & Head (Electrotechnical ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 17 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ.. 718. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिस भारतीय मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है , वह रद्द कर दिया गये हैं और वापसी ले लिए गए हैं ;

अनुसूबी

टिप्पणी

भारत के राजपत्र

रद्द किये गये मानकों

क्रम सं. की संख्या और वर्ष भाग 2 , खंड 3 ,

उपखंड ( ii ) में

का.आ. संख्या और

तिथिप्रकाशित

(4)

(3)

( 1 ) ( 2)

आई एस 12802: 1989

2 आई एस 12824: 1989

[संदर्भ: इंटी-15/टी -43 /टी-44 ] आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञा. ई एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) New Delhi, the 17th February , 2011

S.O. 718.- In pursuance of the clause (b ) of sub- rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 it is , hereby notified that the Indian Standard, Particular ofwhich are mentioned in the Schedule given hereafter , have been cancelled and stand withdrawn.

SCHEDULE

Remarks

S.O. No. & Date

SI. No. & Year of

No. the Indian Standards published in the

Canced

Gazette of India . Part- II , Section - 3 , Subsection ( ii )

(3)

(4) (2)

( 1 )

1 IS 12802: 1989

2 IS 12324: 1989 .

[Ref. ET- 15 /T-43 & T-44] R. K. TREHAN, Scientist E & Head (Electrotechnical ) नई दिल्ली , 17 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 719.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक

2219

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है , वह रद्द कर दियो गये हैं , और वापस ले लिए गये हैं ;

अनुसूची

टिप्पणी

भारत के राजपत्र

क्रम रद्द किये गये मानकों

सं. की संख्या और वर्ष भाग 2 , खंड 3 ,

उपखंड ( ii ) में

का.आ. संख्या और

तिथि प्रकाशित

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

1 आई एस 4691 : 1985 1425, 19 मई 1990 2 आई एस 4722:2001 118 , 19 जनवरी 2002 3 आई एस 4728 :1975 3440 , 18 दिसम्बर 2002

[ संदर्भ: इंटी-15/टी-16/टी-17 एवं टी-18 ] आर. के. त्रेहन, वैज्ञा ई एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी) New Delhi , the 17th February, 2011

S.O. 719. In pursuance of the clause (b) of sub- rule (1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , it is, hereby notified that the Indian Standards , Particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule given hereafter , have been cancelled and stand withdrawn.

SCHEDULE

Remarks

S.O. No. & Date

Sl. No. & Year of

the Indian Standards published in the

No.

Cancelled

Gazette of India . Part- 11 , Section - 3 , Sub- section ( ii )

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

1 IS4691 : 1985 1425, 19 May 1990 2 IS4722 :2001

118 , 19 January 2002

3 IS4728: 1975

3440, 18 December 2002

[Ref. ET- 15/T- 16, T- 17 & T- 18 ] R. K. TREHAN, Scientist E & Head (Electrotechnical) 2220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 720.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद् द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वे स्थापित हो गये है :

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

स्थापित्त तिथि

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)

28फरवरी , 2011 1. आई एस/ आईसी 61683 : 1999 प्रकाशवोल्टीय प्रणालियाँ- पॉवर कंडीशनर दक्षता मापन की विधि

28 फरवरी , 2011 2. आई एस/ आईसी 61701 : 1995 प्रकाशवोल्टीय मॉड्यूल का लवण मिस्ट संक्षारण परीक्षण

28 फरवरी , 2011 3. आई एस/ आईसी 61724 1998 प्रकाशवोल्टीय प्रणाले की कार्यकारिता की मॉनीटरिंग मापन , आंकड़ा विनियम और विश्लेषण

28 फरवरी , 2011 आई एस/ आईसी 61829 : 1998 क्रस्टलीन सिलिकॉन प्रकाशवोल्टीय ( पी वी ) ऐरे1- V अभिलक्षणों का ऑन साइट मापन

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 ।

तिथि: 17-2-2011

[संदर्भ : ईटी 28 /टी-30 , टी -31 , टी-33 , टी -38 ] आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ई एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) New Delhi , the 18th February , 2011

S.O. 720.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of 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 issued :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Sl . No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standards , ifany, Supersededby the New Indian Standard

(1)

(3 )

(4)

(2)

28 February, 2011 1. IS/IEC 61683 : 1999 Photovoltaic Systems-Powerconditioners- Procedure for Measuring Efficiency

28 February, 2011 2. IS/IEC61701 : 1995 Salt mist Corrosion Testing ( PV) Modules

28 February, 2011 3. IS/IEC61724 : 1998 Photovoltaic System Performance Monitoring- Guidelines for Measurement, Data Exhcnage and Analysis 2221 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

28February 2011 4. IS /IEC 61829 : 1995 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic (PV) Array -On- Site Measurement of I- V Characteristics

Copies of these Standards are 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 . Date: 18-2-2011

[Ref: ET- 28 /T-30, T-31 , T-33 , T-38 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 4 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 721.- 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 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

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

(3)

(4)

(1)

(2)

31अगस्त, 2010 1. आईएस/ आईएसओ 3411 2007 ( आई एस 11115 : 1999 का अतिक्रमण ) मिट्टी उठाने की मशीनरी चालक के भौतिक आयाम तथा न्यूनतम चालक स्थान क्षेत्र

31अगस्त, 2010

आईएस 11115 : 1999/ आईएसओ 3411: 1995 मिट्टी उठाने की मशीनरी- चालक के मानव भौतिक आयाम और चालक के लिए न्यूनतम स्थान क्षेत्र ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) आईएस 12138 : 1993/आईएसओ 6165 1987 मिट्टी उठाने की मशीनरी- मूल टाइप शब्दावली ( पूहला पुनरीक्षण )

2. आईएस / आईएसओ 6165 : 2006 आई एस 12138 : 1993 का अतिक्रमण ) मिट्टी उठाने की मशीनरी-आधारभूत टाइप- पहचान एवं परिभाषिक शब्दावली तथा परिभाषाएं

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 । तिथि : 4 मार्च , 2011

[संदर्भ : एम. ई. डी./जी-2 : 1 ]

सी. के. वैदा , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( तक. इंजीनियरिंग )

New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 721 .-- 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

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

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

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

31 August 2010

IS 11115 : 1999 /ISO 3411 : 1995 Earth Moving Machinery- Human

1. IS/ISO 3411 : 2007 ( Superseding IS 11115 : 1999) Earth moving machinery- Physical 2222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3)

(4) dimensions ofoperators and minimum operator space envelope

physical dimensions of operators and minimum operator space envelope (SecondRevision)

IS 12138 : 1993 /ISO6165 : 1987

31August 2010 2. IS/ISO6165 : 2006 ( Superseding IS 12138 : 1993) Earth moving machinery-Basic type Identification and terms and definitions

Earth Moving Machinery-Basic type-Vocabulary( First Revision)

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

Date4-3-2011

[Ref: MED/G-2: 1 ]

C. K. VEDA, Scientist -F & Head ( Technical Engineering)

नई दिल्ली , 8 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 722.- 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

क्रम सं.

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानकों की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 फरवरी 2011

28फरवरी 2011 आई एस 14665 ( भाग 2/अनुभाग 1 ) : 2000

1 फरवरी 2011

28 फरवरी 2011 आई एस 14665 ( भाग 3/अनुभाग 1) : 2000

1 फरवरी 2011

28फरवरी 2011 आई एस 14665 (भाग 4/ अनुभाग 1 ) : 2000

2फरवरी 2011

28फरवरी 2011 आई एस 14665 ( भाग 4/अनुभाग 3 ) : 2000

3 फरवरी 2011

28फरवरी 2011 आई एस 14665 ( भाग 4/अनुभाग 6 ) : 2000

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

तिथि: 08-03-2011

[संदर्भ : ईटी-25 /टी-20 , टी -21 , टी-27 ]

आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ई एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी)

New Delhi , the 8th March , 2011

S.O. 722. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule ( 1) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies' that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. and year of the amendment

No. and year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

28February2011

1, February2011

1. IS 14665 (Part 2/Sec 1) : 2000 Electric Traction Lifts Part 2 Code ofPractice for Installation, Operation and Maintenance Section I Passenger and Goods Lifts 2223 [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(3)

28 February 2011

1, February2011

2. IS 14665 (Part 3 / Sec 1) : 2000 Electric Traction Lifts Part 3 Safety Rules Section 1 Passenger and Goods Lifts

1, February 2011

28 February 2011 3. IS 14665 (Part 4/Sec 3 ) : 2000 Electric Traction Lifts : Part 4 Components , Section 1 Lift Buffers

28 February 2011

2, February 2011

4. IS 14665 ( Part 4/Sec 3) : 2001 Electric Traction Lifts: Part 4 Components, Section 3 Lifts Car Frame , Car, Counterweight and Suspension

3, February 2011

28 February 2011 5. IS 14665 ( Part 4/Sec 6) : 2000 Electric Traction Lifts Part 4 Components , Section 6 Lift Doors , Locking Devices and Contacts

Copies of this amendment are available 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.

Date: 08-03-2011

[Ref: ET- 25/T- 20, T-21 , T-27]

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

कोयला मंत्रालय

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 723.-कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 2181 तारीख 27 अगस्त , 2010 जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप -खंड ( ii ) , तारीख 4 सितम्बर, 2010 में प्रकाशित होने पर , उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, आत्यांतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे ;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सीपत रोड, डाकघर संख्या 60 , जिला-बिलासपुर -495006 ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कम्पनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना ठीक समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिए तैयार है ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में और उस पर के सभी अधिकार, तारीख 4 सितम्बर , 2010 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के स्थान पर, निम्नलिखित निबंधनों , और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात्:-

1. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर , ब्याज , नुकसान और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत् किए गए सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ;

2. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिये उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और अधिकरण की सहायता करने के लिये नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंधों में उपगत सभी व्यय , उक्त कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किये जाएंगे और इसी प्रकार निहित उक्त में या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिए या उसके संबंध में सभी व्यय भी जैसे अपील आदि सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत , उक्त भूमि सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किये जाएंगे ;

768GI/11-2 2224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 3. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की , ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में , क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरूद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो ;

4. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना , उक्त भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर के इस प्रकार निहित अधिकारों को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी ; और

5. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिये दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित की जाए , पालन करेगी ।

[फा. सं. 43015/17/2008- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एस. सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2011

S.O. 723. Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2181 dated the 27th August , 2010 published in the Gazette of India , Part - II , Section 3 , sub - section ( ii ) dated the 4th September, 2010 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the land and all rights in or over such land as described in the Schedule appended to the said notification ( hereinafter referred to as the said land ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act;

And, whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Seepat Road, Post Box number 60 , District - Bilaspur - 495006 ( hereinafter referred to as the Government Company ) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 , the Central Government hereby directs that the said land and all rights in or over such land so vested shall , with effect from the 4th September, 2010 , instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions , namely :-

1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation , interest , damages and the like as determined under the provisions of the said Act ;

2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under Section 14 of the said Act , for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under condition ( 1 ) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals etc. for or in connection with the rights in or over the said land so vested , shall also be borne by the Government Company ;

3. The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested;

4. The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said land and the rights to any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government ; and

5. The Goverment Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/ 17 / 2008 - PRIW - 11

S.C. BHATIA , Director

आदेश

नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 724.-कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चाद के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यां 2225 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

का.आ. 1935 तारीख 4 अगस्त 2010 , जो भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3, उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 7 अगस्त, 2010 में प्रकाशित होने पर , उक्त अधिसूचना के संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, आत्यांतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सीपत रोड , डाकघर संख्या 60 , जिला- बिलासपुर - 495006 ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कम्पनी कहा गया है ) , ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना ठीक समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिये तैयार है ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा उदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि और उस पर के सभी अधिकार , तारीख 7 अगस्त , 2010 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात् :-

2. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिये उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता करने के लिये नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंधों में उपगत सभी व्यय , उक्त कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किये जाएंगे और इसी प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिये या उसके संबंध में सभी व्यय भी जैसे अपील आदि सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत , उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किये जाएंगे ;

3. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की , ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में , क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो ;

4. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी को , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना , उक्त भूमि और किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी ; और

5. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्टि क्षेत्रों के लिये दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित की जाए , पालन करेगी ।

[फा, सं. 43015 / 5 /2009- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एस. सी . भाटिया , निदेशक

ORDER

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2011

S.O. 724. Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1935 dated the 4th August , 2010 published in the Gazette of India, Part- II Section 3 , sub- section (ii ) dated the 7th August , 2010 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the lands and all rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification ( hereinafter referred to as the said land ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act ;

And , whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Seepat Road , Post Box number 60 , District- Bilaspur - 495006 ( hereinafter referred to as the Government Company ) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the said land and all rights in or over the such and so vested shall , with effect from the 7th August , 2010 , instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government shåll vest in the Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions , namely:-

1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation interest , damages and the like as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

2226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under Section 14 of the said Act , for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the Government Comapany under condition ( 1 ) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly , all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals etc. for or in connection with the rights in or over the said land so vested , shall also be borne by the Government Company ;

3. The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure thatmay be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested ;

4. The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said land and the rights to any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government ; and

5. The Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary .

[ F. No. 43015/5 /2009 -PRIW - I |

S.C. BHATIA , Director

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 725.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि से कोयला अभिप्राप्त होने की संभावना है ;

अतः , उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित क्षेत्र में अंतर्विष्ट ब्यौरे रेखांक संख्या राजस्व/ 03 / 2010 , तारीख 12 मई , 2010 का निरीक्षण महा प्रबंधक ( भूमि और राजस्व ) , दरभंगा हाउस , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , रांची या महाप्रबंधक , राजरप्पा क्षेत्र या उपायुक्त, रामगढ़ ( झारखंड ) या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक ( खोज प्रभाग ) , केन्द्रीय खान योजना एवं डिजाइन संस्थान लिमिटेड , गोंडवाना प्लेस कांके रोड, रांची के कार्यालय में वा कोयला नियंत्रक , । काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि से कोयला का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति

(i) संपूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उसके ऊपर किसी अधिकार के अर्जन पर आक्षेप , या

(ii) ऐसी भूमि में या भूमि पर कोई अधिकार या भूमि के प्रतिकर के हित का यदि कोई दावा , या

(iii) खनन पट्टा अर्जन करने के अधीन अधिकारों की पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्ति प्रभावहीन हो जाने और भूमि संबंधी सभी नक्शों, चार्टों तथा अन्य दस्तावेजों का परिदान , अयस्कों या अन्य खनिजों के नमूनों का भूमि से संग्रहण और उसका सम्यक् विश्लेषण करने के लिए तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट कोई अन्य सुसंगत अभिलेखों या सामग्रियों की तैयारी के लिए प्रतिकर, इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर , अधिकारी - इन्चार्ज या विभागाध्यक्ष ( भूमि और राजस्व) . सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , दरभंगा हाउस , रांची -834029 ( झारखंड ) को भेजेगी ।

अनुसूची

कैथा कोयला खनन ब्लॉक

जिला रामगढ़ ( झारखंड )

( रेखांक संख्या राजस्व/ 03/2010 , दिनांक 12 मई , 2010 )

ग्राम/ थाना संख्या जिला का नाम

टिप्पणियां क्रम सं. मौजा/ग्राम थाना

क्षेत्र एकड़ में (लगभग )

क्षेत्र हेक्टेयर में (लगभग)

235.79

582.40

भाग 1.

रामगढ़

748.08

302.86.

भाग कैथा

रामगढ़

1330.48

538.65

कुल क्षेत्रः 2227 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

कैथा कोयला खनन ब्लॉक का सीमा वर्णनः

क- ख रेखा " क " से आरंम्भ होती है और ग्राम रामगढ़ और कैथा के भाग से होती हुई बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है । ख-ग रेखा ग्राम कैथा के भाग से होती हुई बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है ।

ग-क रेखा दामोदर नदी के मध्य से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[फा.सं. 43015 / 15 /2010- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एस.सी. भाटिया, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 7th March , 2011

S.O. 725. Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas , the Plan bearing number Revenue /03/ 2010 , dated the 12th May, 2010 containing details of the area described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the Office of the General Manager ( Land and Revenue ) , Darbhanga House , Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi or General Manager, Rajrappa Area or Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh (Jharkhnd) or at the office of the Chief General Manager ( Exploration Division) , Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited , Gondwana Place , Kanke Road, Ranchi or at office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from land described in the said Schedules ;

Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedule may

(i) Object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land, or of any rights in or over such land , or ( ii) Claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land , or

(iii) seek compensation for prospecting licences ceasing to have effect , rights under mining leases being acquired , and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the land, collection from the land of cores or other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant record or materials referred to in sub - section (7 ) of Section 13 of the said Act,

To the Officer - in Charge or Head of the Department ( Land and Revenue ) , Central Coalfields Limited , Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 ( Jharkhand ) , within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Kaitha Coal Mining Block

District- Ramgarh ( Jharkhand)

(Planbearing number Revenue/03 /2010, dated the 12th May, 2010 )

Remarks

Name of District

Thana

Mauja/Village

Sl . No.

Village/Thana number

Area in acre ( approximately)

Area in hectare (approximately )

Part

582.40

235.79

1 .

Ramgarh

748.08

Part

302.86

Kaitha

Ramgarh

Ramgarh Ramgarh

1330.48

538.65

TotalArea :

Boundary Description of Kaitha Coal Mining Block :

A-B Line start from ' A' passes through part villages of Ramgarh and Kaitha and meets at point ' B ' B-C Line passes through part village of Kaitha and meets at point ' C '

C-A Line passes through center line of Damodar river and meets at starting points ' A'

[F. No. 43015/ 15/2010- PRIW - I ]

S.C. BHATIA , Director 2228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

( 1 )

(2) (3)

(5)

(4) पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 28 फरवरी , 2011

खिरो-जारी

00 00 88

00 10

00 07 54 का.आ. 726.-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;

01 40

00 01 07

00 03 88 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;

00 00

525

00 02

2. सरसुदा

526

00 06 01

527

01 55 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 ;

533

00 07 39

534

00 02 60

532

00 09 07

549

02 60

00 03

547

00 06

548

545

00 01

564

00 10 06

552

00 24

00 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 भास्कर त्रिपाठी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , प्रथम मंजिल , फोर्चुन टावर , चन्द्रशेखरपुर , भुवनेश्वर-751023 , ओडिशा राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

565

09 अनुसूची

563

राज्य: ओडिशा

00 03 मंडल/तहसील/तालुक : कोराय जिला : जाजपुर

741

742

01 गांव का नाम सर्वसं/सब आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने

745

02 51 डिविजन सं.

के लिए क्षेत्रफल

746

00 05 26

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

00 04 80

747

748

00 29 (1 )

(2)

(3) (4) ( 5 )

00 02 49

749

13 53

1. खिरो

751

752

03 &i 19

02 73

750

ΟΙ

760

30 20

02 80

06 79

758

00 03

00 36

757

00 00 12

762

00 02

00 08

763

00 02 2229 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(4) (5)

(2)

(5)

(1)

(3) ( 1)

(3) (4)

00 05 27 764

1202.

सरसुदा-जारी

00 07 78 1137

1208

01 20

91 00

14 40

1211

1136

00 92

00 1135

1200

1212

00 09 95 794

02 23

00 04 94 00 00 10

1223

431

00 00

1224

00 09

1138

1222

1134

1215

00 10

1584

1430

00 03 24 00 05 69

1139

00 07 22 00 03 22

1221

1140

1460

02 07

00 07

1141

1220

00 00 09

1144

16 04

00 25

1461

1145

00 10 78 00

08 09

1464

1146

00 13 99 00 00 10

1463

1148

47 00

06 99

00 09

1503

1147

47 20

1504

00 12

1153

1505

34 00

1158

00.

1157

मंडल/तहसील/तालुकः भंडारी पोखरी , जिला भद्रक राज्यः ओडिशा 00 04 09

1156

00 92 55

। झुटणा

12 00

1155

2978

00 01 23

03 46

1154

21 47

00 00 00 95

1108

00 08 97

1161

00 06 05 00

1193

00 03 22

1184

00 03 56

15 86

1185

00 02 70

1186

04 58

1187

00 01 08

1188

00 10

1189

05 49

13 44

1190

06 08

1601

00 01 64

04 35

1602

02 60

1087

00 52

1209

00 03 88

1205

00 02 30

1206

06 79

02 21

1207

1201

02 76

00 00

1203 2230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 62

झटणा-जारी

00 00 11

394

00 01

झुटणा-जारी

64 61

01 87

402

00 00

10 50

403

00 01

09 49

00 02 28

418

00 03 80 60

03 48

458

05 39 59

00 06 37

सर्वे सं. 458 और 459 के बीच में

01 92 166

459

00 65 165

00 01 98

468

00 06 19 00

163

00 36

461

00 01

18 67

00 40

467

07 53 164

00 04 44

470

00 01 . 70 160

00 05 92

466

00 01

30 159

00 01 45

471

53 158

00 09 43

465

00 09 40 161

00 01 36

473

00 97 157

00 01 06

474

00 06 52 155

00 00 10

744

11 82 154

00 02 42

743

00 04 43 153

00 31

746

02 27 145

00 12 09

742

00 92 147

748

03 51 00

148

00 84

747

02 13 146

781

10 144

07 00

749

00 61 194

00 04 23

751

42 252

777

00 00 11 00

195

08 92

753

00 00 86 205

00 05 85

750

00 03 02 202

00 10

752-

00 02 33

251

754

54 207

02 21

769

00 16 208

00 01

735

61 209

00 01 09

755

04 47 206

03 50

768

00 03 93 201

00 00

756

05 21 200

757

00 02 27 210

00 03 87

724

10 00

211

01 65

720

02 65 00 00 12

212

722

00 00 10 198

00 08 94

721

00 00 34 389

07 57

719

00 05 26 393

718

45 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(4)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(2)

00 00 10

492

2231

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

3077

झुटणा-जारी

00 03

672

00 00 33

518

00 68

519

00 73

523

00 42

522

520

02 27

521

525

00 06 52

517

516

00 01 18

527

04 08

514

513

00 82

512

544

546

00 03 29

545

583

584

612

03 71

2988

17 610

608

00 07 18 611

00 01

615

00 02

607

616

606

605

01 93

604

00 01 56 602

00 04

603

598

597

336

2 बाबलपुर

547

02 33

539

00 02

548

00 10

550

00 01 29

551

00 00 41

559

00 31

558

03 86

552

557

555

00 10

553

00 28

554

562

03 32

556

01 13

563

01 96

576

01 07

577

03 60

578

3 बंदालो

02 40

579

580

00 10

581

582

00 12

585

768GI/ 11-3

337

52.

00 03

396

00 03

395

394

393

01 64

398

06.

392

03 86

399

00 03 79 405

00 07 78 400

03 56

404

00 03

403

02 95

402

401

09 81

681

00 02 24 679

00 02 20 678

00 00 47 677

00 10

1923

2054

00 03

2008

2007

00 18

2006 2232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4) (5)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) बंदालो-जारी

1996

00 00 86 देउपदा-जारी

1694

00 00 51 2002

00 07 09

1695

09 62 00

1998

01 04

1698

02 2001

00 02 30

1696

00 00 46 1999

1697

00 09 18 2000

00 00 44

1601

05 1985

11 67

1600

00 07

91 21

00 01 60

1599

00 06 08 22

00 04 83

1596

04 80 23

01 90

1598

00 00

22 1832

4. देउपदा

07 86

1597

06 54 00

1818

01 08

1580

01 1820

00 10

1581

12 49 1817

1588

00 00 10 1813

00 04 87

1583

07 04

00 1816

1582

00 03 1814

00 00

1586

ΟΙ

00 1815

00 01 84

00 06 96

1584

1826

00 04 16

1562

00 00 49 1827

00 13 80

1561

06 41

00 1806

00 00 16

1511

00 1805

00 10 16

1552

11 1896

00 05 65

1553

04 69 00

1795

1551

00 07

1550

00 1794

17 94

1546

00 1793

00 00 78

1574

00 04 1787

1547

05 43 1789

00 08 75

2573

06 1788

00 04 90

620

10 00

1747

04 03

619

03 1750

00 03 10

16 38

618

00 1749

00 14 19

617

00 1748

00 03 31

627

13 1715

631

03 95 00

1716

01 27

632

05 88 1717.

00 12 51

633

00 02 1719

634

54 00

1718

635

00 17

00 1709

03 92

636

00 00 43 1708

00 07

637

00 78 1707

638

02 60 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1 ) (2)

(1)

(3) (4) ( 5 )

00 00 19 अगेइ बेहेरा जारी 736

देउपदा-जारी

00 04

640

639

729

726

727

00 13

721

720

00 08

06 29

719

718

00 09

00 06 70

715

2233 (2)

(3) (4) (5) 637

00 04 52

03 05

636

00 03 28 635

00 01 04 632

633

09 93

00 00 37 634

00 17

606

00 03 60 640

00 01 95 605

01 73

659

941

7. राजेन्द्रपुर

713

00 00 34

2482

00 05

2481

00 02 37

714

711

710

00 00 10

712

00 04 61

708

709

00 03

00 08 34

705

02 09

706

703

00 08 37

778

00 07 40

779

00 02 32

780

00 33

781

98.

00 09

793

00 06

824

25 03

825

463

02 86

5. मंदर गाडीआ

465

11 67

00 09 39

458

07 60

464

00 17 69

सर्वे सं. 464 और 470 के बीच में

07 15

470

00 05

472

00 05

471

00 01

473

00 04 82

475

00 12 14

638

6. अगेइ बेहेरा

00 00 10

628

04 75

684

00 03

942

943

05 35

953

00 00

958

05 09 952

947

00 11

948

00 21

930

01 70

937

00 04

931

21 34

932

00 05 86 929

00 02

899

01 60

683

04 01

684

00 00 11 644

01 28

643

21 24

706

629

628

00 05

626

08 28

632

01 17

625

07 39

633

634

624

635

598

09 61

609

00 18

608

19 33

610 2234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 607

राजेन्द्रपुर-जारी

139

राजेन्द्रपुर-जारी

611

138

612

614

615

582

617

165

166

1110

1089

181

550

182

188

535

189

527

194

193

522

197

8. सनासासन

735

114

115

1210

127

739

1067

129

126

745

1224

00 00 10 00 22 80 00 00 69 00 01 58 00 00 21 34 00 09 46 00 01 88 33 00 07 91 00 02 60 30 00 04 59 00 06 25 32 00 04 98 00 00 22 31 00 08 12 581 00 02 69 156 00 00 10 575 00 02 03 28 00 21 04 574 00 03 37 00 01 22 570 00 05 12 00 04 19 572 00 01 40 27 00 00 68 571 00 03 78 26 00 00 10 561 00 00 66 177 00 00 24 00 01 76 178 00 00 47 560 00 06 23 179 00 00 76 553 00 10 67 180 00 05 31 00 05 06 00 05 59 00 06 48 00 02 98 546 00 02 47 00 01 22 00 03 65 00 00 68 03 96 187 00 03 15 525 00 05 66 190 00 04 41 524 00 02 61 00 00 12 526 00 02 95 00 01 54 00 00 10 191 00 00 87 530 00 00 32 195 00 00 71 521 00 23 27 192 00 01 03 520 00 03 38 00 13 21 112 00 00 59 198 00 00 46 113. 00 00 10 00 04 18 00 00 99 736 00 00 10 00 08 80 00 01 64 128 00 03 60 737 00 12 91 00 04 34 00 00 57 00 00 64 740 00 08 25 00 02 08 742 00 00 63 00 05 80 741 00 01 88 131 00 00 57 744 00 06 77 125 00 00 10 00 03 55 132 00 04 92 746 00 09 72 137 45 00 08 25 2235 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(1)

(4) (5)

(2)

(3)

(1)

01 85

535

मंतागारिया-जारी

10 28

675

सनासासन-जारी

520

00 01

674

521

673

00 07 02

619

01 22

672

00 50

495

00 07 24

670

516

06 20

1226

00 01 18

617

02 62

665

497

11 00 03 04

1227

00 00

500

664

501

02 16

663

502

00 08 00 00 47

662

503

1142

00 00

599

00 00 94

630

04 95

488

1214

07 27

504

656

487

00 10

653

476

654

02 86

477

07 11

655

00 11

471

09 53

649

00 09

469

02 39

648

00 04 38

470

646

628

04 84

637

452

00 92

638

मंडल/तहसील/तालुकः भद्रक देहात जिला भद्रक राज्य : ओडिशा

00 54

639

07 11

253

06 66

1. गंडगरा

1213

00 10

255

641

03 03

252

640

00 02 43

552

9. मंतागारिया

00 03 59

251

260

00 65

250

00 12

551

03 39

249

261

01 15

247

09 39

543

07 36

221

542

01 09

222

00 10

541

03 79

220

00 00

540

01 27

219

00 02

539

04 85

218

538

00 03 87

217

00 03 08

537

216

07 29

532

00 24

228

00 03

536

01 86

215

00 03

533

00 04 57

214

534 2236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) गंडगरा - जारी

213

00 01 57

741

गोबिंदपुर -जारी

00 00 20 83

00 01 96

742

00 00 10 85

04 12

744

06 84

04 52

745

00 00 70 46

08 60

701

00 02 31 87

00 12

752

00 05 87 88

00 01 19

753

00 05 89

00 01 81

700

00 03 95 45

00 04 43

754

(07

01 90

00 05 23

699

00 00

10 44

00 Of 93

959

00 07 51 37

00 43 72

755

00 16 40 111

00 02 99

957

00 02 15 112

00 02 25

759

00 01

63 137

958

00 07 65 113

03 83

645

77 136

646

00 02

90 115

00 00 29

648

10 114

00 05 39

649

10 135

00 02 03

650

00 10

18 133

653

00 08 134

00 ΟΙ 21

652

00 12 142

00 02 28

654

06 140

00 00 10

655

00 03 141

656

00 04

20 132

00 01

501

00 12

26 129

00 00 68

503

00 02 53 131

00 01

502

06 2182

00 01 74

595

10 143

575

02 19

00 257

574

00 01

00 02 2. गोबिंद‌पुर

258

507

02 73

259

506

ין

02 98

01 714

00 02 10

510

00 00

35 715

00 02 77

508

00 05 713

00 08 86

573

00 01 717

00 02 40

572

00 01 738

02 03

963

אי 737

00 03 39

509

00 00 739

00 00 58

557

00 05 740

10 66

512

00 00 743

00 07 14

556

00 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(1)

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

2237

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

1322

अंधिआ-जारी

513

गोबिंदपुर - जारी

00 01

554

555

551

552

553 .

543

540

938

544

545

539

538

-00

534

00 00

535

16 54

536

1759

3. अंधिआ

1736

14.

1739

23 44

1738

1388

1389

1394

1392

1390

1391

1401

1333

1402

1332

00 64

1338

00 39

1321

12 63

1291

00 06

1292

2292

08 87 1284

07 27

1288

1287

00 05

1286

1277

1285

1278

1282

1279

00 10

1274

1273

00 05

1272

1268

1280

05 98

1271

02 58

1270

10 31

1269

01 79

1246

02 49

1245

00 00

2205

1241

00 03

1243

1242

00 04

1199

320

4. रघुनाथपुर

1331

1403

1330

1329

1327

07 98

1328

03 03

1335

1324

00 11

1323

1336

00 05

1337

2273

1095

08 39

315

316

317

311

00 13

313

263

309

264

265

266 2238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 271

रघुनाथपुर-जारी

00 00 97

तुंडा

802

00 06 09 267

00 11 73

803

00 12 38 269

00 03 64

805

00 00 27 268

00 05 52

806

00 03 76 128

00 01 45

800

00 00 10 248

00 01 19

801

00 02 67 249

00 02 04

498

00 23 11 247

00 01

497

00 02 66 129

00 05 82

495

00 01 91 131

00 01 28

843

00 00 10 246

00 11

441

00 05 83 240

00 00 10

440

02 241

00 01

439

00 02 92 133

438

03 132

00 01

442

02 18 242

00 00 43

443

00 16 19 245

00 04 15

444

00 05 03 244

00 00 89

437

00 00 60 243

00 01 52

445

00 07 55 134

00 10 03

490

00 05. 35 147

446

00 01 15 135

00 01 58

448

00 10 03 137

00 00 10

450

00 00 10 00

102

449

07 90 81

465

00 47 00

01 44

466

00 09 46 80

00 05 40

468

11 77

00 02 09

485

00 03 06 79

00 09

292

00 00 45 83

470

00 09 10 78

471

09 57 50

00 06 05

235

00 02 16 00 21 88

234

00 58

03 86

233

00 02 35

13 40

239

00 03 43

02 16

232

00 03

228

00 10 40

00 04

226

00 24 38

00 09 98

213

00 01 50 37

00 02 63

231

00 09 24 35

00 12 41

230

00 00 13 36

00 03 25

12 87 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

00 04 80

217

नारायणपुर-जारी तुंडा-जारी

00 05

255

09 59

206

00 54

205

207

00 01 41

204

00 02 62

203

12 01

202

00 08

201

00 00 10

1017

6. बेलदा

1090

00 09 27

1031

00 22

1035

10 96

1030

00 06 15

1029

00 02

579

02 21

589

이 70

590

04 41

588

00 00

581

00 08

582

00 04 28

587

00 70

586

01 84

585

10 45

583

557

00 06 13

584

554

10 22

551

00 03 64

553

552

10 24

542

00 95

543

2239

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

00 00 10 113

00 03 35 109

108

08 13

00 10

115

107

17 77

102

00 14 23 81

34 98

02 88

00 00 66 82

00 10

452

00 02 51 453

00 00

00 82 41

00 20 45 42

464

03 79

458

12 35 44

00 49

03 46

455

00 34

10 97

450

00 47

00 01 90 50

1868

8 कंतिआ

-00

540

06 83

541

539

02.

00 00

254

7. नारायणपुर

00 05 85

253

07 93

252

00 07 95

110

01 29

112

00 03

111

768 GI/ 11-4

01 47

1870

1871

00 15

1869

06 69

1872

00 10

1882

00 01 42 1881

01 09

1880

1879

00 02 67 1878 2140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) कंतिआ-जारी

1877

गणीजंगा-जारी

2207

04 2618

00 02 82

2208

00 01 07 2538

00 03 47

2134

35 66 2541

00 05 82

2131

00 02 70 2542

00 00 98

2130

00 02 08 2545

00 29 55

2129

00 02 79 2529

00 08 36

2221

00 00 10 2527

00 03 91

2128

00 10

00 2526

00 05 83

2127

00 03 04 00

2528

01 60

2126

00 10 21 2525

00 02 53

2125

02 25 2522

2124

00 10 51 2524

11 56

2123

00 07 22 00

2515

2121

00 00 15 2516

03 87

2120

16 2517

00 02 72

2169

00 02

10. कुसुन नगर

90 2511

00 20 00

2167

00 06 49 2510

01 16

2166

00 00 34 2508

00 95

2146

00 10 95 2509

00 08 25

2148

02 70 2505

02 37

2142

00 00 98 2498

00 01

2147

00 07 59 2499

00 04 33

2149

00 00 30 2497

00 10

2141

04 34 2491

00 02 14

1825

02 85 2490

00 08 85

1826

05 73 2489

2139

00 01 80 2477

02 04

1827

01 70 2552

00 05 83

1829

00 02 64 गणीजंगा

2246

1828

01 59 2338

07 17

1831

00 65 2245

00 08 91

1830

15 2187

1812

01 07 2244

00 13 88

1811

86 2201

1809

01 68 2202

00 01

1810

00 02 50 2203

00 02 14

1805

17 2204

00 05 16

1804

00 04 96 2205

00 01

1801

00 01 48 2206

00 06 70

1802

00 07 56 2210

00 01 83

1803

00 04 02 2209

00 02 36

1757

00 19 13 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(1)

(4) (5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2241

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

05 43

1477

कुसुन नगर -जारी

2905

कुसुन नगर-जारी

00 13

2814

00 03

2813

1758

1759

1763

1765

00 07

1766

1767

1770

1768

00 09

1769

1726

1725

1727

1728

00 10

1722

1724

00 01

1723

1557

00 05

2847

1558

00.

1544

1561

1560

1541

1540

1536

1535

00 20

1537

00 00

1539

1538

1520

1521

1514

00 06

1513

00 06

1510

1498

00 06

1497

00 07

1,496

00 02

1487

1488

1489

07 43

1476

1473

07 13

1475

1474

00 03

1469

1467

05 66

1468

1466

2775

1463

1462

00 92

1464

00 03

1461

1460

1459

1453

00 66

1452

1454

1270

1269

1271

03 41

1253

00 26

1252

00 05

1251

1250

00 04

1249

1247

1248

1245

1215

1214

1212

17 31

1202

1200

20 58

999

06 99

998

22 84

997

03 97

996

995

2898

839

838

840

837 2442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(5)

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS (2)

(4)

(1)

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2011 00

789

कुसुन नगर - जारी

00 04 53

793

00 04 42

788

794

00 09 52

795

786

785

784

S.O. 726. 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;

00 05

801

783

02 31

733

08 24

732

729

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 ;

00 01

727

728

710

711

03 83

706

705

00 02

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 ;

700

00 02 98

704

693

00 00

694

00 00 54

677

678

679

00 00 10

691

00 00

681

682

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 , Ist Floor , Fortune Tower , Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar- 751023 , Orissa State .

683

SCHEDULE

00 04 49

687

686

01 61

State: Orissa

District: Jajapur

684

00 00 80

Mandal/ Tehsil/ Taluk : Korai

685

388

Village

387

Area to be acquired for ROU

Survey No./ Sub - Division

386

02 04.

Hec Are C -Are 00

120

121

05 93

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

( 1 )

00 05

13 53

1. Khiro

00 02 73 22

08 16

06 00 01 40

00 02 80 00 00

61 26

03 00

00 12 17

08 00

00 00

10 00 03 14

00 00 03 50

11 83

00 [फा. सं. एल .-14014/12/2011 - जी.पी. ]

04 40 के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(1)

(5)

(3) (4)

(1)

(2)

Sarasuda Contd.

00 00 10

Khiro -Contd.

01 40

00 01 07

00 10

00 03 88

02 13

525

2. Sarasuda

526

00 06

00 01

527

533

02 60

534

00 09

532

549

00 03

547

00 06

548

01 23

545

564

00 00 24

552

565

00 00

563

00 03

741

00 01 73

742

02 51

745

00 05 26

746

04 80

747

29 23

748

00 02

749

00 01

751

03 80

752

01 20

750

00 36

760

758

757

00 02

762

763

00 02

764

1137

1136

2243

(5) (2)

(3) (4)

00 07 60 1135

02 23 794

00 00 10 431

00 09 00 1138

00 43 1134

00 10

1584

69 1139

00 03 22 1140

00 07 94 1141

00 09

1144

00 00 25 1145

08 09

1146

00 00 10 1148

00 06 99 1147

00 00

1153

1158

01 67

1157

00 04 09 1156

00 1155

00 03

1154

00 00 95 1108

00 13

1161

00 03

1193

1184

00 15

1185

00 02

1186

00 03 97 1187

09 15

1188

00 00 10 1189

13 44 1190

00 00 10 1601

04 35 1602

1087

06 33 1209

1205

01 52 1206

1207

00 00

1204

1203

1202

05 27

00 07 78 1208

1211 2244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(2)

(5)

( 1)

(3) (4) (5) 00

1200

Sarasuda Contd .

Jhutana - Contd .

00 02 28

00 1212

00 09 95

03 48

1223

94.

37 1224

00 00

166

72 1222

165

00 00

00 1215

163

36 00

00 1430

04 1221

164

44 00

160

1460

159

00 01 1220

45 00 16 04

158

1461

00 09 43

10 78

161

36 1464

157

00 01 06 1463

13 99

155

00 00 1503

00 09 47

00 02 1504

154

34 01

153

31 1505

145

09 Mandal/Tahsil/Taluk : Bhandari Pokhari District : Bhadrak

147

88 State : Orissa

00 00 84

148

92 55

1. Jhutana

146

2978

07 00

144

21 47

194

252

02 50

00-

00 08 92

195

00 05 85

03 56

205

00 00

202

251

00 01 59 00

02 21

00 00 01

207

208

66 00

00 10

209

00 05 49

206

00 03 50

06 08

35 00

201

01 64

00 01

200

84 00 02 60

210

00 52

00 01 65

211

212

00 12

08 94 46

198

07 57

389

393

00 09 23

394

00 01 64 00

402

01 87

00 10 61

00 01 09

403

50 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

( 1 )

Jhutana-Contd .

00 03 80

418

Jhutana - Contd .

05 39

458

In bet suy No. 458 & 459

00 00

459

06 19

468

00 01

461

07 53

467

470

466

00 02

471

00 09

465

00 00 97

473

474

744

00 04

743

00 02

746

00 00

742

00 03

748

747

781

00 00

749

751

00 86

753

750

00 03

00 02

752

00 01

754

769

00 01

735

00 04

755

768

756

757

00 10

724

720

722

721

05 26

719

718

00 00

492

00 03 31

672

518

2245

(4) (5) (2)

(3)

00 68

519

00 73

523

00 00

01 37

522

00 01 79 520

02 27

521

00 02

525

06 52

517

00 03

516

527

00 04

514

27 513

00 82 512

59 544

00 03 78 546

545

00 01 47 547

02 33

539

548

550

00 01

551

00 00

559

00 31

558

03 86

552

00 01 19 557

00 01

555

553

00 00

554

562

03 32

556

00 01

563

576

577

00 03

578

00 02 40 579

580

10 581

582

00. 12

585

00 10

3077

583

00 07 90 584 2246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(2)

(4) (1)

(3)

(5)

612

00 00 44 Jhutana-Contd .

2988

610

608

00 75

611

00 07 18

615

01 38

607

02 57

616

00 01

606

605

604

01 93

602

603

00 04 89

598

597

336

00 00 39 2Babalpur

337

00 78

396

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

( 5) (1)

(3) (4) (2)

2001

02 30

Bandalo --Contd .

1999

00. 06 46 2000

00 00 44

1985

11 67

01 22

04 83

00 01 06

00 07 86 1832

4.Deopada

1818

00 01 08

1820

00 10

11 86 1817

1813

04 87

00 03 17 1816

1814

00 00 10

01 84 1815

04 1826

80 1827

13 1806

03 52

00 03

395

394

00 01 11

393

398

00 06

392

399

405

400

00 07 78

404

403

00 03

402

00 02 95

00 04 74

401

681

00 09 81

679

00 02

678

677

00 47

00 00 10

1923

3.Bandalo

2054

00 03 01

2008

2007

10 1805

05 65 1896

03 13 1795

1794

78 1793

03 75 1787

75 1789

00 04 90 1788

1747

04 03

00 03

10 1750

00 14 19 1749

00 03 31 1748

00 04 1715

00 01 1716

1717

12 51

10 1719

87 1718

1709

03 92

07 39 1708

00 03 54 1707

10 02

00 18 51

2006

1996

00 07 09

2002

1998

00 00 51 1694

1695

09 62

1698

1696

00 2247 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4) (5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4) (5)

(1)

726

00 09 18

1697

Deopada Contd.

Deopada-Contd.

00 12

727

1601

00 13

721

1600

00 08

720

00 06 08

1599

00 06

719

04 80

1596

00 09

718

1598

00 06

715

00 06 54

1597

713

00 01 48

1580

00 34

2482

00 12 49

1581

00 05 29

2481

00 00

1588

00 02 37

714

00 07 04

1583

03 34

711

00 03

1582

00 02

710

1586

00 00

712

1584

00 04 61

708

00 49

1562

709

1561

08 34

705

06 54

1511

706

00 11

1552

703

00 04

1553

08 37

778

07 96

1551

07 40

779

1550

780

00 17

1546

781

1574

793

1547

824

00 03

2573

25 03

825

620

00 02

463

43 5.Mandar Garia

619

465

618

00 09

458

00 88

617

07 60

464

00 13

627

17 69

470

In bet suy no . 464 &

00 03

631

00 07 15

470

632

472

02 75

633

05 31

471

00 02

634

00 01

473

00 17

635

475

00 00 43

636

638

6. Ageibehera

00 78

637

00 00 10

628

02 69

638

684

00 00 19

736

00 04

637

00 04

640

636

00 05

639

635

729

768GI /11-5 2248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

00 01 04 Ageibehera- Contd. 632

633

09 93

634

00 00 37

606

00 17 61

640

00 03 60

605

00 01 95

659

01 73

941

00 02 36 7. Rajendrapur

942

943

953

958

00 10

952

00 05 09

947

948

11 49

930

21 51

937

931

00 04

932

00 21 34

929

00 05 86

899

00 02 11

683

00 01 60

684

00 04 01

644

00 00 11

643

01 28

706

21 24

629

628

08 42

626

632

00 08 28

625

633

634

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

00 01 88 614

Rajendrapur Contd .

615

00 02 60 582

06 617

22 581

02 575

00 02 03 574

00 03 37 570

00 05 12 572

00 01 40 571

00 03 78 561

00 00 66 1110

00 01 76 560

00 06 23 553

00 10 67

1089

05 06

550

06 48

546

02 47

03 65 535

527

00 03 96

525

05 66 524

00 02 61 526

02 95 522

00 00 10 530

00 00 32 521

520

00 03 38 112

00 59

10 113

114

00 00 99

115

08 80

00 03 60 128

127

00 04 34 1067

00 00 64

00 10

624

02 14

635

00 10

00 09

598

00 09

609

608

610

19 33

607

00 00 69

611

612

21 129

00 02

126

05 80

00 00 57 131

125

00 10

04 92 132

00 00 45 137

00 22 139

58 138

00 09 34

46 2249 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

(1)

00 01

672

Sanasasan Contd .

Rajendrapur Contd. 33

670

07 24

1226

00 06 20 00 04 98

665

00 02 62 00 08 12

00 03 04

1227

00 00

156

664

00 02 97 00 21 04

00 02 16

663

165

662

00 47

166

00 11 03

1142

00 94

630

00 10

00 45

1214

00 00

177

656

00 00 00 47

178

00 10

653

00 00

179

654

05 31

180

655

00 05 59

181

00 09 53

649

182

02 39

648

00 01 22

188

12 87

646

189

04 84

637

00 03 15

187

00 00 92

638

190

00 00 54

639

00 12

194

06.66

1213

193

00 74

641

00 87

191

00 09 82

640

195

09 31

552

00 01 03

192

9. Mantagaria

00 02 10

260

.00 13 21

197

12 55

551

00 46

198

01 88

261

00 04

735

8. Sanasasan

00 09 39

543

736

00 02 27

542

00 01 64

1210

10 12

541

00 12 91

737

03 28

540

00 00 57

739

02 71

539

00 08

740

00 02 59

538

00 63

742

00 03 08

537

00 01 88

741

07 29

532

00 06 77

744

536

745

00 03 02

533

746

534

1224

01 85

535

00 10 28

675

520

674

00 13

521

673 2250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(3)

(5)

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 00 07 02

00 619

04 12 Mantagaria Contd.

Gandagara-Contd . 85

495

00 00 50

00 04 52 516

12 29

08 617

00 00 12 497

11 72

00 01 19 00

500

00 21

00 01 81 501

00 02 94

04 502

00 08 47

00 05

503

00 09

93 00

599

00 30

72 488

00 04 95

111

00 02 99 504

07 27

112

00 02 00

487

00 22

137

65 476

113

00 03 83 477

00 02

136

01 12 471

11 80

115

00 29 469

00 09 45

114

39 470

00 04 38

135

02 03 628

15 74

133

00 03 04 452

134

142

02 Mandal/ Tehsil/ Taluk : Bhadrak Rural District : Bhadrak

State : Orissa

140

00 10

141

00 00 30 253

00 07 11

1.Gandagara

132

44 255

00 00 10

129

252

131

01 47 00

02 43

2182

01 251

00 03 59

00 02

143

19 250

00 65

257

48 249

00 03 39 2. Gobindapur

258

00 02 73 247

00 01 15

259

00 02 98 221

00 07 36

714

02 10 00

01 09

222

715

00 220

02 77

713

08 86 00

219

717

00 02 40

218

00 04

217

00 00 03 87

738

02 03 00 04 10

216

737

00 03 39 228

739

58 215

00 01

740

00 10 214

00 04 57

743

07 00

01 57

213

741

00 00 01 96

742

00 00 10 2251 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(2)

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

(1)

(2)

06 11

00 00

555

Gobindapur-Contd.

Gobindapur Contd . 744

00 00 46

551

745

00 09 00

552

701

01 78

553

00 05

752

543

00 18 88

05 14

753

540

00 03 95

700

00 11

938

754

544

699

00-

545

03 00 07 51

959

539

00 16

755

00 00 10

538

957

11 43

534

759

535

00 07 65

958

536

00 02

645

00 01 07

1759

3. Andhia

646

1736

648

00 14 79

1739

00 10 07

649

00 23 44

1738

00 10 18

650

00 01 70

1388

00 08 33

653

00 06 68

1389

00 12

652

00 00 11

1394

00 06 48

654

1392

00 03 86

655

00 05 35

1390

656

07 39

1391

00 12

501

01 08

1401

00 00 02 53

503

11 63

1333

09 66

502

00 42

1402

595

1332

00 05 09

575

00 35

1331

00 02 78

574

1403

00 04 19

507

12 69

1330

00 01 32

506

1329

00 00 35

510

00 10

1327

00 00 05 71

508

07 98

1328

01 64

573

00 03 03

1335

572

00 02

1324

963

00 11 64

1323

00 00 69

509

00 23

1336

557

00 05

1337

512

00 10

2273

00 00 08 47

556

10 67

1322

513

00 64

1338

554 2252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4) 00

Andhia-Contd .

1321

00 39

269

00 03 64

Raghunathpur

00 00

-Contd .

268

1291

05 52

128

01 1292

00 06 28

248

01 19 00 07

2292

249

00 02 04 00

1284

08 87

247

00 01 37 00 07

1288

129

00 05 82 00

1287

05 81

131

.00 00

1286

05 22

246

00 11 1277

00 01 12

240

00 00 10 1285

00 04 14

241

133

00 01 58 00 05 70

1278

132

00 ΟΙ 81

1282

242

43 1279

00 12

245

04 15 00 00 10

1274

244

00 00 89

02 46

1273

243

01 52 00

1272

05 69

134

10 03 00 00

1268

147

00 25

00 00 00 14

1280

135

ΟΙ

137

00 1271

00 05

102

10 71 1270

00 02 58

22 00

1269

10 31

00 01 44

01 79

1246

00 06 40

1245

02 00 00 10

2205

00 09 00

1241

12 88

00 00 03

1243

00 05 76 1242

06 05

21 88 00

1199

00 00 10

320

4. Raghunathpur

13 40

06 40

1095

00 02 16

08 39

315

00 11 29 00

316

00 04 TI

06 38

317

04 28

06 19

311

00 09 98 313

00 13

02 63

12 99

00 263

12 41

00 03 25 00 00 32

309

802

5.Tunda

06 09 00

264

803

38 265

805

00 27 266

00 08 31

806

00 03 271

00 97

800

267

73 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(1)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2253

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

1017

6. Belada

00 02

801

Tunda Contd.

23 11

498

00 02

497

00 01

495

00 10

843

05 83

441

00 02

440

00 02

439

438

00 02

442

00 16

443

00 05

444

00 60

437

07 55

445

490

446

448

00 00

450

07 90

449

465

00 09

466

00 11

468

485

292

00 09

470

09 57

471

235

11 30

1090

09 27

1031

00 22 55 1035

10 96

1030

06 15-

1029

00 02 65 579

02 21

589

01 70

590

04 41

588

00 00 70 581

00 08 78 582

04 28

587

00 00 70 586

01 84

585

00 10 45 583

00 54

557

584

79.

00 11

554

22 551

553

552

00 10

542

543

00 00 48 540

83 541

00 02

539

254

7. Narayanpur

00 03

234

02 35

233

239

00 03

232

228

00 00 24

226

213

00 09

231

00 00

230

216

217

05 51

255

09 59

206

00 00- 54

205

15 56

207

00 01

204

00 02

203

00 12

202

00 08

201

253

07 93

252

110

112

111

00 10

113

03 35

109

08 13

108

00 10

115

07 66

107

102

14 23 81

01 34

00.

00 02 88 83

00 66

10 68

00 10

85 22$4

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 00

2515

Kantia Contd.

00 23 Narayanpur

452

00 07 75

Contd.

2516

00 03 87 453

02 51

2517

00 00

2511

20 00

00 10

2510

00 01 16 00

2508

00 00

2509

08 41

00 82

2505

02 37 42

00 20 45

2498

00 01 62 00 00

464

2499

33 43

05 31

2497

00 00

458

2491

02 14 00

12 35

2490

08 00

00 49

2489

00 01 86 00

455

2477

02 04 00 00

2552

05 83

450

2246

00 11

9. Ganijanga

00 00

2338

07 17 26

00 07 44

2245

08 50

2187

01 90

00 00 28 00

13 88

2244

1868

8.Kantia

2201

00 13 19 00 01

1870

2202

73 00

02 12

1871

2203

02 14 00

00 15

1869

2204

05 16

1872

2205

00 01 57 00

00 10

1882

2206

70 1881

00 01 42

2210

00 01 83 00

1880

01 09

2209

02 00

1879

2207

1878

2208

01 00

1877

35 66

2134

00 02 82

2618

2131

02 70 00 03 47

2538

2130

02 08 2541

00 05 82

2129

02 79 2542

00 10

2221

2545

00 29 55

2128

00 10

03 00 08 36

2127

2529

2126

10 2527

00 03 91

2125

02 2526

00 05 83

2124

10 00

2528

01 60

2123

2525

00 02

2121

00 00

2522

03 25

16 75

2120

2524

11 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

(1)

(5)

(3)

(2)

(1 )

02 90

2169

2255

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

1728

Kusun Nagar

10. Kusun Nagar

06 49 -Contd.

2167

2166

00 00

10 95

2146

02 70

2148

2142

00 07 59

2147

00 00 30

2149

00 04

2141

85.

1825

05 73

1826

2139

1827

00 02

1829

01 59

1828

00 65

1831

00 04

1830

00 01

1812

03 86

1811

00 01

1809

00 02

1810

1805

04 96

1804

00 01

1801

00 07

1802

00 04 02

1803

1757

2905

00 13

2814

03 17

2813

00 07

1758

00 02

1759

1763

1765

07 78

1766

00 11

1767

1770

1768

00 09 62

1769

1726

08 10

1725

00 41

1727

768 GI/11-6

0010

1722

00 05

1724

00 01 79 1723

00 04

1557

00 05 78 2847

11 09

1558

07 49

1544

07 84

1561

00 00 10 1560

00 10

1541

00 07 99 1540

00 04

1536

00 10

1535

20 87

1537

1539

1538

87 1520

00 20

1521

00 06

1514

1513

00 06

1510

1498

1497

00 07

1496

1487

04 23

1488

00 06

1489

05 43

1477

00 07

1476

00 43

1473:

1475

00 02 53 1474

1469

00 03

1467

1468

1466

2775

00 02

1463

1462

92 1464

03 72

1461 2356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

VRS ( F ) to Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian . So , the dependent son of Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian , concerned workman , is entitled for employment in M / s . BCCL . The management is directed to give employment to the dependent son of Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian , namely , Paresh Manjhi , within 30 days from the date of publication of the award .

This is my Award .

By Order No. L -20012 / 114/88 - IR( Coal - 1 ) dated 13-7-1990 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 11 फरवरी , 2011

"Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union that the date of birth of Sri Bhagwan Das . Trasser , Industry Colliery of M/ s , BCCL is 4-6-38 ? If so , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

का.आ. 733.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 की 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 150/1990 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/ 114/ 1988- आईआर ( सी -1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th February, 2011

In this reference case both the parties have filed their respective written statements , rejoinders and documents . Thereafter the case was fixed for 25-8-10 for adducing evidence by the workman for which registered notices were sent to both the parties . But on 25-8-10 neither side appeared for which case was adjourned to 24-9-10 . Again on 24-9-10 neither side appeared , so the case was adjourned to 12-11-10 . On that date aslo none appeared from either side . As such , it appeares that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case .

Accordingly, I render the ' No Dispute ' award in the present industrial dispute .

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , ।। फरवरी , 2011 S.O. 733. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 150 / 1990) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Industry Colliery M / s . BCCL, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-02-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/ 114/ 1988 - IR ( C - 1 ) ] D.S.S.SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 734. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ऐरोफ्लोट रशियन एयरलाइन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय दिल्ली , नं.। के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -20025 / 01/2011- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , DHANBAD

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

डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी Reference No. 150 of 1990

New Delhi , the 11th February , 2011 Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Industry Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.Ltd .

AND

TheirWorkmen

PRESENT : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

S.O. 734. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 13/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 1 Delhi , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Aeroflot Russian Airlines , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010 .

For the Employers : None

For the Workmen : None

[No. L - 20025 /01 /2011 - IR ( C - I ) ]

Dated, the 31-01-2011

D.S.S.SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 2257 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2011

02 10

5/4

चरेया - जारी

5/5

00 01

75/50

77/55

00 06 का.आ. 727. 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;

78/56

00 02

00 00 33

00 00 82

00 02 14

00 02 83

83/58

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;

00 01 59

00 06 72

81/57

00 00 16

00 00 10

621/247

(2) तिगिरिआ

625/251

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 ;

626/252

08 11

638/262

02 92

637/261

11 97

राज्य: ओडिशा

सोरो : जिला बालेश्वर

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक

(1) भाटपडा

00 01 91

04 07

07 02

07 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 ।

00 03

01 .

10 अनुसूची

06 91 भद्रक देहात जिला भद्रक राज्य : ओडिशा

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक

00 04 79

गांव का नाम

00 22

सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं.

आर. ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

03 82

04 हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

11 63 (2)

( 4) ( 5 )

( 1 )

(3)

250

30 (1 ) चरेया

00 04 83

00 08 13

00 01 82

5/8

02 85

(2) बणपारिआ

4/7

12/12

6/9

00 00

10/10

13/16

00 08 63

00 18 45

14/17

00 06

00 01 18

6/6

19 2258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1) (1)

(2)

( 3 ) ( 4 ) ( 5 ) बणपारिआ-जारी

16/20

00 10 मधुसुदनपुर-जारी 17/21

00 24 94 18/22

19/23

17 01

31/36

00 00 21

1349

00 12 18 (3) कुरुणिया

1347

00 00

10 1348

00 09 83

1350

14 15 1346

00 19 27 1343

00 03 54 1342

00 41

1352

10 06 1353

00 04 00

1354

00 05 81

1355

06 12

1356

04 37 1357

50 1324

04 81

1358

17 93

1323

00 00 17 1130

00 02 10

1127

00 02 34

1126

1125

00 00

11/13

00 01

(4) कोलथा

10/12

00 09 80

9/11

00 19 86

8/10

00 04 34

14/17

00 05 08

00 24

15/18

00 04

16/19

00 04 20

17/20

00 04

24/28

23/27

18/21

21/24

00. 04

22/26

00 18 13

00 00 50

151

00 01 20

(5) मधुसुदनपुर

10 37

179

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

(3 ) ( 4 ) ( 5 ) 184

00 12 64 183

00 12 70 186

48 187

00 04

54 188

00 00 80 191

10 192

00 00 84 182

00 04 56 193

00 12 31 194

230

00 08

58 229

00 04

231

08 33 226

00 14 90 234

00 00 79 235

236

00 34 10 642

242

00 00 68

641

00 49

633

00 62 640

00 00 34 616

10 77 617

00 23

619

00 05 68 620

00 06 40 626

00 00 30 621

622

624

01 55

623

04 35 614

00 02 95

625

00 10 610

00 01 46

609

35 608

00 00 87 607

00 09 82 606

00 94 605

00 03 71 604

00 09 50 603

05 78

598

08 87 602

00 06 05 599

00 03 57 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1) (2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(1)

00 14

2259 (2)

(3) (4) ( 5 )

00 04 21 47

वंशिखार्जी-जारी

577

मधुसुदनपुर-जारी

00 10

600

560

00 73

526

00 05

527

528

00 01

529

34 31

523

520

12.

00 10

524

00 05

723

00 03 19

02 52

512

00 00 28

00 01 84 50

07 07 51

00 15 53

44 52

00 16

07 45

16/55

05 50 17/56

00 00 24 360

(8) गुहालडिहा

(6) चंदाटिकिरी

00 08

00 10

00 34

00 05

00 02

-24

00 10

(7) वंशिखार्जी

00 01

115

114

117

00 03

113

17 35

5/10

12 12

4/9

03 92

00 06 61

3/7

00 01

06 45

6/24

7/30

00 07 13

9/32

10/35

29/87

00 11

00 15 80

00 02 51

13/40

00 04 75

2682

00 01

00 02 08

01 78

00. 17 16 234

236

00 12 13

235

11 88

514

02 61

00 14 97 237

00 22

230

229

00 15 19

00 06 83 224

03 00

228

00 00 32 226

00 08 90 225

00 08 38 -163

00 01

165

00 07 87 167

00 02 10 162

02 37

142

140

10 42

141

15 65 139

00 10 13 137

00 02 10 135

00 01 17 136

00 03 70 134

00 27 128

00 05

114

00 68

113

04 09

115

09 40 112

00 04 01 110

00 06 39 111

00 10 66 104

00 00 40 105

00 02 57 106 2260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3) ( 4) (5 )

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) ( 5 ) गुहालडिहा-जारी

516

00 00 39

(10) श्यामराइपुर--जारी 63

04 120

98 00

03 32

07 07 (9) नदिगों

1754

00 44 81

00 07 89 1756

00 05 34

00 22 76 1867

00 06 34

00 01 47 1868

00 32 73

00 07 22 1866

00 03 90

00 02 09 1864

00 14 57

(11) सतसंख

905

00 09 24 1858

00 09 98

842

01 68 1859

787

10 38 1860

00 00 23

782

00 05 1857

53 00 08 80

783

09 25 1856

00 01 34

784

00 50 1861

00 14 22

786

00 03 61 1855

00 02 08

785

00 04 27 1837

00 03 61

778

00 03 83 1836

14 60

792

00 07 09 1835

00 08 76

768

00 04 12 1937

00 01 69

770

00 00 63 1834

07 91

769

00 04 1833

69 00 12 08

767

00 02 59 1832

00 10 19

771

00 00 10 1829

00 00 10

766

00 20 32 1827

00 00 29

722

00 19 73 1828

00 08 03

723

04 95 113

00 18 62

724

00 02 98 114

00 05 19

2835

00 00 10 105

717

00 02 13 181

00 ΟΙ

(10) श्यामराइपुर

716

02 08 182

16 45

715

00 02 57 183

00 05 74

713

00 14 72 184

00 03 77

711

00 00 52 165

00 00 44

698

12 75 164

16 34

2781

00 05 81 163

00 02 36

702

00 05 08 112

00 16 98

701

00 06 02 115

00 04 55

700

00 00 27 117

12 22

649

00 03 22 116

00 20 72

645

00 02 38 193

00 07 88

648

00 03 37 69

651

09 122

14 46

647

00 01 62 68

2816

05 27 66

634

00 04 43 64

01 02

638

00 05 99 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

( 4)

(2)

( 5 )

(3 )

(1)

2261

(4) ( 5 )

(3 )

(2)

94 586

चहलिमा-जारी

00 03

639

सतसंख-जारी

01 46

636

637

607

604

605

606

00 06

589

588

587

575

579

17 19

576

555

559

558

556

00 03

557

584

585

580

02 59

579

00 08

578

577

576

575

574

07 33

570

571

04 37

568

567

00 04

566

00 02

564

565

00 11 70 59

(13) किआमुडिया

552

546

405

(12) चहलिमा

407

411

410

412

12 23

717

00 02

703

00 39

704

08 93

716

705

08 93

706

693

00 09 14 13

18 99

00 01 00 30

00 32

00 13

00 01

00 04

00 10 41 52

00 18

00 83

547

(14) बालिपुर

00 21

676

00 69

660

661

10 84

659

00 18

665

16 81

658

596

13 36

599

00 02 48

598

00 03 60

597

600

05 27

601

587

00 10

514

22 11

513

06 88

518

01 08

503

14 20

499

571

03 68

497

03 59

498

03 39

522

01 08

575

02 06

410

08 58

574-

21 15

489 2262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(1)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

277

बालिपुर-जारी

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

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

15 84

रंगपति (निरंतर) 261

00 48 06

00 03 89

244

00 05 87

247

557

00 00 21

246

00 00 10

सर्वे सं. 246 और

गाँव सीमा के बीच

में

101

00 24 56

(15) रंगपति

100

00 01 05

00 05 .63 (16) चंपो 81

00 19 02

00 04 37

726

00 09 99

727

00 00 31

02 90

27 93

00 06 41

130

271

272

273

05 19

270

00 01 09

274

00 26

275

00 04 73

276

277

748

00 00 52 750

44 749

00 04 91

04 74

292

00 02 46 25

00 03 67 24

00 05 05 23

72 20

00 00 38 21

70 22

00 03

00 00 10 1

00 01 06 61

00 06 64

03 53 63

00 00 36 68

00 14 94 69

00 01 64 67

00 09 32 70

11 94

23 80 72

00 19 79

00 03 25 53

00 02 87

15 10 50

00 02 18 51

00 13 68 48

00 01 96 39

00 02 55 80

00 11 53

00 58

279

00 02 65

280

00 09 23

281

282

762

00 00 59

283

144

00 16 81 147

06 95

149

00 08 83 148

00 10 151

00 01 37 150

00 17 50

00 30

287

00 05 43

761

00 03 09

284

752

03 75

288

00 60

00 02

751

787

00 05

161

02 47 177

00 08 82 162

00 12 33 163

00 02 60 165

00 18 23

168

11 54 170

00 00 15 169

06 11 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(1) (1)

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

171

00 12 59

2263 (2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

00 09 70 1948.

आंगुला (निरंतर)

चंपो (निरंतर)

172

00 05 14

1492

(17) आंगुला

1494

1493

00 06

1495

1505.

00 10

1504

1503

1575

1576

1788

00 00

1789

1804

1790

1805

1803

1791

00 00 19 1949

1947

07 64

00 00 10 1945

00 01 71 1955

00 01 50 1956

1946

07 59 857

01 35 856

00 04 24

00 06 49 1957

854

11 89

00 00 58 853

852

04 60

80 855

00 01

850

00 00 17

851

07 58 847

00 11 47

00 02 70 848

86 16

(18) मंती

1802

00 97

1810

1801

00 00

1798

1797

00 44

1867

1863

00 01

2306

1864

01 21

1869

17 06

1861

1856

1852

2087

00 13

00 09 29

2090

2093

03 15

2089

11 17

2085

00 15 85

2082

05 74

00 05 49

2081

04 17

2080

2079

2072

00 Οι

2073

00 20 29

1941

00 04 85

00 00 34

1943

1944

06 50

768 G1/11-7

11 24 36

11 53 35

00 02 55 34

00 00 52

16 53 24

00 05 08 23

15 58

00 10 22

00 34 23 21

14 59

00 00 17 374

2579

44 377

00 10 82

00 01 52 380

00 19 06 379

00 07 63 378

00 47 66 408

01 94 981

00 07 79 1010

00 06 65 1011

74 1009

00 04 32 1008

1012

00 10

04 36 1007

00 03 03 1018

00 08 93 1006 2264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

( 1)

(2)

(3) ( 4 ) ( 5 )

(1) 1019

मंती (निरंतर)

08 04 केशरिपुर ( निरंतर )

1025

00 77

1022

05 16

1024

1023

00 03

1026

00 07 38

1913

00 01 06

( 19) केशरिपुर

1914

00 .00 10

26 42

1915

1902

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

( 3 ) ( 4) ( 5 )

2544

07 21

2545

2522

00 01 31 2599

69 2598

00 05 89 2601

30 05 89 2516

00 00 21 2604

00 05 20 2602

00 05 99 2603

00 04 68

02 05

1903

2605

13 71

00 54

1901

1884

00 03 78

1883

00 00

1879

1882

10 99

1891

00 06 88

1874

00 08 99

2820

00 01

2798

ΟΙ

1873

00 01 01

1872

00 01 31

1871

1869

00 14 76

2014

2015

00 88

2013

1986

00 00 49

00 49

1985

1992

00 44 84

1987

00 01 69

1988

2004

2606

00 07 66

2607

06 96 2613

00 08 16 2611

00 04 66 2612

00 00 16 2610

00 05 29 1208

00 02 01 1207

00 21 79

1155

77 1206

00 00 21

1202

12 36 1203

04 73 1201

18 59 1172

00 40 65 सर्वे सं 1172 00 27 68 और1182 के

बीच में

1182

01 35 1181

00 00 28

1091

02 86

1090

47 15 1093

00 02 82

08 82

2024

00 66

2003

2002

(20) महिषासुरी

2534

00 04 20

2535

2536

00 08 96

00 00 54

2533

2537

00 05 99

00 04

2538

2540

1096

08 22 1097

00 00 18 170

00 02 30 169

00 13 13 168

00 03 76 167

02 02 166

00 04 43 137

138

00 01 27

12 17

2543

00 01 81

2542

00 07 37

118

00 10 26 120

00 08 92 123

00 00 93 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1) (2)

(3) (4) ( 5 )

( 1)

00 00

103

चिंतामणिपुर-जारी महिषासुरी -जारी

00 04

124

00 07

102

08 76

101

00 34

126

00 28 36

00 13 14

100

00 02 43

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

06 97

565

( 1 ) ईश्वरपुर

566

00 02 00

567

06 11

564

02 88

559

568

00 00 24

570

00 01 44

574

00 03

572

573

576

00 03

578

00 102

577

00 15

579

00 03

542

539

00 02

00 03 93

538

00 68

536

00 13 22

537

2265

( 4) ( 5 )

(3 )

(2)

00 02 06 189

00 00 49 190

00 01 83 191

482

00 08 79 483

00 01 41

00 03 41 487

00 02 33 512

73 488

490

489

00 01 47

06 51

491

05 00

492

415

411

414

02 22 412

00 07 89 413

27 403

00 01

11 13

404

00 00 10 516

00 01 60 405

12 99 396

397

05 94

00 01 92 398

01 66.

399

00 10 11 386

00 04 24 387

00 00

363

535

1557

(3) कांडागरडी

00 00

00 02 13

00 58

02 74

00 01 75

1627

00 03

02 40

00 00 32

580

03 00

176

(2) चिंतामणिपुर

27 06

175

00 01 76

181

00 01

182

00 02 65

183

187

00 01 56 1558

00 02 22 1559

00 04 81 1560

03 91

1561

05 66 1562

00 18 07 1542

00 00 10 1540

00 02 17 1541

20 37

3189

02 99

1531

00 04 13 1530

00 00 10 1528

05 12

1527

1526

00 05 58

06 53

1525 2266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(1) कांडागरडी (निरंतर ) 1514

कन्हुपुर-जारी 1515

00 04 52

3262

08 81

1524

00 00 66

1516

17 35

1487

00 00 66

2415

04 80

1486

00 05 70

2416

00 07 41

1484

00 03 68

2427

04 89

2426

00 01 13

2434

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

(3) (4) ( 5 ) 710

05 69 713

00 09 20 714

00 08 25 680

676

00 13 50 715

00 06 20 663

00 06

661

00 09 76 660

00 05 41 636

ز 659

00 18 1 643

00 06

05 53

2425

00 67

2435

02 81

2436

00 00 48

1478

03 09

1474

00 04 23

1475

00 40

1473

00 03 32

1472

07 00

1471

00 02 68

1470

00 08 54

1442

00 04 05

1443

00 01 09

1444

00 00 81

1441

00 09 28

1445

00 10

1373

00 07 38

1372

00 00 10

1374

1379

00 04 04

1385

00 00 10

1380

00 03 19

1381

07 27.

1382

04 95

1383

02 69

1384

00 76

4) कन्हुपुर

गाँव सीमा कंदा- 00 01 59

गराडी और गाँव

सीमा

696

00 04 60

703

00 09 15

711

00 14

712

00 10

644

00 00

10 642

16 39 641

02 21 469

00 03 17 468

00 03

470

471

00 (0)

434

00 07 8!

444

00 02 27 445

00 00 55 856

20 443

00 00

442

85 446

00 01

437

00 00 3. 441

00 05 50 440

00 02 2. 438

439

421

00 04 زانی 420

419

00 02

422

00 00

394

00 08 61 412

00 02

410

00 00

411

405

404

00 02 35 406

00 00

398

00 00 10 402

.00 03 06 401

07 78 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(2)

( 3) ( 4) ( 5 )

(1) (1)

2267 (2)

( 3 ) ( 4) ( 5 )

00 01 15 20

खडीपडा-जारी

817

(5 ) कोलिगडी

00 00 10

807

816

00 10

821

815

00 25

822

03 47

823

04 05

814

01 21

594

11 18

595

(8 ) जोकगाडिआ

09 12

562

00 07

561

00 45

564

559

04 10

560

00 01

555

00 01 46

558

07 77

00 08 13 30

00 03 90 21

00 04 41 22

01 42 29

06 24

00 08 04 24

00 15 47 25

00 01 75 596

00 27

595

593

588

11 587

01 15

590

19 12

589

아 91 290

(9) अस्तीआ

00 68

557

06 48

556

00 18

553

00 28

538

00 01 88

449

450

08 54

447

00 11

06 64

442

441

436

440

00 55

439

08 79

438

00 02 58

(6 ) हुंटापुर

379

01 02

412

00 00 25

397

02 82

00 09 64

413

00 42

05 66

00 04 70

04 95

310

(7) खडीपडा

00 10 83

00 16 30

00 00

00 03

10 291

00 00

00 12

292

328

327

298

299

01 36

300

00 73

302

00 03 58 301

04 31 326

00 00 51 325

303

00 24 58

00 00 10 311

02 73 312

00 00 64 315

00 10 88 314

13 24 313

00 05 06 213

00 03 04 208

00 01 58 209

13 210

212

03 04

573

00 00 71 35

00 09 03 57

05 81

00 02 15 59

07 70 61

00 2268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1) (1)

(2)

(3 ) (4) ( 5 )

अस्तीआ -जारी

20 22 खिरपदा-जारी 64

25 01

00 10

106

00 09

(2) रफाएतपुर

107

123

01 19

984

16 75

122

109

00 10

983

06 15

121

120

00 03 53

119

116

115

20 30

ओडिशा

राज्य:

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक: खैरा जिला बालेश्वर

127

( 1) खिरपदा

124

00 31 35

110

00 00 10

109

00 01 17

108

00 00 44

107

102

01 17

(3) दुर्गापुर 1

00 00 23

00 06 65

00 04 50

00 00 10

00 88

00 05 31

00 27

08 39

00 10

00 20 43

1077

00 00 39

00 06 06

19 26

06 36

00 07 51

00 00

06 12

00 00 10

00 02 40

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

(3) ( 4) ( 5 ) 30

00 34 65 6

11 51 5

00 07 52 4

00 01 31 1120

00 08

1121

00 00 59 1122

00 04 41

14 56 1095

1094

00 27 18 1096

00 27

1093

1092

15 1091

00 12 90

1089

1090

1088

1087

00 07 56 1086

00 07 12

1085

27 1040

02 53

1039

61 1038

00 .05 31 1037

00 09 34

01 39 1128

00 03 02 62

00 02 54 61

00 02

7:4

00 04 89

00 83

00 10 53

00 05 05 58

08 28

00 02 69 43

07 15

00 06 37 44

00 00 95

00 10

60 15

23 90

00 01

06 17

11 14 [फा. सं. एल. 14014/13/2011-जी.पी. ]

के.के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव 2269 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

New Delhi the 28th February, 2011

5/5

06 78

Chareya ( Contd . )

75/50

05 41

77/55

78/56

00 02 28 S. O. 727.- 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 laidby M/ sRelogistics Infrastructure Limited;

00 33

00 82

00 02 14

00 02 83

83/58

Andwhereas , 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 ;

00 01 59

06 72

81/57

00 00 10

621/247

(2) Tigiria

625/251

17 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;

626/252

638/262

02 92

00 11 97

637/261

District:

Mandal/Tehsil/ :

State Orissa

Taluk : Soro

Baleshwar

00 04 91

(1 ) Bhatapada

00 01 91

00 04 07 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- 751023 , Orissa State.

03 02

SCHEDULE

00 03

State:

Orissa

District Bhadrak

Mandal /Tehsil/Taluk : Bhadrak Rural

06 91

00 Village

04 79 Area to be acquired for ROU

Survey No./ Sub-Division

00 22

C-Are

Hec Are

(4)

(5)

(3)

(1)

(2)

00 11

00 10

250

(1 ) Chareya

00 17 78

01 82

00 08 13

05 63

5/8

02 85

(2) Banaparia

00 05 63

12/12

00 14 23

4/7

00 10

10/10

01 86

6/9

00 .

00 08 63

00 18 00

13/16

00 18 45

14/17

6/6

00 11 82

00 01

18 00 02

5/4

00 00

19 2200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 16/20

Banaparia ( Contd .)

184

00 12 64

Madhusudanpur

17/21

183

00 12 70

(Contd.)

18/22

186

00 07 48 19/23

00 17 01

187

00 04

54 00 00

31/36

188

00 80 00

1349

12 18

(3) Kurunia

191

00 00

10 1347

192

00 00 84 1348

00 09 83

182

04 1350

00 14 15

193

00 12 31 1346

19 27

194

00 01 76 00

1343

03 54

230

08 1342

00 41

229

00 04 25 00

1352

231

00 08 33 00

1353

04 00

226

00 14 90 1354

00 05 81

234

00 00 79 1355

235

08 1356

00 04 37

236

00 34 10 1357

00 00 50

642

00 02 71 1324

04 81

242

00 00 68 1358

17 93

641

00 00 49 00

1323

633

00 00 62 1130

640

00 34

616

00 1127

10 77 00 02 34

617

00 23 45 1126

619

00 05 68 00

1125

00 12

620

00 06 40 00

11/13

(4) Kolatha

626

30 00

10/12

09 80

621

00 03 97 9/11

00 19 86

622

00 8/10

00 07 23

624

OF 55 14

623

35 14/17

614

02 95 15/18

24 88

625

00 10 16/19

00 04

610

00 01 46 17/20

00 04 20

609

04 35 24/28

04 21

608

00 00 87 23/27

607

606

94 18/21

00 10

605

00 03 21/24

604

09 50 22/26

18 13

603

00 05 78 25

00 00

598

00 08 87 00

151

(5) Madhusudanpur

602

00 06 179

10 37

599

00 03 57 2271 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932,

(5)

(3) (4)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4) (5)

(2)

(1)

04 21.

14.

577

Madhusudanpur

03 19 00 00 10

600

Bhansikharji

(Contd.)

02 52 560

512

00 00 28 00

526

00 01 84

00 05 05

527

07 07 528

00 01 04

00 00 15

529

03 44

523

00 00 16 00

54.

520

00 07 45

16/55

00 10

524

17/56

05 50 00

05 40

723

00 00 24

360

(8) Guhaldiha

(6) Chandatikiri

234

17 16

236

00 12 13 00

00 80

11 88

235

00 00 08 95

514

02 61

00 14 97

237

00 00 34

230

00 22

00 05

229

00 15 19 00 02

224

00 06 83 1

00 26 41

00 03 00

228

00 00 54

00 00

226

(7) Bhansikharji

225

00 08 90 00 01 66

115

00 08 38

163

00 04 72

114

165

00 00

117

02 48

00 07 87

167

113

00 02 10

162

00 17 35

5/10

00 02 37

142

4/9

00 12 12

140

01 11 00

03 92:

10 42

141

00 00 00

139

3/7

137

00 10 13 00 06 23

135

02 10 23

00 01 93

00 01 17

136

00 06 45

6/24

134

00. 03 70 00 11

7/30

128

00 27 9/32

00 07 13

114

00 05 01

10 52

10/35

00 00 68

113

01 95

29/87

115

00 04 09 38

00 11

00 00 15 80

112

09 40

110

00 04 01 13/40

02 51

00 00 04 75

111

06 39 2682

00 10 66 43

104

00 01 57

105

00 00 40 45

00 02

106

02 57 46

00 768 G1 /11-8 2272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4) (5)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 516

00 00 39

00 04 98 Guhaldiha ( Contd.)

Syamraipur ( Contd .) 63

120

00 03 32

00 07 07 1754

00 44 81

00 07 (9) Nadigan

89 1756

00 05 34

00 22 1867

00 06 34

00 01 47 1868

32 73

00:

00 07 22 1866

00 02 09 00

1864

14 57

905

00 09 24

11.Sarasankha

1858

842

00 01 68 00

1859

02 30

787

10 38 1860

00 00 23

05 53

782

00 1857

00 08 80

783

00 09 25 1856

784

00 00 50 1861

00 14 22

786

00 03 61 00

1855

785

04 27

1837

00 03

778

03 1836

00 14 60

792

07 00

1835

768

00 04 12 00

1937

01 69

770

00 00 00

1834

769

00 04 69 1833

00 12 08

767

00 02 59 1832

00 10 19

771

00 10 00 00

1829

766

00 20 32 00

1827

00 29

722

19 73 00

1828

08 03

723

04 95 113

724

02 98 00

114

05 19

00 00 10

2835

105

00 03 40

717

00 02 13 00

181

716

00 02 08 10.Syamraipur

182

00 16 45

715

02 57 183

713

00 14 72 184

711

00 52

165

698

12 75 164

00 16 34

2781

05 81 163

00 02 36

702

00 05 08 00

112

16 98

701

00 06 02 00

115

04 55

700

00 00 27 117

00 12 22

649

00 03 22 116

20 72

645

00 02 38 00 07

193

648

00 03 37 00

651

00 20

09 44 69

647

00 00

01 62

14 46

122

2816

00 05 27 00 23 68

634

00 04 48 66

00 11

638

00 05 99 64

02 2273 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(5)

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

09 01 94 00 03 81

586

Chahalima ( Contd.)

11. Sarasankha (Contd .) 639

584

00 13 56 636

00 01 46

00 07 28

585

637

00 10 90

580

607

00 02. 59 00 06

579

604

00 08 82 00

578

605

12 56

00 04 75 606

577

576

00 04 79 589

575

02 63 588

03 49

574

38 587

00 04

00 07 33

570

575

571

579

03 21

00 04 37

568

576

567

06 43

00 555

00 07 99

566

00 04 49 559

00 05 93

564

558

00 03 66

00 02 01

565

00 556

08 68 00 13 12

00 11 70 557

13.Kiamuendia

552

09 14 546

00 02 61

18 99

405

12.Chahalima

03 52

00 01 00

407

00 00 32 411

03 53

00 13 51 00

410

00 14 10

00 01 17 412

04 79 717

00 12 23

10 41

00 00 02 68

703

00 18 00 00

704

00 00 83 716

00 08 93

00 14 71 00

705

11 52

00 88 706

00 08 93

00 02 73 693

00 05 47

547

00 01 77

14.Balipur

676

00 21 15

514

00 660

00 22 11

513

661

10 02

518

06 88 00

659

10 84

503

00 01 08 665

499

00 14 20 658

00 16 81

571

00 00 88 596

00 02 07

497

00 03 68 00 13 36

599.

498

03 59 598

00 02

522

00 03 39

597

03 60

575

00 01 08

600

410

00 02 06 00 05 27

601

574

00 08 58 00 13

587

489

00 21 15 2274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(5)

(3) (4)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 277

15 84

750

14Balipur (Contd. )

00 01 44

Rangapati ( Contd .)

261

48 06

749

00 04 91 0

00 03 89

292

04 00

244

05 87

00 02 46 00

247

00 03 67 00

557

00 21

00 05 05 246

00 00 10

00 20 72

38 Nala Bet Say 00

No. 246 & VB

01 70 00

101

24 56

03 15.Rang apati

100

00 00 10

00 01

00 01 06 78

00 05 .63

00 06 64

16.Champo

00 19 02

53 00

36 00

726

14 00

727

64 00

32 00

27 93

94 00

06 41

00 23

80 00

00 19 00

03 25 00

130

02 87 271

00 15 43

15 10 272

00 07 18

00 02 18

273

00 13 68 00

270

01 09

15 99

00 00 00

274

01 96

00 02 55 275

04 73

11 53 276

144

81 00

277

00 58

147

00 06 95

279

00 02

149

00 08 83 280

148

00 00 00

281

151

ΟΙ 37 00

282

00 10

150

17 50 00

762

00 59

161

02 47 00

283

00 30

177

00 08 82 00 05 43

287

162

12 33 761

00 03 09

163

00 02 60

165

00 284

18 23

168

00 752

54 00 03

170

00 00

00 15 288

169

00 06 751

00 02 29

171

00 12 59 00

787

05. 14

172

00 41 00

748

52 2275 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(1)

(2)

(4) (5)

(5)

(3) (1)

(2)

(3) (4)

05 14

1947

07 64 00

1492

Angula ( Contd. )

17.Angula

00 00 10

1945

1494

00 01 71

05 92

1955

1493

1956

01 50 00 06

1495

1946

00 07 00

59 1505

857

01 00

10 51

00 1504

00 04 24 00

856

02 86

1503

1957

02 50

06 49 1575

-854

00 11 89 1576

853

00 00

00 58 1788

852

04 60 1789

00 00 03 89

855

00 1804

01 80

850

03 02

00 00 17 1790

00 00

851

07 58 1805

847

47 1803

848

02 70 1791

20 86 1802

00 00

18.Mantri

00 00

11 24

1810

11 1801

00 00

02 55 1798

00 00 52 00

1797

53 1867

05 08

00 01

00 1863

15 2306

00 10

00 01

1864

00 10

00 34 23

1869

17 06

00 14 1861

00 00 0.1 67

374

17 1856

2579

1852

00 00 10

00 03 44

00 00 13 78

377

10 82 2087

380

00 09 29

00 2090

01 52

379

03 15

19 06 2093

00 07 63 00 11

378

2089

408

47 66 00 15 85

00 2085

01 94 2082

00 05

981

00 00

1010

07 79 2081

1011

00 06 65 2080

00 04

1009

00 01 2079

74 00 01

1008

00 2072

04 32

00 00 20 29

1012

00 10 2073

1007

00 04 36

1941

1018

00 03 03 1943

06 50

1006

00 08 93 1944

1019

08 04

00 00 09

1948

1025

00 00 TI 1949

19 2276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(1 )

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(5)

(3) (4) 1022

00 05 16

18. Mantri (Contd .)

2522

00 01 31

Kesaripur ( Contd)

1024

07 25

2599

00 07 69 00

1023

03 02

05 89

2598

00 00

1026

07 38

2601

00 05 89 00

1913

01 06

19.Kesaripur

2516

00 00 21 1914

2604

00 05 20

1915

05 99

2602

00 00 02 05

1902

2603

00 04 68 00 00 54

1903

2605

13 71

00 1901

09 50

2606

00 07 66 00

1884

03 78

2607

00 06 96 00 10

1883

2613

00 08 16 00 00

1879

2611

00 04 00

1882

10 99

2612

00 00 16 00

1891

2610

05 00

1874

08 99

1208

00 02 01 00

01 17

2820

1207

00 21 79

04 01

2798

1155

00 00 77 00 01

1873

1206

00 21

1872

1202

12 36 00

1871

1203

00 04 1869

14 76

1201

18 59 2014

00 04 72

1172

00 40 65

2015

00 27 68

In bet Suy No. 1172

2013

12 60

and 1182

00 00

1986

00 01 35

1182

1985

00 49

00 00 28

1181

00 00 52

1992

1091

02 86 00

1987

44 84

1090

47 15 00 04 69

1988

00 02 82

1093

2004

08 82

1096

00 08 22 00

2024

00 66

1097

00 18 00

2003

11 87

20.Mahisasuri

170

02 30

2002

169

00 13 13

12 22

2534

168

03 76 2535

04 20

167

02 02 2536

00 08 96

166

04 43 00

2533

00 54

137

00 22 77 00 05 99

2537

00 01 27

138

2538

00 04 68

118

00 10 26 00

2540

12 17

120

08 92 2543

00 01 81

123

00 93 00 07

2542

00 00 10

103

2544

00 07 21

124

00 04 29 2545

00 02 89

102

07 42 2277 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(4) (5)

(4) (3)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

00 00 49

190

101

20. Mahisasuri (Contd. )

191

00 01 83 126

00 00 34

Chintamanipur (Contd.)

482

08 79 00

483

00 01 41 100

00 13 14

487

00 03 41 96

00 02 43

512

02 33 Mandal/Tehsil/ :

State :

District :

488

02 73 Baleshwar

Orissa

Taluk: Nilagiri

490

01 17 565

00 06 97

( 1) Iswarpur

489

01 47 00

566

491

00 06 51 567

492

00 05 00 564

415

00 01. 20 00

559

02 88

411

00 11 74 568

06 04

414

10 58 570

412

00 02 22 00

574

01 44

413

07 89 572

00 03 87

403

01 27 573

11 03

404

00 11 13 576

00 01 07

516

10 00

578

405

01 60 577

00 02 06

396

00 12 99 579

15 05

397

00 05 94 542

00 03 55

398

92 539

00 02 61

399

66 538

00 03 93

386

10 11 536

00 00 68

387

00 04 24 537

00 13 22

363

00 00 26 17

535

04 62 21

00 00 47

1557

00 07 67

3.Kandagardi

00 18 38

1558

01 56 15

00 00 31

1559

02 22 4.

00 02 13

1560

00 04 81 5

00 58

1561

00 03 91 3

00 02 74

1562

00 05 66 1627

00 01 75

1542

00 18 07 2

00 03

1540

00 00 10 1

00 02 40

1541

00 02 17 580

00 00 32

3189

00 20 37 176

00 03 00

2. Chintamanipur

1531

00 02 99 175

27 06

00 04 13

1530

181

00 01

1528

00 00 10 182

00 01

1527

00 05 12 183

00 02 65

1526

00 05 58 187

1525

00 06 53 189

00 02 06

1514

00 00 10 2278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4) (5) 00 04 52

1515

714

00 08 25 Kandagardi ( Contd . )

Kanhupur ( Contd .)

3262

680

03 03

1524

676

1516

06 28

715

00 66

1487

663

06 19

00 00

04 80

2415

661

09 76

05 70

1486

660

05 2416

00 07 41

636

00 21

00 00 03 68

1484

659

18 11 2427

00 04 89

643

06 96 00

2426

01 13

644

00 00

2434

05 53

642

2425

00 02 21

641

2435

02 81

469

03 17

00 48

2436

468

1478

470

04 65

04 23

1474

471

00 40

1475

434

07 00

1473

02 27

444

1472

00 07

00 55

445

02 68

1471

856

01 20

08 54

1470

00 86

443

01 85

442

00 04

00 1442

00 1443

446

01 87

00 00 00

437

38 1444

441

00 00 09 28

05 1441

00 10

440

02 1445

438

01 72 1373

00 07

01 22

439

1372

421

04 39 1374

00 69

00 04 86

04 04

420

1379

419

00 02 02 1385

422

00 00

00 10 1380

07 27

394

08 64

00 1381

412

00 02 00 04 95

1382

410

00 67 00 02 69

1383

14 58

00 00 00 76

411

1384

405

In bet V.B. of 00

4 Kanhupur

00 02 35

404

Kandagardi and

406

00 00 92 V.B. of

00 10

398

00 04

696

402

00 03 06

09 15

703

07 78

401

14 57

711

00 10

712

00 02 32

817

( 5 ) Koligadi .

00 05 69

710

00 00 10

807

713

00 09 20

14 78

816

00 2279 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुण 21, 1932

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

00 67 821

Koligadi (Contd.)

Khadipada (Coutd.)

08 13

815

00 08 90 00

822

00 25

10 823

08 47

60 814

00 04 05

00 06 00 01 21

166

00 11

595

562

596

561

(8) Jokagadia

564

00 00

00 27

559

11 00

593

560

588

16 00 10:

01 37

587

555

00 여

590

558

00 01

00 10

00 19 12 557

589

556-

00 06

290

48 (9) Astia

553

00 18

291

10 00

538

00 28

00 00 12

292

00 01

449

328

450

00 08 42

00 08 38

327

08 54

447

298

00 04 55 00

446

11 51

00 10

299

442

00 06 64

300

00 01 36

441

302

00 73

436

301

440

326

04 31

60 00

439

00 55

325

00 51

00 438

00 08 79

24 58

303

00 00

02 58

311

00 00 10 (6) Huntapoor

00 13 37

312

73 379

00 412

00 01 02

315

00 64

00 25

397

314

00 02

13 24

313

80 413

00 09 64

213

00 05 19

00 00 42

208

00 03 04 16

00 05 66

209

00 15

04 70

210

310

00 04 95

212

+00 (7) Khadipada

573

10 83

100 00 16

00 17

00 00 19

00 03 50

15 34

00 14 75

00 20

00 01 15

768GI/11-9 2280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(1)

(4)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 61

00 07

34 65 Astia ( Contd. )

Khirapada ( Contd . )

00 20 22

11 51 64

00 07 52 98

01 31

1120

(2) Rafaetpur

106

09 03

1121

00 107

18 55

1122

04 123

00 14 56

1095

984

1094

00 27 18 122

00 : 16 75

1096

00 00 27 00 00

109

1093

00 01 38

983

1092

00 121

00 04 30

1091

12 90 120

00 03 53

1089

05 89 00 01 45

119

1090

00 08 116

00 04 34

1088

ΟΙ 68 115

00 20 30

1087

00 07 56 Mandab Tehsil/ ;

District:

State

1086

00 07 12 Taluk: Khaira

Baleshwar

Orissa

1085

00 27 127

00 00 95

( 1 ) Khirapada

1040

00 02 53 00

124

31 35

1039

00 04 61 00 00

110

1038

00 05 31

109

1037

09 108

00 02 25

1128

00 01 39 107

00 00 44

00 03 02

( 3 ) Durgapur

102

00 01 17

00 02 1

00 00 23

02 00 06

02 59

04 50

00 66

00 88

00 83

01 71

00 00 10

00 05 05

00 08

00 08 28

1077

00 20 43

02 69 72

00 00 39

07 15 56

00 06 06

06 37

01 18

00 00 95

19 26

10 45

00 06 36

00 23 90

00 07

01 06

00 10

00 11 14 36

00 06 12

[F. No. L- 14014/ 13 /2011 -GP]

00 10

00 02 40

K. K. SIIARMA , Under Secy.

2281 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

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

(1)

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2011

1076 00

1. दाइसिंग (निरंतर )

1074

1073 00

1077

1025

का. आ. 728.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएन्स इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टर्मिनल 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;

सर्वे सं. 1025 और 00 1026के बीच में

1026 00

1024 00

1021

43 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;

1020 00

1022 00

968

1034

1035

1036 00

09 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;

944

1037 00

943

942

941

940 00

905

904

901

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 बिछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री भास्कर त्रिपाठी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , प्रथम मंजिल , फोर्जुन टावर , चन्द्रशेखरपुर, भुवनेश्वर-751023 , ओडिशा राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा

906

86 अनुसूची

907

राज्य : ओडिशा

जिला : भद्रक

908

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक: भद्रक देहात

909

13 गाँव का नाम

911

आर. ओ. यू. अर्जित करने

04 सर्वे सं. / सब डिविजन

870 .00

के लिए क्षेत्रफल

876

एयर

सं. हेक्टेयर

सिएयर

873

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

(1)

874

1180

1. दाइसिंग

871

1181 00

872

00 1179 00

868

04 1178 00

93 29

878

06 00

879

1176 00

882

1175 00

880

1086 00

.00

858

1068 00

857 00

1085

-100

853

1081

852 00

1078 00

00 03

851

1075 00 2282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5) 00

660. 00

00.

1. अलसुआ-जारी

659 00

01 $50

664 00

11 849

663

61 00

346

674

08 00

676

58 106

844

673 00

13 305

672

09 06

843 00

680

807 :00

681 00

29 04

808 00

682

30 17

309 00

694

10 00

692 00

78 468

811 00

693

00 $10 00 03

691

58 812 00

686 00

48 00

685

87 463

05 462 00

687

584

41 461 00

25 460 00

1049 00

1056

02 458

51 00

421

1050 00

03 01

457 00

1051

00 00

1052

10 427

1055

09 02

1054

03 426

43 429

1053

66 431 00

1062 00

61 00 10

1650

435

436 00 05

1047

1072 00

42 439 00

1075 00

97 438

ΟΙ

1073

437 00

1076 00

ओडिशा

बालेश्वर राज्य

1078

761

1.अतसुधा

1085

760

1087 00

646 00

1088

647 00

सर्वे सं. 1088 00

613

और 1089 के

649 00

बीच में

650

1089 00

651 00

1090

652 00 08

1448 00

657 00

1449 00

658 09

1447

639 00 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(1)

(4) (5)

(2) (3)

(1)

2283

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

19 00

राउलखुंटा-जारी

1446 00

अलसुआ-जारी

1451

1458 00

1456 00

1459

1508 00

1509

1515 00

1514 00

1510 00

1511 00

1503

1512 00

1513

1496 00

1547 00

1548 00

1549 00

1550 00

1551 00

1553

1552 00

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

1546 00

1. द्वारिका

1547 00

1548 00

1545 00

1544 00

1552 00

1557 00

1553 00

87 00

70 00

40 91

17 00

05 90

80 87

86 00

06 85

49 84

26 00

34 79

74 00

67 00

58 66

16 00

82 00

86 60

15 00

94 00

28 00

52 00

51 00

86 00. 03

04 00

Ю 41

07 42

91 00

66 00

96 2141

3. श्यामसुंदरपुर

1556 00

2011 00

1563 00

1562 00

1567 00

1654 00

1647 00

1648 00

1645 00

1642

1636

1635

1634

2. राउंलखुंटा

2142

2138

2137 00

32 2135 00

10 00

3248

2133

25 00

2132

64 00

2233

2235

11.

09 2234 00

3245 00

02 00

2230

72 2239

39 3246

05 2284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

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

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5) 2229 00

श्यामसुंदरपुर (जारी )

387

कंठीयाटिकर ( जारी )

38 2228 00

388

89 3256 00

386 00

61 2227 00

723

18 2579 00

385 00

18 2508 00

379 00

62 2480 00

381

31 2509 00

380

68 2507 00

377 00

10 2506 00

376

89 2486 00

588

37 2489 00

375

64 2505

589

20 2513 00

590

31 00

2502

597

10 00

2504 00

592 00

81 2503 00

596

74 2500 00

598

85 05

2501 00

599 00

28 2498 00

595

10 2497

600

80 2496

628 00

65 2517

601

42 2419 00

627

11 3218 00

629

02 3217

634

29 3266 00

632

51 2414 00

633

36 2413 00

636

20 2412 00

635

69 2518 00

705

59 3064 00

637

10 2525 00

5. कंठीपद

505

20 2519

149

87 . कंठीयाटिकर

447

150

50 435

151

86 446

167

94 436 00

166

76 445

180

35 437

165 00

92 438

179

15 439 00

181

21 16

444 00

182

12 532 00

190

68 721

00,

193

00 720

191

108 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2285

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

773

टनका (जारी )

189

कंठीपद (जारी)

188

202

200

201

246

6. दक्षिणकुऑरपुर

270

247

245 00

244

243

236

242

141 00

211

7. गोबर्धनपुर

210

250

00 03

196

209 00

197

198

206

199

192

191

172

173

171

174

154

175

-03

142

153

152

156

143

144

145

123

120

118 00

146 00

1071 00

8. टनका

1073 00

1072 00

1074

770

771

772

474

476

475

485

69 484

486

488

487

490

489

491

493

492

483

496

494

495

28 00

498

499

500

501

447

444

512

513

523

525

522

521

527

534

685

535

54 00

683

65 00

682

681

673

680

675

676

74 00

677

674 2286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5) १. प्रतापदा

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

(2) (3) (4) (5) बडाता (जारी )

606 00

1838

10. नरसिंहपुर

355 00

352

353- 00

318 00

320

347

321

322

11. नंदमोहपानाब्रेह

12. बडाता

686

687

688 00

708

711

709 00

697

698

658

660

659 00

653

651

648

650

649

585

589

592

543

544

25.

498

497

496

495

494

492

490

81- 493

477

474

471

470

469

299

300

298

303

304

76 00 04 31 00 24 68 00 10 61 00 01 16 67 00 09 79 00 03 04 66 00 12 50 13 13 66 00 03 01 00 05 42 72 00 01 65 00 06 10 52 00 00 76 652 00 15 47 50 00 30 22 00 15 62 49 00 02 30 00 00 40 48 00 01 20 00 15 25 10 66 598 00 02 43 00 10 55 00 05 19 358 00 02 56 596 00 18 91 357 00 02 44 00 05 25 356 00 05 11 590 00 07 57 11 52 00 ΟΙ 22 00 00 97 591 00 06 68 04 50 00 21 47 354 00 21 93 502 00 08 17 03 78 00 13 319 00 09 57 00 11 24 00 02 86 00 00 10 00 00 25 00 01 40 00 02 95 00 06 27 00 00 92 553 00 00 48 32 03 61 00 85 31 00 10 78 00 12 78 30 00 07 14 491 00 10 22 29 00 00 13 00 03 36 00 06 01 00 01 54 28 00 18 36 476 00 11 41 3 00 00 99 00 00 39 00 07 92 00 02 92 00 09 475 00 00 03 68 03 00 82 03 62 00 21 80 00 05 94 712 00 01 76 00 01 63 00 09 40 00 00 24 22 77 00 06 94 710 00 00 19 00 02 25 707 00 01 75 301 00 03 17 695 00 00 10 296 00 06 64 706 00 08 90 00 00 74 00 04 21 00 03 11 696 00 06 78 305 00 01 97 661 00 09 74 307 00 02 32 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुण 21, 1932

(1)

(2) (3)

(5)

(4)

(1)

306

बडाता (जारी )

2287 (2)

दुलारपुर (जारी)

308

293

00 06

238 00

39.

772 00

239 00

91.

230 00

240 00

241 00 05

123

242 00

118 00 09

116 00

115

114

113 00

109 00

110

111

00.

108 00

750 00

00:

62 00.

60 00

00 05.

12 00

110

133 00

77 132

135

2. मिदिनीपुर

71 00

72 00 60

73 00 03

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक खौरा जिला बालेश्वर राज्य: ओडिशा

310

00 06

1. दुलारपुर

312 00

309

308 00

319 00 16

323 00

324

325 00

288 00

102 00

104 00

105

101 00

103 00

768GI/11-10

329

331 00

332

333

72 00 06

334

360

361

357

355

354 2288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(3)

(2)

(4)

(5)

(3)

मिदिनीपुर (जारी )

317

अनंतपुर (जारी )

352

350

351

366

387

4. तारंग

288

367 00

368 00

229

369

220

274

219

273

272 00

270

3. अनंतपुर

156

148

71 00

138

47 00

100. 00/ 00

101

118

1722

325. 00 03

124

00 .

71:

सर्वे सं. 51 00

और 57 के

बीच में

318

23 00

28 00

25 00

319 00

(1) (2) (4) (5) 347 00 15 67 00 01 72 00 07. 11 24 00 00 42 00 03 97 16 00 07 18 00 00 96 20 00 14 80 00 06 60 21 00 04 58 00 01 46 223 00 00 58 00 02 60 221 00 01 36 13 11 222 00 01 98 01 06 00 02 30 00 08 81 00 07 2 00 28 00 45 00 00 00 40 07 217 00 03 02 09 86 216 00 29 00 27 04 25 215 00 03 30 75. 00 09 23 00 08 22 76 00 12 92 157 00 03 65 00 01 51 00 00 23 Th 00 06 70 147 00 04 22 78 00 07 17 158 00 26 61 00 05 87 139 00 03 33 07 76 00 07 32 70 00 01 91 137 00 01 70 02 52 136 00 14 67 20 1719 00 00 63 2 00 02 26 119 00 10 51 00 07 66 117 00 10 98 48. 00 . 07 34 00 04 20 49. 00 05 89 00 01 06 21 00 02 32 53. 00 12 00 00 28 00 86 -00 14 67 00 02 80 66 00 11 79. 51- 04 79 65 00 00 02 08 20 64 00 07 75 00 02 45 63 00 05 73 00 02 53 58 00 01 28 : 00 00 74 79 00 00 21 00 04 31 62 00 02 10 : 00 90 80 00 00 07 00 04 80 81 00 03 64 01 32 61 00 04 47 27 00 02 51 33 00 02 19 26 00 00 55 32 00 11 20 02 22 34 00 01 02 56 40 00 07 64 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(5)

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

(1)

410

2289

(4)

(2)

(5) (3)

21 00

हातौरी (जारी)

5. कासिंदिपुर

411

421 00

420

414

418

419

423

288

279

82.

2. कुंडी

271

273 00

202 00

267

270

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

439 00

1. हातौरी

907 00

00 01

.00

ΟΙ

894

00.

00-

3. संबंग

16 00

885

66 71

46 00

67 00

05 00

1166

40 00

1165

98 1160 00

1161 00

17 1162 00

1163 00.

97 1154 00,

69 1156

17 00

1155

27 1150 00

1144 00

54 00

1145

10 1149

14 00

1146

1148 00

84 1143

37 1147 00

44 1135

10 1142

1138

41 1137

1140 00

1139 00

48 00

1136

54 00

1127

35 1128 00

1129 00

00.

1130

48 1126 00

1125 00

1124 00

1122

1123 00

12 00

178

163

1544 00

20 164

02 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(3)

(5)

(1)

165

सबंग (जारी )

168

166 00 12

167 00 00

153

00 60

149 00 06

151 00

76.

145 00

143 00

09 00 어

318

320 00

317 00

319

326 00

327 00: 02

329 00 03

332 00

330

331

363

4. महमदपुर

473

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

(5) 483

15 00

37 482

479 00

10 00

474

01 476

03 475

02 00

477

27 00

469

20 00

468

69 478

39 2489 00

69 00

465

42 467

10 466

57 2487 00

20 00

464

49 806

11 808 00

89 809 00

29 810

61 2542 00

811

59 819

87 2522 00

47 812

62 818 00

44 824 00 00

25 00

817

61 816

24 835

11 833 00

78 834

85 836

839 00

24 837

19 00

838 00

02 840

96 1086

16 1092 00

49 1093 00

20 1091 00

17 1094 00

40 1097

10 1095 00

84 1096

02 1101

67 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2291

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

986

महमदपुर (जारी )

1089

महमदपुर (जारी )

1103

1102

1104 00

1107 00

1108 00

1127

1109 00

1112

1125 00

1124

1113

1117

1121

1120

1119

1122 00 09

1.137

1118

1044

1042

1041

1040

1043 00

1037

1039 00

1027 00

02.

1038 00

1029

1028 00

1031 00

1030 00

1024

1023 00

1022 00

1170

1171 00

1172 00

996

995 00

994 00

993

988

992 00

989

990 00

991

981

983

985

982

984

914

1640

913

915

1639

912

1638

910

30. 00

909

819

908

820

907

1633

821

899

822

898

895

897

896

894

890

1651

00.

856

857

889

887

885

884

881

878

11.

877

1331

1334

873

1336

1335

1340 2292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2) (3) (4)

(5)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(5)

(4) 00

872

|महमदपुर (जारी )

430

आनन्दपुर (जारी )

1337

421 00

16 867 00

471

02 1338 00

422

53 866 00

ΟΙ

429

05 1339 00

428

423

01 00

15. आनन्दपुर

426

10 78

ΟΙ

470

34 85

472

00 .

01 532

468

02 531

425

07 84

467

01 530 00

466

48 86

440

10 87

461

44 90

462

62 529

460

01 523

459 00

528

2213 00

48 91

2111 00

58 527

351

54 526

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक बस्ता जिला बालेश्वर राज्य : ओडिशा 206

1. देउलपडा गांव सीमा

91 209

और सर्वे सं 45

208

के बीच में

210

90 207 00

75 391

42 211

75 390

302

85 212 00

100

12 213 00

123

24 389

125

388 00

124

05 387 00

319

2. बाउँसमुखा

385

315

384 00

318 00

10 386

316

72 414

317

80 415

314

04 417

324

27 416

325

71 01

418 00

398 00

72 419 00

399

07 420

397

00 431

400

01 2293 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(3) (4)

(5) (3)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(4)

(5)

(1)

402

102/699

बारमाडिआ ( समाप्त )

बाउँसमुखा ( जारी )

393

101/698 00

404

100/697

405

97/694 00

-00

403

99/696 00

406

66/662 00

10 00

389

98/695

407

94/691

411

69/65

23 410

70/66 00

408

71/67

409

91/687

490

8/842

491 00

73/69

88 00

487

76/672

89 492

90/686

493 00

75/671

12 00

494

60/656

497

77/673

66 00

498

81/677

499

78/674

506

80/676 00

507

00.

184/857 00

505

79/675

508

5. गोबर्धनपुर

509

504

6. मधुभंड

3.निलांवरपुर

04 00

बालेश्वर राज्यः ओडिशा

मंडल/तहसील/तालुकः जालेश्वर जिला

136

1. किस्मत्गोबर्धनपुर

143

142

34 17

141

144

146

104/702

4. बारमाडिआ

147

103/701 00

149

105/703 00

148

106/704 00

158

700

87 2294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(1)

(3) (4)

(5)

(2) (3)

(5)

(4)

72 00

151

2. चकाधु ( समाप्त) 128

किस्मत् गोबर्धनपुर

119 00

82 157

(समाप्त)

120

03 161

ΟΙ

121

98 00

156

118

207

122 00

29 206

117

155

192 00

49 272 00

193

171 00

219

34 00

173

220

04 176

218

13 174

221

29 175

225

187

223

06 198

224

57 112

205

00 111

204

03 109

226

44 108 00

199

110

3. किस्मत राठतपाडा 1

63 107

190 00

105

[फा. सं. एल-14014/15/2011 - जी. पी. ]

104 00

के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव 103 00

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2011 92

102

165 00

2. चकाघु

S.O. 728. 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 ofAndhra Pradesh ofM/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;

166

170

171

172

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 ;

173 00

175

178

177

176 00

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 ofUser therein;

134 00

133

132

131

126 00

127

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date onwhich 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, 2295 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011/फाल्गुन 21, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(2) (3)

(1)

906

Daising(Contd.)

Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, Ist Floor, Fortune Tower , Chandrasekharpur , Bhubaneswar-751 023 , Orissa State.

907

05 SCHEDULE

908

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk : Bhadrak Rural

909

State: Orissa

District : Bhadrak

911

04 Village Survey No./ Area to be acquired for ROU

870

Are C-Are

Sub- Hectare

876 00

Division

873

(4)

(5)

(3)

33 (1)

(2)

874 00

23 1180

871

1. Daising

06 1181

872

1179

868

1178 00

878

70 00

06 1176 00

879

78 1175 00

882

14 1086 00

880

1068 00

858

31 12

06 00

1085

857

1081 00

853

1078 00

852

46 1075 00

851

29 00

00 1076

860

1074 00

850

71 00

10 1073 00

849

10 00

1077

848

1025 00

846

11 00

806

In bet 00

844

suy No.

1025 & 1026

805

1026

843

1024

807

1021

808

1020 00

809

1022 00

468

968

811

1034 00

810

1035

812

1036 00

463

944

462

1037

461

943

460

942

458

941 00

421

940 00

457

905

428 00

904 00

427

901

768 GI/11-11 2296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

( 1 )

(4) (5)

(2)

(1 )

(3) (4) (5) 426 00

1054

Alasu ( Contd. )

Daising(Contd.)

43 429

1053

431 00

01 00

1062

61 435

1650 00

436

1047

48 05

00 00

42 439

01 00

1072

438 00

1075 00

437

1073

1076 00

66 Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk: Soro District: Baleshwar State : Orissa

1078 00

761

1. Alasu

1085

760

1087 00

646

1088 00

08 647 00

Inbet suy 00

648

649 00

No. 1088 & 1089

650

1089 00

04 651

1090

652

1448

657

1449

658

1447

639

1446

660 00

1451 00

659 00

1458

93 664 00

1456

663

1459 00

06 674 00

1508

08 676

1509

673

1515

81 00

672

1514 00

680 00

1510

681

02.

1511

682

1503

694

1512

692

1513

693 00

1496

00 00

691

1547

686

1548

14 00

685

1549

687

1550

02 584

1551

1049 00

1553

1056 00

1552

1050 00

Mandal / Tehsil/Taluk : Nilagiri District : Baleshwar State : Orissa 1051 00

1. Dwarika

1546

1052 00

1547

1055

10 2297 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(2)

(1)

Raulakhunta (Contd. )

1548

Dwarika (Contd. )

1545

1544 00

1552 00

1557

1553 00

2141

1556

3. Syamasundarpur

2142

2011

2138

1563

2137

1562

2135

1567 00

3248 00

1654

2133

1647

2132

1648

2233

1645

2235

1642

2234

1636 00

3245

1635

2230

1634

2239

2. Raulakhunta

3246

22:29

2228

3256

2227

2579

2508

2480

2509

2507

00 15

2506

2486

26.

2489

2505

2513

2502

2504

2503

2500

2501

2498

2497

2496

2517

2419

3218

39 2298

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(4)

( 1)

(3)

(3) 3217 00

12 Syamasundarpur

634

Kanthiatikar ( Contd . )

3266 00

632

(Contd.)

51 2414 00

633

2413 00

636

2412 00

635 00

69 00

2518

705

3064 00

637

00 00

2525

505

5. Kanthipada

2519 00

149

87 4. Kanthiatikar

447

150

50 435

151

86 446

167 00

436 00

166

04 01

445 00

180

35 00

437

165

01 438

179

15 439

181

21 444

182

12 08

532 00

190

68 721

193

720

191

387 00

189

08 388

188

33 06

386

202

723

*200

00 00

385

201

96 00

379

246

6. Dakhinkuanrapur

381

270

63 380

247

00 00

377

245

41 00

376

244

54 00

588

243

85 00

375

236

589 00

242

T? 13

590

141

27 597 00

211

7.Gobardhanpur

592

210

14 00

596

250

38 598

196

30 599

209

36 00

595

197

70 600

198 00

33 00

628

206

10 601 00

199

42 627 00

192

629

191

98 2299 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(3 ) (4)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(4)

(2)

(1)

447

172

Tanaka (Contd. )

444

173

Gobardhanpur (Contd.)

512

171

513

174

523

154

525

175

522

142

521

153

527

152

534

156

685

143

.00

535

144

683

145

682

123

681

120

673

118 00

680

146

675

1071

8.Tanaka

676

1073

677

1072

674

773

1074

9.Pratapada

770

771

772

474

476

03 .

475

485

484

486

606

488

1838

487

10. Narasinhapur

358

490

357

489

356

491

355

493

352

492

353

483

354

496

318

494

319

495

320

498

347

499

321

500

322

501 2300

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(5)

(4)

(2) (3)

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

(1)

553 00

Badaata ( Contd . )

494

11. Nandamohan- patraberh ( Contd. )

492

491

490

493

476

477

474

02 00

686

12. Badaata

475

687

471

688

470

708

469

712

299

711

300

709

298

710

301

707

296

74 00

00 695

303

304

03 706

305

697

307

696

306

661

308

698

293

658

238

660

772

659

239

653 00

230

651

240

652

241

648

123

650

242

649

118

22 598 00

116

115

585

114

596

113

589

109

590

110

592

111

591

108

543 00

750

502

544

498

497

496

495

00 2301 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(5) (2)

(4)

(4) (1)

(3)

(5)

(2) (3)

(1)

323

Medinipur ( Contd. )

326

400

398

Mandal /Tehsil/Taluk : Khaira District : Baleshwar State : Orissa

330

310

1.Dularpur

329

312

331

309

332

308 00 31

333 00

319

334

323

360

324

361

325

357

288

355

354

102 00

356

104

353

105

347

101 00

352

103

350

106 00

351

111 00

366

113

387

110

288

114

367

133

368

132

369

135

274

162

273

163

272

164

270

165 00

3. Anantapur

168 00

169

175

174

170 00

173

172

187

186

100

185

101

199

200

07.-

201 00

395

325

386

12 2-Medinipur

322

401

54 2302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

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

(1)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4) 00

28 Anantapur ( Contd. ) 51

Taranga (Contd.)

21 Inbet suy 00

No. 51 & 57

02 00

64 318

20 28

64 26

410

5.Kasindipur

411

319

421

06 317

420

19 00

414

418

419

51 21

423

10 00

223

47 4.Taranga

288

221 00

279

82 00

222

271

22 229

273

220 00

202

35 219 00

267

66 217

270 00

32 216

Mandal/Tehsil/1k: Similia District : Baleshwar State : Orissa

215

439

1. Hatuari

156

907

69 157

148 00

02 00

147

158 00

139 00

138 00

137

69 136

99 1719 00

10 00

119

894

117 00

118 00

1722 00

07 00

124

06 66

56 65

73 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(1)

Kundi

Hatuari

2303 (3)

(5)

(4)

(2)

27 00

1123

178 00

3. Sabang

885

ون

1166 00

2. Kundi

1165

1160 00

1161 00

1162

1163

1154 00

1156

1155

1150 00

1144

1145

1149

1146 00

1148 00

1143 00

1147

1135 00

1142 00

1138

1137 00

1140

1139 00

1136 00

1127 00

1128

1129 00

1130 00

1126 00

1125 00

1124

1122

11-12

69 00

163

50 00

1544

164

78 00

165

168 00

166

154

153

149 00

151

76 00

150

147

146

145

143

306

15 00

307

308

33 00

309

318

320

317

319

10 326

327

328

22 329

332

330

331

363

527

495

494

493

492

97 00

526

491

498

99 00

104

487

500

486

485 2304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

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

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (3) 00

484

Sabang

1103 00

Mahammadpur

473

1102 00

(Contd.)

18 483 00

1104 00

27 482 00

1107 00

06 00

479

1108 00

03 474 00

1127 00

00 476 00

1109

81 475

1112 00

86 477

1125 00

52 469

1124

468 00

1113

02 478 00

1117

10 00

2489

1121

98 465

00 03

1120 00

02 467

1119 00

51 466

1122 00

33 2487

1137

34 464 00

1118

36 00

806

1044 00

57 808 00

1042 00

05 809

1041

14 00

810

1040 00

32 2542 00

1043 00

35 811

1037 00

09 819 00

1039 00

16 2522 00

1027 00

52 812

1038 00

02 818 00

1029

51 824

1028 00

10 817

1031

14 816 00

1030 00

90 835 00

1024 00

31 833 00

1023 00

41 834

1022

16 836

1170

25 839 00

1171

837

00 02

1172 00

74 838 00 03

946

95 840

995

41 1086 00

4. Mahammadpur

944

03 1092 00

093

72 1093 00

988

44 1091 00

00 01 1094 00

030

69 1097 00

990

42 04

1095 00

986

18.

1096 00

991

46 00

981

00 1089 00

ΟΙ

983

27 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( il ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(5)

(3) (4)

( 1 ) 985

Mahammadpur

2305

(4)

(3)

(2)

(5) 77

5.Anandapur

982

984

914

1640

913

915 00

1639 00

912 00

1638 00

910

909 00

819

908

820 00

907

1633

00 02

821

899 00

822 00

898 00

895

897

896 00

894 00

890 00 01

1651 00

856

857

889

887 00

885 00

884 00

881 00

878 00

877 00

1331 00

1334 00

873 00

1336 00

1335 00

1340 00

872

1337 00

867

1338 00

866

1339

13.

532

531

00 -00

48 84

530

32 86

03 00

10 90

65 529

32 523 00

51 00

528

10 91

527 00

24 526

206 00

16 00

209

92 00

208

76 210

207

15 391

72 211

390

58 00

212

82 00

213

05 00

389

388

75 00

387

64 00

385

18 00

384

386

414

415

417

416

418 00

419

79 420

431 00

430

16 00

421

471

422

25 429

10 00

428

02 423

426

34 00

470 2306

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4) (5)

( 1)

(2) (3) (4)

(5)

491

472

487

Baunsamukha (Contd.)

468

Anandapur (Contd.)

492

52 425

493

98 467

494

80 466

497

03 440

498

60 00

461

499

462 00

506

67 460

507

€5

05 00

459

505

2213 00

508

02 00

2111

509

10 351

504

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Basta District : Baleshwar State : Orissa

3.Nilambarpur

Inbet VB& Suy No.4500

1.Deulpara

01 45

09 00

302

100

40 123 00

125

07 124

89 00

319

2.Baunsamukha

19 00

315

02 00

318

38 316

104/702

4.Barmadia

317

103/701 00

43 00

314

105/703 00

324

106/704 00

325

700

87 398

102/699 00

86 00

399

10 1/698 00

397

100/697 00

08 400 00

97/694 00

28 00

402

11 .

99/696 00

09 00

393

66/662 00

404

00 03

98/695

405

94/691 00

32 :

403 00

69/65

23 00

406

70/66 00

58 389

71/67 00

96 00

407

91/687 00

30 411

8/842 00

38 410

73/69

88 408

76/672 00

89 06

409

90/686 00

59 00

490

00 2307 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(2)

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

(5)

(3)

(4)

(1)

110

15 00

75/671 00

Kismat

Barnadia

107

96 60/656 00

Gobardhanpur

190

77/673 00

105

81/677 00

104

78/674 00

103

80/576 00

53 00

184/857

102 00

79/675

89 23

5. Gobardhan Pur

01 03

6. Madhubhanda

165

2. Chakraghu

166

170

02 00

171

172

173

175

08 01

178

177

28 Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Jaleswar District : Baleshwar State : Orissa

176

136

1.Kismat

134 00

Gobardhanpur

133

143

132 00

142 00

131

11 01

141

126

144

127

146

128

147

119

82 00

149

이

120 00

148

121

158

118

151

122

157

117

08 00

161

192

156

193

207 00

219

206

220

155 00

218

272

221

171

225

173

223

176

224

174

205

175

204 00

03 00

187

226

198

199

112

3. Kismat Routpara

111

109

[F. No. L- 14014/ 15 /2011-GP ] 00

108

K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

2308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] नई दिल्ली , 28 फरवरी , 2011

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

1307

00 09 09

कसबगोला ( निरंतर)

1308

00 01

1312

00 00

1314

00 06 08

1313

का.आ. 729,-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;

1311

1124

1123

00 00 10

1121

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;

1120

05 88

1119

00 00

00 23 43

1118

1116

1117

81 ! 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 ;

1097

1098

00 06 37

1099

00 04

1100

00 00 16

1094

1093

00 00 27

3245

00 07 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 उपायोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री वारिद वरन गुहा , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , 7 , वूड स्ट्रीट तिसरी मंजिल कोलकाता -700016 , पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

1091

3247

00 00 10 अनुसूची

3283

01 63 मंडल/ तहसील/ तालुक : इग्रा -1

3246

04 99 जिला: मेदिनीपुर राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल

00 00 10

3284

गांव का नाम

1088

11 सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं.

1086

00 00 आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

05 49

1050

00 (1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

1084

00 02 1337

( 1) कसबगोला

1051

00 07 56

3306

00 06

3270

00 08 00 03 23

1338

00 00

3273

27 00 01 30

1336

3272

00 02 55

1335

3271

00 05 91

00 1334

00 11

1061

02 58 00

00 34

1052

00 01 09 1320

3061

00 14 93 00 08

1321

1056

00 03

1327

00 03

1060

1322

00 04

1058

1316 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

( 1)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4) (5)

कसबगोला (जारी )

00 00 87

2309 (2)

(3) (4) (5)

(2) पंचरोल

1059

00 13 35

3277

04 29

1036

00 00 78

1035

09 10

1034

08 30

3264

00 05 47

00 04 17

137

00 13 99

138

16 20

140

00 00 10

139

135

00 05 07

134

00 09

133

3136

00 01 31

131

12 79

130

00 03 33

127

3153

129

00 ΟΙ 07

128

167

01 63

125

00 00 21

166

00 09 05

119

10 58

120

00 00 47

118

00 06 81

117

108

3147

00 01 61

111

3148

00 10

3145

00 02 14

110

00 03 63

3146

00 01 76

109

00 07

112

00 02 04

103

00 01 64

3172

00 00 10

3622

03 44 3623

00 09 12

3783

07 93 3624

00 08

19 3625

00 08 37 3626

40 3837

00 01 68 2244

00 06 78 1436

00 13 37 2437

2439

00 00 59 2438

00 10 24 3830

00 04 41 2440

96 2441

00 16 42 2442

15 26 2453

00 07 83 2456

00 00 21 2455

00 01 12 2454

02 57 2452

2760

13 98 2755

00 02 56 2761

00 05 91 2669

00 15 88 3847

07 64 2768

00 03 66 2770

00 01 57

3848

00 30 2771

00 08 78 2772

17 08 2748

00 00 10 2773

00 08 46 2774

00 00 10 2892

22 3849

00 02 19 2777

00 00

15 2811

00 03 81

2779

06 51 2810

00 00 10 2781

14 12310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21. 1932

(1 )

(2)

(3)

(5)

( 1)

(4)

पंचरोल (निरंतर)

2783

00 02

62 पंचरोल (निरंतर ) 2780

00 14 12

2782

3850

2808

01 40

2809

2807

00 01

2806

2841

00 02

3566

2846

2844

2843

2845

00 00 75

2847

3111

18 (3) रेडा 3109

3110

00 00 54

3862

3861

32.

3115

00 01 38

3108

15 81

3103

00 01 18

3107

00 07

3154

3156

02 42

3155

3507

3158

(X) 14 89

(4) बिलबर 3506

00 00 43

3504

3899

3505

3502

00 10 42

3879

00 05

3501

3500

3870

3497

16 56

3473

3496

00 02

[PART I - SEC. 3 ( i) ) (2)

(3)

15)

(4)

3902

00 06

3475

00 13

3484

(0)

3876

12 3476

00 02

10 3872

3-482

3480

00 20

3873

3419

8 3417

3414

00 01

3415

3394

00 09

2 3.393

00 03

00 08

00 06

00 05

00 00

00 07

00 01

सर्वे सं. 3 और

गाँव सींमा के

बीच में नाला

गाँव सींमा और 00

सर्वे सं. के 389

के बीच में

389

00 36

397

00 16

396

00 04

395

00 09 18

00 02 19 399

15 400

489

08 18 590

00 00 18 488

00 04 2311

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

(1)

96 अलंगिरी ( निरंतर)

487

बिलबर ( जारी )

00 01

468

486

00 22

588

00 11

485

483

484

842

586

00 01

587

00 19

480

456

00 43

(5) बाया

00 18

00 06 44

सर्वे सं. 5 और

83के बीच में

10 82

226

04 59

1531

(6) अलंगिरी

1657

1655

00 01

1534

1656

10 63

1642

00 10 52

1641

00 00

1640

04 21

1645

1646

1647

01 40

1648

05 38

1649

1635

00 03 74

1564

637

04 74

1632

1630

16 02

4269

00 01 70

1628

758 GI/11-13

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

19 75

1629

17 25

1588

00 22 1606

14 31 1605

00 00

4514

07 36

1604

1602

1603

00 21

4516

4520

11 1597

1598

11 47 1594

00 00 67 1595

00 08 36 1596

1946

49 1942

1940

09 30

1941

1936

1943

05 33

1938

00 27

1937

4593

01 76

4106

10 85

4110

4111

3376

3375

00 10

3374

00 19

4113

4118

3363

3362

00 02

3357

3361

09 28

3358

05 64 3356

12 39

4712

03 31

3272 2312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1) अलगिरी (निरंतर )

3273

00 09 98 अलंगिरी (निरंतर ) 3274

00 01 79

3237

00 06 16

3236

00 05 92 (7) जेरतन् 3235

3230

00 00 35

4684

16 13

3231

00 09 16

3226

00 02 09

3225

3223

00 02 55

3224

00 14 32

3218

00 09 89

3217

00 03 55

3186

00 00 26

3185

00 19 98

3187

00 08 98

3188

3180

00 09 13

3179

00 00 83

3177

00 05 41

3152

00 03 55 (8) कटबनी 3153

00 01 27

3141

00 04 58

3154

07 43

3155

00 10 26

3156

00 08 97

3118

3117

00 10 17

3115

3116

00 05 55

4658

00 00 57

3107

00 06 65

3108

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

(5)

(3) (4)

3083

00 00 41

00 11 41 3082

3081

00 11 52 42

00 00 10 40

00 08 29 41

00 07 35 39

00 10 98 3

00 12 30 4049

00 07 96 4

00 01 26

12 30 6

00 14 39 9

00 01

05 13

00 13 36 12

00 07 74 14

00 08 58

40 15

00 12 50 16

67 17

00 14 19 18

00 04 73 460

00 00 10 461

14 64 475

04 34 462

474

00 13 05

473

이 53 472

471

00 05 04 480

00 13 47 469

00 08 62 484

485

00 00 45

03 51

4657

00 07 20

4656

00 06 13

3094

00 15 83

3090

00 01 11

3086

00 08

4646

00 07

3087

410

03 33 409

73 408

00 03 28 346

82 345

00 08 25 344

00 11 78 342

00 00 18 343

00 02 81 2313 [ भाग 11 खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] .

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4) (5) 576

उलुआ (निरंतर)

कटबनी (निरंतर )

327

214

326

328

322

323

324

315

159

306

314

308

307

309

339

258

353

574

260

261

262

263

323

109

255

108

264

107

104

253

252

101

102

249

230

01. 06 248

232

233

234

189.

(9) उलुआ

(10) बेनचकरी

336

852

338

1097

00 00 78 333 00 ព 19 00 16 20 41 00 05 54 00 04 12 00 00 14 00 00 50 44 00 12 83 325 00 07 80 213 00 00 18 00 01 17 45 00 07 76 00 12 73 46 00 18 49 00 00 66 47 00 00 10 00 07 13 161 00 05 40 00 01 53 00 00 64 00 00 15 52 00 08 69 00 06 80 51 00 00 55 00 02 34 158 00 01 64 00 02 53 53 00 06 84 00 06 88 00 02 29 00 01 34 00 01 14 00 03 34 54 00 11 67 00 01 71 155 00 03 33 00 00 19 56 00 15 62 00 01 29 110 00 13 22 256 00 01 21 00 00 20 00 05 28 00 00 27 00 08 46 254 00 03 17 00 12 15 00 01 63 00 01 32 00 00 39 100 00 08 26 251 00 01 37 00 01 19 00 08 86 00 08 28 250 00 02 25 98 00 00 59 00 00 17 97 00 -01 70 00 16 75 96 00 00 02 14 95 00 02 06 00 02 58 94 00 02 00 235 00 09 26 92 00 01 40 00 01 17 88 00 28 62 236 00 08 80 82 00 00 24 00 00 35 81 00 11 34 215 00 00 80 00 03 28 96 00 15 15 851 00 30 00 00 84 00 03 87 40 00 09 00 01 43 2314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1) 858

बैनचकरी (जारी )

00 08 80 नराहरिपुर (जारी) 1096

00 11 16

857

00 02 91

861

00 03 49

862

00 07 95

863

00 08 60

866

00 03 53

864

00 01 87

865

00 03 79

867

00 03 03

974

973

00 05 12

972

00 05 72

1087

00 07 24

976

00 03 28

1088

00 07

1089

00 01 65

967

00 23 85

966.

00 23

1080

00 03 18

907

00 02 38

909

00 00 14

933

00 01 78

929

00 02 85

928

14 17

927

00 11 37

(11 ) सातखंड

144

(12) नराहरिपुर

137

00 16 75

136

00 03 85

135

138

134

00 03 62

133

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

(3)

(5)

(4) 124

00 00 35 27

00 00 27 23

00 01 44 20

00 04 54 24

00 00 70 25

00 03 75 19

00 00 64 18

95 17

00 00 90 15

04 13

00 02

15 40

18 82 41

91 42

00 07 28 45

00 04 39 43

00 00

18 44

53 371

00 02 55 47

00 00 47 52

00 10 40 53

00 10 16 54

00 00 94 373

00 02 08 55

00 51 366

79 365

00 09 78 56

00 04 65 360

00 02 51 361

00 02 45 58

00 07 43 362

00 00 89 363

00 07 31 364

00 03 60

02 79

132

00 03

131

00 04 98

127

00 07 82

128

(13) कुदी

02 31

126

00 05 03

125

00 00 16 62

00 04 35 49

00 10 300

00 01 44 289

12 72

03 22

288

00 23 70 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(3)

(1)

(2)

(5)

(4)

(1)

287

कुदी ( जारी )

2315.

(5) (2)

(3) (4)

13 18

(14) होसेनपुर

284

00 48

285

2320

262

00 04

1611

263.

01 92

265

264

290

258

05 69

259

01 62

1305

00 00 10

239

240

15 61

12 56 37

23 43

00 09 72 30

07 33

54 26

00 17

सर्वे सं. 26 और

21 के बीच में

00 02

23 20

00 02 59 182

(15) रामक्रिष्णपुर

241

00 00

238

242

236

36 11

212

224

00 01 09

00 00 29

213

222

215

216

22 18

217

218

00 56

00 07 46

04 39

416

08 50

16 57 10

00 14 39 425

00 00

11 424

00 16 44 11

00 00

57 12

672

10 17

(16) बस्तिया

199

201

22 04

198

00 06 80

197

00 13 53

157

189

00 06 05

188

160

07 37

00 00 92

187

11 91

165

16 73 673

675

00 01

674

11 37 650

00 05 66 649

00 09 25 648

646

21 40

647

03 09

00 00 80 645

19 278

(17) दलुलुआ

166

00 05 65

1296

167

171

170

276

00 10 34

00 02 31 280

00 09 21 281

22 960

00 01

09 282 2316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5).

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 962

बलुलुआ (जारी)

00 00 54

130

(19) पूर्बाचक अलुआ

06 17 961

12 81

176

00 10

00 285

00 12 78

256

'00

40 1056

00 00 43

131

00 26 99

174

00 (18) उलिपुर

421

132

419

00 15

00 66

134

00 00 79

00 00

422

129

00 03 72 562

00 11 46

135

00 13 77 420

00 03 59

128

00 02 65 556

09 41

125

00 11 95 563

00 01 69

194

00 00 39 558

00 00

124

00 06 47 555

01 18

126

00 06 06 557

00 21 30

112

00 22 20 415

00 02 41

113

00 00 60 533

08 21

107

09 42

00 538

00 00 12

111

00 04 96 354

01 38

109

00 00 90 355

00 15 34

231

00 10 43 536

00 01 18

108

00 05 48 535

00 06 68

230

00 05 32 357

00 01 24

229

00 11 76 358

00 05 47

00 00 74 534

00 00 10

00 03 47 359

00 25 32

00 00 15 368

00 01 54

00 13 67 369

00 07

00 27 89 367

00 00

00 13 85 546

00 13 24

00 01 90 372.

00 08 14

00 01

62 244

00 00 32

00 06 21 243

00 03 48

00 00 10 505

00 06 40

00 07 39 373

00 00 21

00 00 10 504

00 01 11

00 02 62 548

00 04 73

00 07 91 591

00 04 25

217

00 08 27 590

00 04 07 252

00 10 07

00 01

22 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(5)

(2)

(1)

(3) (4)

सर्व सं. 30 और 00

2317

(4)

(3)

(5) (2)

15 45

(2) असुरा

214के बीच में

पूर्बाचक अलुआ (जारी)

214

00 10

00 00

गाँव सींमा और

(20) कस्बा इग्रा

सर्वे सं. 3844

के बीच में

3844

3845

00 06 45

3864

00 04 70

3846

00 03

3863

3862

14 66

3860

00 00 15

3859

जि : मेदिनीपुर

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक : मोहनपुर

राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल

( 1 ) निलपुर

00 00 11

00 12

177

10 39

00 09

176

00 04 33 38

63 175

15 72 46

02 65

97 32

01 48

171

80 29

07 12

20 73

00 00 24 1016

(3) अगररा

00 05 67

00 06

00 01

00 16

00 13

00 16 55

01 61 1017

06 75 927

00 14

928

59 931

929

75 930

29 56

(4) संदापुर

1743

1835

00 01 61

1742

00 00

1741

00 03

01 70

00 08

12 59

00 01 91

209

03 81 37

02 25

180

00 02

00 71

88 179

769

00 85

172

00 22

174

09 99

173

00 10

168

00 00 38 171

04 85

170

00 01 42 169

10 175

14 95 162

00 45

163 2318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(1)

(5)

संदापुर (जारी )

161

00 02 25 तारणिया (जारी ) 391

00 06 17

151

00 13 53

152

00 02 15

153

00 00 10

389

00 09 81

147

00 04 59

142

00 01 87 (6) पालुया 388

00 03 20

145

00 99

387

00 02 54

146

00 02

140

144

00 02 43

134

00 00 80

135

00 05 11

136

139

00 05 75

137

138

00 01 93

129

00 03 41

386

04 48

385

00 00

128

00 26 68

119

00 03 36

122

00 00 98

121

00 07 58

120

00 00 20

109

00 22 00

(5 ) तारणिया

692

00 00

949

00 09 39

688

689

00 02 01

950

00 01

948.

00 18 49

687

00 00 10

690

00 01 91

00 15 53

696 .

697

951

00 15 10

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

(3) (4) (5)

00 00 10 698

852

00 27 37 843

00 07 54 847

14 07 848

00 00 08 877

00 49 04 965

00 00 24 847

00 08 24 846

00 06 32 848

00 00 18 854

00 11 60 856

00 09 96 852

00 00 52 653

00 18 71 859

00 20 59 954

00 11 41 851

00 05 26 860

00 19 21 869

00 02 03 870

00 16 91 872

00 00 21 871

00 18 98 287

00 02 65 288

00 00 54

277

00 82 286

00 13

284

00 02 15 290

31 674

00 00 10 291

00 22 66 667

04 35 672

00 00 30 668

00 19 88 665

10 33 664

00 09 05 663

00 04 04 662

00 00 33 317

00 15 03 922

57 647

14 29 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1) (2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(1)

15 39

काशिचक (जारी ) 645

पालुया (जारी )

00 02

646

00 01 72

644

558

00 00 46

559

560

557

00 04

04 49

556

551

09 68

552

00 01 38

550

513

00 00

3077

2319

(5) (2)

(3) (4)

00 01 38 65

45 73

00 02

00 04 55 74

08 70

389

82 388

77 75

34 76

00 08

90 79

11 385

424

(9 ) मितिनिया

(7) तनुया

00 81

3078

04 51

3079

00 05 20

3080

00 14 11

3081

3022

01 47

00 03

3021

3083

3084

00 02

3085

00 00 31

3086

3087

00 01

204

(8 )काशिचक

00 03

195

00 04 63

181

190

00 06

188

00 03

187

05 18

00 01

14 57

00 02

00 04

00 05

387

00 06

00 07 89

768 GI/11-14

00 00 57 686

00 00 75 685

06 687

00 05

688

02 02

690

689

00 03 97 684

00 00

683

00 03

72 700

699

00 09 65 701

06 62 714

80 711

00 02

00 04

712

713

00 01 80 704

00 95 707

708

00 00 58 710

709

00 02

00 74

725

05 86

726

05 65

721

01 29

352

00 02 45 728

00 09 47 730

00 14 85 300

00 01 13 640 2320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(5)

(3) (4)

(1)

623

07 60 (11) गर्रा (जारी )

मितिनिया

624

10 54

626

00 01 31

625

06 24

10 00

P80

622

00 00 10

618

00 20 99

616

10 96

784

00 01 13

599

00 05 28

A? 592

606

00 04 73

590

589

00 07

588

00 05 47 ( 12) तिलडापडा

280

587

03 06

180

586

02 64

883

100

00 07

( 10 ) मयुरखोला

00 08 84

00 11 66

00 00 62

ist

474

00 01 97

100

475

00 10 06

476

00 01

رت

1026

744

15 51

00 00

1022

743

10 65

103

745

00 14 63

200

741

00 07

00 06 29

1050

754

00 06 03

740

07 63

755

00 09 55

10515

00 09 58

757 BET

00 17 99

758927

12 18

759

00 03 24

765

00. 16 56

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

(3) (4) (5) 468

00 01 88 ::

519

00 00 10 470

00 06 39 :

471

10 68 472

00 13 01 477

00 00 57 540

10 56 581

00 09 18 473

00 13 82 474

00 07 85 511

00 05 42 510

00 03 17 512

00 17 11 676

00 12 26 675

00 11 64 1015

00 02 65 674

12 44 592

10 20 :

593

14 24 597

662

00 03 01 598

00 08

658

55 657

00 02 75 604

00 25 23 653

00 00 97 760

00 21 16 761

00 01 27 759

83 758

00 07 80 763

00 00 68 765

00 08 72 770

00 02 98 768

00 09 16 769

00 03 27 711

00 00 10 773

00 06 93 772

00 00 43 482

00 00 51 483

00 07

70 2321 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ⅱ ) ]

AHL भारत का राजपुत्र : मार्च 1220119211932TTESAD

(5) (3)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

00 10

तेंतुलियागिरी (निरंतर )

17 76

480

तिलडापडा (जारी )

ред

00 08 63

467

13 04

00 03

466

SPS

00 00

465

100

10 83

468

805

()

06 22

464

res

00 03

469

470

460

1003

00 03

14 16

449

01 55

446

00 05

445

00 16

443

05 27

00 01

444

175

416

00 75

20 48

417

(2)

01 99

419

FRE

15 27

418

00 10

172

396

00 02

651

13 58

495

01 31

394

00 16

173

391

00 00

174

02 19

384

2005

654

02 55

385

00 01

178

390

179

00 14

388

00 10

180

389

199

00 37

369

7.5

00 57

660

1256

(13) राजनगर

197

15 25

1255

001

200

07 07

1254

198

जिला: मेदिनीपुर

मंडल/तहसील/तालुक : इग्रा- II

196

राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल

00 01

284

06 10

stes

695

( 1 ) घोलसुंडी

05 28

(1)

00 89

286 001

285 081

(2 ) तेंतुलियागिरी..

00 90

03 95

697 έτος

590

698

00 17

IS !

696

ic 2322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

699

तंतुलियागिरी (जारी )

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

128

खेजुर्रडा (निरंतर )

290

292

298

296

(3) खेजुर्रडा

2934

2930

2931

2949

2945

2944

108

109

140

2964

136

2972

120

130

127

2971

2970

380

384

381

249

250

3026

3025

3028

261

338

3040

265

336

3035

306

307

308

309

312

00 02 03 00 00 16 00 06 17 131 00 10 86 00 10 87 00 01 22 701 00 00 10 00 10 36 00 11 29 00 09 67 297 00 06 23 00 07 62 00 02 59 00 00 42 64 00 10 64 383 00 07 70 63 00 03 35 00 06 16 62 00 02 96 382 00 06 20 00 05 73 00 17 11 61 00 04 82 00 01 04 60 00 04 20 00 01 52 8 00 02 21 00 04 93 99 00 05 11 251 00 00 47 58 00 00 71 252 00 03 86 12 00 02 57 00 04 06 11 00 04 91 253 00 02 01 00 00 58 258 00 15 27 00 07 94 255 00 02 33 14 35 257 00 12 02 16 00 20 96 260 00 07 00 00 06 50 256 00 00 80 00 02 30 00 07 07 00 06 82 262 00 01 09 42 00 03 56 339 00 00 01 48 00 02 91 00 12 11 46 00 07 61 00 01 10 47 00 09 15 337 00 11 25 00 01 43 00 05 33 00 09 00 00 03 83 00 10 59 00 06 52 00 11 80 305 00 08 90 00 10 43 304 00 13 19 00 01 37 00 03 46 00 10 24 00 01 34 00 02 36 00 01 15 2973 00 08 51 00 18 94 121 57 327 00 02 20 129 00 00 76 00 12 57 2323 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ⅱ ) ]

SCHEDULE

(5)

(3) (4)

(1)

(2)

314

00 15 52 Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk: Egra - I

खेजुर्रडा (जारी )

District : Medinipur State:West Bengal 00 01 18

313

324

06 08

Village

Area to be acquired forROU

Survey No./ Sub -Division

00 07 36

315

Hec Are C -Are 00 06 64

322

(4) (5)

(2)

(3)

(1)

00 06

319

1337

00 00 98 320

00 22 83 ( 1 ) Kasbagola

00 06 61

3306

00 00 10

(4) नरभुयोंचक्

1338

03 112

00 00

1336

1335

00 2

00 05

1334

11 00 01 33

सर्वे सं. 2 और

1320

00 00 156 के बीच में

1321

08 00 05

156

1327

02 13

163

1322

04 94 00 16 87

111

1316

00 10

09 [फा. सं. एल. 14014/2/ 2011 - जी.पी. ]

1307

1308

के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

1312

01 New Delhi , the 28th February , 2011

00 00 64

1314

1313

00 03 50

1311

00 00

1124

00 10

1123

1121

04 S.O. 729. 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;

1120

00 05 88

1119

00 12

00 23 43

1118

00 10

1116

1117

00 05 81

1097

00 06 37

1098

00 04

1099

61 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 ;

1100

1094

06 52

00 00 27

1093

07 36

3245

1091

06 35

3247

00 00 10

3283

00 01 63

3246

04 99

3284

10 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 acquistion of the Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri Barid Baran Guha, CompetentAuthority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , 7, Wood Street , 3rd Floor, Kolkata- 700016 , West Bengal State.

2324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

(4) ( 5)

(3) 1088

00 11. 01

117

00 07 70 Kasbagola ( Contd.)

Kasbagola ( Contd .)

1086

00 97

108

00 00 40 1050

00 05 49

3147

61 00 02 75

1084

111

98 1051

07 56

3148

10 3270

08 01

3145

00 02 14 00

3273

110

00 03 63 3272

3146

01. 00

3271

05 91

109

00 00

1061

112

00 02 1052

00 01 09

3061

00 14 93

103

00 01

64 00 03 01

1056

3172

10 00

1060

3622

(2) Panchrol

1058

00 06 08

3623

00 09 12 28

00 00

3783

00 00

1059

13 35

3624

00 08 19 3277

00 04 29

3625

00 08 37 1036

3626

11 00 09

1035

3837

00 ΟΙ 68 00

1034

08 30

2244

00 06 78 3264

1436

00 13 37 29

00 04 17

2437

00 03 44 00

137

13 99

2439

00 00 59 00

138

16 20

2438

00 10 24 00

140

3830

00 04 41 139

00 08 17

2440

00 01 96 135

00 05 07

2441

16 42

00. 00

134

09 85

2442

00 15 26 00 07

133

2453

00 07 83 3136

00 01

2456

00 00 21 131

2455

12 130

00 03 33

2454

00 02 57 00 02

127

2452

02 00

3153

05 23

2760

13 98 129

00 ΟΙ

2755

02 00 09

128

2761

167

00 01 63

00 05

2669

00 00

125

15 88

3847

64 166

00 09 05

07 00

2768

00 119

10 58

03 66

2770

00 120

01 57

3848

00 06 81

00 30 118 2325 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4) (5)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(2)

00:09

3899

00 08

2771

Panchrol (Contd. )

Panchrol (Contd .)

00 02 38

3505

2772

00 10

3502

00 00

2748

05 69

3879

00 08

2773

3501

00 10

2774

3500

00 01 22

2892

3870

3849

3497

2777

00 00

3473

2811

00 02 03

3496

06 51

2779

00 06 90

3902

2810

13 34

3475

00 14

2781

00 00

3484

00 02 62

2783

3876

2780

00 02

3476

00 01 70

2782

00 08 39

3872 .

00 01 99

3850

3482

01 40

2808

20 36

3480

2809

00 00 35

3873

00 01

2807

00 18 61

3419

2806

00 08

3417

02 01

2841

3414

3566

00 11

3415

00 15 53

2846

00 09

3394

00 00 80

2844

00 03 26

3393

00 01 84

2843

00 08

(3) Rayda

2845

00064

2847

06 64

3111-

00 05 42

3109

01 85

3110

00 11 04

00 00

3862

00 07 14

01 32

3861

00 00

01 38

3115

00 04 71

3108

00 11 97

00 01 18

3103:

07 88

3107

00 01 44

Nala bet suy

3154

No: 3 & VB

3156

Nala bet VB & 00

(4) Bilbara

3155

suy No. 389

389

3507

16 59

397

3158

04 65

00 43

3506:

396

395

3504

00 2326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1) 399

00 02 19

Bilbara(Contd.)

Alangiri ( Contd . ) 400

00 08 15

489

08 18

590

488

00 04 62

00 02

487

467

00 02 96

468

00 01 48

486

00 16 91

00 00

588

485

483

00 11 35

484

842

00 03 59

586

00 03 96

587

00 01

480

456

00 00

00 43

(5) Baya

00 06 44

Inbet suy no . 5 & 83

00 00

00 10 82

226

00 14 61

1531

(6) Alangiri

1657

00 00

1655

00 06 03

1534

00 01

1656

00 05

10 63

1642

1641

1640

00 04 21

1645

1646

1647

00 12

00 01 40

1648

1649

00 05 38

1635

00 15

1564

00 03

00 13 78

637

00 04

1632

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

(3) (4) (5) 1630

00 13 54 4269

00 01

1628

70 1629

00 19 75 1588

00 17 25 1606

00 00 22

1605

14 31 4514

00 00 10 1604

07 36 1602

00 65

1603

11 91

4516

4520

07 85 1597

1598

1594

67 1595

1596

1946

00 01

49 1942

00 09

1940

1941

1936

00 02

1943

93 1938

00 05 33 1937

00 27 67

00 11

4593

76 4106

4110

10 85

4111

3376

12 71

3375

02 91

00 00

10 3374

19 74

4113

4118

00 86

13 75

3363

3362

15 31

3357

02 16

3361

04 90

3358

09 28 3356

00 05 64 4712

12 39 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 12, 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

(5)

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

(1)

31 3272

00 03

2327

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

00 41

3083

Alangiri (Contd.)

Alangiri (Contd. )

09 98

3273

79 3274

16 3237

11 41 3082

00 11 52 3081

00 10

(7) Jerthan

00 05 92 3236

3235

00 35

3230

16 13 4684

00 09 16 3231

00 02 09 3226

3225

3223

14 32

3224

00 09 89 3218

00 03 55 3217

26 3186

19 98 3185

00 08

3187

3188

00 09 13 3180

00 00 83 3179

05 41

3177

00 03 55 3152

00 08 29 40

00 07 35 41

00 10

30 3

4049

26 4

00 12

00 14 39 6

13 36 13

58 14

0008

40 11

00 12

00 14 19 17

460

(8) Katabani

27 3153

00 04 58 3141

07 43

3154

10 26

3155

08 97 3156

19 97

3118

00 10

3117

3115

05 55

3116

4658

00 06 65 3107

03 51

3108

07 20

4657

4656

15 83

3094

00 01 11

3090

00 08

3086

4646

3087

768Gl / 11-15

461

475

55 462

13 05

474

01 53

473

00 09 89 472

05 04 471

00 13 47 480

00 08 62 469

16 98

484

00 00 45 485

03 33 410

05 73

409

00 03 28 408

00 01 82 346

08 25

345

11 78

344

00 18 342

00 02 81 343 2328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

576

00 78

Katabani ( Contd. )

Ulua (Contd .) 327

326

328

00 00 50

325

00 07

322

01 17

323

12 73

324

00 00 66

315

306

00 01

314

308

06 80

307

00 02 34

309

00 02 53

258

06 88

574

260

00 03 34

261

00 01

262

00 00 19

263

259

00 01

255

00 05

264

254

253

252

249

00 08 86

250

230

(1)

248

232

233

02 58

235

234

(10) Benachakri

236

189

215

(9) Ulua

336

15 15

338

00 09 01

333

00 19

00 05 54

214

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

(3) (4) (5) 44

00 12 83

213

00 18 45

00 07 76 46

00 00

161

40 159

00 00 64 52

08 69 SI

00 00 55 158

00 01 64 53

00 06 84

00 02 29 339

353

14 54

155

03 33 56

15 62 110

323

20 109

00 00 27 108

00 03 46 107

00 12 15 104

00 01 32

100

08 26

19 101

28 102

00 08

00 00 59

70 97

00 01

00 01 06

06 95

00 02

00 94

00 02

00 01

40 88

00 28 62 82

00 00 24

34 81

03 28 80

851

00 30 44 852

00 03 87

43 1097

858

00 08 80 1096

00 11 16 857

00 02 91

861

03 49 862

00 07 95 863

00 08 60 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2329 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(5)

(3) (4) Benachakri

866

00 03 53

00 00 64 864

00 01 87

00 11 95 (Contd.)

Naraharipur (Contd.)

865

00 03 79

00 00 90

01 867

974

02 15

00 18 82 973

00 05 12

00 01 91 00

972

1087

39 976

00 18

00 00

1088

07 71

00 03 53

00 01 65

1089

371

967

00 15 74 966

00 00 47

00 03

1080

10 40 907

00 02 38

00 10 16 909

00 00 14

933

373

02 08

929

09 928

00 14

00 51 00

927

11 37

00 79

366

00 00

03 86

00 09 78

365

00 53

(11) Satkhanda

00 04 65

144

(12) Naraharipur

360

02 51

16 75

137

00 02

361

136

00 03 85

00 07 43 00

02 21

135

362

00 00 89

138

363

07 31 00

134

03 62

364

00 03 60 00 02 79

133

00 16

00 00 03 67

132

00 04 35

131

127

00 01 44

300

(13) Kudi

02 31

128

289

00 05 03

126

288

00 125

00 03 22

00 00 25

287

124

00 36

00 00 48

284

00 14 42

285

00 01

00 00 10

2320

00 20

04 54

262

24 96

04 56 24

1611

263

08 18

03 75

00 2330

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

છિ---

(1)

(2)

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

(3) (4) (5)

00 01 92

08 54 265

Kudi(Contd.)

Hosenpur (Contd.)

00 17 20 264

In bet suy no. 26& 21 290

02 11

15 258

05 69

00 02 13

259

00 05 69

00 01 62

1305

02 59

182

(15) Ramkrishanapur

00 00 10

239

07 46

00 18

240

241

00 08 65

416

00 08

238

00 242

00 10 41

236

425

00 14 39

212

11 224

01 09

424

00 00 29

213

16 44

00 15

222

00 14 07

215

672

00 10

(16) Bastia

216

673

16 73

217

675

00 01

218

674

11 37 199

25 65

650

00 00 22

201

05 66

649

00 22

198

00 09 25

648

197

646

00 21

13 53

157

647

00 03 09

189

645

00 00 80

00 06 05

188

278

(17) Dalulua

00 07 37

160

276

10 34

00 00 92

187

280

02 31

165

281

00 09 166

960

00 05 65

1296

01 09

282

00 08 26

00 00 54 167

962

00 98

171

961

12 56

170

12 78

285

13 18

00 43 (14)Hosenpur

1056

15 61

00 01

421

(18) Ulipur

00 66

419

00 00 33

422

07 23

562

11 46

420

00 09

09 41

556

07 33

29 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

( 1)

563

Ulipur( Contd . )

Purbbachak Alua (Contd.) 558

00 24

555

557

00 21 30

415

02 41

533

00 08

538

00 12

354

355

536

535

06 68

357

00 01

358

534

00 10

359

25 32

368

369

367

546

372

08 14

244

00 32

243

03 48

505

00 21

373

504

00 01 11

548

04 73

00 04 25

591

00 10

590

252

10 07

00 06

(19) Purbbachak Alua 130

176

00 00 10

256

00 40

(20) Kasba Egra

131

26 99

00 00

174

00 15

132

134

00 03

129

135

00 13 77

128

00 02

125

2331

(4)

(2)

(3)

(5)

194

00 39 124

00 06 47 126

06 06

112

00 22 20 113

60 107

00 09 42

04 96 111

109

00 00 90

43 231

00 05 48 108

230

00 05 32 229

74 79

67 66

00 27 89 67

01 90 57

00 01

62 58

00 00

10 56

00 07

10 60

00 02 62

00 07 91 32

217

00 08 27

01 22

59 In bet suy no. 30 & 214

214

10 28

00 00

10 Inbet VB & suy no . 3844

3844

00 46

3845

13 73

00 06

3864

3846

00 04 70

3863

03 00

3862

57 3860

00 14 66

3859

00 15 2332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1 ) Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk : Mohanpur District : Medinipur

State:West Bengal

(3) Agarara (1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

00 00 95

(1 ) Nilpura

00 08 56

00 06 45

(4) Sandapura 63

00 00 53

00 13 59

00 16. 55

02 98

1743

1835

00 02

1742

00 01

1741

00 00 20

00 38 56

00 01

00 08 30

03 00

00 03

00 16

08 10

00 01 91

209

00 14 89

15 45

(2)Asura

00 00

177

176

00 09 46

00 04 33

175

00 00 91

15 72

00 02 65

04 97

00 01

00 00

171

00 12 80

00 07 12

307

00 07

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

(3) (4) (5) 1016

00 00 24 1017

927

06 75

928

58 931

00 12 59 929

00 00 48

930

75 35

00 29 56 37

00 03 81 180

00 02

66 38

00 00 71 179

05 88

769

00 09 23 172

00 00 85 174

00 22

173

00 09 99

168

10 171

85 170

00 04

169

01 42

175

10 162

00 14 95

00 00

163

161

00 02 25 391

00 06 17

151

152

15 153

00 00

10 389

00 09 81

147

04 59

87 142

00 01

00 03 20 388

00 00 99 145

387

00 02 54 146

00 02 19

00 00 95 140

144

134

00 00

00 05 11 135

136

00 10

75 139

137

65 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

01 93

138

Paluya ( Contd .)

129

Sandapura (Contd.)

04 48

386

00 00

385

00 26

128

00 03

119

00 00 98

122

00 07 58

121

00 20

120

109

00 34

692

(5) Tarania

949

00 00

688

02 01

689

00 01

950

948

00 00 10

687

690

696

00 00

697

00 15

951

698

27 37

852

07 54

843

14 07

847

00 08

848

00 49

877

00 24

965

08 24

847

(6) Paluya

846

848

2333

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

00 02

287

00 54

288

277

00 13

286

284

06 31

290

674

291

667

00 00

30 672

668

665

00 09

664

04 04 663

00 33 662

00 15 03 317

922

14 29 647

645

646

644

558

00 46

559

00 01

560

04 64

557

00 04 49 556

06 85

551

09 68

552

550

513

00 47

3077

(7) Tanuya

11 60

854

09 96

856

00 00

852

18 71

653

859

11 41

954

00 05 26

861

00 19

860

00 02

869

16 91

870

00 21

872

00 18

871

00 81

3078

3079

3080

14 11

3081

01 47 3022

3021

00 11

3083

00 08 85 3084

3085

3086

00 03

3087 2334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(4) (5)

(3)

(1 )

204

00 01

(8) Kasichak

Mitinia (Contd.)

195

00 03

181

190

00 06 71

188

187

00 03 32

01 03

00 14

00 02 88

04 19

00 05

387

00 70

00 07 89

02 45

00 08

389

388

00 01 82

00 03 77

00 00

00 00 90

385

424

12 64

(9)Mitinia

686

685

75 (10) Mayurkhola

687

688

690

00 04 65

689

684

00 03 97

683

21 .

700

00 03 72

699

01 99

701

714

00 06 62

711

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

(3) (4) (5) 712

00 04 85 713

00 02 41

704

80 707

00 00 95 708

00 05 91 710

00 00 58

84 709

00 02

74 725

726

00 05

721

352

29 728

02 45

730

00 09

300

14 85

13 640

623

07 60

624

00 10 54 626

00 01 31 625

24 622

00 00 10

618

99 616

10 96

784

00 01

13 599

00 05 28

592

11 23 606

73 590

00 10 69

589

07 12

588

05 47

00 03 06 587

586

00 02

00 07

100

54 99

00 08 84

00 11 66 96

00 30 27 474

00 01

97 475

27 476

1026

00 09 76 744

15 51

95 1022

00 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(5)

(2)

(3) (4)

(1)

(1) 743

00 10

745

00 14 63

2335

(4) (5)

(3)

(2)

00 21

16 760

27 761

00 01

Tildapara

(Contd.)

Mayurkhola (Contd.)

741

1050

06 29

754

06 03

00 07

740

755

00 09 55

00 09 58

1051

757

12 18

758

759

765

00 16 56

468

01 88

(11)Gara

519

00 00

470

471

00 10 68

472

00 13 01

00 57

477

10 56

540

581

13 82

473

00 07 85

474

511

00 03

510

512

676

(12) Tildapara

675

00 02 65

1015

674

592

00 14

593

00.

597

00 03 01

662

00 08

598

658

00 02

657

00 25

604

00 00 97

653

768 G1 /11-16

83 759

00 07 80 758

00 68 763

765

00 02

770

16 768

00 03 27. 769

10 711

773

43 772

51 482

00 07

483

480

71 467

00 03 90 466

00 05 13 465

468

02 92

00 464

469

00 09 38 470

00 01 28 460

1003

14 16 449

446

10 445

443

00 01

444

416

20 48 417

01 99

419

418

00 04 38 396

495

00 13 58

01 31

394

00 20

391

19 384

00.02 2336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(5)

(2)

(3) (4)

(1)

02 55

385

390

(12) Tildapara (Contd.)

Tentuliagiri (Contd.)

388

389

369

1256

(13) Rajnagar

1255

00 07 07

1254

District : Medinipur

Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk: Egra- II

State: West Bengal

00 02 TI

(1) Gholshundi

00 04 64

(2) Tentuliagiri

00 03

590

00 17

08 63

00 00 64

00 06

00 11

00 00

10 25

(3) Khejurda

00 01

00 05

00 08

05 27

00 08 02

00 06

00 10

172

651

00 00

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

(3) (4) (5) 173

00 16 77

00 00 37 174

12 78 654

00 01

178

179

180

10 99 199

00 08 06 660

00 00

57 197

00 06 93

00 00 28 200

00 01

198

00 15

196

00 01 30 284

00 06 10 695

286

05 28 285

00 05 15

90 697

12 698

696

00 09 19

03 699

06 17

290

292

10 701

00 11

298

00. 06 23 297

02 59 296

64 64

00 10

00 03 35 63

00 02

00 05 73 2934

00 04 20 60

21 8

00 71

00 02 57 12

04 91 11

00 58

2930 2337 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(1) .

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

(1)

00 02 01

07 94

253

2931

Khejurda ( Contd. )

Khejurda (Contd .)

15 27

258

255

12 02

257

2949

00 07 00

260

02 30

2945

00 80

256

00 06

2944

00 07 07

261

00 03

262

00 02 91

00 00 01

339

338

3040

00 01

108

337

109

00 05 33

265

10 59

140

00 03

336

00 2964

06 52

3035

00 08 90

136

305

00 13 19

304

01 37

2972

00 03

306

120

00 01 34

307

02 36

130

01 15

308

00 08

2973

00 18 94

309

121

02 20

327

129

312

00 16

128

314

131

01 18

313

00 01

127

00 06 08

324

00 10 36

2971

07 36

315

00 09

2970

06 64

322

06 57

319

380

22 83

320

384

00 10

(4) Narubhunya Chak 21

383

00 00

112

381

04 18

382

05 52

00 00 17 11

249

00. 00

250

Inbet suy no. 2 & 156

3026

00 01

05 09

156

00 04

00 02 13

163

3025

00 16 87

111

251

[F. No. L- 14014/2/2011 -GP ] 00

252

K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

00 04

3028

i 2338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 730.-भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमलिनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाड़ा- नैल्लोर- वैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्तओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई-बंगलौर मंगलौर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

अतः अब , भारत सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 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 प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के संबंध में श्री के. मल्लीनाथ , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, 74 , दूसरी मंजिल, प्रेस्टीज फेरोज, कन्निगहाम रोड, बंगलौर -560052 , कर्नाटक राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तालुक: चींतामणी जिला चीकवल्लापुर

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

20 जंगमपुरा ( जारी ) 6

सर्वे नं. 5 और

01 4के बीच में नाला

07 43

34 सर्वे नं. 43 और

03 3 के बीच में नाला

25 42

61 40

25 39

96 110

28 (2) होसहल्ली

111

16 112

22 113

08 सर्वे नं. 112 और 00 119 के बीच में नाला

119

80 145

72 146

64 156

53 155

36 154

152

54 153

राज्य: कर्नाटक

गाँव का नाम

सर्वेसं./ आर. ओ. यू अर्जित करने सब डिविजन सं. के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर

सर्वे नं. 153 और

175 के बीच में

एस एच 82

सिएयर

(1)

(2)

(5)

(3) (4)

33 16

00 71 (1) जंगमपुरा

44 13

78 सर्वे नं. 13 में नाला 00

10 10

सर्वे नं. 10 में

38 नाला

0007 12

0013

28 सर्वे नं. 12 और 00 07 60 6 के बीच में नाला

175

72 266

96 176

177

19 43

179

45 178

49 191

64 192.

00.

202

93 203

47 सर्वे नं. 203और

गाँव सीमा के

बीच में भूमि 2339 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

162 के बीच में

देवरहोसहल्ली

(3) सुब्बरायनपेटे

नाला

(जारी)

152

34 तालुक : दोडवल्लापुर जिला : बंगलुरू रूरल राज्य : कर्नाटक

सर्वे नं. 76 और

(2) हलेनिजगल

( 1) कार्नाला

75 के बीच में भूमि

158

159

88 40

160

161

18 00

सर्वे नं. 43 और

49 के बीच में

66 रास्ता

59 49

61 00

सर्वे नं. 49 और

152 के बीच में

18 रोड़

152

154

00 00

153

सर्वे नं. 33 और

155

61 के बीच में

रोड़

159

00 जिला : बंगलुरू रूरल राज्य : कर्नाटक

तालुक : नेलमंगल

सर्वे नं. 61 और 00

149

( 1 ) देवरहोसल्ली

79के बीच में

154

रेलवे रास्ता

155

50 00

156

157

73 00

सर्वे नं. 154 और

55 153 के बीच में

18 रास्ता

162

98 00

सर्वे नं. 162 और

05- 04

32 157 के बीच में

180

00 भूमि

142

161

.16

153

[फा. सं. एल -14014/81/2010-जी पी]

सर्वे नं. 161 और 00

के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव 2340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 New Delhi , the 21st February, 2011

Jangmapura Contd.

Nala in between 00 Sy. No.5 & 4

Nala in between Sy. No 43 & 3

S.O. 730. Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from terminal point of Vijayawada -Nellore -Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in Tamil Nadu to consumers in various parts of the country, Chennai - Bangalore - Mangalore pipeline should be laid by M/ s. Relogistics Infrastructure Limited ;

110

28 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;

(2) Hosahalli

111

112

113

08 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;

Nala in between 00 Sy . No. 112 & 119

119

145

146

156

155

154

152

153

00 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 K.Mallinath , Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, # 74 , 2nd Floor , Prestige Feroze , Cunningham Road, Bangalore -560052 , Karnataka State.

S.H.82 in between Sy.

SCHEDULE

No 153 & 175

175

Taluk: Chintamani District: Chikballapur State :

Kamataka

266

176

01 Name of Village

Area to be acquired for

177

43 Survey No./ Sub- Division No.

RoU Hectare Are C-Are

179

178

61 (1 )

(2)

(4)

(5)

(3)

191

( 1) Jangamapura 16

192

64 00

202

93 00

203

31 Nala in the Sy. No. 13

Cart track in between Sy. No. 203 & V.B

28 Nala in the Sy. No. 10

( 3 ) Subbaraya- napete

07. 77

05 00

Taluk : Dodballapur District : Bangalore Rural

State: Karnataka Nala in between 00 Sy. No. 12 & 6

( 1 ) Kaarnala

50 00

5 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

4 1

5 28

66 Kaarnala

2341

5 1

(2) Halenijagal 31

78 40

83 Contd.

69 43

Carttrack in between Sy. No.

43&49

60 49

07 Road in between 00 Sy. No. 49 & 152

152

10 154

51 153

20 155

56 51

25 159

Taluk: Nelamangala District : Bangalore Rural

Karnataka

State:

00 149

( 1 ) Devaraho- sahalli

89 154

155

84 156

68 157

Cart track in between Sy. No. 154 & 153

31 162

05 Land in between 00 Sy. No. 162 & 157

51 142

11 161

56 153

13 Nala in between 00 . Sy. No. 161 & 162

152

02 (2) Halenijagal Land in between 00 Sy.No. 76 & 75

97 158

04 159

31 160

18 161

Contd.

56 17

35 18

Road in between 00 Sy. No. 33 & 61

86 61

49 60

15 Railway track in 00 between Sy.

61&79

55 70

88 79

180

38 32

13 76

[F. No. L- 14014/81 /2010-GP] K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 731.-भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाड़ा- नैल्लोर- चैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभीन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई- बंगलौर- मंगलौर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

2342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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 प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन करने के संबंध में श्री के. मल्लीनाथ , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , 74 , दूसरी मंजिल , प्रेस्टीज फेरोज , कन्निगहाम रोड , बंगलौर -560052 , कर्नाटक राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

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

5 16/6

17 सिद्दापुरा (जारी )

7/1

50 6/2

85 सर्वे नं. 6 और 7 के बीच में रोड़

06 सर्वे नं. 6 और 7 के बीच में रेलवे रास्ता

7/1

63 7/2

09 8/1

69 99

95 सर्वे नं. 99 और 91 के बीच में

राज्य : कर्नाटक

तालुक : तुमकूर जिला : तुमकूर

क्रम गाँव का नाम

सं.

सर्वे सं. सब डिविजन सं

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

रोड़

00 90/4

91/1

82 92

एयर सि एयर

4 1

02 ( 1 ) नंदिहल्ली

72 87

47 86

44 101

05 42

जिला : हासन

88/2

15 93/2

67 93/1

01 84

87 (2) कारेबारे कावलु ।

18 247

246

03 248

राज्य : कर्नाटक

तालुक : हासन

79 ( 1 ) सिद्दापुरा

19/3

10 19/5

47 सर्वे नं. 17 और 20के बीच में

नाला

20/1

22 20/2

25 17/2

71 17/1

00 16/8

16/9

09 16/10

16/5

36 10 63 26 99 55 77 15

72 सर्वे नं. 248 और 238 के बीच में

नाला

238

01 239

47 237

03 240

51 48

73 48 49

02 सर्वे नं. 48 और 50 के बीच में

नाला

07 50

35 51

81 2343 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

5 2

99/1

00 00

64 (5 ) होन्नावरा

कारेबारे कावलु

99/2

(जारी )

101

100/1

51 00

100/2

00 49

(3) हुलेनहल्ली

100/3

(4) चिगटिहल्ली

100/4

50 01

132

09 23

131

22/5

129

22/4

130

22/6

128

30 22/7

4/1

127/1

08 00

5/1

127/2

5/2

सर्वे नं. 127 और

5/3

200के बीच में

रोड़

7/2

200

7/1

201

202

203

204

सर्वे नं. 10 और 00

295

00 56 के बीच में भूमि

206

56/1

208

56/2

209

56/3

210

00 56/4

18 01

211

56/5

212

57/1

213

सर्वे नं. 57 और

214

47 के बीच में

215

00 भूमि

सर्वे नं. 215 और

47/2

261 के बीच में

47/1

रोड़

42/1

261/1

42/2

261/2

42/3

260

41/3

259/1

41/4

259/2

41/5

273

18 00

257

89 00

768 GI /11-17 12344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

5 256/1

होन्नावरा

23 274/1

13 (जारी)

274/2

91 सर्वे नं. 274 और 00

04 276 के बीच में

नाला

276

51 275/5

10 275/6

275/1

87 275/2

54 275/3

10 133/3

10 22

14 (6 ) पूमगामे

सर्वे नं. 22 और

02 21 के बीच में

रोड़

20/2

22 21

31 20/4

59 20/3

19/2

16 18/5

07 18/3

02 14

10 सर्वे नं. 14 और 00

60 247 के बीच में

भूमि

247

84 13

13 12

10 8

79 6/10

10 257

00 6/9

258

41 6/5

84 6/2

84 6/4

15 6/3

75 सर्वे नं. 266 में 00

86 पोंड

[ PART II- SE 3 ( 1

34 267

पूमगामे ( जारी )

सर्वे नं. 267 और

10 110 के बीच में

नाला

110

07 109

13 सर्वे नं. 109 और 00

UN 96 के बीच में

रोड

96/2

10 96/1

24 97/1

09 97.2

12 98

18 99/3

55 99/1

12 100/1

87 102/10

13 102/9

18 102/8

02 102/1

10 102/2

04 102/3

07 102/4

03 102/5

01 102/6

이

90 103

22 ( 7 ) चिक्कम्मनहल्ली 29/1

42 29/2 ए

18 31/2

31/3

기

09 31/4

25 35/1

13 35/2

11 35/4

01 37

97 38

25 48/1

48 49/1

28 48/2

ΟΙ

8 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

!'भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2345

217

बिदरेकावलु

49:3

चिक्कम्मनहल्ली

05 (जारी)

46/1

(जारी)

45: 1

44/1

44/2

120

(8 ) मुत्तत्ती

121

122

(9 ) आंगाराहल्ली

296

( 10 ) सोमनहल्ली कावलु

सर्वे नं. 296 में

3 रोड

286

277

राज्य : कर्नाटक

जिला : हासन

तालुक : अरसीकरे

231/2बी

( 1 ) केंकरे

231/2सी

231 /2डी

231/2 ई

231 /ए

232/1

236/8

236/7

236

236/6

244

246/8

246/7

(X)

246

246/5

246/4

246/1

2462

252

(0)

213

( 2 ) विदरे कावलु

212

214

218

00-

219

224

223

225

230

231

(0)

236

237

244

243

(Χ)

242

( )

(X )

143

144

(0)

142

141

138

139

135

134

331

38 08 133

132

131

126

70 130

127

128

287

288

289

304

3.5

(0)

(X )

72 2346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHAL GUNA 21 , 1932

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

4 313

बिदरे कावलु

150/1

कोंडनहालु

(जारी)

सर्वे नं. 313 और

152/1

(जारी)

गाँव सीमा के बीच

152/2

11 में भूमि

153/4

15 00

00 (3 ) मंगलापुरा

154

11 5

155/1

155/ 2एफ

T 00

सर्वे नं. 5 और

155/2सी

08 39 के बीच में

158/3

16 रोड

158/4

14 38

157

00 39

24/2

17 40

24/3

00 31

23/3

16 30

23/2

00 29

13 00

23/1

सर्वे नं. 23 और

04 (4) कोंडेनहालु

29 के बीच में

सर्वे नं. 63 और

नाला

80के बीच में

22/4

02 रोड़

22/1

38 81

64 00

139

25 138

33 83/4

30 सर्वे नं. 83 और 00

ין

(5 ) होन्नेनहल्ली

123 के बीच में

31 नाला

65 137

17 00

123/2

00 00

125/2

125/1

29 00

127

44 00

सर्वे नं. 127 में

6 नाला

130

63 129

00 128/1

74 00

128/2

00 151

61 00

सर्वे नं. 151 और

( 6 ) होन्नकुमारन - 21 हल्ली

20/4

150 के बीच में रोड [ भाग 1 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

1 2

20/3

( 8) चेन्नापुरा होज्नकुमारन-

31/3

हल्ली (जारी )

24/1

24/2

31/2

सर्वे नं. 30 और

37 के बीच में

रोड

39/1

39/4

39/3

39/2

सर्वे नं. 39 और 00

55 के बीच में

रोड

55/1

55/2

53/26

53/27

53/2

53/3

40/2

( 7 ) जेक्कनहल्ली

39/1

(9 )नागरहल्ली

110/2

110/1

50/2

50/7

50/1

48/5

48/4

004

48/3

112

111

2347

5 2

10 32/5

32/6

37 32/4

35/3

35/1

36/6

36/5

65 36/4

36/3

36/8

42 36/1

19 37

40/6

40/4

40/2

40/ 1 ए

41/2

41/1

42/1

43/1

42/2ए

43/3

44/1

44/2

45/1

45/2

48/1

21/2

44 21/4

18/1बी

18/ 1 ए

18/2

16/4

16/3

16/10

78 16/2बी

16/2ए 2348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 12 , 2011 PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

PARES.

नागरोहल्ली

16/1

7/5

(जारी)

( 10 ) बमचिहल्ली

said Act . are made available to the general public, obtes! in writing to the acquisition of the Right of ser there for lay ing the pipeline under the land to Shri K.Mallin-tc . Competent Authority. Relogistics Infrastructure Limites! #74, 2nd Floor. Prestige Feroze . Cunningham Road . Bangalore - 560052. Karnataka State .

सर्वे नं. 33 और गाँव सीमा के बीच

SCHEDULE

में नाला

Taluk : Tumkur District: Tumkar State Karnatak 00

Name of Village

सर्वे नं. 33 और

Survey No. Area to be acquired to:

32 के बीच में

Are C -Are

Rot Hectare

नाला

Sub- Division No.

( 1)

(2)

(3) (4)

151 00

( 11) जीनकेरिहल्ली 43

(X )

( 1 ) Nandihalli 40

02 44

00 45/2

तालुक: चेन्नरायपटना जिला : हासन राज्य : कनाटक

(0)

33 ( 1 ) कोडिहल्ली 97

(x)

101

24 63

Hasan State :

Taluka Hasan District.

Karnataka 64

( 1 ) Siddapura

19/3

30 60

19/5

10 59

( X)

Nala in between sy. no 17 & 20

[फा. सं. एल-14014/81/2010 -जी पी ]

के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

20/1

(X)

20/2

00 New Delhi , the 21st February, 2011

17/2

17/1

(X)

16/8

16/9

16/10

(0)

77 S.O. 731. Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from terminal point of Vijayawada-Nellore -Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in Tamil Nidu to consumers in various parts of the country, Chennai-Bangalore - Mangalore pipeline should be laid by M/s. Relogistics Infrastructure Limited;

16/5

16/6

(X)

6/1

6/2

19 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 ;

Road in between 00 sy. no 6 & 7

Railwaytrack in 00 between sy. no. 687

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 ;

7/1

(۴)

8/1

(1)

(0)

34 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

11 2349 [भाग 1 ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

5/3

95 Chigatihalli

07 Siddapura (Contd.)

Road between sy. no 99 & 91

(Contd.

90/4

7/2

13 00

91/1

7/1

00 00

15 88/2

93/2

93/1

09 00

Land between sy. no . 10 & 56

56/1

( 2) Karebare

56/2

Kavalu

56/3

247

56/4

01 00

246

56/5

00 00

248

57/1

Nala in between 00

Sy. No. 248

50 &238

Land between sy.no 57 & 47

238

47/2

239

47/1

11 00

237

42/1

67 00

240

42/2

42/3

10 00

41/3

43/4

21 Nala in between 00 Sy. No. 48 & 50

41/5

99/1

(5) Honnavara

99/2

21 53

101

51 54

100/1

00 00

54 55

100/2

100/3

(3 ) Hullenahalli 49

100/4

(4 ) Chigatihalli 21

132

131

129

22/5

130

22/4

128

22/6

08 22/7

127/1

00 4/1

127/2

04 5/1

Road in between 00 sy. no 127 & 200

5/2 2350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

200

97 Poomagame

(Contd .) 201

Honnavara (Contd.)

202

203

204

295

206

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

Road between Sy. No. 215 & 261

261/1

261/2

260

259/1

259/2

273

257

256/1

274/1

274/2

Nala between

Sy. No. 274&

276

275/5

275/6

275/1

275/2

275/3

133/3

( 6 ) Poomagame 22

Road between Sy . No 22 & 21

20/2

20/4

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

5 20/3

19/2

18/5

18/3

34 14

Land in between 00 Sy. No. 14 & 247

81 247

6/10

257

] ۲ ) 6/9

41 258

6/5

84 6/2

84 6/4

6/3

86 Pond in the Sy. No. 266

16 267

35 Nala between Sy.No. 267 & 110

67 110

109

98 Road between Sy.No. 109 & 96

90 96/2

96/1

78 97/1

97/2

69 98

77 99/3

55 99/1

100/1

102/10

102/9

31 102/8

102/1

13 102/2

102/3 2351

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 12, 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

102/4

Poomagame

Kenkere (Contd.).

102/5

(Contd.)

102/6

103

29/1

(7) Chikkamma-

29/2A

nahalli

31/2

31/3

31/4

35/1

35/2

35/4

(2) Bidare Kavalu

48/1

49/1

48/2

49/3

46/1

45/1

44/1

44/2

120

(8)Muthathi

121

122

(9) Bogarahalli 48

296

(10) Somanahalli Kavalu

3 Roads in the Sy. No. 296

286

277

State: Karnataka

District : Hassan

Taluk: Arsikere

231/2B

(1)Kenkere

231/2C

231/2D

231/2E

768 GI/11-18

231/A

53 232/1

236/8

236/7

16 236

236/6

244

88 246/8

246/7

246

246/5

89 246/4

246/1

246/2

252

213

212

214

217

218

219

224

223

225

40.

230

231

236

237

어

244

243

242

20-

143

144

142

141

138

139

135

134

331 2352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

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

5 Bidare

133

11 132

Kondenahalu (Contd.)

Nala in the Sy. No. 127

131

Kavalu (Contd.)

130

12 126

129

47 00

130

128/1

98 127

128/2

99 128

151

60 287

04 00

288

Road in between 00 Sy . No. 151 & 150

150/1

289

25 4

152/1

00 00

152/2

304

153/4

00 00

154

00 00

155/1

155/ 2F

00 84

155 /2C

70 85

08 00

158/3

16 75

15 00

158/4

54 00

157

31 72

24/2

17 63

24/3

01 313

00 40

23/3

23/2

13 Land in between 01 Sy. No. 313 & V.B

23/1

35 00

(3) Mangalapura 6

84 5

Nala in between

Sy . No. 23 & 29

22/4

22/1

38 Road in between 00 Sy. No.5 & 39

64 38

77 39

61 40

18 31

(5) Honnenahalli 21

68 29

65 28

17 00

(4) Kondenahalu 63

38 Road in between 00 Sy. No.63 &80

91 80

00 81

01 01

16 139

00 138

11 83/4

00 Nala in between 00 Sy. No. 83 & 123

61 137

22 ( 6) Honnakuma- 21 ranahalli

123/2

03 125/2

20/4

888 20 125/1

20/3

60 127

32 2353 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

07 00

31/3

Honnakuma-

Chennapura

24/1

ranahalli

(Contd.)

40/6

24/2

(Contd .)

40/4

31/2

40/2.

40/ 1A

09 .90

41/2

Road in between Sy. No. 30 & 37

41/1

42/1

43/1

39/1

42/ 2A

43/3

39/4

44/1

39/3

44/2

39/2

45/1

Road in between 00

15.

45/2

Sy. No. 39 & 55

48/1

55/1

ΟΙ

55/2

21/2

(9) Nagarahalli

53/26

21/4

53/27

18MB

53/2

18/1A

53/3

18/2

16/4

05 40/2

(7) Jekkanahalli

16/3

07 40

16/10

16/2B

39/1

26.

16/2A

29 110/2

16/1

110/1

7/5

50/2

69 00

50/7

(10 ) Bamachihalli Nala in between 00

Sy. No 33 & V.B

50/1

48/5

Nala in between Sy . No 33 & 32

48/4

48/3

( 11 ) Jeenakere- 43

112

halli

111

45/2

District : Hassan 32/5

(8 ) bennapura

Taluk: Chennarayapatna

32/6

State: Karnataka 00

97 32/4

( 1) Kodihalli 97

83.

35/3

14 (

35/1

36/6

36/5

36/4

36/3

36/8

36/1

[F. No. L- 14014/81 /2010 -GP ] K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

2354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 11 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 732. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. के भोवरा कोक प्लान्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -20012/ 33 /2002- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 11th February, 2011

S.O. 732. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad , as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-2-2011 .

[No. L -20012/33 /2002 - IR ( C - I ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRUBUNAL No. 1 , DHANBAD Inthe matter of a reference U/ s . 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) of ID Act. Reference No. 16 of2003

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Bhowra Coke Plant of M/ s . BCCL .

AND

Their Workman .

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

Shri U. N. Lal , Advocate. Forthe Employers :

For the Workman : Shri Raghunandan Rai ,

Representative.

State : Jharkhand .

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ) has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

" Whether the management of BCCL , Bhowra Coke Plantis justified in not giving the benefit of VRS ( F ) to Smt . Pan Muni Mahjhian ? If not to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

2. The case of the sponsoring union is that Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian has been working as ( General Mazdoor ) Kamin w.e.f. 18-10-1973 under the management of Bhowra CokePlant . Voluntary Retirement Scheme was adoptedby M/ s . BCCL , for those female employees whose age was below 55 years as on 5-6-2001 as per office Order No. BCCL , / GM / P & IR / ES /2001 / 11543-643 Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian had submitted an application before Chiet Engineer ( Chemical ) , Bhowra Coke Plant on 20-5-2001 for employment of her son , Sri Paresh Manjhi under V.R.S. Scheme . On the basis of application of the workman . Personnel Officer , Bhowra Coke Plant had taken examination of Paresh Manjhi on 6-7-2001 as per letter No. 2001 / PER/ 130 dated 4-7-2001 , The Chief Engineer (Chemical ) , Bhowra Coke Plant , rejected the application of Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian vide letter No. 2001/210 dated 15-9-2001 stating that her age is 55 years , which is not correct , VRS Scheme was notified by the Company in the year 1998. At that time an application was submitted by Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian which was not considered by the management . Then an industrial dispute was raised by the union before the A.L.C. ( C ) , Dhanbad , which wa ended in failure . Thereafter the Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , intimated vide their letter No. L- 20012/417/99-(C - 1 dated 24-1-2000 that V.R.S. is in force till now and company will consider her demand after submission of application in proper form . As per direction of the Ministry an application was filed before the Chief Engineer ( Chemical ) , Bhowra Coke Plant but her application was rejected on 16-5-2000.

Inview of above facts and circumstances it has been prayed that Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award in favour of the workman .

Industry: Coal

Dated, the 31-01-2011

AWARD

By Order No. L - 20012 / 33 / 2002 - IR ( C - I ) dated 24-1-03 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour Written statement has been filed on behalf of the workman stating that the female employee concerned had submitted her resignation under Spl . VRS ( F ) on 20-6-2001 in respect to the Spl . VRS ( Female ) Circular circulated vide No. BCCL / GM / P & IR / ES / 2001 / 11543-643 dated 5-6-2001 . The case was sent through Western Jharia Area to the Headquarter and the request was not acceded to as by that time the female employee had crossed the age limit of 55 years . As such the female employee was intimated about her case and the request was not acceded to as per letter No. BCCL / PA - II / Spl . VRS ( F ) / EJA / 01 / 18821 dated 29/30-3-2001 . Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian , P. No. 00954081 is 2255 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(5)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

2169

1728

00 10 10. Kusun Nagar

KusunNagar

2167

-Contd.

1722

00 2166

00 34

1724

2146

1723

01 79 2148

00 02 70

1557

44 2142

00 00 98

2847

05 2147

00 07 59

1558

2149

00 00 30

1544

07 2141

00 04

1561

00 07 84 1825

00 02 85

1560

00 00 1826

00 05 73

1541

00 10

00 2139

00 01 80

1540

00 07 1827

00 01 70

00 04 80

1536

1829

02 64

00 10

1535

00 1828

00 01

1537

00 20 1831

1539

00 48 00

1830

04 15

00 07 34

1538

00 01

00 00 87 1812

1520

1811

00 03

1521

00 20 40 00

1809

00 06 58

1514

1810

02 50

00 06 50 00

1513

1805

1510

00 06

76 1804

00 04 96

00 07

1498

00 00 01

1497

06 15 1801

06 1802

00 07 56

1496

00 07

16 1803

00 04

1487

00 1757

00 19 13

04 23

1488

2905

00 04 90

00 06 07

1489

00 00 13

05 43 2814

1477

2813

00 07 43 00 03

1476

1758

07 75

00 00 43

1473

00 00 02

1475

07 13

1759

1763

21 08

1474

00 02 53 00

1765

1469

03 14 00 07

00 03 91 1766

1467

05 66 00 11

1468

00 1767

1770

00 01 07

1466

00 01 06 1768

00 01 07

2775

09 62

1463

00 1769

02 45

00 1726

1462

00 03

03 43

00 00 92 00 08

1464

1725

1727

00 00

1461

03 76861/ 11-6.

2256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(1)

1460

37 Kusun Nagar

00 00 10

1459

(Contd.) Kusun Nagar (Contd.)

1453

1452

1454

00 07 50

1270

00 06 08

1269

08 50

1271

00 03 41

1253

26 43

1252

1251

1250

00 09

1249

01 54

1247

00 04

1248

00 09

1245

04 06

1215

00 09

1214

00 09

1212

17 31

1202

00 11

1200

20 58

999

00 06 99

998

00 22

997

00 03 97

996

00 19

995

2898

00 02

839

00 06

838

840

00 03

10 11

837

789

00 04

793

04 42

788

794

00 09

795

00 03

786

00 02 57

785

784

05 82

801

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

(4) (5)

(3)

732

08 24 729

00 06 84

00 01 30 727

00 05 59 728

710

00 07 04

00 03

711

36 706

00 09

705

02 32

700

98 704

00 08

50 693

694

54 677

25 678

00 00

679

13 89

691

00 00 20 681

75 682

10 683

687

01 61 686

00 80

684

00 08 11 685

00 19 25 388

00 18

387

00 02

386

05 50 120

00 05 93 121

05 57 21

00 00 10 20

00 08 16 22

01 40

00 00 10 25

00 10

00 00

00 16 83 16

00 03 50 2

[F. No. L- 14014/12/2011 -GP]

02 31

783

00 08 67

733

K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

[ भाग 1 ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI I.D. NO.13 /2010

M/ sAeroflot Russian Airlines , Ground Floor , 15-17 , Tolstoy House , Tolstoy Marg , New Delhi - 110001 .

...Applicant/ Management

Versus

S/ o Sh.Mukhtiar Singh ,

Shri Sunil Kumar Rathi R/ o Vill . Goyala Khurd, Nazafgarh , Pole No. 19, New Delhi - 110071 .

...Respondent/workman

AWARD

Ground handling services were undertaken by Aeroflot Russian International Airlines , ( hereinafter referred to as the Airlines ) at I.GI . Airport, New Delhi . The Airlines has employed a handful of employees for that purpose . Vide circular dated 28th of September, 2007, Director General , Civil Aviation , took a decision to enlist agencies which can undertake ground handling services on various aerodroms . In anticipation of that decision, a press release was made by the Press Information Bureau , Government of India, New Delhi on 1st of February, 2007 , informing that approval has been granted by Ministry of Civil Aviation regarding ground handling policy at Metropolitan Airports , including I.GI. Airport, New Delhi . It was detailed in the Press Release that ground handling services at Metropolitan Airports would be carried out by respective Airport Operators itselfby its joint venture and the Airlines , involved in ground handling will not be permitted to undertake self handling w.e.f. 1st of January, 2009. On the date of the press release , the Airlines was doing self handling at IGI Airport, New Delhi . The Press Release made employees of the Airlines paniky about their future . They started approaching other agencies for employment and informed the Airlines that they would take employment elsewhere . 22 employees including operators of the Airlines tendered their resignation in August, 2007. Since ramp ground handling service require high level of cooperation and team work in a fixed time frame hence ramp ground handling services cannot be engaged in peace -meal and on account of resignation of its employees the Airlines took a decision to request Combata Civil Aviation Pvt . Ltd. to provide complete ramp ground handling service to them .

2.Aeroflot Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union raised an industrial dispute against the

2357

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

Airlines through demand letter dated 2nd of May, 2005 . Since the Airlines failed to consider their_demands , the Union was left with no option but to initiate conciliation proceedings by way of filing a claim statement before the Conciliation Officer. When conciliation proceedings failed, a failure report was submittedby the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government . On consideration of that failure report, the appropriate Government had referred a dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L- 11012/ 11 /2006 - IR( CM - I) , New Delhi dated 1st of June , 2006 wherein issues relating to demand of proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions applicable to the employees of the Airlines , doing ground handling jobs , were sent for adjudication.

3. During the pendency of the said dispute for adjudication , Rishi Pal , Suresh Kumar, Sunil Kumar Rathi and Jagpal were served with charge sheet , wherein allegations were levelled that on 28-3-07 , it was reported by them to a new channel that there was a great security threat at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi due to actions of the Airlines , besides allegations that the aforesaid employees , who were working from last 12 years , claimed that they were not aware for whom they were working despite the fact that they were employees of the Airlines . Replies, submitted by the aforesaid employees to the charge sheets referred above , were found to be not satisfactory. The Airlines took a decision to hold a domestic enquiry in the charges levelled against the aforesaid employees and appointed an enquiry officer vide order dated 4-5-07. The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry ex - parte , when charge sheeted employees opted not to participate in the enquiry. He submitted his report dated 1-8-07 to the Airlines . Show cause notice dated 4-8-07 against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service was served on, charge sheeted employees . Explanation offered by the charge sheeted employees were found to be not satisfactory. Charge sheeted employees were dismissed from service vide order dated 14-8-07 . The Airlines preferred approval applications, as contemplated by clause (b) of sub section ( 2 ) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) and paid an amount ofRs.7500 each to them, being equal to one month's salary, bymoney orders dated 14-8-2007 , in lieu of one month's notice . A prayer was made to this Tribunal to accord approval to the action ofAirlines in dismissing the services of the charge sheeted employees .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[ PART II- SEC . 3( ii) ]

to obtain prior permission of this Tribunal to terminate their services . Since their case was covered by Sub - section (3 ) of Section 33 of the Act , the approval applications moved by the Airlines are irrelevant . The Airlines acted in utter disregard to the order dated 13-8-2007 passed by the Tribunal . It was projected that this Tribunal may not approve the illegal action taken by the Airlines , dismissing the aforesaid employees from their services and to reinstate them in service with continuity, full back wages , and consequential benefits .

employees were granted status of protected workman . A claim was made that the Airlines cannot terminate services of protected workman, save with express permission in writing of the Tribunal before whom dispute , relating to proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions , was pending adjudication . The Union projected that the approval applications , movedby the Airlines are irrelevant , since an industrial dispute pends adjudication . A claim was made that the approval applications may be dismissed .

5. When report of the Enquiry Officer was under consideration , the Union moved an application before this Tribunal on 16-7-2007 , seeking directions to restrain the Airlines from changing service conditions of members of the Union, besides seeking status of protected employees in terms of Sub- section (4 ) of Section 33 of the Act read with Rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules , 1957 (in short the Rules) . The said application was disposed ofby this tribunal vide order dated 13-8-2007 , commanding theAirlines to comply the provisions- of Section 33 of the Act , in case it opts to discharge or dismiss the charge sheeted employees .

8. In reply to the approval applications it was projected that Shri Suresh Kumar was the President , Shri Rishi Pal was General Secretary, Jagpal was Secretary and Sunil Kumar Rathi was the ordinary members ofthe Union . The Union sought status of protected workman for them by moving appropriate applications as well as seeking declaration from Assistant Labour Commissioner in that regard . It was agitated that when the Airlines failed to reply their application within 15 days time framed, it was presumed that the aforesaid employees , were granted status of protected workman . The Airlines cannot terminate services of protected workman , save with express permission in writing of the Tribunal , before whom dispute relating to the issue raised by the Union for proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions was pending adjudication . Approval applications are irrelevant , claims the Union.

6. The Airlines dismissed the employees referred above, which issue was raised by them before Conciliation Officer by way of filing a claim statement . Conciliation proceedings resulted into a failure . Conciliation Officer submitted his report to the appropriate Government , as contemplated by sub- section (4) of Section 12 of the Act . On consideration ofthe said failure report , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal , vide order No. L- 110012/4/2008 - IR( CM I), New Delhi dated 14th ofAugust, 2008 with following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of Russian International Airlines , New Delhi , in dismissing the services ofS /Shri Suresh Kumar, Jagpal , Sunil Kumar Rathi and Rishi Pal is justified and legal ?

2. To what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?"

9. TheAirlines demurred the claim that the employees referred above had committed serious acts of misconduct , hence they were charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 5thof April , 2007. Explanation submitted by them were found to be unsatisfactory, hence a decision was taken to hold domestic enquiry. Shri Jitesh Pandey, an independent and impartial person , was appointed as Enquiry Officer , vide letter dated 4-5-2007. Shri Pandey conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice and submitted his report dated 1st of August , 2007 to the Airlines. Since charges stood proved against the aforesaid employees , they were served with a show cause notice dated 4-8-2007 , alongwith the copy of the enquiry report , calling them to submit their explanations as to why they should not be dismissed from service . Explanation submitted by them were considered and found to be unsatisfactory . The Airlines decided to dismiss their services .Accordingly their services were dismissed vide letter dated 14-8-2007 . Since an industrial dispute was pending before this Tribunal , approval applications as contemplated by clause (b) of Sub- section (2 ) of Section 33 ofthe Act were moved and simultaneously one months salary was sent to them by money order. It has been disputed that the aforesaid employees were protected workmen . The Airlines claimed that letter dated 13-12-06 and its postal receipts were manipulated documents . No such letter was ever received by Airlines, hence there was no question of its reply. It has been projbeted that when [ भाग 1]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ramp ground handling services were given to Combata CivilAviation Pvt . Ltd. , the Airlines had to retrench 29 employees on 14th of September, 2007. Since the Airlines is not doing ramp ground handling services , claim of the Union for reinstatement of the services of the aforesaid employees had become infructuous . The Airlines projected that the provisions of clause (b) of Sub - section (2) of Section 33 of the Act are applicable to the controversy under reference, hence approval applications were moved. The dismissed employees were never declared as protectedemployees, hence claim of the Union that provisions of Sub-section (3) ofSection 33 oftheAct are attracted, is uncalled for. It has been agitated that the dispute referred by the Government may be dismissed and action of dismissal of the aforesaid employees may be approved.

10. On approval applications following issues were settled:

1. Whether the claimant was protected workman?

2. Whether action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is legal, fair and justified? Ifyes , whether approval needs to be granted to the management?

3. Relief.

11. Though no issue as to virus of the enquiry proceedings was settled in the approval application, yet the Tribunal thought it expedient to deal that proposition atthresh -hold. Parties called upon to adduce evidence on thatproposition . To discharge onus resting on it, Airlines examined Shri Jitesh Pandey, the Enquiry Officer. The Union brought Shri Suresh Kumar in the witness box to rebut facts unfolded by Shri Pandy. No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

12. After hearing Shri M. K. Dwivedi , authorized representative for the Airlines , and Shri M.A. Niazi , authorized representative ofthe Union and on appreciation ofevidenceproduced by the parties , issue relating to virus of the enquiry was adjudicated vide order dated 12-11-2010 and it was concluded that the enquiry conducted by the Airlines was neither just nor fair nor proper. It was commanded that order dated 14-8-07, on the strength of which charge sheeted employees were dismissed, cannot be given a favourable node .

13. When question relating to virus of enquiry proceedings has been answered against the management and an industrial dispute for adjudication ofjustifiability and legality of dismissal of the aforesaid employees pends articulation , a proposition arises as to whether approval applications have lost its efficacy. Hence parties were heard . Shri M.A, Niazi , authorised representative , raised his submissions on behalf of the Union . Shri M.K.Dwivedi authorised representative , presented his point of view on 768GI/11-19

2359

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011/फाल्गुन 21, 1932

behalf of the Airlines . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows.

14. In Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel, ( 1976 Lab.I.C. 4) theApex Court ruled that thejurisdiction under Section 33 ofthe Act is confined only to see whether a prima facie case has been made out and the Authority "does not sit as a court of appeal , weighing or appreciating the evidence for itself but only examines the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the evidence in domestic enquiry as it is , in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse " for arriving at the finding that the charge has been proved, but stuck to the adjudication scrutiny of the domestic enquiry and the bonafides ofthe employer. Accordingly, it is open to the Authority under Section 33 of the Act to review the findings of fact arrived at in the domestic enquiry, the question of adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence , However, were not considered relevant in this limited jurisdiction, by the Apex Court in Lord Krishna Textiles Mills [ 1961 ( 1 ) L.L.J.211 ) . The Apex Court detailed the scope oftwo foldapproach to the problem by an Authority under Section 33 ofthe Act in granting or refusing permission in Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel (supra) in the following words:

"Firstly in a case where there is no defect in procedure in the course of a domestic enquiry into the charges for misconduct against an employee, the Tribunal can interfere with an order of dismissal on one or other of the following conditions: -

(1) Ifthere is no legal evidence at all recorded in the domestic enquiry against the concerned employee with reference to the charge or ifno reasonable person can arrive at a conclusion of guilt on the charge levelled against the employee on the evidence recorded against him in the domestic enquiry. This is what is known as perverse finding .

(2) Even if there is some legal evidence in the domestic enquiry but there is no prima facie case of guilt made out against the person charged for the offence even on the basis that the evidence so recorded is reliable . Such a case may overlap to some extent with the second part of the condition No.1 above . A prima facie case is not , as in a criminal case , a case proved to the hilt.

It must be made clear in following the above principles one or the other, as may be applicable in a particular case , the Tribunal does not sit as a court ofappeal, weighing or reappreciating the evidence for itselfbut only examines the finding ofthe enquiry officer on 2360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii)] the evidence in the domestic enquiry as it is in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse.

jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Act. What the Tribunal is required to adjudicate on this approval application , that very course is available to the parties when dispute referred abovewould be articulated . Two remedies are open tothe workman viz . he may lodge a complaint under Section 33 -A or seek prosecution of the Airlines under Section 31 ( 1) or may seek a reference under Section 10 and have its adjudication when he claims contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. Since approval application was moved , the only recourse adopted by the charge sheeted employees was under Section 10 of the Act and adispute was referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication . In case these applications are disposed of, pending adjudication of the reference , doctrine of prejudice cannot rob the Airlines of its right to prove misconduct of the charge sheeted employee and adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government . Pendency of these approval applications will only multiply the litigation .

16. The rights or defences , which are available to theAirlines in these approval applications , can be claimed by itin the adjudication of the reference . Therefore, it is thought expedient to dispose of these approval applications with a command that disposal of the approval applications by this award will be subject to the outcome ofthe dispute , referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal . Consequently, approval applications are disposed ofwith a command that the award passed herein would be subject to the findings that would be recorded on adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government . An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 07-01-2011

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 11 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 735.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 120/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/346/1994- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस . श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 11th February, 2011 15. The enquiry contemplated by clause ( b) of sub section (2) of Section 33 of the Act , with respect to the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry, is of very limited nature . The Tribunal can disregard the findings entered by the Enquiry Officer only if they are perverse .A finding can be said to be perverse in case not supported by legal evidence . Ifthe finding is not perverse one and if there is a prima facie evidence to support the finding , the Authority under Section 33 of the Act cannot refuse to grant approval to the order passed by the management . Reference can be made to K. N. Mohanan [ 1993 ( II ) L.L.J. 514 ] . The Apex Court in catena of precedents , in parallel to reference cases under Section 10 ofthe Act has ruled that even under Section 33 , where employer had held no enquiry or the domestic enquiry held by him is found to be vitiated by the Tribunal , the right of the employer to justify action of discharge or dismissal taken by him ' against the delinquent workman by adducing relevant evidence , for the first time before the Authority is well recognized. Reference can be made to the precedents in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd . [(1961 ( II) LLJ 644] , Ritz Theatre (Pvt. ) Ltd. [ 1962 (II) LLJ 498) , P. H. Kalyani [ 1963 ( I) LLJ 679 ] , Motipur Sugar Factory (Pvt .) Ltd. [ 1965 ( II ) LLJ 162 ] Jitendra Chandrakar [ 1971 ( I ) LLJ 543 ] , Ganesh Dutt [ 1972 ( 1 ) LLJ 172 ] , Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India ( Pvt. ) Ltd. [ 1973 (I ) LLJ 278 ] , Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel (supra) , BritaniaBiscuit Company Ltd. [ 1977( 1 ) LLJ 197] and K. M. Dev[ 1985 Lab.IC. 254 ] . Likewise right of the workman to lead evidence contra has been recognized. In such cases the entire matter is open before the Authority, which will havejurisdiction not only to go into the limited question of validity of the enquiry and the bonafides of the employer but also to satisfy itself, on facts before it , whether the action was justified . In other words, in such situation jurisdiction of the Authority is not confined to prima facie examination of the employer's action and the Authority can come to his own conclusion on consideration of evidence adduced before it . Reference can be made to the precedent in Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , Firestone Tyre andRubber Company of India Ltd. (supra) and Radio and ElectricalsManufacturing Company Ltd. [ 1978 ( II ) LLJ 131 ] .

S.O. 735. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/ 1995 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Dhanbad , as shown in the Annexure , 16. As detailed above , jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 33 of the Act has been made parallel to its 2361 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL , arid their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010.

[No. L-20012/346/ 1994- IR (C- 1) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

legal document of marriage having beeri socially entered with Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini . She had also admitted her marriage with him , but she had complained to the management about her non - maintenance by him. After considering the aforesaid evidence , though the Enquiry Officer found him not guilty of the charges , yet the higher management disagreeing with his report ordered for a fresh enquiry.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRUBUNAL No. 2 , AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer .

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute U / s . 10( 1 ) (d) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 120 of 1995

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Katras Area ofM/ s , BCCL and their workmen .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the Emplyers : Mr. H. Nath, Advocate .

On behalf of the Workman : Mr. B. B. Pandey, Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Indusrty : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad , the 17th January , 2011

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) ( d) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012 /346/ 94 - IR ( Coal - I ) , dated , the 30th August , 1995.

SCHEDULE

" Whether the demand of the Union for reinstatement of Sri Basant Bhuian , Ex - Miner / Loader of Keshalpur Colliery w.e.f. 17-2-93 by the management of Keshalpur Under Katras Area of M / s . BCCL is justified ? If so , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

3. Consequently, Shri M. C. Yadav as the Enquiry Officer again held an afresh enquiry . On examination of witnesses , he found the workman guilty of the charges and submitted his report , on the basis of which the workman was dismissed . Since there was no successful conciliation in the industrial dispute raised by the union of the workman , hence the industrial dispute came to this Tribunal for adjudication . Further it is pleaded that the case triggered of the complaint of Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini and Panku Bhuia , Dumper Khalasi , East Katras Colliery which was ledged before P. Jha , P.M. (IR) on 12-11-91 that the workman was not her husband rather her husband was Panku Bhuia . Basant Bhuian was said to be Basant Beldar , and was actually not the husband of Sabujwa Bhuini . Basant Bhuian denied all the allegation as false and mischievous and produced his registered deed of marriage wither along with the photo copies affixed to it .. In the first enquiry both Panku Bhuia and Sabjuwa Devi had claimed to be the husband and wife , and had one son and two daughters . The management admitted not to have verified whether they were husband and wife and they had children ; although working in different collieries of Katras Area Sabujwa has stated that they were married prior to the nationalisation of the colliery, but the Panku has stated that they were married in 1977 , Basant Bhuia stated that Sabujwa insisted for legal marriage on the ground of her doubt that Basant Bhuia might neglect her after getting the job under V.R.S. (Female ) . On the consideration of these facts , the Enquiry Officer K. S. Singh found the workman not guilty of the charge . The first enquiry into the charges against the workman did not prove , so the second enquiry for the same was not necessary. Further pleaded by the workman that the production of Form F of both Sabujwa and Panku Bhuia by the management could have easily proved a decisive factor the appointment of workman as fraudulent if Sabujwa was found to be the wife of Panku but that record was not also produced by the management in the second enquiry despite specific pointto it . Moreover , the second enquiry for the same unproved charges without its justification is a bone of contention . Because of the fact that mere differences of the statement workman and Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini as husband and wife in their respective statement concerning their marriages , age and name of childrenetc. as noted in 4 points and accordingly recommended by the Project Officer , for his dismissal . It was agreed by Dy. C.P.M , on whose proposal the order of his dismissal from The case of the workman Basant Bhuian , husband ofSmt . Sabujwa Bhuini , Wagon Loader , Salanpur Colliery was appointed as Miner / Loader in place of his wife under V.R.S. ( Voluntary Retirement Scheme ) ( Female ) . He was posted at Keshalpur Colliery as per letter No. KA / PD / VRS/ 323 / 5200 dated 3 /4-6-87 . He and his wife peacefully lived. He worked in Kesalpur Colliery for 6 years . But a charge - sheet No. KP / BCCL /Dy /CME / PD / CS / 3461 , dated 15-11-91 was issued against him that he got the said employment by fraudulent means , claiming to be the husband of Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini . On his show cause reply it was found unsatisfactory, in the resulta domestic enquiry was held by Shri K. S. Singh , Personnel Manager , Katras Area as the Enquiry Officer . The workman participated in it , pleaded not guilty to the charge . He also produced his 2362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] his service was passed by the G. M. Katras Area which was quite unfair and improper and contrary to the natural justice for it was based on doubt only and wothout consideration of the illiterate status of Sabujwa Bhuini as well as the evidence and circumstances of the case . As such the punishment was alleged to be quite unfair. Further pleaded that the workman was chargesheeted after 6 years .

( Shri M. C. Yadav ) submitted his enquiry report dated 28-1-1993 that in the service particulars of Panku Bhuia Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini was shown as his wife , with one son and one daughter aged 6 and 10 years old respectively as their dependents ; since both of them were working in different collieries in the same area , the concerned workman somehow or the other influenced Smt . Sabujwa, and asked her to swear an affidavit declaring him as her husband so that he could get an employment and she could remain peacefully with him as husband and wife . The enquiry report also described the swearing of the affidavit by Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini on 20-11-1985 concerning the workman as her husband due to possibilities of some strain relationship between Panku Bhuia and her . The concerned workman got one marriage certificate on 2-1-1986 from Shri R. P. Singh , Marriage Officer, Chas describing him as the husband of Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini . On the consideration of those two documents , the management provided him employment . The fact remained concealed until its knowledge came to Shri Panku Bhuia who knew the details between his wife and the concerned workman , and represented it before the Press as well as before the management , challenging the authority of the no - called marriage and the employment of the concerned workman as the husband of his wife . On due consideration of the matter involved , the aforesaid Enquiry Officer , M. C. Yadav gave his finding concerning the workman as not husband of aforesaid Smt . Sabujwa , as well as the procurement of aforesaid both documents namely affidavit and the marraige certificate after the deal between the workman and Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini as per their settlement possibly based on the possibility of consideration of money payable to her by the workman . The possibility of quarrel amongst them in a period of four years or so was the cause for Smt. Sabujwa Bhuini and her husband Panku Bhuia to report the matter to the management and authorities concerned for drawing the present proceeding .As such the action of the management in dismissal of the workman from his service on the ground of misconduct of dishonesty with the forged document was alleged to be legal , justified and no entitlement of any relief to the workman .

4. Whereas specifically denying the allegations made inthe W.S. of the workman concerned , the pleaded case of the management is that the workman Basant Beldar appointed in the name of Basant Bhuia as the husband of Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini on her V.R.S. conspiredly as per appointment letter dated 3 / 4-6-1987 , and he continued to work in the colliery without any objection . In the year 1981 , it came to the light through Newspaper the " Awaj " dated 2-11-91 widely circulated in the locality that Sabujwa Bhuini was really the wife of Shri Panku Bhuia , a workman working the company in the same area but the surreptitiously gave the workman her employment on false and fabricated document . She and her husband Panku Bhuia gave their statement under their thumb impression before Shri P. Jha , the Personnel Manager of the Area that Shri Panka Bhuia was her real husband and the workman could not be her husband . On their statement as well as news circulated in the aforesaid newspaper , the workman was issued Chargesheet dated 15-11-1991 by the management for his misconduct of dishonesty and giving false information regarding relationship between the husband and wife under clause 26-1-11 and 26-1-12 of the Certified Standing Order . On his reply to the chargesheet Shri S.K. Singh , the Personnel Manager of Keshalpur Colliery though conducted the departmental enquiry in presence of the workman yet could not give any definite finding to the charges against him mentioning in his enquiry report- The creation of confusion of all such informations and the circumstances thereof were too difficult to conclude it, so it was requested to appoint other Enquiry Officer to properly evaluate the evidence for definite finding over the relationship between the concerned workman and Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini , as it was a case of serious fraud practiced on the basis of nanufactured document . '

6.As per the proved materials available on the case record, I find MW - 2 Kripa Sankar Singh known as K. S. Singh , the Personnel Manager , as the Enquiry Officer after holding initial domestic enquiry into the charges levelled against the workman ( in the year 1991 ) submitted his report Ext. M-5-" I fail to arrive into any conclusion . I requested the management to take up further enquiry against the concerned workman thereafter I was transferred to Block II Area " as apparent from his deposition before thisTribunal . Since the first enquiry report ( Ext . M - 5 ) lacked concrete conclusion , of the aforesaid Mr. K. S. Singh ( the "

5. Consequently Shri M. C. Yadav, the Personnel Manager of the area as per his appointment letter dated 17-7-92 ofDy. Chief Mining Engineer /Agent of Keshalpur Colliery, held the departmental enquiry as the Enquiry Officer in presence of the workman and his co - worker in accordance with the principle of natural justice . The earlier statement of aforesaid Panku Bhuia , the Dumper Khalasi of East Katras Colliery and Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini were proved by Shri P. Jha as a witness in the Enquiry. On fairly andproperly conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

first enquiry officer) on account of certain confusion rendering it to difficult for him to hold the concerned workman guilty for the charges stated in the chargesheet, MW- 3 M. C. Yadav, Personnel Manager of Kessurgarh Colliery under the same Katras Area was duly appointed as the enquiry officer to hold the second domestic enquiry ( " denovo " ) against the workman in the year 1992 identifying all the papers relating to the enquiry proceeding he proved the enquiry proceeding as Ext . M - 1 to M - 11 . After completion of the domestic enquiry he submitted his enquiry report ( Ext. M- 9 ) to the Disciplinary authority wherein he had found the concerned workman guilty of the charges and thereafter the concerned workmanwas dismissed from his service . The evidence of MW - 1 Deepak Kumar Viswakarma as the Legal Assistant ofKatras office confirms his full awarenss of the facts . So the aforesaid documents were produced and marked as exhibits mentioned above on the formal proof dispensed with . But the aforesaid MW- 3 M. C. Yadav has proved all those documents concerning the enquiry proceeding as earlier mentioned which includes chargesheet , the enquiry report dated 28-1-93 , notesheet and the dismissal order which have been proved as Exts . M - 1 , M - 9 , M - 10 and Ext . M- 11 respectively by the aforesaid Enquiry Officer before the Tribunal whereas WW- 1 Basant Bhuia who is the workman himself has proved his two documents , the photo copy of alleged marriage certificate as Ext . W- 1 , ( on no objection) and the death certificate in original of Sabujwa Bhuini as Ext . W- 2 in support of his own case or claim .

7. Going through the documentary proof namely the Inquiry Report ( Ext . M - 9 ) in view of the charges under clause 26-1-11 and 26-1-12 of the Certified Standing Order (hereinafter referred to as C.S.O. ) , I find that the finding of MW- 3 M. C. Yadav as the Enquiry Officer / Personnel Manager is based on the statement of Shri Ramji Singh , the management representative , Panku Bhuja and P. Jha , the Personnel Manager (both latter as Management witness No. 1 and 2 respectively ) on behalf of the management and the statement of workman Basant Bhuia .

8. The statements of Panku Bhuia and his wife Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini personally recorded by Shri P. Jha the Personnel Manager on their complain dated 12-11-91 ( Ext. M-8/9) before the Management prove that workman Basant Bhuiya managed to obtain his employment as her fake husband fraudulently in place of her under Voluntary Retirement Scheme ( female ) but later on, aforesaid Panku Bhia and her wife Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini turned hostile as managed by the workman himself . Moreover , the workman admitted in his statement to have mistakenly left the name of Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini as a nominee in (his service excerpt) Form ' F ' so as such the real relation of the workman as

2363

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

husband of Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini was found ambiguous which is evident from the Inquiry Report ( Ext . M -3 ).

9. On the aforesaid ground , Shri M. C. Yadav ( the then Personnel Manager ) of Katras Area Office , as the Inquiry Officer held the workman concerned as the guilty of the charges . But the workman Basant Bhuia as WW- I in support of his claim has also stated in his reply ( Ext . M- 2) that he was the husband of Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini but he has stated in his deposition that Panku Bhuia had stated in the enquiry proceeding that this Sabujwa Bhuini was not the wife rather another Sabujwa Bhuini was his wife . But the evidence of the workman about the existence of two women Sabujwa Bhuini being unpleaded is inadmissible in the eye of law. The workman's claim as the husband of disputed lady Sabujwa Bhuini rests upon the photo copy ofhis marriage certificate ( Ext . W- 1 ) which is not conclusive proof of his marriage with Sabujwa Bhuini because it relates to his alleged marriage with her on 23-6-79 which is apparently contrary to his oral evidence that he was married to her in 1976-78 . The proof of death certificate of Sabujwa Bhuini as Ext . W- 2 by him in course of his deposition has been proved to show him as her husband but this fact in lack of pleading loses his probity in the eye of law.

10. In the light of the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, Shri B. B. Paridey, the L.d. Counsel for the workman has submitted that no charges as levelled against the workman have been proved by the management and that he should be reinstated in service with back wages . Whereas Shri H. Nath , Ld . Advocate for the management seems to have irrationally conceded accordingly in favour of the workman but without back wages perhaps in view of the domestic enquiry which was already held unfair . But in the instant case after its scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidences of both the parties I find that out of two charges only the charge under clause 26-1-12 has been proved by the management crystal clearly against the concerned workman Basant Bhuia who gave false information regarding particulars of one Sabujwa Bhuini as his own wife for the purpose of the present employment . Accordingly on the recommendation (Ext . M - 10 ) of the Project Officer , Keshalpur Colliery which is based on the enquiry report (Ext . M- 9 ) ofShri . M. C. Yadav ofthe Enquiry Officer the workman Shri Basant Bhuia has been dismissed from his service under clause 27-2-6 of the Certified Standing Order by the General Manager , Katras Area on 12-2-93 as per letter dated 14/ 17-2-93 (Ext . M - 11 ) issued by the Project Officer concerned to the workman in view of the gravity of his aforesaid proved misconduct . Accordingly I hold that any employment obtained on false information is non - entity or nonest concerning this workman .

2364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

11. Under the circumstances I find and hold that the demand of the union for reinstatement of Basant Bhuia , ex -Miner/Loader , Keshalpur Colliery with effect from 17- 2-93 by the management of Keshalpur Colliery under Katras Area ofBCCL is quite un -justified. So the workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever .

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , ।। फरवरी , 201

का.आ. 736.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नं. । धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 293/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/117/1999- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th February, 2011

SO . 736. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 293/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . C.C.L. , and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 11-02-2011 .

[No. L-20012/ 117/ 1999- IR (C- I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 , AT DHANBAD Present : Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute U/ s . 10( 1 ) (d) ofthe IDAct, 1947

Reference No. 293 of 1999

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of C.C.L. and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the Workman : Mr..D . Mukherjee , Advocate .

Onbehalf of the Employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate. State: Jharkhand

Indusrty.: Coal

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] Dated, Dhanbad, the 18th January , 2011

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/ 117 / 99-1R( C - I ), dated, the 4th August , 1999.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Bishun Ram , L.D.C. by the CCL Management from service w.e.f. 9-10- 1988 is justified , proper and legal ? If not what relief the workman entitled to ? "

The case of workman as sponsored by the Union as pleaded in the Written Statement is that Sri Bishun Ram had been working as a permanent employee at Sirka Colliery of M / s . Central Coalfield Ltd. since long with unblemished recordof service , Though he promptly submitted his reply to the false and baseless allegations contained in the chargesheet dt . 28-10-95 yet the management mala fide dismissed him from his services for hisalleged misconducts :

1 . Theft , fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Employer's business or property.

II . Wilful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in conjunction with other or any lawful or reasonable order of a superior.

III . Habitual late attendances and absence without leave or sufficient cause .

IV. Habitual indiscipline .

V Leaving work without permission or sufficient reason .

The Enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice , for a biased person was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. who conducted the enquiry without completing the cross - examination of one after another witness . Accordingly the Enquiry Report unbased on the materials/ evidence unresonebly submitted was perverse . The perverse finding amounts to violator of the principles of natural justice . Non - paymer ! f subsistence allowance or even wages at the places of his frequent transfers on the dramatic evasive grounds of his non -joining to the workman during his suspension pendime his enquiry until his dismissal is quite illegal . and it vitiates the entire enquiry . The workman was dismissed from his service for the charges which have not been conclusively proved. Though he filed an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority yet in vain . Even the industrial 2365 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

4. In exercise of the powers conferred upon the Tribunal by Section 11A of the 1.D. Act, 1947 , I have scrutinised the materials available on the record .

dispute raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) Ranchi failed for the adament attitude of the management . The dismissal of the workman is pleaded unjustified and illegal , so he is entitled to re- instatement with full back wages .

5. In the instant case , as per evidence of solitary witness Bijoy Swaroop as MW- 1 who was the Personnel Manager and held the domestic enquiry as the legally authorised Enquiry Officer ( Ext . M - 3 ) into the charges as per the Chargesheet (Ext. M - 1 ) . The workman submitted his reply ( Ext . M - 2 ) . On notice (Ext . M -4) to the workman, the workman appeared and defended his case through his co -worker Soab Khan . In course of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses of both the parties including that of the concerned workman as Ext, M - 5 . The Enquiry Proceeding papers in the pen and signature of the aforesaid Enquiry Officer ( MW- 1 ) are Ext . M -6 series and the signatures of the workman on the proceeding papers are Ext . M - 7 series and accordingly the signatures of Soab Khan the co - worker as Ext . M - 8 series . After completion of the enquiry, he submitted his enquiry report ( Ext . M - 9 ) holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges and the copy of the enquiry report was sent to the workman as per the letter marked as Ext . M- 10 . It is also established that second show casue notice along with copy of the enquiry report was also sent to him and the workman also submitted his reply as Ext . M - 11 . Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from his services as per the letter marked as Ext . M-12 , although aforesaid documents were marked exhibits without any objection .

2. Whereas the pleaded case of the management is that workman Bishun Ram , Clerk Grade - II L.D.C. originally posted at Sirka Colliery of Argada Area was assigned the job of processing LTC / LLTC Bills of the employees of Sirka Project but regularly not attending to his duty, he angaged an outsider Md . Samsul for performing his official job on his behalf. On account of his unauthorised absentism , he was chargesheeted on 28-10-94 by the Project Officer concerned , On his reply to the charges , it was found unsatisfactory. It resulted in appointment of Shri Bijay Swaroop , Deputy Personnel Manager ( EE ) , CCL , Ranchi as the Enquiry Officer by the competent authority to hold domestic enquiry against the concerned workman in accodance with the principle of natural justice . Thereafter observing the aforesaid principles of natural justice in the enquiry in which the workman along with his co- worker participated . The Enquriy Officer concluded it and submitted his report that charges levelled against the workman were proved and accordingly he was found guilty of the charges . On the consideration of the enquiry proceeding and the enquiry report , the Disciplinary Authority concerned by agreeing with the finding with the Enquiry Officer issued second show cause notice to the workman for his representation . On his representation , the disciplinary Authority through the application of his mind came to his conclusion that only termination of his service would meet the end of justice . So the order of his dismissal from his service was issued and his dismissal was quite legal and justified . Besides that the management has specifically denied the allegation as made out by the workman in his W. S. the management pleaded that the placement of a workman under suspension and serving of chargesheet are two courses of disciplinay action , but sometimes cover by the same order . Suspension of a workman does not support the master and servant relationship and the payment of subsistence allowance as per certain provision depends upon the fulfilment of certain obligations by the workman under suspension. So any dispute relating to subsistence allowance in no way vitiates the enquiry proceeding .

FINDING WITH REASONS

3. The perusal of the case record transpires that previously by Order dated 15-12-2005 , the Tribunal ascertained the domestic enquiry was held fair , proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice in this case . So the case matured for hearing argument on merit .

6. The evidence of MW - 1 Bijoy Swaroop , the aforesaid Enquiry Officer in the later part of his cross- examination establishes that the concerned workman had submitted his application ( Ext . M - 14 ) to him that he was not allowed to join on transfer and the management also refused to pay him his suspension allowance ( subsistence ) allowance and also that the workman had produced photo copy of medical certificate as (Ext . M - 15 ) issued by the Private Doctor showing his treatment from 17-7-95 to 29-7-95 , although the sanction and the payment of his sick leave for the disputed period were beyond his knowledge . The Enquiry Report (Ext . M - 9 in 14 sheets ) which is based on the statement of the management witnesses namely MW - 1 Shri I.N. Jha, Manager Vigilance , CCL Ranchi , MW- 2 Shri A.K. Sinha , Sr. P.O. and MW- 3 Shri B.P. Singh , P.M. , Sirka , and that of workman Bishun Ram , the proceedes as DW- 1 ( M - 5 ) as recorded during the enquiry proceeding . Out of three charges as levelled against the workman Bishun Ram , Charge No. 1 related to not carrying out by the workman his official job of processing L.T.C./L.L.T.C . Bills of the workers of Sinka Project rather he engaged Md . Samsul an outsider in processing the bill on his behalf and charge No. 2 2366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

concerning his absentism from his duty on 29-7-95 and 24-8-95 alleging to have been proved against the workman .

TheEnquiry Officer held the workman guilty of first charge on the basis of the statement of Shri I. N. Jha that on his surprise check ( as per surprise check report Ext . M - 13/ 1 ) in Sirka Project at about 11.00A.M. on 24-8-95 in presence ofjaforesaid B. P. Singh , P. M. , he found the workman Bishun Ram absent but he suddenly appeared at about 2 P.M. and gave his own written statement ( ME- 2) admitting that he used to get L.T.C./L.L.T.C . bills prepared by one Md . Samsul . This fact also stands corroborated by Shri B. P. Singh, P. M. , MW- 3 and also by the workman Bishun Ram, (W- 1 ) in his own statement (Ext . M - 5 ), in which he has admited that due to work load he used to take his home the bill concerned and he himself did the job ofbill , but at time he got the bills afresh by his house hold members . But his such statement ofthe workman appears to be a little bit different from his show cause reply (Ext . M-2) only to the extent of the preparation of the bills by Md . Samsul only. besides that B. P. Singh ( MW-3 ) has corroborated the fact that the workman had voluntary written his statement ( ME- II) before aforesaid Shri I. N. Jha that he used to get the bills concerned prepared by Samsul . The workman in his reply (Ext. M-2) also had admitted to have taken the help from Md. Samsul whenever heavy accumulation occured and it was to the knowledge of the officials , as that the proor educational back ground , he was not in a position to discharge the job of writing in good manner ...On that proofthe aforesaid first charge concerning the preparation of the official bills by another person instead ofthe workman in his official capacity stands proved .

7. So far as the Charges No. II is concerned it relates to habitual unauthorised absentism of the workman concerned from his duty on 29-7-95 and on 24-8-95 as found on the surprise check. As per the surprise check report dated 29-7-95 and 24-8-95 (Ext. M- 13/1 ) respectively as stated in the enquiry report (Ext . M - 9 ) , the workman Bishun Ram was found absent from his duty on the aforesaid dates when the surprise check held by Shri I. N. Jha Dy. C. V.M. , CCL Ranchi in presence of Shri A.K. Sinha, Sr. P.O. and one Shri B. P. Singh , P.M. at Sirka respectively and the attendance register (ME - 1 ) had no mark of presence for the aforesaid first date being blank , it was confirmed by Shri A.K. Sinha that no leave aplication of the concerned workman was made available to him. Shri B. P. Singh, also confirmed that in course of the surprise check on 24-8-95 at about 11.00 A.M. , the workman was not present but he appeared there at 2 P.M. and the workman stated to have gone to Area Accounts office which is contrary to his admitted fact as stated in his W.S. that after knowing the arrival of Shri I. N. jha from Ranchi , he(workman) had come from his house and rushed to the

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] office to see him . It is also evident from the vross- examination of the workman during the enquiry proceeding thathe was absent from duty on 24-8-1995 . So the second charge of absentism was proved. The finding of the Enquiry Officer Shri .Bijoy Swaroop MW- 1 appears to be reasoned and justified .

8. First contention of Shri D. Mukherjee , Ld . Counsel for the workman with reference to authority 1983 Lab. I. C. page 1909 SC ( CB) ( D) M/ s . Glaxo Laboratories (1) Ltd. versus Presiding Officer , Labour Court , Meerut and others concerning Section 13A of the I.E. (S.O) Act (20 of 1946) as held therein that misconduct neither defined nor enumerated and it may be believed by the employer to be misconductex - post- facto would not expose the workman to a penalty (paras -23 ) . In that prospective , Ld. Counsel for the workman submits that in the instant case no charges have been proved against the workman and as such the dismissal on any ground other than the charges mentioned in the chargesheet is illegal . Whereas Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the management responded that the charges I and II as mentioned in the Chargesheet (Ext . M- 1 ) falling under specific S.O. as well defined and enumerated in the Industrial Employment ( SO) Central Rules , 1946 have been very specifically established against the workman in course of enquiry proceeding by the Enquiry Officer Bijoy Swaroop who has been examined as MW- 1 before the Tribunal . In the instance case 1 find that Charge No. 1 wilful insubordination or disobedience and Charge No. II habitual absentism without leave or without sufficient cause rather are well defined under aforesaid S.O. 17 (i ) (c) and ( d) respectively, though apparentlythe chargesheet mentions " S.O. 18 ( i) ( c) and S.O. ( i) ( d) in place of aforesaid S.O. 17 (i ) (c) S.O. ( i ) and ( d) respectively. butmisenumeration of the aforesaid relevant S.O. in the face of specific charges defined therein cannot obliterate or obsecure the departmental proceeding which has already been held fair and proper by this Tribunal . Thus I accordingly hold the argument of the Ld . Counsel for the workman cuts no ice with me .

9. Secondly, the plea of theLd . Counsel for the workman with the citation of 1999 L.L.R. 499 SC (DB) , Capt . M. Paul Authority Anthony - Versus - Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and others is , as held therein under B , that 'Non- payment of subsistence allowance to a suspended employee is an in human act which be likened to slow- poisoning . The provision for payment of subsistence allowance made in the Service Rules only ensures non- violation of right to life of the employees , ' as also held that' since in the instant case the appellant was not provided any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension on account of his penury occassioned by [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

non - payment of subsistence allowance , he could not undertake ajourney to attend the disciplinary proceeding , the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer at such proceeding, which were held ex -parte stand vitiated (para- 32). In the present case under adjudication, I find that the workman concerned has fully participated in the domestic enquiry, but the deprivation of the workman from his subsistence allowance during his suspension is admittedly a glaring example of inhuman dealing with him in course of domestic enquiry and his suspension period. It is apparent from the chargesheet (Ext . M - 1 ) and the application (Ext . M - 14) made by the applicant that he was not allowed to join on transfer and also the management refused to pay his suspension allowance as admitted by MW- 1 Bijoy Swroop the Personnel Manager as the Enquiry Officer asserted in his deposition. The Industrial Employment (SO ) Central Rules , 1946 applicable to the present case, under its order 17 " with the heading Disciplinary Action for Misconduct - ( i ) mandatorily postulates as such

"A workman may be suspended by the employer pending investigation or departmental enquiry and shall be paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the provisions of Section 10- ( a) of the Act (Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. " Under Section 10A of the said Act , the employer has not complied with the mandatory provision of law relating to the payment of his subsistence allowance to the workman. Thus the argument by the Ld . Counsel for the workman appears to be plausible in the eye of law . On the consideration ofthe materials available on the case record, I find that the charges No. I and II relating to insubordination and absentism for two specified dates have been proved against the workman in the domestic enquiry which was held fair and proper. In that aspect , Shri D. K. Verma, Ld, Counsel for the management relying upon the authorities : (208 ) 1 SCC (L. & S) 890 ( DB ), West Bokaro Colliery, (Tisco . Ltd) - versus - Ram Pravesh Singh as held therein, submits that ' where two views are possible , Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in interefering the findings arrived in the domestic enquiry, the standard of proof in the domestic enquiry is preonderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt ; it was improper for the Tribunal to interfere with the findings of the domestic enquiry on the ground that there was no independent evidence apart from from management witnesses ... however , general provision of law accepted is that Labour Court can award lesser punishment in a given case (paras 18 and 21. ) But in the present case there are no two views on the evidence brought before the Tribunal as held earlier. Further it has been submitted on behalf of theLd . Counsel for the management with 768 GI/11-20

2367

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

reference to the authority 2005 S CC (L & S) 407 ( DB) A as held therein , that , in case of misappropriation of fund by delinquent employee , the punishment may be awarded on the consideration of two factors loss of confidence as the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated; when an employee is found guilty of misappropriation of a corporation's fund there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal ; insuch cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forms and there interfering with the quantum of punishment (paras 12 and 13 ) . But unfortunately, the persent case relates to the fact of absentism of the workman for two specified dated and also to insubordination concerning the preparation of L.T.C./L.L.T.C . Bill by one Md. Samsul instead of the workman. It is different from the factum of the aforesaid authorities , moreover, the case has no double views on the evidence and the materials available on the case record .

10. In view of the preceding discussed facts and laws, it is pertinent to mention that I find the punishment of dismissal to the concerned workman for his aforesaid insubordination and absentism for two dates appears to be too harsh and disappropriate , to the nature of his aforesaid two guilts . Section 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947 empowers this Tribunal with the discretionary power to set aside the order of dismissal to its satisfaction , based on the materials only. In the instant case under this circumstances I find and hold in view of the aforesaid prove two charges, namely insubordination and two days absentism the workman ought to have been awarded with lesser punishment , not with his dismissal from his permanent service . Hence , the dismisal of the workman from his service is set aside and the management is directed to reinstate the workman Bishun Ram , L.D.C. in his service with full back wages with stoppage of one increment for his aforesaid minor misconduct from the date of his dismisal .

11. In the result, it is held the dismissal of Shri Bishun Ram , L.D.C. by the CCl management from his service with effect from 9-10-1998 is unjustified , improper and illegal . But in view of his suffering he deserves compensation of his suffering during his suspension to the tune of Rs . 10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand) . He is entitled to reinstatement of his service with back wages in full minus one increment with effect from the aforesaid date. The management is directed to implement the award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer 2368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 11 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 737.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. के बरारी कोलियरी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/417/2000- आईआर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th February , 2011

S.O. 737. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court -1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bararee Colliery of BCCL and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 11-02-2011 .

[No. L-20012 / 417 /2000- IR (C- I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of I. D.Act Reference No. 32 of 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Barari Colliery of M/s . BCCL .

And

Their workmen

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

For the Employers: Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate For the Workman: Shri R. A. Chamaria, Advocate State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal .

dated the 31-1-2011

AWARD

By Order No. L - 20012 /417 / 2000 - IR ( C - I ) dated 25-1-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ) " Whether the action of the management of Bararee Colliery of BCCL in not providing employment on compassionate ground to Smt . Indu Devi , wife of Late Rampyare Dusadh is proper and justified ? If not, to what relief Smt . Indu Devi is entitled to ? " 2 .. The case of Smt . Indu Devi , the dependent wife of Rampyare Dusadh , who was employed as General Mazdoor holding Employee No. 101592 , C. M. P. F. No. JHA / 20 / 65 , P.No. 00917674 in Bararee Colliery.. of M/ s. B.C.C.Ltd. Rampyare Dusadh expired on 21-12-1993 , while in employment due to cardiorespiratory failure . After death of her husband Smt . Indu Devi submitted application dated 14-5-1994 for her employment at the earliest possible opportunity. There was no other sources of income for livlihod of the surviving family mambers . Subsequently Smt . Indu Devi had submitted applications on various dates for providing employment and also submitted affidavit as required . She also had submitted affidavit dated 4-5-94 and another affidavit dated 20-4-1998 bearing no objection by Baban Lal Dusadh , the yonger brother of late Rampyare Dusadh . After receiving application from Smt . Indu Devi for employment , the management prepared a Check List in respect of providing employment to her . They had verified the genuineness of her application by the concerned officers and also by police . The verification report was also submitted to the employer. Jharkhand Janta Mazdor Union had sent a letter dated 17-5-1999 to the employers requesting therein to provide employment to the applicant , Smt . Indu Devi . The employer did not provide employment to Smt Indu Devi and delayed the matter on a pretext or other . The management sought for some documents vide letter dated 23/24-5-96 and another letter dt . 7-11-96 . She was also asked for monetary benefits in lieu of employment to which she denied . Again letter dated 18-1-98 and letter dated 19-3-98 were sent to her requiring further clarification and documents . After all the management did not provide employment to Smt . Indu Devi and kept the matter pending since 1994 and at last vide letter dated 2-4-99 regretted to provide employment but no reason for same was mentioned . Seeing no other alternative , an industrial dispute was raised before A.L.C. ( C ) , Dhanbad , which ended in failure , resulting to the present dispute.

It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunai be pleased to pass an award directing the management to provide employment to Smt . Indu Devi , wife of late Rampyare Dusadh and also to pay wages and benefits for the period she has not been provided employment i.e. since 1995 till the date she is taken into employment .

3. The case of the management is that Smt . Indu Devi is not a workman within the meaning of Sec . 2 - S of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Therefore , the Union has got no locus standi to demand employmnet through raising industrial dispute . The employment in Public Sector Undertaking are a Public employment and the provision of employment under Compassionate ground is ultravires of Art . 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the Hon'ble [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Supreme Court of India also held in the various cases that the compassionate appointment is not a legal right . Smt . Indu Devi claimed employment in the year 1997 , whereas Late Ram Pyare Dusadh expired on 12-12-93 . Smt . Indu Devi has not claimed employment after the death of Late Ram Pyare Dusadh immediately , whereas the provisions under NCWA for providing employment for immediate relief and as she has not claimed any relief immediately, her claim cannot be considered after lapse of years together.

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

5. Smt . Indu Devi , wife of Late Ram Pyare Dusadh , has examined herself as WW - 1 and proved some documents which have been marked as Exts . W- 1 to W- 13 .

The management has examined Sri T. S. G. Rao , Personnel Manager of Bararee Colliery, as MW- 1 , who has proved some documents which have been marked as Exts . M- 1 to M -5.

6. Main argument advanaced on behalf of the concerned workman is that Smt . Indu Devi had given her application in the year 1994 and it was not concidered .

Management's councel argued that she had given application in the year 1998 as per Ext . W- 2 . Regarding Ext. W- 1 shows that it had not been received by any employee. of the management because in Ext . W- 1 at page 1 , it shows that receipt was close but no seal or signature is there , so it cannot be presused that her application was received in the year 1995 or 1994 , though on 2nd page 14-5-94 has been mentioned, but it has not been received by the management , so it has got no merit . Ext . W- 3 shows that she filed application on 13-8-99 .

Another argument advanced on behalf of the management in that the concerned lady, WW - 1 , Indu Devi , has stated is her cross - examination that at the time of death of her husband she was residing at Augarpathra . Bararee Colliery is far away from Augarpathra. No death certificate has been issued from Angarpathra village or any public authority where the alleged husband of the concerned lady was residing . Death certificate has been issued by Dr. S. Saha . This certificate has been issued from Dhanbad . No document has been filed by the applicant , Indu Devi which may show that she had been residing with her husband at the time of his death . Ext.MI shows that she has moved application for giving employment without any date and Ext . M - 2 shows that she had given her application for giving her employment on 24-4-98 though her husband , Ram Pyare Dusadh , died in 1993. As per Ext . M - 3 Ram Pyare Dusadh was residing at village Parshewa , P.O. Tarari ( Kanch ) , Dist . Gaya . But no death certificate has been issued from above village .

2369

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

Another argument advanced on behalf of the management is that the concerned applicant has stated her age as 28 years on 6-1-11 . As her date of birth in Service Excerpt finds 21 years on 17-7-87 as well as Annexure - I shows that the lady who has been examined as WW- 1 is , different from that lady whose name and age finds in Service Excerpt because on 17-7-87 in Service Eccerpt her age is 21 years , it cannot be 28 years on 6-1-11 . Moreover , on affidavit which is Annexure - 6 the age of Indu Devi finds on 4-5-94 as 28 years . That cannot be 28 years on 6-1-11 . WW- 1 , Indu Devi , stated in her cross - examination that the name of the mother of her husband is Chumki Devi . Butas perAffidavit (Ext . M -4 ) which has been filed allegedly by the mother of Ram Pyare Dusadh , husband of alleged Indu Devi , her name is Sonaki Devi and not Chumki Devi . It also shows that she is not able to know the name of her husband's mother .

7. Considering the above facts it show that Indu Devi has not been able to prove that she was wife of alleged Ram Pyare Dusadh and in such circumstances the action of the management of Bararee Colliery of BCCL in not providing employment on compassionate ground to Smt. Indu Devi , wife of Late Ram Pyare Dusadh is proper and justified . As such , the concerned lady , Smt . Indu Devi is not entitled to any relief.

This is my Award.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 738.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरोफ्लोट रेशियन एयरलाईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय दिल्ली नं.। के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 11/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20025 /01 /2011- आईआर ( सी 1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th February , 2011

S.O. 738. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 11/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court- 1 , Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Aeroflot Russion Airliens , and their . workmen , received by the Central Government on 11-02-2011 .

[No. L 20025 01-2011 - IR ( C - D ) .

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 2370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI I. D. No. 11/2010

M/ s . Aeroflot Russian Airlines ,

Ground Floor, 15-17 , Tolstoy House , Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 .

...Applicant/Management Versus

Shri Jagpal

R/ o RZ - 131 - Z , X, Block , Nazafgarh , New Delhi - 110043.

...Respondent/ Workman

AWARD

Ground handling services were undertaken by Aeroflot Russian International Airlines , ( hereinafter referred to as the Airlines ) at I.G. I. Airport , New Delhi . The Airlines has employed a handful of employees for that purpose .Vide circular dated 28th of September , 2007 , Director General , Civil Aviation , took a decision to enlist agencies which can undertake ground handling services on various aerodrums . In anticipation of that decision , a press release was made by the Press Information Bureau , Government of India , New Delhi on 1st of February , 2007 , informing that approval has been granted by Ministry of Civil Aviation regarding ground handling policy at Metropolitan Airports , including I.G.I. Airport , New Delhi . It was detailed in the Press Release that ground handling services at Metropolitan Airports wouldbe carried out by respective Airport Operators itself by its joint venture and the Airlines , involved in ground handling will not be permitted to undertake self handling w.e.f. 1st of January , 2009. On the date of the press release , the Airlines was doing self handlingat IGI Airport , New Delhi . The Press Release made employees of the Airlines paniky about their future . They started approaching other agencies for employment and informed the Airlines that they would take employment elsewhere . 22 employees including operators of the Airlines tendered their resignation in August , 2007. Since ramp ground handling service require high level of cooperation and team work in a fixed time frame hence ramp ground handling services cannot be engaged in peace -meal and on account of resignation of its employees the Airlines took a decision to request Combata Civil Aviation Pvt . Ltd. to provide complete ramp ground handling service , to them .

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ) proceedings by way of filing a claim statement before the Conciliation Officer . When conciliation proceedings failed , a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government. On consideration of that failure report , the appropriate Government had referred a dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L- 11012/ 11 / 2006 - IR( CM - I ) , New Delhi dated 1st ofJune . 2006 wherein issues relating to demand of proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions applicable to the employees of the Airlines , doing ground handling jobs , were sent for adjudication .

3. During the pendency of the said dispute for adjudication , Rishi Pal , Suresh Kumar , Sunil Kumar Rathi and Jagpal were served with charge sheet , wherein allegations were levelled that on 28-3-07 , it was reported by them to a new channel that there was a great security threat at 1.G. I. Airport , New Delhi due to actions of the Airlines , besides allegations that the aforesaid employees . who were working from last 12 years , claimed that they were not aware for whom they were working despite the fact that they were employees of the Airlines . Replies . submitted by the aforesaid employees to the charge sheets referred above , were found to be not satisfactory. The Airlines took a decision to hold a domestic enquiry in the charges levelled against the aforesaid employees and appointed an enquiry officer vide order dated 4-5-07 . The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry ex - parte , when charge sheeted employees opted not to participate in the enquiry. He submitted his report dated 1-8-07 to the Airlines . Show cause notice dated 4-8-07 against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service was served on charge sheeted employees . Explanation offered by the charge sheeted employees were found to be not satisfactory. Charge sheeted employees were dismissed from service videorder dated 14-8-07 . The Airlines preferred approval applications , as contemplated by clause (b ) of sub - section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act ) and paid an amount of Rs.7500 each to them , being equal to one month's salary, by money orders dated 14-8-2007 , in lieu of one month's notice . A prayer was made to this Tribunal to accord approval to the action of Airlines in dismissing the services of the charge sheeted employees .

4. In reply to the approval applications it was projected that Shri Suresh Kumar was the President, Rishi Pal was General Secretary , Jagpal was Secretary and Sunil Kumar Rathi was ordinary member of the Union . The Union sought status of protected workman for them , by moving appropriate applications as well as seeking declaration from A. L. C. in that regard . It was agitated that when Airlines failed to respond to their aplications within 15 days time frame, it was assumed that the aforesaid employees were granted status of protected workman . A claim was made that the Airlines cannot terminate services of protected workman , save with express permission in writing of the Tribunal before whom dispute , relating to proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

was pending adjudication . The Union projected that the approval applications , moved by the Airlines are irrelevant , since an industrial dispute pends adjudication. A claim was made that the approval applications may be dismissed .

5. When report of the Enquiry Officer was under consideration, the Union moved an application before this Tribunal on 16-7-2007 , seeking directions to restrain the Airlines from changing service conditions of members of the Union, besides seeking status of protected employees in terms of sub - section (4 ) of Section 33 of the Act read with rule 61 ofthe Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules 1957 ( in short the Rules ) . The said application was disposed of by this tribunal vide order dated 13-8-2007 , commanding the Airlines to comply the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, in case it opts to discharge or dismiss the charge sheeted employees .

6. The Airlines dismissed the employees referred above , which issue was raised by them before Conciliation Officer by way of filing a claim statement . Conciliation proceedings resulted into a failure . Conciliation Officer submitted his report to the appropriate Government , as contemplated by sub - section ( 4 ) of section 12 of the Act . Onconsideration of the said failure report , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal , vide order No.L - 110012/4 / 2008 -1R ( CM - I ) , New Delhi dated 14th of August , 2008 with following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of Russian International Airlines , New Delhi , in dismissing the services of S / Shri Suresh Kumar , Jagpal , Sunil Kumar Rathi and Rishi Pal is justified and legal ?

2. To what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ? "

7. Claim statement was filed , in response to the above reference , by the Union pleading that despite orders passed by this Tribunal , the Airlines terminated services of two office bearers and one ordinary members of the Union , who were protected employees . It went on to detail that the Union sought status of protected workman from the Airlines vide its letter dated 13th of December , 2006 , which communication was not responded to. Though there was an obligation on the Airlines to reply the said communication within a period of 15 days , as contemplated by sub rule ( 2 ) of rule 61 of the Rules , yet the Airlines opted 10 maintain an eerie silence . The Union moved Assistant Labour Commissioner for seeking a declaration of protected workınan . Since the aforesaid employees were protected workmen , the Airlines was under an obligation to obtain prior permission of this Tribunal to terminate their services . Since their case was covered by sub - section ( 3 ) of section 33 of the Act , the approval applications movedby the Airlines are irrelevant . The Airlines acted in utter disregard 10 the order dated 13-8-2007 passed by the Tribunal . It was projected that this Tribunal may not approve the illegal action taken by the Airlines , dismissing the aforesaid employees from their services and to reinstate them in

2371

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

service with continuity , full back wages , and consequential benefits .

8. In reply to the approval applications it was projected that Shri Suresh Kumar was the President , Shri Rishi Pal was general Secretary, Jagpal was Secretary and Sunil Kumar Rathi was the ordinary members of the Union . The Union sought status of protected workman for them by moving appropriate applications as well as seeking declaration from Assistant Labour Commissioner in that regard . It was agitated that when the Airlines failed to reply their application within 15 days time framed , it was presumed that the aforesaid employees were granted status of protected workman . The Airlines cannot terminate services of protected workman , save with express permission in writing of the Tribunal , before whom dispute relating to the issue raised by the Union for proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions was pending adjudication . Approval applications are irrelevant , claims the Union .

9. The Airlines demurred the claim that the employees referred above had committed serious acts of misconduct , hence they were charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 5th of April , 2007. Explanation submitted by them were found to be unsatisfactory , hence a decision was taken to hold domestic enquiry. Shri Jitesh Pandey , an independent and impartial person, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, vide letter dated 4-5-2007 . Shri Pandey conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and submitted his report dated 1st of August, 2007 to the Airlines . Since charges stood proved against the aforesaid employees , they were served with a show cause notice dated 4-8-2007 , alongwith the copy of the enquiry report , calling them to submit their explanations as to why they should not be dismissed from service . Explanation submitted by them were considered and found to be unsatisfactory. The Airlines decided to dismiss their services. Accordingly their services were dismissed vide letter dated 14-8-2007 . Since an industrial dispute was pending before this Tribunal , approval applications as contemplated by clause (b ) of sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 33 of the Act were moved and simultaneously one months salary was sent to them by money order . It has been disputed that the aforesaid employees were protected workmen . The Airlines claimed that letter dated 13-12-06 and its postal receipts were manipulated documents . No such letter was ever received by Airlines hence there was no question of its reply . It has been projected that when ramp ground handling services were given to Combata CivilAviation Pvt . Ltd. , the Airlines had to retrench 29 employees on 14th of September , 2007. Since the Airlines is not doing ramp ground handling services , claim of the Union for reinstatement of the services of the aforesaid employees had become infructuous . The Airlines projected that the provisions of clause (b ) of sub - section (2 ) of Section 33 of the Act are applicable to the controversy under reference, hence approval applications were moved. The dismissed employees were never declared as protected 2372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

employees , hence claim of the Union that provisions of sub- section (3 ) of Section 33 of the Act are attracted, is uncalled for . It has been agitated that the dispute referred bytheGovernment may be dismissed and action of dismissal ofthe aforesaid employees may be approved.

10. On approval applications following issues were settled:

1. Whether the claimant was protected workman ?

2. Whether action ofthe management in terminating the services of the workman is legal , fair and justified? If yes , whether approval needs to be granted to the management ?

3. Relief.

11. Though no issue as to virus of the enquiry proceedings was settled in the approval application , yet the Tribunal thought it expedient to deal that proposition at thresh -hold. Parties called upon to adduce evidence on that proposition . To discharge onus resting on it , Airlines examined Shri Jitesh Pandey, the Enquiry Officer . The Union brought Shri Suresh Kumar in the witness box to rebut facts unfolded by Shri Pandey. No other witness was examinedby either of the parties .

12. After hearing Shri M. K. Dwivedi , authorized representative for the Airlines , and Shri M.A. Niazi , authorized representative of the Union and on appreciation ofevidence produced by the parties , issue relating to virus of the enquiry was adjudicated vide order dated 12-11-2010 and it was concluded that the enquiry conducted by the Airlines was neither just nor fair nor proper. It was commanded that order dated 14-8-07 , on the strength of which charge sheeted employees were dismissed , cannot be given a favourable node.

13. When question relating to virus of enquiry proceedings has been answered against the management and an industrial dispute for adjudication of justifiability and legality ofdismissal of the aforesaid employees pends articulation , a proposition arises as to whether approval applications have lost its efficacy. Hence parties were heard . Shri M. A. Niazi , authorised representative , raised his submissions on behalf of the Union . Shri M. K. Dwivedi authorised representative , presented his point of view on behalf of the Airlines . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows .

14. In Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel , ( 1976 Lab . I.C. 4) theApex Court ruled that the jurisdiction under section 33 of the Act is confined only to see whether a prima facie case has been made out and the Authority " does not sit as a court of appeal , weighing or appreciating the evidence for itself but only examines the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the evidence in domestic enquiry as it is , in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are pervers " for arriving at the finding

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] that the charge has been proved , but stuck to the adjudication scrutiny of the domestic enquiry and the bonafides of the employer . Accordingly , it is open to the Authorityunder section 33 of the Act to review the findings of fact arrived at in the domestic enquiry, the question of adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence , however , were not considered relevant in this limited jurisdiction , by the Apex Court in Lord Krishna Textiles Mills [ 1961 ( 1 ) L.L.J.211 ] . TheApex Court detailed the scope of two fold approach to the problem by an Authority under section 33 of the Act in granting or refusing permission in Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel ( supra) in the following words:

"Firstly in a case where there is no defect in procedure in the course of a domestic enquiry into the charges for misconduct against an employee , the Tribunal can interfere with an order of dismissal on one or other of the following conditions: -

( 1) If there is no legal evidence at all recorded in the domestic enquiry against the concerned employee with reference to the charge or if no reasonable person can arrive at a conclusion of guilt on the charge levelled against the employee on the evidence recorded against him in the domestic enquiry . This is what is known as perverse finding.

.It must be made clear in following the above principles, one or the other, as may be applicable in a particular case , the Tribunal does not sit as a court of appeal , weighing or reappreciating the evidence for itself but only examines the finding of the enquiry officer on the evidence in the domestic enquiry as it is in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse.

there is a prima facie evidence to support the finding, the Authority under section 33 of the Act cannot refuse to grant approval to the order passed by the management . Reference can be made to K. N. Mohanan [ 1993 (II ) L.L.J. 514 ] . The Apex Court in catena of precedents , in parallel to reference cases under section 10 of the Act has ruled that even under section 33 , where employer had held no enquiry or the domestic enquiry held by him is found to be vitiated by the Tribunal, the right of the employer to justify action of discharge or dismissal taken by him against the delinquent workman by adducing relevant evidence , for the first time before the Authority is well recognized. Reference can be made to the precedents in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. [ 1961 ( II ) LLJ 644 ] , Ritz Theatre (Pvt. ) Ltd. [ 1962 ( II ) LLJ 498 ] , P.H.Kalyani [ 1963 (I) LLJ 679 ] , Motipur Sugar Factory (Pvt. ) Ltd. [ 1965 ( II ) LLJ 162 ] Jitendra Chandrakar [ 1971 (1) LLJ 543 ] , Ganesh Dutt [ 1972 (I ) LLJ 172 ] , Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (Pvt. ) Ltd. [ 1973 (1) LLJ 278 ] , Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel ( supra ) , Britania Biscuit Company Ltd. [ 1977 ( 1 ) LLJ 197 ] and K. M. Dev ( 1985 Lab.I C. 254 ) . Likewise right of the workman to lead evidence contra has been recognized . In such cases the entire matter is open before the Authority, which will have jurisdiction not only to go into the limited question of validity of the enquiry and the bonafides of the employer but also to satisfy itself, on facts before it, whether the action was justified. In other words , in such situation jurisdiction of theAuthority is not confined to prima facie examination of the employer's action and the Authority can come to his own conclusion on consideration of evidence adduced before it . Reference can be made to the precedent in Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Ltd. (supra ) and Radio and Electricals Manufacturing Company Ltd. [ 1978 ( II) LLJ 131 ) .

2373

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

by it in the adjudication of the reference . Therefore , it is thought expedient to dispose ofthese approval applications with a command that disposal of the approval applications by this award will be subject to the outcome of the dispute , referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal . Consequently, approval applications are disposed ofwith a command that the award passed herein would be subject to the findings that would be recorded on adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government. An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication . Dated: 07-01-2011

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 739. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरोफलोट रशियन एयरलाईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय दिल्ली न .1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 12/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20025/01/ 2011 - आईआर ( सी 1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th January, 2011

S.O. 739.-In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.12/2010 ) of the Central Government industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court - 1 , Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . Aeroflot RussionAirlines , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11-02-2011 .

[No. L-20025/01 /2011 - IR (C- I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTSCOMPLEX, DELHI I. D. No. 12/2010

16. As detailed above , jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 33 of the Act has been made parallel to its jurisdiction under section 10 of the Act . What the Tribunal is required to adjudicate on this approval application , that very course is available to the parties when dispute referred above would be articulated. Two remedies are open to the workman viz. he may lodge a complaint under section 33 -A or seek prosecution of the Airlines under section 31 ( 1 ) or may seek a reference under section 10 and have its adjudication when he claims contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act . Since approval application was moved, the only recourse adopted by the charge sheeted employees was under section 10 of the Act and a dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication . In case these applications ' are disposed of, pending adjudication of the reference , doctrine of prejudice cannot rob the Airlines of its right to prove misconduct of the charge sheeted employee and adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government . Pendency of these approval applications will only multiply the litigation.

17. The rights or defences , which are available to the Airlines in these approval applications , can be claimed M/ s. Aeroflot Russian Airlines , Ground Floor, 15-17, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 . ...Applicant/ Management Versus

Shri Suresh Kumar S/oHarichander , R/ o 1443 , Saini Mohalla , Nazafgarh , New Delhi - 110043 .

Respondent/ workman 2374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

AWARD

Ground handling services were undertaken by Aeroflot Russian International Airlines , (hereinafter referred to as the Airlines ) at I.G. I. Airport, New Delhi . The Airlines has employed a handful of employees for that purpose .Vide circular dated 28th of September , 2007, Director General , Civil Aviation , took a decision to enlist agencies which can undertake ground handling services on various aerodroms . In anticipation of that decision , a press release was made by the Press Information Bureau, Government of India , New Delhi on Ist of February, 2007, informing that approval has been granted by Ministry of Civil Aviation regarding ground handling policy at Metropolitan Airports , including I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi . It was detailed in the Press Release that ground handling services at Metropolitan Airports would be carried out by respective Airport Operators itself by its joint venture and the Airlines , involved in ground handling will not be permitted to undertake self handling w.e.f. 1st of January, 2009. On the date of the press release , the Airlines was doing self handling at IGI Airport , New Delhi . The Press Release made employees of the Airlines paniky about their future . They started approaching other agencies for employment and informed the Airlines that they would take employment elsewhere . 22 employees Including operators of the Airlines tendered their resignation in August, 2007. Since ramp ground handling service require high level of cooperation and team work in a fixed time frame hence ramp ground handling services cannot be engaged in peace - meal and on account of resignation of its employees the Airlines took a decision to request Combata Civil Aviation Pvt . Ltd. to provide complete ramp ground handling service, to them.

2. Aeroflot Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) raised an industrial dispute against the Airlines through demand letter dated 2nd of May 2005. Since the Airlines failed to consider their demands , the Union was left with no option but to initiate conciliation proceedings by way of filing a claim statement before the Conciliation Officer. When conciliation proceedings failed, a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government . On consideration of that failure report, the appropriate Government had referred a dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. L - 11012/11/ 2006- IR(CM - I ) , New Delhi dated 1st of June , 2006 wherein issues relating to demand of proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions applicable to the employees of the Airlines , doing ground handling jobs , were sent for adjudication .

3. During the pendency of the said dispute for adjudication , Rishi Pal , Suresh Kumar , Sunil Kumar Rathi and Jagpal were served with charge - sheet , wherein allegations were levelled that on 28-3-07 , it was reported by them to a new channel that there was a great security threat at I.GI. Airport , New Delhi due to actions of the Airlines , besides allegations that the aforesaid employees , who were working from last 12 years , claimed that they were not aware for whom they were working despite the

[ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] fact that they were employees of the Airlines . Replies , submitted by the aforesaid employees to the charge- sheets referred above , were found to be not satisfactory . The Airlines took a decision to hold a domestic enquiry in the charges levelled against the aforesaid employees and appointed an enquiry officer vide order dated 4-5-07. The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry ex - parte , when charge- sheeted employees opted not to participate in the enquiry. He submitted his report dated 1-8-07 to the Airlines . Show cause notice dated 4-8-07 against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service was served on charge sheeted employees . Explanation offered by the charge- sheeted employees were found to be not satisfactory. Charge- sheeted employees were dismissed from service vide order dated 14-8-07 . The Airlines preferred approval applications , as contemplated by clause ( b ) of sub - section (2) of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act ) and paid an amount of Rs.7500 each to them , being equal to one month's salary, by money orders dated 14-8-2007 , in lieu of one month's notice .A prayer was made to this Tribunal to accord approval to the action of Airlines in dismissing the services of the charge sheeted employees .

4. In reply to the approval applications it was projected that Shri Suresh Kumar was the President, Rishi Pal was General Secretary , Jagpal was Secretary and Sunil Kumar Rathi was ordinary member of the Union . The Union sought status of protected workman for them , by moving appropriate applications as well as seeking declaration from A. L. C. in that regard . It was agitated that when Airlines failed to respond to their aplications within 15 days time frame , it was assumed that the aforesaid employees were granted status of protected workman . A claim was made that the Airlines cannot terminate services of protected workman , save with express permission in writing of the Tribunal before whom dispute , relating to proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions , was pending adjudication . The Union projected that the approval applications , moved by the Airlines are irrelevant , since an industrial dispute pends adjudication . A claim was made that the approval applications may be dismissed .

5. When report of the Enquiry Officer was under consideration , the Union moved an application before this Tribunal on 16-7-2007 , seeking directions to restrain the Airlines from changing service conditions of members of the Union, besides seeking status of protected employees in terms of sub - section (4) of section 33 of the Act read with rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules , 1957 (in short the Rules ) . The said application was disposed of by this tribunal vide order dated 13-8-2007 , commanding the Airlines to comply the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, in case it opts to discharge or dismiss the charge- sheeted employees .

6. The Airlines dismissed the employees referred above , which issue was raised by them before Conciliation Offfcer by way of filing a claim statement . Conciliation proceedings resulted into a failure . Conciliation Officer 2375 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

submitted his report to the appropriate Government , as contemplatedby sub - section ( 4) of section 12 of theAct . Onconsideration of the said failure report, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal , vide order No. L- 110012/4/2008 - IR(CM - I ) , New Delhi dated 14th of August, 2008 with following terms :

"Whether the action of the management of Russian International Airlines , New Delhi , in dismissing the servicesof S/Shri Suresh Kumar , Jagpal , Sunil Kumar Rathi and Rishi Pal isjustified and legal ?

2. To what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?"

7. Claim statement was filed , in response to the above reference, by the Union pleading that despite orders passed by this Tribunal, the Airlines terminated services of two office bearers and one ordinary members of the Union, who were protected employees . It went on to detail that the Union sought status of protected workman from the Airlines vide its letter dated 13th of December, 2006, which communication was not responded to. Though there was an obligation on the Airlines to reply the said communication within a period of 15 days , as contemplated by sub- rule (2) of rule 61 of the Rules , yet the Airlines opted to maintain an eerie silence . The Union moved Assistant Labour Commissioner for seeking a declaration ofprotectedworkman . Since the aforesaid employees were protected workmen, the Airlines was under an obligation to obtain prior permission of this Tribunal to terminate their services . Since their case was covered by sub section (3) ofsection 33 ofthe Act , the approval applications moved by the Airlines are irrelevant . The Airlines acted in utter disregard to the order dated 13-8-2007 passed by the Tribunal . It was projected that this Tribunal may not approve the illegal action taken by the Airlines , dismissing the aforesaid employees from their services and to reinstate them in service with continuity, full back wages , and consequential benefits .

misconduct, hence they were charge -sheeted vide charge sheet dated 5th of April , 2007. Explanation submitted by them were found to be unsatisfactory, hence a decision was taken to hold domestic enquiry. Shri Jitesh Pandey, an independent and impartial person , was appointed as Enquiry Officer, vide letter dated 4-5-2007. Shri Pandey conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and submitted his report dated 1st ofAugust, 2007 to the Airlines . Since charges stood proved against the aforesaid employees , they were served with a show cause notice dated 4-8-2007 , alongwith the copy of the enquiry report, calling them to submit their explanations as to why they should not be dismissed from service . Explanation submitted by them were considered and found to be unsatisfactory. The Airlines decided to dismiss their services . Accordingly their services were dismissed vide letter dated 14-8-2007. Since an industrial dispute was pending before this Tribunal, approval applications as contemplatedby clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 33 of the Act were moved and simultaneously one months salary was sent to them by money order. It has been disputed that the aforesaid employees were protected workmen. The Airlines claimed that letter dated 13-12-06 and its postal receipts were manipulated documents . No such letter was ever received by Airlines hence there was no question of its reply. It has been projected that when ramp ground handling services were given to Combata Civil Aviation Pvt . Ltd. , the Airlines had to retrench 29 employees on 14th ofSeptember, 2007. Since the Airlines is not doing ramp ground handling services , claim of the Union for reinstatement of the services of the aforesaid employees had become infructuous. The Airlines projected that the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 33 of the Act are applicable to the controversy under reference, hence approval applications were moved. The dismissed employees were never declared as protected employees, hence claim of the Union that provisions of sub- section (3 ) of section 33 of the Act are attracted, is uncalled for. It has been agitated that the dispute referred bytheGovernment may be dismissed and action ofdismissal ofthe aforesaid employees may be approved.

10. On approval applications following issues were settled:

1. Whether the claimant was protected workman ?

2. Whether action ofthe management in terminating the services of the workman is legal, fair and justified? If yes , whether approval needs to be granted to the management ?

3. Relief.

8. In reply to the approval applications it was projected that Shri Suresh Kumar was the President, Shri Rishi Pal was General Secretary, Jagpal was Secretary and Sunil Kumar Rathi was the ordinary member ofthe Union . The Union sought status of protected workman for them by moving appropriate applications as well as seeking declaration from Assistant Labour Commissioner in that regard. It was agitated that when the Airlines failed to reply their application within 15 days time framed, it was presumed that the aforesaid employees were granted status of protected workman . The Airlines cannot terminate services of protected workinan, save with express permission in writing of the Tribunal , before whom dispute relating to the issue raised by the Union for proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions was pending adjudication . Approval applications are irrelevant , claims the Union.

9. The Airlines demurred the claim that the employees referred above had committed serious acts of

11. Though no issue as to virus of the enquiry proceedings was settled in the approval application , yet the Tribunal thought it expedient to deal that proposition atthresh -hold . Parties called upon to adduce evidence on that proposition. To discharge onus resting on it, Airlines examined Shri Jiteshh Pandey, the Enquiry Officer. The 768GI/11-21 2376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

Union brought Shri Suresh Kumar in the witness box to rebut facts unfolded by Shri Pandey. No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

12. After hearing Shri M. K. Dwivedi , authorized representative for the Airlines , and Shri M.A. Niazi , authorized representative of the Union and on appreciation ofevidence produced by the parties , issue relating to virus of the enquiry was adjudicated vide order dated 12-11-2010 and it was concluded that the enquiry conducted by the Airlines was neither just nor fair nor proper . It was commanded that order dated 14-8-07 , on the strength of which charge sheeted employees were dismissed , cannot be given a favourable node .

13. When question relating to virus of enquiry proceedings has been answered against the management and an industrial dispute for adjudication of justifiability and legality of dismissal of the aforesaid employees pends articulation , a proposition arises as to whether approval applications have lost its efficacy. Hence parties were heard . Shri M. A. Niazi , authorised representative , raised his submissions on behalf of the Union . Shri M. K. Dwivedi authorised representative , presented his point of view on behalf of the Airlines . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows .

14. In Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel , ( 1976 Lab.1.C. 4 ) theApex Court ruled that the jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Act is confined only to see whether a prima facie case has been made out and the Authority " does not sit as a court of appeal , weighing or appreciating the evidence for itself but only examines the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the evidence in domestic enquiry as it is , in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are pervers " for arriving at the finding that the charge has been proved , but stuck to the adjudication scrutiny of the domestic enquiry and the bonafides of the employer . Accordingly, it is open to the Authority under section 33 of the Act to review the findings of fact arrived at in the domestic enquiry , the question of adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence , however , were not considered relevant in this limited jurisdiction , by the Apex Court in Lord Krishna Textiles Mills [ 1961 ( 1 ) L.J.211 ] . The Apex Court detailed the scope of two fold approach to the problem by an Authority under section 33 of the Act in granting or refusing permission in Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel ( supra) in the following words :

"Firstly in a case where there is no defect in procedure in the course of a domestic enquiry into the charges for misconduct against an employee , the Tribunal interfere with an order of dismissal on one or other of the following conditions:-

( 1 ) If there is no legal evidence at all recorded in the domestic enquiry against the concerned employ ce with reference to the charge or if no reasonable person can arrive at a conclusion of guilt on the

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] charge tevelled against the employee on the evidence recorded against him in the domestic enquiry. This is what is known as perverse finding.

It must be made clear in following the above principles , one or the other, as may be applicable in a particular case , the Tribunal does not sit as a court of appeal , weighing or reappreciating the evidence for itself but only examines the finding of the onquiry officer on the evidence in the domestic enquiry as it is in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse .

Secondly, in the same case , i.e. , where there is no failure of the principles of natural justice , in the course of domestic enquiry , if the Tribunal finds that dismissal of an employee is by way of victimisation or unfair labour practice , it will then have complete jurisdiction to interfere with the order of dismissal passed in the domestic enquiry . In that event the fact that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in the course of the domestic enquiry will absolutely lose its importance or efficacy. " 15. The enquiry contemplated by clause ( b) of sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 33 of the Act , with respect to the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry , is of very limited nature . The Tribunal can disregard the findings entered by the Enquiry Officer only if they are perverse . A finding can be said to be perverse in case not supported by legal evidence . If the finding is not perverse one and if there is a prima facie evidence to support the finding , the Authority under section 33 of the Act cannot refuse to grant approval to the order passed by the management . Reference can be made to K. N. Mohanan [ 1993 ( 11 ) L.L.J. 514 ] . The Apex Court in catena of precedents , in parallel to reference cases under section 10 of the Act has ruled that even under section 33 , where employer had held no enquiry or the domestic enquiry held by him is found to be vitiated by the Tribunal , the right of the employer to justify action of discharge or dismissal taken by him against the delinquent workman by adducing relevant evidence , for the first time before the Authority is well recognized . Reference can be made to the precedents in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. ( 1961 ( II ) LLJ 644 ) , Ritz Theatre ( Pvt. ) Ltd. [ 1962 ( II ) LLJ 498 ] , P.H.Kalyani [ 1963 ( 1 ) LLJ 679 ] , Motipur Sugar Factory ( Pvt . ) Ltd. [ 1965 ( II ) LLJ 162 ] Jitendra Chandrakar [ 1971 ( 1 ) LL.J 543 ] , Ganesh Dutt [ 1972 ( I ) LLJ 172 ] , Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India ( Pvt . ) Ltd. ( 1973 ( I ) LLJ 278 ] . Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel ( supra ) , Britania Biscuit Company Ltd. ( 1977 ( 1 ) LLJ 197 ] and K. M. Dev [ 1985 Lab.1 C. 254 ] . Likewise right of the workman to lead evidence [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

contra has been recognized . In such cases the entire matter is open before the Authority , which will have jurisdiction not only to go into the limited question of validity of the enquiry and the bonafides of the employer but also to satisfy itself, on facts before it , whether the action was justified. In other words , in such situation jurisdiction of the Authority is not confined to prima facie examination of the employer's action and the Authority can come to his own conclusion on consideration of evidence adduced before it. Reference can be made to the precedent in Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt . Ltd. ( supra) , Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Ltd. ( supra ) and Radio and Electricals Manufacturing Company Ltd. [ 1978 ( II ) LLJ 131 ] .

16. As detailed above , jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 33 of the Act has been made parallel to its jurisdiction under section 10 of the Act . What the Tribunal is required to adjudicate on this approval application , that very course is available to the parties when dispute referred above would be articulated . Two remedies are open to the workman viz . he may lodge a complaint under section 33 - A or seek prosecution of the Airlines under section 31 ( 1 ) or may seek a reference under section 10 and have its adjudication when he claims contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the Act . Since approval application was moved, the only recourse adopted by the charge sheeted employees was under section 10 of the Act and a dispute was referredby the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication. In case these applications are disposed of, pending adjudication of the reference , doctrine of prejudice cannot rob the Airlines of its right to prove misconduct of the charge sheeted employee and adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government . Pendency of these approval applications will only multiply the litigation.

17. The rights or defences , which are available to the Airlines in these approval applications , can be claimed by it in the adjudication of the reference . Therefore , it is thought expedient to dispose of these approval applications with a command that disposal of the approval applications by this award will be subject to the outcome of the dispute, referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal . Consequently , approval applications are disposed ofwith a command that the award passed herein would be subject to the findings that would be recorded on adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government . An award is , accordingly , passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: 07-01-2011

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 17 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 740.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डिपार्टमेन्ट ऑफ पोस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

2377

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 38/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/ 152/2004- आईआर (डीयू) ] डी. एस एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 17th February, 2011

S.O. 740.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/05 ) 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 ofDepartment of Post and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 17-02-2011 .

[No. 40012/ 152/2004- IR (DU) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

I. D. 38/05

Reference No. L- 40012/ 152/2004- IR (DU) Dated : 17-2-05 Shri Rana Ram S / o Shri Vishna Ram Choudhary Village Pabusar, Tehsil : Shergarh , Distt: Jodhpur

....Applicant V/s

1. The Post Master General , Rajasthan Western Region , Jodhpur

2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur

...Non-Applicants Present :

Presiding Officer : Sh. N. K. Purohit For the Applicant : Ex- party For the non -Applicant : Sh . Gaurav Jain AWARD

31-1-2011 1. The Central Government in exercise ofthe powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub section 1 and 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication which runs as under: - 2378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

providedak facilities . It has further been submitted that as per declaration dated 15-12-03 given by the claimant , he was bound to hand over the charge to the regular appointee on the post of Dakpal . Thus , the temporary arrangement for the post of Dakpal ceased after regular appointment of the Dakpal on 2-6-04.

6. On the basis of pleading of the parties following points for determination were made: - " Whether the action of the management of Post Master General, Department of Post, Western Zone , Jodhpur and Senior Superintendent of Post Office , Jodhpur in terminating the services oftheir workman Shri Ranaram S/o Shri Vishnaram Choudhary, Incharge Updakpal , Panchayat Sanchar Kendra, Pabusar, Tehsil -Shergarh , Distt . Jodhpur w.e.f. 1-6-2004 is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled? "

i. Whether the workman was appointed as Post In-charge by the non- applicant management on 28-1-2001 , who continuously worked till 1-6-2004, on which date his service was terminated in violation of Section 25 - F of the Act ?

ii . Whether after the termination of the workman's service , the non - applicant management has appointed Sh . Shankar Ram on 2-6-2004 in his place in violation of Section 25 - H of the Act?

iii . Whether at the time of terminating the service of the workman , the junior employees to him were retained by the non - applicant management in violation of Section 25 - G ofthe Act? 2. The applicant in his statement has pleaded that hewas appointed as post incharge of Panchayat Sanchar Seva Kendra, Gram panchayat, Pabusar vide order dated 18-2-2001 but his service was terminated orally on 1-6-04 in violation of Section 25 F. It has been further pleaded that non-applicant has appointed Shri Shankar Ram as Dakpat on2-6-2004 on the pretext that the post of Dakpal is reserved for candidate belonging to Schedule tribe . It has also been alleged that non - applicant did not prepare seniority list & junior to the applicant have been retained in service while terminating service of the applicant. Therefore , action of the non-applicant is in violation of Section 25 ( H) & ( G) also. The applicant has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages & consequential benefits .

iv. Whether the non- applicant establishment is not an industry as defined under Section 2 - J of the Act?

v. Relief, ifany.

vi . Whether the claimant is a workman ?

3. The non -applicant while disputing the claim of the applicant has averred in its reply that the applicant Rana Ram was engaged as an agent of Panchayat Sanchar Seva Kendra. He was paid Rs . 600 p.m. aş fixed allowance & incentive. The non -applicant has further contended that the applicant was appointed as an agent by the Gram Panchayat , Pabusar. Subsequently, vide office Memorandum dated PLG WR/ 1 / 19-Pabusar dated 9-12-03 of the Post Master General , Rajasthan , Western Zone , Jodhpur sanction for post office, Pabusar was accorded & inpursuance of the said O. M. post office was opened at Pabusar & Panchayat Sanchar Seva Kendra was terminated vide O. M. H- 5/Pabusar/ Setrawa/03-04 dated 12-12-03 .

7. After both the parties filed their document in support of their respective case , the applicant at the stage . of his evidence did not appear, therefore, ex - party proceedings were drawn against the applicant on 19-8-10. The non - applicant also did not adduce evidence and moved an application stating therein that since the applicant has failed to adduce any evidence in support of his claim "No Claim Award " may be passed in this matter.

8. Heard the learned representative on behalf of the non -applicant & perused the record.

Point No. I

4. The non -applicant has further averred that the claimant's appointment as temporary Dakpal , Pabusar was till regular appointment of the Dakpal . It has also been averred that after publishing the vacancy for the post of regular Dakpal which was reserved for the candidate belonging to Schedule tribe Shri Shanker Lal Meghwal was selected against the said post on 2-6-04. The applicanthad worked as temporary Dakpal , Pabusar for the period from 15-12-03 to 1.6.04 . Thus , he had not worked for more than 240 days . The non - applicant has further averred that prior to appointment as temporary Dakpal the applicant had worked as an agent, Panchayat Sanchar Seva Kendra and he was selected for the post of agent by the Gram Panchayat, Pabusar.

9. Before a workman can claim retrenchment not being in compliance with Section 25 F 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 ) of 25 B 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 I of Section 25 B even if the workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause ( i ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of 25 B for the period of one year, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for that period 5. The non applicant has also averred that in such Gram Panchayat where there was no post office, Panchayat Sanchar Seva Kendra were opened under an agreement between the department and panchayat concerned to [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

under an employer if he has actually worked for 240 days in the preceding period of twelve months from the date of his termination .

10. 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 ( i ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 25 B for the period of one year .

11. The applicant in support of his claim has produced the photo copies of the vouchers no . 1 to 29 which are pertaining to the period 1-11-01 to 18-12-03 . Upon perusal of the record produced by the applicant , it is evident that these vouchers are pertaining to payment of monthly allowance & incentives amount payable to incharge , panchayat sanchar seva Kendra & said payments have been verified by the sarpanch , gram panchayal , Pabusar. It further reveals that the applicant had worked as an agent panchayat sanchar seva kendra during period August , 2001 to 15 December , 2003 .

12. The non - applicant has produced the copy of resolution passed by the gram panchayat , Pabusar on 20-5-01 & copy of the letter of sarpanch dated 20-5-01 addressed to senior post superintendent , Jodhpur regarding establishing panchayat sanchar seva at Pabusar which show that the applicant selection for agent , panchayat sanchar seva Kendra was done by the Gram Panchayat. The non - applicant has also produced the copy of the declaration dated 15-12-03 given by Rana Ram workman . The relevant portion of the said document is as under :-

" मेरी नियुक्ति शाखा डाकपाल पाबूसर के पद पर प्रवर अधीक्षक डाकघर जोधपुर खण्ड जोधपुर ने तदर्थ एवं पूर्ण अस्थाई रूप से की है जब तक इस पद पर किसी को भी स्थाई रूप से नियुक्तिहोने पर प्रवर अधीक्षक डाक जोधपुर मुझे बिना किसी नोटिस दिये इस पद से हटा सकते हैं तथा मैं स्वैच्छा से तथा बिना किसी कानूनी कार्यवाही के शाखा डाकपाल पाबूसर का चार्ज स्थाई रूप से नियुक्त व्यक्ति को या प्रवर अधीक्षक डाकघर जोधपुर के आदेशानुसार तुरन्त स्थानान्तरित कर दूंगा ।

13. It is evident from the above declaration that the claimant was temporarily appointed as Dakpal till regular appointment of the Dakpal , Pabusar . Apart this , from the documents produced by the non - applicant it reveals that the applicant had taken charge on the said post on 15-12-03 & he was disengaged after appointment of regular Dakpal on 1-6-04. Prior to 15-12-03 , he was simply working as an agent of panchayat sanchar seva Kendra under an agreement between the department & panchayat sanchar seva Kendra as per O.M.No.H - 5 Pabusar 03-04 dated : 12-12-03 . Therefore , while working as agent of the Seva Kendra during period for 28-2-2001 to 14-12-03 he was not working as an employee of the non - applicant Department .

2379

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

On perusal of record , it also appears that during period from 15-12-03 to 1-6-04 he had worked as temporary Dakpal but the said period is less than 240 days . Under these circumstances , after appointment of regular Dakpal through " selection process on 2-6-04 , disengagement of the applicant on 1-6-04 without any notice or compensation in lieu ofnotice is not in violation of Section 25 F of 1. D. Act .

Point No. II

14. It is an admitted fact that Shri Shanker Ram was appointed as Dakpal , Post office , Pabusar on 2-6-2006. The applicant has pleaded that instead of appointing him as regular Dakpal Shri Shanker Ram has been appointed on the said post on the pretext that above post is reserved for candidate of Schedule Tribe . The applicant has not adduced any oral evidence in support of his case . Moreover , on perusal of the appointment letter of the applicant which is on the record, it is evident that his appointment was a stop gap arrangement till regular appointment of the Dakpal . Therefore , on the basis of documents on record it is not established that appointment of the Shri Shanker Ram was in violation of Section 25 ( 11 ) . This point is also decided against the applicant .

Point No. III

15. The applicant in his claim statement has not disclosed the name of the person alleged to be retained in violation of Section 25 (H ) of 1. D. Act . There is neither pleading nor any evidence that other person in the category of applicant's post were working with the non - applicant while terminating the service of the applicant . Thus , applicant has failed to prove alleged violation of Section 25 (H) of I. D. Act by the non - applicant .

Point No. IV

16. The non - applicant has taken preliminary objection in its reply that non - applicant Department is not an ' Industry ' . But Hon'ble three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1998 DNJ ( SC 94 ) G. M. Telecom v / s S. Srinivas Rao & othrs , has held that Telecom Department ofUnion of India is an ' Industry ' & earlier decision rendered in ( 1996 ) 8 SCC 489 & AIR 1997 SC 2817 have been overruled . Therefore , in the light of above decision this pointis decided against the non - applicant .

Point No.VI

17. As per Section 2 ( S ) of I. D. Act any person employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled. skilled, technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward is a workman. A person whose dismissal , disengagement retrenchment has led to a industrial dispute have also been included in the definition of a workman but categories of a person specified in clause ( i ) to ( iv ) have been excluded under this section . In the present case during period from 15-12-03 to 1-6-04 the applicant had worked temporary Dakpal under the employment of the 2380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

applicant . It is not the case of the applicant that he was employed as such mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or being employed in supervisory capacity, he was drawing wages in excess to the amount mentioned in the sub clause (iv) of sub - section (2 ) of I.D.Act . In view of above it cannot be said that the applicant was not 'workman ' within the definition of 2 ( S ) of the l.D.Act.

Point No.V

18. In the result, the reference is answered in negative against the applicant & it is held that the action of the non- applicant in terminating the service of the applicant w.e.f. 1-6-04 is legal & justified ,

19. Resultantly, the applicant is not entitled to any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

20. Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 17 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 741.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.एस.एन. एल के 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 सीजीआईटी / एनजीपी/ 68 /2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40011 / 57 /2003- आईआर ( डी.यू. ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th February, 2011

S.O. 741. in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ NOP/ 68 /2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of BSNL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-02-2011 .

[No. L -40011 / 57 / 2003 - IR ( DU ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

REFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER. CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/ NGP/68 /2004

Date : 07-02-2011 Party No. 1 :

The Ceneral Manager, Telecom , BSNL , Behind Jayant Talkies CHANDRAPUR .

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Versus

Party No. 2 :

The Branch Secretary , National Federation of Telecom , Employees , M / s BSNL , O/ o Sub Divisional Office ( Phones ) , CHANDRAPUR .

AWARD

(Dated: 7th February , 2011 )

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 emmployers , in relation to the management of BSNL and their workman , Shri Vishvanath Ratan Mahatav for adjudication , as per letter No. L 40011 / 57 / 2003 - IR ( DU) dated 19-7-2004 , with the following schedule : -

" Whether the action of the management in relation to General Manager , BSNL, Chandrapur in terminating the service of Sh . Vishvanath Ratan Mahatav , Ex - Sweeper by verbal order instead of regularisation her in service as per the decasualization policy of the department is legal and justified ? If not , what is the relief to which the workman is entitled ? "

2. On receipt of the reference , notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statement of claim and writen statement , in response to which , the workman , Shri Vishvanath Ratan Mahatav ( " the workman " in short ) filed his statement of claim and the management of B.S.N.I .. (" the Party No. 1 " in short ) filed their written statement .

3. The case of the workman is that he was working with the Party No.1 with effect from 1st April , 1997 , as a part time sweeper and initially he was working at D.T.O. building , Chandrapur and he was doing four hours duty . commencing from 8.00 AM to 12.00 noon and the nature of his duty was to clean the lavatory , bathroom and sweeping of office and the building premises and in the year 1999 , he was transferred to another office of the Party No. 1 , situated near the Railway Station , Chandrapur and there also , he was doing the same work on the same wages of Rs . 560 per month and he had done continuous service of 4 1/2 years and he had also completed 240 days compulsory service in every completed year , so as per the departmental policy of the Party No.1 , he was required to be regularized by the Party No. 1 as full time worker and afterward to be promoted asGroup ' D ' employee of the department . It is the further case of the workman that his record was not maintained by the Party No. land his wages were being paid on I.B. and ACG - 17 departmental money receipt book and no muster roll was maintained on day - to - day basis and the same was being done in order to circumvent his right of regular [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

employee accrued by virtue of doing 240 days of service in one calendar year and even though , there was instruction from the higher authorities of the Party No.1 for regularization of all part time workers to regular mazdoor category , the Party No.1 did not pay any heed to his legitimate claim for regularization and by adopting unfair labour practice , his service was terminated illegally without following the due procedure of law and principle of natural justice and the National Federation ofTelecom Employees , BSNL , Chandrapur submitted a representation to the Chief General Manager , Telecom, BSNL, Chandrapur on 2-8-2004 for reinstating him and the post on which , he was working was still lying vacant and all the records pertaining to his attendance and payment are with the Party No.1 under lock and key and as such , it was not possible for him to procure the said records and to produce the same in support of his claim and he filed a complaint through his union before the ALC ( C ) , Chandrapur on 5-2-2003 , but the conciliation proceedings were ended in failure . The workman has prayed to declare his oral termination as illegal and void and to set aside the same and for his reinstatement in service with effect from October , 2002 , with continuity of service and payment of back wages and other allowances .

3. The Party No.1 in its written statement denying all the allegations made in the statement of claim has pleaded inter - alia that the warkman was never appointed by its as part time Sweeper and he had not completed 240 days of continuous service in one calendar year and the departmental policy as mentioned by the workman in the statement of claim is applicable to the employees who have been duly appointed as per rules as part time of full time workers and who have been enrolled in its muster roll and it is a government company and it is duty bound to maintain the records and as the workman was at no point oftime in its employment , the question of maintaining muster roll and attendance register in respect of him (workman ) does not arise and no document has been filed by the workman showing payment of wasges to him by it and as the workman was never appointed by it at any point of time, question ofhis termination intentionally or deliberately does not arise at all and the workman has filed false complaints against it and as such , the reference is liable to be answered in the negative and the Annexure R - 1 , the list of the part time workers as on 1-12-1996 and their regularization w.e.f. 11-9-2001 , maintained by it does not reveal the name of the workman , which shows that , the claim of the workman that he was appointed as a part time sweeper is not true and as such , he is not entitled for any relief.

4. In support of their respective claims , parties were allowed to adduce evidence . The workman examined himself as a witness in support of his case . One Shri Asharam Mehetav Chawre the Divisional Engineer

2381

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

(Admn) was examined on behalf of the Party No.1 as a witness . Both the parties relied on documentary evidence also.

The workman in his evidence given on affidavit reiterated the facts mentioned by him in his statement of claim in toto . However , in his cross - examination , he has stated that his name is registered in the Employment Exchange and BSNL issues advertisement for employing Grade ' D' also and there was no advertisement when he applied and he was not called through Employment Exchange and no interview was taken and his mother was serving twenty years earlier to his joining and as his mother became ill , she stopped working since 1997 and he did not apply mentioning the illness of his mother .

The witness for the management has stated that the workman was never appointed by the Party No.1 as a part time sweeper and the workman had not done 240 days of continuous service in one calendar year and the person, whowere in employment of Party No. 1 had been regularized as per annexure R- 1 (Ext.M -3 ) . In his cross - examination , this witness has stated that he was working since 1988 at Chandrapur BSNL office and retired on 30. - 9-2006 and earlier, form ACG - 17 was being used for making payment of small amount to the labourers engaged for loading and unloading articles,

It is necessary to mention there that during the cross -examination of this witness , he was confronted with the xerox copies of the document ( mentioned as document No.1) and was asked as to whether such format was being used by the Party No. 1 and the same having a stamp of the office.However , the witness in reply has stated that he cannot say anything on the basis of the xerox copies ofthe document.

5. In the written notes of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was working with the Party No.1 w.e.f. 1st April , 1997 as a part time sweeper and worked for 4½ years on payment of wages of Rs . 560 per month and he worked for 240 days compulsory service in every completed year and as per the departmental policy, the workman should have been regularized as a full time worker but the Party No.1 terminated his service illegally without following the due procedure of law and principles of natural justice and as such , the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages .

On the other hand , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 in the written notes of argument that though the workman filed the xerox copies of some documents in support of his claim of working as a part time sweeper , the same have not been proved and as such , cannot be taken into consideration and the workman has admitted in his cross - examination that he did not undergo 2382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

any recruitment process and there was no selection process as per the Recruitment Rules and he had never been appointed by the Party No.1 and at the most , he can be considered to be a daily wage casual labour, for which , he has been paid the daily wages at the relevant time and it is a settled law that such engagement does not confer any right on the workman , as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi and also in subsequent judgements and there was no master and servant relationship between the parties and the persons, who were in employment as casual workers as on 1-12-1996 have already been regularized and working for 240 days is not a sine quo none norm seeking regularization and there is no evidence to show that the workman had worked 240 days and the workman has failed to prove that he was engaged for 240 days continuously and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Taking into consideration the contentions raised by the learned advocates for the parties , it is to be considered as to whether the workman is entitled for any relief.

Though the workman has pleaded that he was working with the Party No.1 w.e.f. 1st April , 1997 and worked for 4 1/2 years continuously and worked for 240 days in each calendar year , he has not stated as to how he started working with Party No. 1. On the other hand, though the Party No.1 has denied that the workman was never appointedby it, it appears from the trend of the cross- examination of the workman and the submission made by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 in the written notes ofargument and the materials on record that the workman was workingwith the Party No. 1 as a part time daily wager. So far placing reliance on the xerox copy ofthe documents produced by the workman is concerned, it is well settled that strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable to the Tribunal . Moreover, the Party No.1 has denied the engagement of the workman in toto and did not produce the original documents . There is also no pleading from the side of the Party No. 1 that the xerox copies are not genuine . Moreover, the said documents were also confronted to the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1. Hence , I think it proper to take the said documents into consideration, which are necessary for the just decision of the case . So far the documents , Ext.M -3 is concerned , the same is a list of the part time workers working with the PartyNo.1 as on 1-12-1996, though the claim ofthe workman is that he started working w.e.f. 1-4-1997 . The list of part time workers as on 1-4-1997 has not been produced by the Party No.1 and as such , the document, Ext.M-3 is of no avail to the Party No. 1.

Though the workman has t specifically mentioned in his statement of claim that the mandatory provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied withby Party No. 1 , before termination of his

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] service , it is clear from his pleading that he has challenged his termination to be illegal on the ground of non- compliance of the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act. It iswell settled that the onus to prove 240 days continuous service lies on the workman . Hence , it is to be find out asto whether, the workman has been able to show that he worked for 240 days preceding the 12 months of the date of termination of his service so as to attract the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act .

The Xerox copies of the document No.1 filedby the workman show that he was engaged intermittently by the Party No.l as a part time temporary daily wager w.e.f. 1-4-1997 to 30-9-2002 and he was paid wages ranging from Rs.10 to Rs . 20 per day according to the work done by him. It is found that for working 12 days in August, 98 for two hours per day, he was being paid at the rate of Rs . 10 per day. The saiddocuments show that the claim ofthe workman that he was working with Party No. I on payment of Rs . 560 permonth is not true . It is also clear from the evidence on record that the engagement of the workman was purely temporary on daily wage basis and also intermittently as and when required and his engagement was not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of the Party No.1 against any post and such engagement was according to the need of the work. It is found from the documents filed by the workman that he had not worked for 240 days preceding the 12 months from the date of termination ofhis service i.e. from 1-10-2002 and that he had not worked for 240 days in any calendar year. On calculation , it is found that the workman worked for 228 days preceding the 12 months from1-10-2002 and he had worked for 121 , 184 , 175, 120, 155 and 184 days in the calendar years 1997, 1998 , 1999 , 2000 , 2001 and 2002 respectively. There is no other evidence on record to show that the workman worked for 240 days preceding the 12 months from 1-10-2002 . When the workman has failed to show that he had worked for 240 days preceding the 12 months from the date of his termination, there was no question of compliance of the provisions of Section 25-1 of the Act. As the workman was a part- time temporary casual daily rated employee , he had or has no right to continue in service . In view of the discussions made above and the materials on record , it is found that the termination of the service by the Party No. 1 isnot illegal . Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management in relation to General Manager , BSNL , Chandrapur in terminating the services of Shri Vishvanath Ratan Mahatav, Ex- Sweeper by verbal order instead of regularization him in service as per the decasualization policy of the departmental is legal and justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2011

का.आ. 742.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल टेकनीकल रिसर्च आर्गेनाईजेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/ 134/2010 - आई आर(डीयू) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th February, 2011

S.O. 742. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2011 ) 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 National Technical Research Organisation and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 17-02-2011 .

[No. L-42012/ 134/2010- IR (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

I.D. No. 11/2011

Shri Amit Kumar S/ o Shri Bacha Lal , D/15/69 , Sector -3, Rohini , New Delhi - 110085

..... Claimant

Versus

TheDirector,

National Technical Research Organisation, Block III, Old JNU Campus, Ber Sarai , New Delhi-110067

2383

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

clause (j ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (inshort the Act) .

2. Shri Amit Kumar was engaged as a peon by the Organisation on ad hoc basis . His period of employment was extended from time to time . Ultimately his services were dispensed with on 29-12-2008 . He raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. His claim was resisted by the Organisation . When Conciliation proceedings failed, the Conciliation Officer submitted its report to the appropriate Government, as contemplated by sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act . On consideration of failure report , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L-42012/ 134/2010 - IR (DU) , New Delhi dated 21-12-2010 , with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the management of Director, National Technical Research Organisation , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Amit Kumar w.e.f. 29-12-2008 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

3. When notice was issued to the claimant to file his claim statement, he appeared before the Tribunal alongwith Shri Brijesh Tamber, his authorised representative .He made a statement on oath before the Tribunal, which is reproduced thus:

....Respondent

AWARD

National Technical Research Organisation (hereinafter referred to as the Organisation) primarily deals with providing technical intelligence to other agencies of internal and external security. It works under National Secrity Adviser, in the Office of Prime Minister of India . The Organisation is controlled by Research and Analysis Wing, Government of India, New Delhi . Functions performed by the Organisation are sovereign , which does not answer the definition of an ' industry ' as contained in 768GI/11-22

" 1 sought legal advice on my grievance from Shri Brijesh Tamber, my authorised representative. He advised me that National Technical Research Organisation, New Delhi performs sovereign functions for Government of India . Hence it is not an ' industry ' within the meaning of clause (j ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Sinec National Technical Research Organisation , New Delhi is not an ' industry' I have been advised that my grievance against Director , National Technical Research Organisation, New Delhi cannot take character of an industrial dispute . In view of legal advice so tendered. I am of the considered opinion that it would be a futile exercise to present my grievance before this Tribunal against Director , National Technical Research Organisation , New Delhi . Under these circumstances I present that filing of a claim statement for adjudication of my dispute would be futile exercise . Consequently, I opt not to file a claim statement in the matter. In view of my statement, reference may be answered." 4. As detailed above , claimant concedes that the Organization performs sovereign functions and is not an industry within the meaning of clause (j ) of Section 2 of the Act . When Organisation is not an ' industry , ' dispute between the claimant and the Organisation cannot take character of an industrial dispute , as defined under clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act. For sake of convenience the said definition is reproduced thus:

2384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

" industrial dispute " means any dispute or difference between employers and employers , or between employers and workmen , or between workmen and wormen , which is connected with the employment or non - employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour , of any person . " 5. The definition of " Industrial dispute " referred above , can be divided into four parts , viz ( i ) factum of dispute, (2) parties to the dispute , viz. ( a) employers and employers , (b ) employer and workmen , or ( c ) workmen and workmen , ( 3 ) subject matter of the dispute , which should be connected with- ( i ) employment or non employment , or ( ii ) terms of employment , or ( iii ) condition of labour of any person , and ( 4 ) it should relate to an * industry" .

6. The Organisation does not fall within the ambit of definition of word " industry " , which fact is conceded by the claimant . Hence , it is evident that the management is not an ' industry ' and grievance between the claimant and the management cannot take the charactor of an industrial dispute . Consequently there was no jurisdiction available to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute to this Tribunal under clause ( d ) of sub section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Act . The reference so made is incompetent . In view ofthe findings recorded above , it is answered accordingly . Award , so passed , may be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer Dated:08-02-2011

नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 743.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार युनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/390/96- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 743. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.71 / 1998 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 08-02-2011 .

[No. L- 12012 /390/ 96 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT , KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 71 of 98 BETWEEN

The Assistant General Secretary , Union Bank Staff Association U.P. , Central Office , 3/192 , Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow AND

The General Manager , Union Bank of India , Shard Tower, 2nd Floor , Kapoorthala Complex , Aliganj , Lucknow AWARD

1. Central Government , MoL , New Delhi , vide Notification No. L - 12012 / 390/ 96 - IR ( B - II ) dated 23-04-98 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal -...

2. Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India imposing the punishment of stoppage of increments etc. upon Sri J. S. Giri is legal and justified? If not to what relief the said workman is enititled?

3. Brief facts are that it is an admitted fact that Sri J. S. Giri , Head Cashier Category C , of Chandeshwar Branch District Azamgarh was appointed by the bank in the subordinate cadre and was later on promoted to clerical cadre . It is stated that during 1992 Sri Anil Kumar Kalra was the branch manager of the branch . He was divising the ways and means to get himself transferred back to his native place . Sri Kalra was a pro-minority union officer of the bank and Sri Kalra was very much annoyed and prejudice against the workman due to trade union activities of the workman . Due to this he had been trying to malign and ruin him . On 12-11-92 without any cause or provocation , Kalra in furtherance of his object to malign him mischievously lodged a false FIR at Sidhari Police Station . In flagrant violation of the provisions contained in BPS the management issued a charge sheet dated 26-04-93 belatedly. The said charge sheet was issued by someone sitting in industry relation department Central Office Bombay without disclosing his identity sens due and proper authority from the Chief Executive Officer . By the said charge sheet Sri R. S. Bisht Manager Zonal Inquiry Cell , Lucknow was unauhorizedly and illegaly appointed as inquiry officer . The inquiry [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

officer conducted the inquiry in haste he has mischievously fixed the dates due to which the workman could not defend properly . Sri Bisht unauthorizedly and illegaly acted as inquiry officer- cum - disciplinary authority and gave his initial finding vide memorandum dated 4-4-94 proposing the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment . Thereafter Sri Bisht unfairly unauthorizedly imposed the punishment of stoppage of one future increment for one year and past increment which fell due during the period of suspension but for suspension , permanently vide memorandum dated 12-4-94 . Applicantbeing aggrieved preferred an appeal which was rejected without assigning any reason . It is also stated that the management has lodged a false FIR and he was tried by the criminal court , wherein he was found not guilty and acquitted by the court.

4. Claimant has alleged that the order of the disciplinary authority is without authority . He has alleged that the charge sheet was issued with closed mined . He has also alleged that there is a violation of principle of natural justice . Finding of the inquiry officer are perverse and unreasoned . There is a basic error in the finding of inquiry officer and the order passed by him . It is also stated that on one count two punishment cannot be imposed . Opposite party has committed double zeo - pardy . Thus the entire proceedings have been vitiated for want of good faith , commission of victimization and violation of settled law on disciplinary action. Therefore , he has prayed that the inquiry be held as vitiated. The order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority be set aside and other relief be granted .

5. Opposite party has filed the written statement refuting the allegations of the claimant . It is stated that no cause of action has arisen to the claimant on facts and law . Present reference made by the government is in operative and bad in the eye of law. It is alleged that Sri J. S. Giri has committed misconduct as alleged in Para 7 of the written statement i.e. while on leave he visited the branch and attacked the branch manager under the influence of liquor. He committed other acts as mentioned in Para 7 of the reply . The matter was also reported to the police. Management imitated disciplinary proceedings and issued charge sheet as mentioned in para 9 of the reply mentioning therein gross as well as minor misconducts . The inquiry officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry . The management witnesses were examined and also cross examined by the employee in defence . Claimant was provided full opportunity for his defence . He has also produced the witnesses in his defence . He also submitted his written submission of defence

2385

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

along with written argument . Thereafter the inquiry officer completed and gave his findings as stated in Para 12 that is accordingly I hold Sri Giri guilty of the following charges .

Riotous and indecent behavior on the premises of the bank and creating nuisance in the premises of the bank .

6. Since the charges were of grave nature , I propose to impose upon Sri Giri punishment of stoppage of one annual graded increment with cumulative effect . He will however be given personal hearing on 11-4-94 . E.O. gave the claimant a personal hearing . Accordingly the following order was passed . The punishment of stoppage of one annual increment for a period of one year only that is without cumulative effect be and is hereby imposed upon Sri Giri . It was also ordered that he will not be entitled to any pay increment etc. for the period of suspension . Sri Giri made an appeal which was found without force and rejected . It is admitted that the claimant has filed the dispute before the ALC and later on reference was made . Other pleadings regarding procedure adopted by the inquiry during the course of disciplinary action has vehemently being contradicted by stating that the inquiry held against the claimant was held in accordance with the rules of natural justice and rules governing the service conditions and there is no infirmity in either in the inquiry proceedings or in the finding of the inquiry officer or in the final and appellate order . On these grounds it has been prayed the claim is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.

7. Rejoinder has also been filed by the claimant but nothing now has been stated there in except reiterating the facts as pleadgedby him in his claim statement .

8. Both the parties have filed documentary as evidence in support of their respective claims and counter claims . No oral evidence has been adduced by either of the parties .

9 . Heard and perused the record . There is no dispute regarding the issuance of the documents by the management to the claimant . So I do not find any need to refer each and every document of the contesting parties .

10. Claimant has filed 5 documents vide list 24-12-01 . Claimant has also filed documents vide list dated 08-07-08.

11. Opposite party has also filed 7 documents vide list 9/1.

12. The authorized representative of the workman has not raised any contention before me regarding the malafide conducted by the inquiry officer. Moreover he has not adduced any evidence regarding the 2386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

malafide conducted by the opposite party. He has only challenged the legality proprietary of authority who had issued the charge sheet conducted the inquiry and passed the final orders .

13. He has drawn my attention towards the charge sheet . It is paper no . 30/1 admitted by both the parties . It is issued on 26-04-93 . It is true that there is no designation of the disciplinary authority, who has issued the charge sheet . It shows that someone sitting in the Industrial Relation Department in the Union bank of India has issued the charge sheet as alleged by the claimant. What is reported in this charge sheet is it is mentioned that the inquiry into the charges levelled against workman will be held by Sri R. S. Bisht, Manager Enquiry Cell Zonal Office , Lucknow, dates etc. , will be intimated by the inquiry officer.

14. Now after inquiry Sri R. S. Bisht who was appointed as enquiry officer has issued punishment order also assuming himself inquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority . This order was passed on 12-4-94 . This is paper no . 30/30 . This is also admitted by both the parties .

15. It is a simple question when a charge sheet has been issued by the disciplinary authority who is someone else then the inquiry officer , then how an inquiry officer Sri Bisht can assume the powers of the disciplinary authority also . There is no such order on the file which empowers Sri R. S. Bisht to be the inquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority.

16. Moreover the authorized representative has drawn my attention towards the provisions of the BPS which decribe disciplinary action and procedure thereof. It states that clause 19.14 of 1st BPS- have been modified as under-

The Chief Executive Officer or the principal officer in India of a bank........ or principal officer nominated by him for the purpose shall decide which officer that isthe disciplinary authority shall be empowered to take disciplinary action in the case of office or establishment ...... These authorities shall be nominated by designation, to pass original order or hear and dispose of appeals from time to time shall be published from time to time on the banks notice board . It is clarified that the disciplinary authority may conduct the inquiry himself or appoint another officer as inquiry officer for the purpose of conducting the inquiry.

17. Therefore , in this case R. S. Bisht was simply appointed as inquiry officer by the diciplinry authority . Though in this case while issuing charge sheet disciplinary authority has also not disclosed his designation. In this way the charge sheet also stands to be vitiated . Therefore , it is also found that

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] the punishment has not been issued by an authorized authority.

18. Therefore , when the charge sheet and the order of punishment stands vitiated then the appeal would also stand vitiated . As such the order punishment imposed on the claimant is not found to be legal and justified.

19. Opposite party has given one ruling FLR (29 ) 195 VK Raj Industries v . Labour Court ( Alld) . I have gone through this ruling carefully and find that on the facts of the present case the law cited by the Hon'ble High Court , Allahabad is not applicable to the present case .

20. In view of above discussions it is held that the action of the management as referred to in the schedule of reference order is found to be neither lagel nor just. Accordingly the punishment order as well as appellate order is hereby set aside and the claimant would be entitled for one increment on the premises as ifhe had not been awarded any punishment .

21. Reference is answered accordingly. RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 744,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आन्ध्रा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 94/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-12012 / 75 / 2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 744. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.94/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Andhra Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/75 /2004 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 11th day of January , 2011 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Industrial Dispute No. 94/2004

BETWEEN:

Sri Prabhudas ,

2387

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

..... Petitioner

D.No. 59.11.8/ 1 , P & T Colony, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist.

AND

The Deputy General Manager ,

Andhra Bank, Zonal Office ,

Personnel Department ,

Dr. Joga Rao Complex, Opp . Town Hall, Kakinada,

East Godavari district

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : Sri P. Prabudas , Party in person For the Respondent : M / s . S. Udayachala Rao , S. Vikramaditya Babu , S. Mujib Kumar & S.T. Ramani , Advocates

AWARD

This reference has been received from Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 12012-75- 2004- IR( B - II ) dated 28-6-2004 under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 to resolve the dispute between the workman Sri Prabhu Das , Ex - Clerk( Cashier ) , Vadisaleru branch and the management of Andhra Bank. The term of reference is as under :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of Andhra Bank, Zonal Office , Kakinada in terminating the services of Shri Prabhu Das , Ex . Clerk ( Cashier ) , Vadisaleru Branch by way of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 1-9-2002 is legal and justified ? If not , what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to? " The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I. D. No. 94/2004 and notices were issued to the parties .

2. Petitioner filed claim statement stating therein that he joined Andhra Bank in the year 1986 as Clerk . He put in 16 years of the service but unfortunately he was implicated in some false and untenable charges . Charge sheet dated 9-12-1999 was issued to him calling for his explanation to which he replied. 14 charges were levelled against him. Notsatisfied with the explanation of the Petitioner enquiry was ordered . The Enquiry Officer acted as an agent of the second Respondent and submitted his report holding the Petitioner workman as guilty of the charges . After receiving the enquiry report , second Respondent ordered imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on 31-7-2002 , against which Petitioner submitted his representation dated 31-8-2002 and sought for personal hearing through the letter dated 7-10-2002 . Petitioner was advised to attend the personal hearing on 19-3-2002 . However, no letter was sent to the Petitioner for attending personal hearing.

Appeal was filed by the Petitioner which was rejected by theAppellate Authority on 31-10-2002 . The Petitioner has categorically challenged the finding of the Enquiry Officer . The Petitioner contended that he raised the objection as to non - availability of the document produced by the management which was ignored by the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report was not supplied to the Petitioner . The documents relied upon by the management was also not supplied to the Petitioner . That the enquiry conducted by the management is vitiated , the Petitioner was instructed to sign the register . No financial loss was caused by the Petitioner to the bank no financial irregularities were committed by the Petitioner . All the actions done by the Petitioner in good faith and in accordance with the instructions by the superiors . It has been alleged that for day to day transactions superior officers including the Branch Manager , would not pass any written orders . Thus , any denial by first Respondent in this regard would be nothing but to make the Petitioner workman liable to the charges.

3. The Petitioner has submitted that he deposited the alleged amount as the first Respondent assured the Petitioner that no problem would arise . Assuming but not admitting the charges are levelled against him to be true , the bank ought to have followed reformative approach while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement . It has not been proved during the enquiry proceeding that any pecuniary loss has been caused by the Petitoner. The enquiry is bad in law . Thus , the order passed on basis of enquiry report is also bad in the eye of law . The principles of natural justice had not been followed . The Petitioner has approached Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) . Visakhapatnam , conciliation proceeding was started but ended in failure . The Petitioner was not informed regarding the failure report to the Government of India , he approached Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad and thus, the matter was finally referred to this tribunal .

4. Respondent management has filed counter statement wherein they have denied the charges that Enquiry Officer has acted as an agent of the management . Petitioner's contention that he was not informed for the personal hearing is incorrect . He was informed regarding the personal hearing but he did not prefer to appear before the concerned officer . His appeal was rejected on the cogent reasons and grounds . During course of the enquiry necessary documents were supplied to him which were visible and readable . The Petitioner workman has misappropriated the funds of the bank . He himself has deposited the misappropriated amount which prove that the Petitioner has intentionally misappropriated bank's money . He has misappropriated the amounts received from the customers , he has falsified the amount of the bank register and records of the bank . He was chargesheeted and explanation was sought from him to which he filed his explanation which was not satisfactory, 2388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

hence enquiry was ordered to be held by comptent officer.

The petitioner workman participated in the enquiry. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report proving all the charges levelled against the Petitioner as proved on the basis of which the Petitioner was punished with compulsory retirement punishment which is neither excessive nor disproportionate .

5. The Enquiry Officer has not acted as an agent of the management. He has followed the principles of natural justice . There is no force in the claim petition and it deserves to be dismissed .

6. Parties were given opportunity to produce their evidence . Respondent bank has filed the enquiry proceeding containing entire record coupled with the reply, charge sheet, evidence collected during course of enquiry and evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer . The Petitioner has filed and relied upon the papers 11 documents , letter No. 666/20/V/P -326/ 615 dated 13-10-2002, letter No. 677/20/1654 dated 31-7-2002 , appeal of Petitioner dated 7-10-2002 letter dated 17-9-2002 of Respondent No. 2 by registered post acknowledgement due to the Petitioner informing him that he has not attended for personal hearing on 19-3-2002 , letter dated ' nil ' of Petitioner to Respondent bank , another letter dated 24-12-2001 regarding finding of the Enquiry Officer.

7. Domestic enquiry was conducted in this case before imposition of the punishment on delinquent employee i.e. the present Petitioner, hence , the question of legality and validity of the domestic enquiry was considered before hearing the parties on merits ofthe case and on hearing the parties regarding legality and validity of domestic enquiry, it was held by this tribunal on 23-7-2009 that domestic enquiry was legal and valid . Hende , the question of legality and otherwise ofdomestic enquiry can not be reiterated at this stage .

8. I have heard both the parties counsels under Sec . JIA of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , both of them filed their written arguments as well which has been considered by me .

9. This tribunal has to consider the following points fordetermination:

(1 ) Whether the action of management of Andhra Bank, Kakinada in terminating the services of Sri Prabhu Das, Ex - Clerk (Cashier) , Vadisaleru branch by way of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 1-9-2002 is legal andjustified?

( 11) Whether the workman is entitled for any relief? Ifso, to what relief?

10. Point No. (I ) : In the present case the question of the appointment of the Petitioner in the year 1986 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner has worked for more than 16 years . It is also not disputed between the parties that charge sheet dated 9-12-1999 was served on the Petitioner workman levelling 14 charges

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( 1 against the Petitioner. The copy of the charge sheet is available on this record . It is also not disputed betweent the parties that the Petitioner was asked to submit his explanation regarding the charges levelled against him and Petitioner has submitted his explanation before the competent authoriy. It wouldbe relevant to mention the article of charges in the present case to evaluate the gravity ofthe misconduct in the matter of the Petitioner workman . Charge No. 1 , it was alleged that while working as Joint custodian cashier at Vadisaleru branch the Petitioner has committed certain acts of gross misconduct in performing the duties as cashier and joint coustodian of cash/ gold ornaments /documents of loans of the branch such as: ( a ) misappropriation of bank funds , (b ) falsification of bank records , such as not accounting monies received, not entering the debit transactions in the ledger , realization of the security charge to the bank, ( c ) release of securities funds of the bank in collusion with Mr. N. Jayarajů , officer of the bank and in the process diluting securities cover and exposing the bank to a financial risk. You have failed to discharge your duty with utmost integrity, honesty. diligence and devotion. The acts committedby you are prejudicial to the interests of the bank and constituted gross misconduct under para 19.5 (j ) of Bipartite Settlement . The charges consist of following allegations against the Petitioner workman:

" 1. That you are maintaining the savings bank account No. 3 in your name with Vadisaleru branch . You have prepared , signed and presented a withdrawal for Rs . 7500 from your account on 18-9-98 while the account was showing a credit balance of Rs . 31.01 ps only . You have posted the debit entry in the ledger sheet of your account leaving a line gap between the outstanding balance column and debit entry without striking the balance and also posted the debit transaction in the sub ledger cum sub daybook . Mr. N. Jayaraju has passed the withdrawal for payment though entries were not made in the SB ledger and though there was no balance in the account and thus . you have drawn an amount of Rs . 7500 from the bank in a fraudulent manner.

2. You have remitted Rs . 7550 in your SB A/ c No. 3 on 28-9-98 , preparing the credit challan in your hand writing. You have gap left while drawing Rs . 7500 on 18-9-98 in order to give an impression that the credit was posted earlier to the debit entry of Rs . 7500 of 18-9-98 and arrived at the final balance of Rs . 81.01 ps . You have also posted the said entry in the sub -day book cum sub - ledger on 28-9-98 . Mr. N. Jayaraju , officer has colluded with you and initialed the credit challan , but did not subscribe his initial in the ledger sheet , in order to adjust the amount of Rs. 7500 fraudulently withdrawn by you on 18-9-98.

3. You have posted in your own hand writting a fictitious credit entry of Rs . 16000 in the SB A c No. 1673 maintained at the branch in the joint names of yourselt and your wife, Smt . S S Shanta Kumari , without noting the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

date and struck the balance as Rs . 16012.70 ps . However, you did not post the fictitious credit entry of Rs . 16000 in the subledger cum subdaybook . On 9-10-98 , you have posted a withdrawal of Rs . 15500 , prepared and signed by you duly striking a balance of Rs . 512.70 ps . You have entered the debit transaction of Rs . 15,500 in the sub- ledger cum sub -day book . Mr. N. Jayaraju , the counter officer of of your branch , passed the withdrawal for payment and you have drawn the amount of Rs . 15,500 fraudulently.

4. You have presented a withdrawal of Rs . 400 in your SB A/ c No. 1673 on 16-10-1998 duly prepared and signed by you . You have posted the debit entry in the ledger sheet and also in the sub ledger cum sub day book. Manager , Mr. VRC Murthy has passed the withdrawal for payment and is sent the withdrawal along with payment scroll to you. You have received the same duly putting your initials in the payment scroll and noted the amount of payment for the withdrawal as Rs . 13400 and subsequently changed to Rs . 14400 in the rough chitta . You have altered the amount of withdrawal in figures and words from Rs . 400 to Rs . 14400. You have also altered the figures in the payment scroll and subledger cum sub day book to tally the books . Thus , you have withdrawal the amount of Rs . 14000 fraudulently, by altering the amount from Rs . 400 to Rs . 14400. After the fraud came into light , you have on 20-10-98 , brought and presented two withdrawal for Rs . 16000 and Rs . 14000 dated 30-9-98 and 16-10-98 respectively , issued by Mrs. K. Seetharatnam holder of SB A/ c N. 1806 in favour of Mrs. SS Shanta Kumari , along with two credit challans on 20-10-1998 for the credit of SB 1673. Mr. VRC Murthy, the Manager kept these amounts in Sundry Suspense account duly noting the date as 20-10-98 for the credit of SB 1673. Thus , you have temporarily misappropriated the bank's funds to the tune of Rs . 29,900 in the SB A/ c 1673 , in a fraudulently manner and made good of the amount when the fraud has come to light .

2389

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

misappropriated the bank's funds to the tune of Rs . 5811 and exposed the bank to financial risk.

6. You have colluded with Mr. N. Jayaraju and misappropriated an amount of Rs . 6212 on 17-8-98 paid by one Mrs. B. Varalakshmi to the credit of her deposit loan No. 98 /Ag/ 45 , while she obtained another deposit loan bearing No. 98 /Ag/ 82 for Rs . 9000. She was paid by you an amount of Rs . 2788 only after adjustment of credit voucher for Rs . 6212 towards closure of earlier DL . No. 98 /Ag/ 45 . You did not enter this cash receipt of Rs . 6212 in your rough chitta and accordingly the voucher was not sent to the cash officer. You have delivered the deposit receipt No. KTD 98/43 to Mrs. B. Varalakshmi . During the course of inspection of your branch you have accepted misappropriation of Rs . 6212 and remitted Rs . 6374 towards closure of DL No. 98 / Ag/ 45 , to the credit of Sundry Suspense account on 22-10-98 duly signing on the reverse of the credit voucher. Thus , you have misappropriated the amount of Rs . 6212 from 17-8-98 to 22-10-98 , while exposing the bank to financial risk of Rs . 6212 .

7. On 20-10-1998 , during the course of inspection of gold ornaments relating to the gold loan accounts of the branch under the joint custody of yourself and Mr. N. Jayaraju , officer of the branch , it was observed that the gold ornaments relating to the gold loan account 99/44 in your name were missing . You have remitted an amount of Rs . 24124 on 20-10-98 under cash scroll item No. 19 towards the repayment of gold loan account 99/44 , though it was shown in the books / records as if the payment for the loan account was received on 17-10-98 in late cash and the ornaments were delivered . You have thus released the gold ornaments pledged to the bank under Gold loan 99/44 without bank actually receiving the cash towards full settlement. You have thus, temporarily misappropriated the bank's funds to the tune of Rs . 24124 and exposed the bank to a possible financial risk.

8. You have colluded with Mr. N. Jayaraju and misappropriated an amount of Rs . 8780 on 6-10-98 which was paid by Mr. Bh. Satyanarayana Raju to the credit of his gold loan No. 98/148 out of his new gold loan No. 98/ 246 for Rs . 13,500 and delivered the ornaments without remitting the amount in the Bank's account and also not noted the same in rough chitta . You have noted the cash adjustment related to this transaction on the last page of the rough chitta as follows:

4,720 8,780 13,500

13,500,00

8,780.00

4,720.00

5. You have misappropriated an amount of Rs . 5900 received from one Mrs. M. Rama Tulasi , who has paid the amount towards the Deposit loan account No. 97/148 (against KTD 97/144 ) without releasing the credit voucher which was prepared by you . In collusion with Mr. N. Jayaraju , the Joint Custodian officer of the branch , you have delivered the deposit receipt KTD 97/144 to Mrs. Rama Tulasi by obtaining her thumb impression in the concerned folio of the deposit loan account . When inspection of the deposit loan documents took place in the branch , the deposit receipt KTD 97/144 was found missing and the deposit loan No. 97/148 against the said deposit was found outstanding . You have accepted that you have misappropriated the amount of Rs . 5900 paid by Mrs. M. Rama Tulasi and remitted an amount of Rs . 5811 on 22-10-98 to the credit of Sundry Suspense account towards the said deposit loan amount duly signing on the reverse of the credit voucher . Thus , you have You have adjusted the misappropriated amount of Rs . 8780 on 20-10-98 using the voucher which was signed by Mr. Bh . Satyanarayana Raju òn 6-10-1998 . Thus , you have misappropriated the bank's funds for your pecuniary gains which is prejudicial to the interests of the Bank .

2390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

remitted into the bank by you . During the course of the inspection of the branch , the fraud came to light , you and Mr. N. Jayaraju , officer have confirmed in the ornaments register that the ornaments were released by you jointly. You have accepted the misappropriation and remitted an amount of Rs . 5187 under your signature on 22-10-98 το the credit of Sundry suspense account being the amount misappropriated by you.

9. You have misappropriated the amount remitted byMr. Alamanda Vishnu towards closure of his gold loan number 97/295 during May, 1998 and delivered the ormaments without obtaining the aknowledgment from the borrower in collusion with Mr. N. Jayaraju , officer has remitted an amount of Rs . 4513 on 20-10-1998 for closure of the loan account and you have accepted the cash receipt as cashier of the branch . Though the credit voucher was bearing a thumb impression without indicating the name , the borrower vide his letter dated22-10-1998 has confirmed in writing that he has not come to the bank on 20-10-1998 . You have thus allowed release of ornaments pledged to the bank without the loan account having been closed, temporarily misappropriated the amount remitted by Sr A. Vishnu (for closure ofgold loan account) in collusion with Mr. N. Jayaraju .

12. You have misappropriated an amount of Rs . 7979.50 ps remitted by Mr. Kalvapalli Subba Rao towards closure of his gold loan No. 98/66 on 17-10-98 and delivered the ornaments to the borrower . Amount so paidbythe borrower is not remitted into the bank by you . During the course of inspection of the branch , the fraud came into light, you and Mr. N. Jayaraju , the joint custodian officer have confirmed in the ornaments register that the ornaments are not available . You have accepted the misappropriation and remitted an amount of Rs . 7938 under your signature on 22-10-98 to the credit of sundry suspense account being the amount misappropriated by you.

13. You have prepared a debit voucher for Rs . 13000 dated 21-9-98 in your own hand writing without actually debiting to Sulabha SOD account No. 96/9, standing in your name , you have put your initials and noted the ledger folio No. on the debit voucher in token of having posted the entry in the ledger. Mr. N. Jayaraju has authorized the voucher for payment and you have withdrawn the amount . Thus , you have fraudulently drawn and misappropriated an amount ofRs . 13000 in collusion with Mr. Jayaraju , officer.

10. You have colluded with Mr. N. Jayaraju and misappropriated the amount remitted by Mrs. Panduri Papa towards closure of her Gold loan No. 98/6 during October, 1998 and delivered the ornaments without obtaining the acknowledgement from the borrower and without the account having been closed in the bank's books. During the course of inspection of the branch , the fraud came into light and Mr. N. Jayaraju, officer has prepared the voucher and remitted an amount of Rs . 2910 on 20-10-98 fonclosure ofthe loan account . Though the credit voucher was bearing a thumb impression without indicating the name , the borrower vide his letter dated 22-10-98 has confirmed in writing that he has not come to the bank on 20-10-98 and taken delivery of the ornaments about 5 months back by remitting the amount to you . Thus , you have misappropriated the amount .

14. You have issued following cheques to Chit Fund companies and others . You in collusion with Mr. N. Jayaraju , the officer misused your official position and have kept the cheques pending, without entering in the Inward Bills register, till you remitted the cash in your ASB a/ c No.2 to meet the funds to pass the cheques received from outstations .

11. In collusion with Mr. N. Jayaraju , you have misappropriated the amount remitted by one Mr.Uppalapati Satyanarayana towards closure ofhis gold loan No. 98/178 on 20-8-98 and delivered the ornaments to the borrower. Amount so paid by the borrower is not

S. No. IBR No.

Received from

Payee

Cheque No. & Date

Entered/ Passed

Amount

(Rs.)

Mr. S. Prabhudas :

851858 16-6-98

5000

Thokada Br.

29-7-98

J.Karunakar

5000

851860 18-6-98

Devi Chowk

29-6-98

S. Daya Samson

Not entered

85176 7-2-98

2335

28-2-98

Satya Chits

Ramaraopet

Not entered

2450

851767 15-2-98

Sriram Chits

13-3-98

Rajahmundry

838

851768 24-3-98

Sriram Chits

23-4-98

Ramaraopet

317

Sriram Chits

851769 24-3-98

KVB Ltd.

20-4-98

(Rangireejupet, RJY) 7.

Not entered

2500

851895 12-8-98

V.N. Rao

10-9-98

Rangampet

Not entered

2553

851894 15-8-98

13-10-98

SatyaChits

Ramaraopet

851900 26-9-98

Sriram Chits

1455

KVB Ltd.

30-10-98

(Rangireejupet , RJY) [भाग 11-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

These charges were read over to the workman during course of the enquiry to which he has denied . Then , Presenting Officer has produced the documents and management witnesses . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman has drawn the attention of this tribunal towards the statement of MWI at page 121 wherein the MWI has stated that joint custodian are not initiating for release of documents .He has further stated that clerk who is acting asjoint custodian is not responsible for pledge and release of documents pertaining to the advances . It was asked from the MW1 that when the clerk is not responsible for the pledge and release of the documents of advances of whatcircumstances made you to obtain MEX - 30 , 45, 49、 55, 69 ? To this question , MWI has replied that " when the documents are not available with the branch and loans are outstanding I enquired the parties . Thay have given the statements ." To another question that whether the CSE is responsible for missing of the documents , MWI has said that CSE is not responsible for missing of the documents. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had argued that the statement of MWI has not been considered in right prospective by the Enquiry Officer because the statement ofMWI proved that the Petitioner was not responsible for initiating, release of the documents nor he was responsible for missing of the documents . But apart from the evidence of MWI there are other witnesses and other material evidence available on the record andMEX-30, 45, 49, 55 and 69 , statement of the concerned persons which may go to prove that though the Petitioner was not sole responsible for the pledge of the documents or the release of the documents he was joint custodian along with Mr. Jayaraju which has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner was not only charged with release of the pledged articles and documents only but he was charged with his personal and unlawful gain from the bank's money.

11. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the Petitioner has withdrawn a sum of Rs . 7500 from his own bank account No. 3 on 18-9-98 when there is a credit balance of Rs . 31.01 ps in his account. He did not filled the ledger outstanding balance column and debit transactions etc. , in sub day book . Thus , he fraudulently withdrew a sum of Rs . 7500 from his own account , which he has opened in the bank itself. The said amount was deposited by the enquiry proceeding workman when it came to the light and knowledge of the officer. Not only that, he remitted Rs . 7550 in his savings bank account No. 3 on 28-9-98 preparing credit challan in his own handwriting posted the entry in ledger sheet without noting the date in the gap leftwhile drawing Rs . 7500 on 18-9-98 in order to give an impression that credit was posted earlier to the debit entry of Rs . 7500 of 18-9-98 and arrived at final balance ofRs. 81.01 ps . The workman has posted the said entry in sub daybook of sub ledger on 28-9-98 in collusion with Mr. Jayaraju. He has further argued that the Petitioner 768Gl/11~23

2391

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21, 1932

workman has posted in his own hand writing a fictitious credit entry of Rs . 16000 in SB A/c No. 1673 maintainedat the branch in the joint name of Petitioner workman and his wife Smt . S.S. Santha Kumari, without noting date and struck the balance as Rs . 16012.70 ps . However, he did not post the fictitious credit entry of Rs . 16000 in the sub- ledger - cum- sub day book . On 9-10-98 he posted a withdrawal of Rs . 15500 in the sub ledger- cum-sub day book. Mr. N. Jayaraju , counter officer of the branch passed the withdrawal for payment and workman has drawn the amount ofRs . 15500 fraudulently.

12. Learned Counsel for Respondent further argued that the Petitioner has withdrawan a sum of Rs . 400 in account No. 1673 on 16-10-98 , duly prepared and signed by Petitioner workman himself. He has posted the debit entry in the ledger sheet and also in the sub ledger -cum sub day book . Mr. V.R.C. Murthy has passed the withdrawal for the payment and has signed withdrawal along with payment scroll of Petitioner workman . The said amount was received by the Petitioner himself duly putting his initials in the payment scroll and noting the amount of payment for the withdrawal of Rs . 13400 and subsequently changed to Rs . 14400 in rough chitta. The Petitioner has altered the amount of withdrawal in figure and words from Rs . 400 to Rs . 14400 and has also altered the figure in the payment scroll and sub - ledger - cum - sub day book to tally the books . Thus, he has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 14000 fraudulently by altering the amount from Rs . 400 to Rs . 14400. After the fraud cam to light he has on 20-10-98 brought and presented two withdrawals for Rs . 16000 and Rs. 14000 dated 30-9-98 and 16-10-98 issued by Mrs. K. Seetharatnam holder of account No. 1806 in favour of Mrs. S. S. Santha Kumari , along with two credit challans on 20-10-98 for the credit of SB A/ c No. 1673. The amount was kept in suspense account thus , he has temporarily embezzled or misappropriated the bank's amount of Rs.29900.

13. He has further argued that the Petitioner workman in his own petition in para 9 , admitted that he deposited the alleged amount as the first Respondent assured him that no problem would arise. This prove that the Petitioner has not only admitted this fraudulent actitivites and temporary misappropriation of the bank's funds during the course ofthe enquiry proceeding but through his claim statement also he has admitted that he deposited the amount on the assurance of the Respondent No. I that no action will be taken and no problem would arise. This prove that the Petitioner workman was guilty of fraud and misappropriation , as such , the statement of MWI that the Petitioner workman was not responsible for the missing of the documents or the pledge and release ofthe documents for the transactions will not make any difference towards misconduct committed by the Petitioner workman . The Petitioner workman has committed the misconduct or misappropriation of the funds by withdrawing the bank 2392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

funds without having any credit balance in his own account taking advantage of his position as the clerk and cashier of the bank . Thus , the Petitioner workman has committed the gross misconduct or grave misconduct which attract the punishment of removal from service . The bank authority has taken lenient view in the matter of the Petitioner and inspite ofdismissing the Petitioner from the services he has been ordered to be compulsorily retired from the services .

14. I have considered the above arguments . in the light of the admission of the Petitioner workman in para 9 ofhis own claim statement . wherein he has alleged that " I deposited the alleged amount as first Respondent has assured of no problem ." And charges levelled against him are true , the bank ought to have held reformative approach . I have considered this argument of the Petitioner workman . Butthe misconduct committed by the Petitioner is of very serious nature. The Petitioner has misappropriated the fund of the bank and thus he has lost his credibility and faith of the management. In those circumstances , the question of taking reformative approach was not a proper and sufficient punishment in the present case.

15. The Petitioner workman has intentionally and knowingly being clerk and cashier of the bank has misappropriated the bank's fund . Though he has refunded the amount after it came into the light of the higher authorites but the refund of the amount will not dilute the gravity of the offence committed by the Petitioner workman . Thus , to my mind the action of the management ofAndhra Bank in terminating the services of Sri S. Prabhudas . clerk Cashier ) by way of compulsory retirement is legal and justified.

16. Point No. ( II ) : The action of the management is legal and justified . Petitioner has committed serious offende of nisappropriation of the bank's fund as such , the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the workman is neither disproportionate nor excessive . It is the only proper punishment and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Point No. ( II ) is decided accordingly .

17. From the above discussion , the reference is decided as such and the action of the management of Andhra Bank is held to be legal and justified and workman isnot entitled for any relief, hence , this award.

Award passed accordingly, Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri . Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 11th day of January. 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petun

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NILL

[ PART 1 St. 30 Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 745.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आन्ध्रा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी. सं. 216/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -39025/ 1/2010 - आई आर ( बी -11 )

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारों New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 745. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.l ... No.216/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Andhra Bank and their workman . which was received by the Central Government on 17-02-2011 .

[No. 1. - 39025/ 1 /2010 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURTAY HYDERBAD

Present:- Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 12th day of January , 2011 Industrial Dispute L.C. 216/2004 Between:

.... Petitioner Sri P. Kamala Naik, S/ o Kunyanaik C/ o H. No. 39-112 , Bandar Nagar , Wanaparthy , Mahabubnagar District .

AND

1 . The Deputy General Manager ( Personnel ) Appellate Authority. Andhra Bank . Head Office . Hyderabad.

2. The Chief Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Zonal office , Andhra Bank . Kurnool .

Respondents [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2393

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner : M/ s . G. Vidya Sagar , K. Udaya Sri P. Sudheer Rao & D. Madhusuhan , Advocates

For the Respondent: M/ s . S. Udayachala Rao , S. Vikramaditya Babu & S. Mujib Kumar , Advocates

AWARD

Thispetition under Sec . 2A ( 2 ) of the I.D ;. Act , 1947 was filed by Sri P. Kamała Naik , an ex - employee ofAndhra Bank challenging the order of his termination from service dated 10-7-2003 .

2. It has been alleged by the Petitioner workman that hejoined the service of the bank as clerk at Birkuru branch , Nizamabad district as regular employee . He worked in various branches of the bank and was discharging his duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors . While the Petitioner was discharging his duties at Wanaparthy branch he was issued with the charge sheet dated 20-3-2002 alleging therein that he committed misappropriation of amount , the charges were as follows :

a. You have availed a deposit loan of Rs . 30000 and further loan of Rs . 25000 on 7-7-2001 and 14-8-2001 respectively using closed deposit receipt favouring K. Janakamma by forging the signature of the deposit holder .

b.Again a deposit loan of Rs . 45,000 and further loan of Rs . 30000 was availed by you on 23-06-2001 and 10-8- 2001 respectively against two deposits on which loan was already existing favouring V. Padmavathamma by forging the signature of the deposit holder by you .

c . Further , you have written a deposit loan debit voucher for Rs .65000 on 25-7-2001 again the deposit of E. Padmamma without any application/deposit receipt . Also you have not noted any lien in the deposit register , which led to misappropriation of the above amount .

d. All the entries relating to the above transactions were prepared by you and the signatures of the deposit holders were forged by you in the accounts mentioned under serial numbers 1 and 2. Total amount involved in the three accounts is Rs . 1,95 lacks .

deposit receipts are placed with the bank and same will be under the custody of the officer the Petitioner stated that Sri Ram Mohan Rao asked the Petitioner to fill the application accordingly the Petitioner has filled the application . Management was not satisfied with the reply ofthe Petitioner and ordered for an enquiry. During course ofenquiry also Petitioner clearly stated that Sri Ram Mohan Rao has given receipt to the Petitioner and an application and he advised the Petitioner to write the debit voucher accordingly, Petitioner has wrote debit vouchers . There was no fault on the part of the Petitioner and he has followed the instructions of his superior. He further submitted before the Enquiry Officer that the deposit receipts were in the custody of officer as such , clerk can not draw loan on such receipts , and the amounts were credited by son of Mr. Ram Mohan Rao that reveals the fact that Mr. Ram Mohan Rao availed the said loans and as per his advise and instructions ofsaid Mr. Ram Mohan Rao the Petitioner has acted. The Petitioner has stated that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe , he knew only to follow the instructions of his superiors . He was innocent and no witness is coming forward in support of Petitioner as he is a member of Scheduled Tribe group . Manager of the bank has also not cooperated with the Petitioner nor he could reveal the fact that son of Mr. Ram Mohan Rao is the remitter of loan , the Enquiry Officer has not considered this facts , nor he gave proper opportunity to cross examination the witness . Petitioner stated in the claim statement that in the course of enquiry he has stated the responsibilities and duties of the clerk , the clerk is not responsible for the custody of deposit receipts and its documents , as such , it is not possible to the Petitioner to avail loan on closed deposit receipts . Moreove, the writing of K. Janakamma was not sent for verification by bank on the application and the deposit receipts . The Petitioner is not guilty of any misappropriation . The Enquiry Officer has failed to appreciate the fact that closed deposit receipt is to be cancelled and be kept with the debit voucher of the deposit receipts at the time of closure . Deposits were closed on 9-3-2000 and that was not closed by the Petitioner. The deposit receipt is not cancefied hence , Petitioner could not be made liable . It was closed by another clerk and officer who has not cancelled the deposit receipt intentionally. After long gap of time the officer has taken that receipt and raised the said deposit loan mischeviously and the same was repaid by him . The action against the Petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and unjust . The Petitioner has acted on the instruction of the superior who asked him to write debit voucher as a clerk , the Petitioner has simply obeyed to the instruction and prepared debit voucher but Petitioner is not authorized for debit voucher payment . The authority ofthe same vests in officer being link officer for the payment , this shows the mal intention of officer. The officer Mr. Ram Mohan Rao has deposited a sum of Rs . 1,90,000 and he has made good the loss caused to the bank , through his sons As such , no financial loss has been caused to the bank .

3. The Petitioner submitted his explanation denying that he has not availed any departmental loan by using closed deposit receipts of K. Janakamma because it is not possible to avail a deposit loan on closed deposit receipt because such receipts are kept in the custody of the officer . The Petitioner has acted on the instruction of Sri Ram Mohan Rao , officer who asked the Petitioner to fill deposit loan application and also asked him to write the name accordingly, the Petitioner has done at the instruction of his superior officer. He further stated that he has not availed any loan of Rs. 45000 and 30000 on deposit receipt on which there was already existing loans because such 2394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Petitioner is not responsible for any of the misdeed , it was Mr. Ram Mohan Rao who has unnecessarily involved the Petitioner in the fraud committed by him as such, the order of termination against the Petitioner is unjust, illegal and deserves to be quashed.

of deposit receipts , withdrawal forms and has signed himself. Though out of the amount withdrawn through bank an amount of Rs . 190000 has been deposit , the gravity ofthe misconduct can not be looked lightly . On the basis ofthe enquiry report the management has ordered dismissal from service , as the Petitioner has lost faith and confidence of the management and continuance of such employees will certainly shake the very foundation of the institution , as such , the punishment can not be said to be disproportionate or exessive. Petition is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed .

4. Respondent has filed counter statement stating that Petitioner joined as clerk - cum- cashier 17-7-84 , it has been alleged by the management that during period of probation the Petitioner was alleged to have misappropriated money deposited by customer and his services were terminated by proceeding dated 26-11-94. The Petitioner raised the industrial dispute through Andhra Bank Employees Union challenging the validity of the termination . Taking into consideration the social and economical background of the Petitioner a sympathetic view was taken by the management and it was decided to take him into service without any back wages , accordingly, a settlement was entered into by the bank during the conciliation proceedings before Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) on 30-1-1986 and Petitioner was reinstated into service by order dated 14-2-1986 .

7. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidence . Petitioner has filed copy of letter dated 10-7-2003 dismissing the Petitioner , copy of representation of the Petitioner against the order of dismissal and copy of the order ofAppellate Authority on the appeal of the Petitioner. Management has filed 11 documents , charge sheet dated 28-3-2002 , reply of workman dated 29-5-2002 , the entire documents of the enquiry proceeding , the written brief of the Presenting Officer dated 30-1-2003 , written brief of Defence Representative , enquiry report dated 17-3-2003 , Disciplinary Authority's proceeding dated 9-6-2003 . proceedings of personal hearing dated 25-6-2003 . Disciplinary Authority's order of dismissal on the workman dated 10-7-2003 .

5. The Petitioner was again issued with a charge sheet dated 19-1-1994 for misconduct of misappropriation ofthe moneyof the customer while working at Yerupalem branch at Khammam district . After enquiry he was imposed with penalty of stoppage of4 increments with cumulative effect . He did not prefer any appeal against the punishment order , thus , the penalty imposed attained finality.

8. In this matter management has initiated domestic enquiry proceeding before passing of punishment order. as such, the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by management was taken up before the hearing the parties under Sec . 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. My Learned Predecessor has heard regarding legality and validity of the domestic enquiry and passed hisorder dated 7-11-2005 . He has concluded that the domestic enquiry conducted is valid .

9. I have heard both the parties. They have filed the wirtten arguments . I have considered the averments made in claim statement , counter statement and written arguments filed by both parties.

10. This tribunal has to consider the following points in this case .

( 1 ) Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the Petitioner is legal and justifed?

( 11 ) To what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?

11. Point No. ( 1 ) : It is undisputed fact that the Petitioner joined the services of the bank on 17-7-1984 . He was issued with the charge sheet while working at Wanaparthy branch dated 28-3-2002 with following allegations:

6. The Petitioner was issued with another charge sheet dated 4-11-95 for availing LFC during the period 11-10-1994 to 4-11-1994 and submitted take bills as he did not perform journey. He was issued with another charge sheet dated 2-3-2001 for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 14975 while working as Receipts Cashier at Wanaparthy branch , in which proceedings were closed after giving warning to him . It has further been alleged that many minor punishment were awarded to the Petitioner as such , the averment of Petitioner that earlier services were unblemished is far from truth . While working as clerk-cum- cashier at Wanaparthy branch it is alleged that he has indulged in various serious omission and commissions pending investigation , he was placed under suspension w.elf. 11-2-2002 and after thorough investigation he was charge sheeted vide order dated 28-3-2002 on which explanation was submitted by the Petitioner which was not found to be satisfactory, domestic enquiry was ordered to be conducted against the Petitioner , management has examined two witnesses and has produced 39 documents during course of enquiry as M Ex . 1 to M Ex. 39 and Petitioner has also produced five documents DEx . 1 to DEx.5 but did not produce a single witness , he produced himself for evidence . He was afforded full and fair opportunity and after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has concluded that the Petitioner has written all the vouchers

a. You have availed a deposit loan of Rs . 30000 and further laon of Rs . 25000 on 7-7-2001 and 14-8-2001 respectively using closed deposit receipt tavouring 2395 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

K. Janakamma by forging the signature of the deposit holder.

b .Again a deposit loan of Rs . 45,000 and further loan of Rs . 30,000 was availed by you on 23-6-2001 and 10-8-2001 respectively against two deposit on which loan was already existing favouring V. Padmavathamma by forging the signature of the deposit holder by you.

c. Further , you have written a deposit loan debit voucher for Rs . 65000 on 25-7-2001 again the deposit of E. Padmamma without any application /deposit receipt. Also you have not noted any lien in the deposit register, which led to misappropriation of the above amount .

d . All the entries relating to the above transactions were prepared by you and the signatures of the deposit holders were forged by you in the accounts mentioned under serial numbers 1 and 2. Total amount involved in the three accounts is Rs . 1.95 lacks .

It is also undisputed fact that the Petitioner submitted his explanation which was not found to be satisfactory by the management and domestic enquiry was ordered in which Petitioner workman participated . The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and concluded that Petitioner has withdrawn or availed a deposit loan of Rs . 30000 and Rs. 25000 on 7-7-2001 and 14-8-2001 and again availed a deposit loan of Rs . 45000 and Rs . 30000 on 23-6-2001 and 10-8-2001 . He as written a deposit loan debit voucher of Rs . 65000 on 25-7-2001 without any application from E. Padmamma .

workman by not adjourning the case for further cross examination . Further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that E. Padmamma was not examined nor there is report that application does not contain the signature of E. Padmamma . But I am of the view, that no such objection was raised by the Petitioner workman , either during course ofdomestic enquiry, or through his claim statement that the application alleged to have been filed by K. Janakamma . bears the sister of K. Janakamma . As against this , the Petitioner himself has written in para 3 ofhis claim statement that , " it is only the officer Sri Ram Mohan Rao who asked the Petitioner to fill the deposit loan application and at the bottom he asked the Petitioner to write the name of the Petitioner , accordingly Petitioner has done . " This averment made in the claim statement amply proves that Petitioner has not challenged that the deposit loan application does not bear signature of K. Janakamma or that K. Janakamma has not signed on that application . When Petitioner is not alleging that the application of K. Janakamma does not bears the signature of K. Janakamma there was no opportunity to examine and verify the signature of K. Janakamma on her application , as such, the objection raised at the time of argument has no force it is an after thought and it carries no weight . Petitioner workman has himself admitted in para 5 and 15 of the claim statement that he has prepared all the applications and deposit vouchers and loan applications in his own handwriting but at the instance ofMr. Ram Mohan Rao . In para 17 of his claim statement he has categorically stated that when the officer asks his subordinate to write debit voucher as clerk , the Petitioner has simply obeyed the instruction of his superior and has prepared debit voucher . This prove that the Petitioner has prepared the debit voucher application of K. Janakamma and E. Padmamma with the instruction of K. Janakamma and E. Padmamma to avail such facility on their deposit receipts . His assertion that he has done this at the instruciton of Mr. Ram Mohan Rao got no force and no importance can be given to such submission of the Petitioner.

12. It is alleged by the Petitioner that he has filled the doposit loan application and has also written the name at the bottom of the application on the instructions of his superior Mr. Ram Mohan Rao . He has further stated in para 4 of the claim statement regarding , availing of loan of Rs. 45000 and Rs . 30000 on which loan was already existing, he filled in the application without considering the facts and circumstances of the case , on the instruction of Mr. Ram Mohan Rao . He himself has stated in para 5 of the claim statement that Mr. Ram Mohan Rao has given receipt and application and advised the Petitioner to write debit voucher accordingly. Accordingly, the Petitioner has written the voucher . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner was not given opportunity during course ofthe enquiry to cross examine the Assistant Government Examiner,

14. Petitioner has been working for several years as a clerk-cum- cashier . He is well versed about the mode of payment and withdrawal of loan on deposit receipts , if he has done any such act knowing well that he is doing wrong act , it is presumed it was done with malafide intention in raising the loans . Even if he have obliged to obey instruction of his superior which was prejudicial to the interests of the customers of the bank , it can be safely concluded that what even misdeed has been committed by the Petitioner workman has been done knowing well the consequences of such action . As such workman can not shirk from the responsibility of filling the application form, writing application and writing the name of the depositer or his own name in the application knowing that it is to be used as a loan application. He prepared debit voucher also which prove that he was knowing that amount is going to 13. 1 have gone through the enquiry proceeding book . No doubt , the Petitioner has sought adjournment vide representation on 20-11-2002 for further , cross examination ofthe Assistant Government Examiner which has not been allowed on the ground that the Assistant Government Examiner is not available on the next date and that he has been examined at length . Thus , to my mind the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner have no force as I find that no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner 2396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

be withdrawn from the customers account . Why he did not ask the officer regarding the identity of the customers has not been stated by him nor clarified either before the Enquiry Officer or before this tribunal . This shows that even if the Petitioner has worked under the instruction of Mr. Ram Mohan Rao , the Petitioner was in collusion with his superior Mr. Ram Mohan Rao in availing the loan facility for himself or for Mr. Ram Mohan Rao on the basis of deposit receipt of another person . This prove that he is also responsible for the loss caused to the bank and the customers.

15. The Petitioner himself has stated in para 19 of the claim statement that , " an amount Rs . 190000 was made good to the bank by Mr. Ram Mohan Rao's sons . During course of his statement before the Enquiry Officer also he has stated that Mr. Ram Mohan Rao availed the above loans and as per his advice , instructions I have acted . " Before Enquiry Officer he has stated " Manager did not revealed the name of the remitter who deposited Rs . 190000. " How this fact came to the knowledge of the Petitioner has not been explained by the Petitioner. He has further stated before the Enquiry Officer that " Mr. Ram Mohan Rao asked to fill the applications and accordingly I have filled the same Mr. Ram Mohan Rao has given me the receipt and applications and advised me to fill the debit voucher , 1 have written. " All this goes to show that the Petitioner was also in collusion with Mr. Ram Mohan Rao in defrauding the bank and the customers . The report of Enquiry Officer is based on the evidence produced before him and the management has imposed proper punishment on the Petitioner because the Petitioner has lost faith of the bank management in him . More over , the continuance of the Petitioner in the service of the bank will certainly shake the very foundation and credibility of the institution , thus , the penalty of the dismissal passed by the management is legal and justified . Hence , the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Point No. ( I ) is decided accordinlgy .

16. Point No. ( II ) : Petitioner's complicity in raising fictitious loan is proved and it is concluded that punishment imposed on him is proved and it is concluded that punishment imposed on him is not excessive nor disproportionate , he is not entitled for any relief. Point No. ( 11 ) is decided accordingly.

17. From the above discussion , this tribunal is ofthe view that the management of Andhra Bank is justified in dismissing the Petitioner Sri P. Kamala Naik , accordingly the petition 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 12th day of January, 2010 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer

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

= = :

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Respondent Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL. Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 201 ।

का.आ. 746.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एल . सी. सं. 121/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार का 7-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-39025/1 /2010 - आई आर( बी -11 ) | रमेश सिंह . डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 746. in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. L.C. No. 121/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2011 .

[No. L - 39025 / 1 /2010 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH . Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 13th day of January , 2010 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 121/2005 BETWEEN :

.... Petitioner Sri Kasturi Subba Rayudu , S / o K. Bhaskar , D.No. 8-102/3 , Prakash Nagar . Opp. Teja School , Kadapah , AND

1 . The Deputy General Manager Disciplinary Authority, Syndicate Bank, ZonalOffice , Industrial Relations Divisions ( W) , Pioneer House , Somajiguda , Hyderabad-500 482 .

2397 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

2. The General Manager (P )/

Appellate Authority, Personal Department ,

Syndicate Bank, Head Office ,

....Respondents

Manipal-576119 .

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : Sri M. Ramu , Advocate

For the Respondent : Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju , Advocate

AWARD

Thispetition under Sec . 2 A (2 ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 was filed by Sri K. Subba Rayudu , an ex.employee of Syndicate Bank challenging the order of his punishment of dismissal dated 22-4-93 and to reinstate him in service with full service benefits .

punishment of dismissal from service and finally vide proceedings dated 22-4-1993 No. PRS ( IN ) / DGM / Hyderabad/ 93 /23 dated 22-4-1993 imposed punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect . Petitioner workman submitted appeal before the Appellate Authority who directed the workman to appear for personal hearing on 14-9-1993 . Petitioner appeared there and pleaded that he was not afforded proper opportunity and enquiry be reopened , but his request was not considered and his appeal was dismissed . Petitioner has pleaded that he belongs to scheduled caste community , he has to support a large family . He has suffered from abject poverty and was deprived of basic necessities of life food and shelter . He lost his mental balance on seeing the sufferings of his family. He pleaded that he could not approach this forum due to ill -health, now he is aged of 59 years and hence , he has filed this petition . He has alleged that non appearance in the enquiry was explained by him in detail . He submitted medical certificate of his serious illness which has not been considered . The order passed against him is arbitrary and requested that award be passed reinstating him in the service .

3. The management has filed counter statement stating therein that while working as clerk at Devapatla branch of the bank . The workman was entrusted with cash duties during the period 21-10-1989 to 27-11-1989 . While functioning as cashier the Petitioner workman failed to credit Rs . 120 and Rs . 890 to SB A/ c No. 115 of Sri K. Shasidhar Sharma which were received from him on 21-10-1989 and 10-11-1989 . He also did not credited Rs . 1300 to SB A/ c No. 694 of Sri Chandrasekhar , received from the said account holder on 20-11-1989 in token of having received the said sums he made credit entry in the pass books of the customers and affixed his initials but the amounts were not credited in the books of accounts of the branch and no credit was given to the respective customers ' SB accounts ofthe branch . All these amounts being misappropriated by the Petitioner workman thereby he gained undue pecuniary advantage .

4. Again on 20-11-1989 the workman moved a sum of Rs . 1000 from the Single Lock cash box of the bank while working as cashier which came to light after verification of the closing cash balance on the same date . On 20-11-1989 when the inspectors were inspecting the branch accounts and when verifying the single lock cash balance , the Petitioner Sri K. Subbarayudu tried to replace the said amount of said sum of Rs . 1000 removed by him earlier on 20-11-1989 and was caught red handed by inspecting officials . He was charge sheeted for committing gross misconduct in terms of clause 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement and he was placed under suspension . Explanation was called from him . He submitted his explanation which was not found satisfactory and enquiry was ordered . Enquriy Officer was appointed to conduct 2. It has been alleged by the workman that he joined as clerk in 1974 in Respondent bank. He belongs to scheduled caste community and has a large family to look after . He used to discharge his duty with honesty, integrity and with diligence . However , the Respondent placed him under suspension w.e.f. 27-11-1989 pending investigation in certain alleged irregularities while workman was functioning as cashier at Devapatla branch of Cudappah district. After 14 months Respondent bank served charge sheet No. CGS /Hyderabad /91 / 7 dated 1-2-1991 alleging therein that while the workman was functioning as cashier at Devapatla branch , Cuddapah , he accepted certain amounts from two SB A/ c holders , made entries of these amounts in their respective pass books but did not account the said amounts in the books of branch and further the workman removed Rs . 1000 from single lock cash book in the denomiation of Rs . 50 on 20-11-1989 and on 21-11-1989 . He was trying to replace this amount in cash in various denominations . However , the charge sheet was not accompanied by list of witnesses and documents on which the allegation was based . Due to non - supply of the documents , the Petitioner could not furnish a satisfactory reply nor his union did the same . Ulimately, without receiving a reply an enquiry was ordered vide order dated 13-12-1991 . The Enquiry Officer informed that he will be holding enquiry proceeding initially on 24-4-1992 which was subsequently postponed and held on 29-5-1992 , 3-9-1992 and4-9-1992 . The workman pleaded with the Enquiry Officer that he is not feeling well and requested him to grant further time but the enquiry was conducted exparte . The document relied upon by the Enquiry Officer was sent to the Petitioner along with proceeding dated 29-5-1992 . The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14-11-1992 a copy of which was sent to the workman to submit his explanation within 7 days . Due to ill -health the workman could not submit his explanation . At that juncture on 30-12-1992 workman requested for conducting fresh enquiry which was rejected vide letter No. 001/326 ( 1 ) / IRS dated 2-1-1993 without assigning any reasons . The Disciplinary Authority vide his letter No. 233/326 ( 1 ) IRS dated 24-1-2003 proposed 2398

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

and he opted to remain absent on that date , as such , the domestic enquiry was held to be legal and valid and case was forwarded for hearing under Sec . 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Petitioner's counsel appeared on the next date on 6-7-2009 , thereafter he did not appear for argument , several adjournments were given for argument of the parties finally on 13-12-2010 , the Respondent's counsel filed written arguments and made oral submissions , which were heard .

7. In the present case this tribunal has to consider,

( 1 ) Whether the order of dismissal from service imposed by the management on the present Petitioner is legal and justified or not?

( II ) To what relief if any is the Petitioner is entitled ?

enquiry however , Petitioner did not participated , as such , the Enquriy was conducted ex- parte and Enquiry Officer submitted report after taking both oral and documentary evidence of management witnesses and held that the charges against the Petitioner were proved on the basis of which punishment of dismissal was imposed vide order dated 22-4-1993 . Petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 2-11-1993 . The Petitioner has no unblemished career as he indulged in misappropriation and theft of banks ' property. Proper and fair opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry . The Petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1993 and he has approached this tribunal after 13 years and no reason has been assigned for not filing the petition at an early stage . Petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidence . Petitioner workman has filed 12 documents , i.e. charge sheet dated 1-2-1991 , his representation requesting time dated 20-2-1991 , letter requesting time to submit reply dated nil , letter of appointment of Enquiry Officer dated 13-12-91 , letter dated 2-5-1992 of the Enquiry Officer enclosing copy of enquiry proceeding dated 24-4-1992, copy of enquiry proceeding recorded at Devapatla dated 29-5-1992 , copy of enquiry proceeding recorded at ZO dated 3-9-1992, letter addressed by the Petitioner to Enquiry Officer dated 1-6-1992 , letterto AGM, ZO , Hyderabad dated 12-12-1992 , letter of Petitioner informing the name of his DA of AGM dated 30-12-1992 , copy of letter dated 2-11-93 , show cause notice dated 24-2-1993 . Respondent have filed 15 documents exerox copies of charge sheet , xerox copy of letterappointing Enquiry Officer , xerox copy of extension oftime seeking letter dated 19-6-1991 , copy of letter seeking further time dated 19-7-1991 , letter of Enquiry Officer to Petitioner intimating date of enquiry dated 10-1-1992 , letter ofEnquiry Officer to Petitioner intimating date of enquiry dated 2-5-1992 , letter of Enquiry Officer to Petitioner intimating the proceedings held on 25-9-1992 of enquiry dated 1-6-1992 , letter of Enquiry Officer to Petitioner intimating date of enquiry dated 14-7-1992 , letter ofEnquiry Officer to Petitioner intimating date of enquiry dated 4-8-1992, copy of enquiry proceedings , copy of enquiry report dated 14-11-1992 , representation of Petitioner to Disciplinary Authority dated 20-4-1992 , copy of proceedings of Disciplinary Authority dated 22-4-1993 , copy of proceedings of Appellate Authority dated 3-11-1993.

6. In the present case before taking action against the Petitioner domestic enquiry was conducted by management as such , the legality and validity of domestic enquity was considered before , hearing the parties under Sec . 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 16-2-2009 was fixed for hearing on the question of validity of demestic enquiry , but it was not challenged by the Petitioner workman

8. Point No. ( I ) : In the present case it is undisputed fact that Petitioner was appointed in the year 1974 and he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 27-11-1989 . It is also undisputed fact that services of the Petitioner were terminated vide proceeding No. PRS ( IN ) DGM / Hyderabad 93/23 dated 22-4-1993 . It is also undisputed that he preferred an appeal which was dismissed by proceeding dated 22-4- 93. It is also undisputed fact that Petitioner has filed this petition on 18-11-2005 , i.e. more than 12½ years after the final dismissal order. The only contention of the Petitioner is that, he belongs to scheduled caste community and he has large family to support and his family is suffering due to which he is suffering mental trauma . However, it has to be considered whether the dismissal of the Petitioner was justified or not , Petitioner himself has stated that he was served with a charge sheet wherein it was alleged that he received money through the account holders on different dated but did not deposit that amount in the accounts , he simply made entry in the respective pass books of the account holders , but did not make the entry in the account books of the bank and did not deposit the amount in the bank . Secondly he took out or removed Rs . 1000 on 20-11- 1989 and he was trying to make good that amount by placing other notes of different denominations of 21-11-1989 and was caught red handed by the Inspecting officials . A charge sheet was served on the Petitioner workman , he was asked to file his explanation but he did not file explanation . An enquiry was ordered, vide letter dated 19-6-1991 Petitioner sought time for extension of time. There is another letter dated 19-7-1991 through which also Petitioner sought time to file explanation . Both these letters prove that the chages sheet was personally served on the Petitioner . He was given opportunity to explain his conduct , even after seeking time twice through his own letters he did not file any explanation or reply to the charge sheet.It is also undisputed fact that enquiry was ordered and the same was communicated to the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has intimated the Petitioner , the date and place of enquiry and time of the enquiry, but the entire proceeding book shows and proves that Petitioner has not participated in 2399 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

addressed two letters dated 24-11-89 and 15-6-90 regarding depositing the amount in his SB a/c in the month of July, handed over Rs . 1300 to charge sheeted employee on 20- 11-89 who made entry in his pass book and signed the pass book . All these evidence and material goes to porve that the Petitioner has received the amount from Sri . K. Shashidhar Sharma and Sri M. Chandra Sekhar for depositing the amount the bank, he simply make entry in the pass book but did not make entry in the bank's ledger book and thereby he pocketed that amounts for his own gains, Not only that the Petitioner has taken away Rs . 1000 from the cash box of the bank on 20-11-1989 and tried to return the said amount on 21-11-1989 while doing so he was caught by the inspecting staff. This prove that Petitioner workman is a dishonest employee , as such , the management has not committed any illegal or unjustifiability in ordering dismissal of such a dishonest employee because , such employee is detrimental to the honour of the institution . The bank has not committed any illegality in imposing the punishment to the Petitioner . Point No. ( I ) is decided accordingly.

10. Point No. ( II ) : The Petitioner workman has not been able to prove that the action of the management is unjustifiable or illegal , as against this , it is amply proved that the Petitioner has committed misappropriation and theft ofthe bank's property as he does not deserve to be retained in the bank's service . He is not entitled for any relief and he deserves no sympathy. The Petitioner himself is responsible for the state of affairs his family is facing but he does not deserve any sympathy on the round of financial hardship . Petition is devoid of merit . More over, it has been filed after 12½ years without any cogent reason or without any application for condonation , as such, no relief can be granted to him . Point No. ( II ) is decided accordingly.

11. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the view that the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in dismissing the Petitioner Sri Kasturi Subba Rayudu , accordingly the petition is dismissed. Hence , this award .

Award passed accordingly. Trasmit .

the enquiry proceeding nor has requested the Enquiry Officer to postpone the enquiry Proceeding as such, the Enquiry Officer has no other option but to set the enquiry ex-parte and take down the evidence of the management . The enquiry proceeding book further prove that on 23-4- 1992 , the Petitioner has sent a telegram to the Enquiry Officer informing him that he is not feeling well and requested for postponement of the enquiry on the basis of which the enquiry was postponed and next date has been informed to the Petitioner. Management has examined as many as is six witnesses and marked 13 exhibits i.e. MEX.1 to MEX13 during enquiry . Sri N. Niranjan Murthy has been produced as MWI who has conducted investigaion in the matter of irregularities committed by Petitioner workman and who has produced 13 documents from the bank which were marked by him as MEX ) to MEX13 . He has stated that he has examined the pass book of Sri Shashidhar Sharma who complained thathe remitted a sum ofRs . 120 on 21-10-1989 and 10-11- 1989 to his SB A/ c No. 115. He produced his pass book wherein the entries were made by the Petitioner workman in his own hand writing but said amount has not been reflected in the ledger folio etc. MW2 Sri Omkar Dussa, Manager ( Inspection) stated that he was inspecting the branch with respect to the books of accounts of 21-11- 1989. He was accompanied with Sri Syed Aseem, Dy. Inspector who started verification of the cash kept in single lock in cashier's cabin . Sri Syed Aseem informed him that cashier is trying to insert some cash into the box to cover the shortage, then, the witness verified the single lock cash balance as on 20-11-1989 and he found that 20 pieces of Rs . 50 denoimination notes amounting to Rs . 1000 was less . He directed Sri Syed Aseem to mention in MEX . 14 and endorsement therein , at the time of commencement of inspection the Petitioner was asked to sign the endorsement , Charge sheeted employee was enquired about the shortage of the amount , who informed the witness that in order to meet out some medical expenses for his family he has taken away Rs . 1000 from the single lock. He also admitted that while Sri Syed Aseem started checking of cash balances in the single lock he made an attempt to insert a sum of Rs . 1000 to avoid detection .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 13th day of January, 2011.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Persiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for Respondent

NIL

Documentsd marke for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

9.This statement ofMW2 was corroborated byMW3 Sri Syed Aseem. Sri Shashidhar Sharma, account holder was examined as MW4, who stated that he deposited Rs . 120 on 21-10-1989 and Rs . 890 on 10-11-1989, produced his passbook wherein the Petitioner workman has made entires and put his initials . He gave that amount to Sri Subbarayudu for which he gave a letter to the Manager because, charge sheeted employee has not issued counter foil of receiving the amount. MW5 Sri N. Subramanian, Manager of Devapatla branch, he has corroborated the testimony of Sri Syed Aseem. MW6 Sri Saifulla Basha, Pgimy agent- Devapatla branch, MW7 Sri M.Chandra Sekhar, account holder SB a/ c No. 694 who has also deposed that he

768GI /11-24 2400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 747.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आन्ध्रा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी. 142/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-39025/1/2010- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 747. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. L.C.142 / 2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Andhra Bank and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 13-1-2011 .

[No. L - 39025/ 1 /2010 -IR ( B - II) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 8th day of September, 2010 Industrial Dispute No. L.C. 142/2007 BETWEEN

Sri Vivekananda, S/ o Girivenkaiah,

R/ o Surya Medical Shop , Naidupet (M) , Pillarigudi Street Nellore.

Petitioner AND

1.The General Manager ( Personnel ) , Andhra Bank , Head Office, Hyderabad.

2. The Assistant General Manager Andhra Bank,

ZonalOffice, Nellore District .

....Respondent

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

For the Petitioner : M/ s . G. Vidya Sagar , K. Udaya Sri & P. Sudheer Rao , Advocates For the Respondent : M/ s . S. Udayachala Rao ,

S. Vikramaditya Babu , S. Mujib Kumar & M. Raghamani , Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed under Sec . 2A (2) of the I.D. Act by Sri G Vivekananda challenging the order compulsory retirement from the bank's service dated 22-5-2000 and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 142/2007 and notices were issued to the parties .

2. The Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of compulsory retirement. As the case is posted for filing of counter and documents , Respondent No.2 has submitted memo stating that the post of Assistant General Manager has been shifted to Andhra Bank, Zonal Office at Tirupathi . Thereafter , Petitioner sought time for submission of petition with amended cause title .

3. On 8-9-2010 , workman or his counsel called absent . Petitioner's counsel has not filed amendment application as directed through order dated 20-7-2010 , as such , this case is dismissed for non - compliance of the order dated 20-7-2010.

Accordingly, a Nil award is passed . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 8th day of September , 2010 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 748.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 2401

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 /173/2005- आई आर( बी- II ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th February , 2011

S.O. 748. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-2-2011 .

[No. L- 12011 / 173 /2005 - IR (B - II) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PRESENT : N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

I.D. 25/2006

Reference No. L - 12011 / 173 /2005- IR ( B - II) dated: 20-1-2006

The General Secretary,

Central Bank Karamchari Union,

Anand Bhawan ,

Basement S. C. Road , Jaipur.

V/s

The Asstt . General Manager ,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office , S. C. Road, Anand Bhawan , Jaipur- 302006 .

AWARD

31-1-2011

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

" Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Jaipur in awarding the punishment of re - designation as peon from initial post of his recruitment as Armed Guard dated 13-11-2003 and withdrawing Spl . Pay ofArmed Guard Shri Prahalad Singh without mentioning any specific period is legal and 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 . Shri Rajeev Sharma representative on behalf of the non- applicant appeared on 25-4-06 . On behalf of the applicant union Shri Rajesh Maherishi appeared and sought time for filing claim statement and authority letter . On subsequent dates i.e. 17-5-06 & 7-6-06 , he sought further time for filing claim statement & authority letter . Thereafter , the post of the Presiding Officer remained vacant therefore , fresh notices were issued after posting of the Presiding Officer.

3. The representative on behalf of the non - applicant appeared on 2-6-10 but none appeared on behalf of the applicant side . The acknowledgement receipts pertaining to registered notices sent for appearing on 23-11-10 & 12-1-11 are on the record . On perusal of the same it appears thatregistered notices have been served upon the applicant union . The applicant union has not appeared to filed its claim statement despite service of registered notices . It appears that the union is not willing to contest the case further.

4. Under these circumstances no material could be brought on record for adjudicating the reference under consideration on merits . Resultantly, " No Claim Award " is passed in this matter . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

5. Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 749.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/ 31 /2010 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 749. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- II , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman , which 2402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/31 /2010 - IR (B - II) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH

Present : SHRI A. K. RASTOGI , Presiding Officer Case ID No. 36/2K10

Registered on 10-6-2010

Sh. Mukesh Kumar C/ o Sh . Jawahar Lal & A. R. Panchanand Singh , H. No. 154 , DLF, Phase 1 , Faridabad

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] unjustified . He has demanded his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

Management appeared but did not file the written statement . Workman also absented on 22-10-2010 , 9-12-2010 and 28-1-2011 . Workman filed claim statement only . He did not file any affidavit or any other document in support of his claim . There being no evidence in support of his claim , the claim of the workman is not acceptable . He has failed to prove that he was in the employment of management and was a workman and his services were terminated by the management in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is therefore , answered against the workman . Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action .

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer

...Applicant

Versus

The Manager , Bank of India , 14/1 , Mathura Road , Faridabad

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 750.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Sh. Jawahar Lal/ Panchanand Singh ARs for workman For the Management : None for Management

AWARD

Passed on 28th January, 2011

Central Government vide notification No. L - 12012/ 31 /2010 - IR ( B - II ) dated 3-6-2010 by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub - section ( 1 ) Clause ( d ) and Sub- section 2 ( A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

" Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Faridabad for disengaging Sh . Mukesh Kumar S/ o Sh . Daya Chand , Sweeper w.e.f. 21-11-2008 from SME Branch Faridabad is fair and legal ? What relief the workman is entitled to ? "

The workman has raised an industrial dispute stating that he had been working with the management as a Sweeper since 23-3-1999 . The management took the work of Reon and Watchman also . He used to work 12 hours daily and sometimes 16 hours also . He is regular muster roll employee . The workman asked for minimum wages and payment of overtime, whereupon he was disengaged from 21-11-2008 . He had not been paid due wages and retrenchment compensation . His termination is illegal and unjustified . He had not been paid due wages and retrenchment compensation . His termination is illegal and का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 80/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/97/2007- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 750.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 80/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/97 /2007 - IR (B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 2nd February , 2011 Present : A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 80/2007

[ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A ) of Section 10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of Central Bank of India and their Workman]

BETWEEN

Smt . S. Bhanu

: Ist Party /Petitioner

Vs.

The Regional Manager : 2nd Party /Management Central Bank of India ,

Regional Office,

Post Box No.377

Raheja Complex ,

3rd Floor, 69 , Anna Salai , Chennai - 600002 .

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party /Petitioner : Sri K. M. Ramesh , Advocate

For the 2nd Party/

: M/ s . T. S. Gopalan &

Co. , Advocates Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 12012 / 97 / 2007 - IR (B - II ) dated 28-11-2007 referred the following Industrial Disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

" Whether the action of the bank management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Smt . S. Bhanu is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 80/2007 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Advocates and filed their Claim , Counter and Rejoinder Statements as the case may be.

3. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell in the Claim Statement and Rejoinder Statement is that she while was working as Computer Terminal Operator in Vellammal Extension Counter, Mogappair Branch of Respondent/ Bank at Chennai was charge sheeted alleged of having committed lapses , 11 in number. In the enquiry held not in a fair and proper manner and personally biased against her by the Enquiry Officer she was found guilty of having embezzled various sums of money on various dated and committed misappropriation , which is not tenable . There is violation ofprinciples of natural justice in the conducting of the enquiry. The punishment of dismissal is also illegal and unjustified and is to be interfered with under Section- 11A ofthe ID Act. The petitioner is to be reinstated with all benefits .

2403

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

4. The Counter Statement case in substance is that the petitioner defrauded the bank with huge sums of money in various transactions , which she made good by admitting the charges . The charges also stand proved from the documentary evidence . Petitioner failed to make out a case for interference . Management lost confidence in her . The dismissal is only to be upheld.

5. Points for consideration are :

( 1) Whether the dismissal of the petitioner from service is legal and justified ?

(ii) To what reliefthe concerned petitioner is entitled?

Points ( i ) & ( ii )

6. On commencement of enquiry and the petitioner having been examined in part by way of sworn affidavit in lieu ofChiefExamination and marking Ex. W i to Ex. W. 11 , thereafter from time to time the petitioner continued to remain absent and failed to pursue with further enquiry and at last when the ID came up today her learned counsel made an endorsement on the Claim Statement to the effect that there are no instructions from the petitioner and that the ID is not pressed under his dated signature .

7. In view of the above the dispute is dismissed as not pressed for adjudication on the referred question .

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 2nd February, 2011 )

A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

None

Forthe 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner's side

Date

Ex. No.

Description

NIL

On the Management's side

Ex . No. Date

Description

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 751.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध 2404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि- करण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 08/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 / 110/2006- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 751. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO BANK and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L- 12011/ 110/2006- IR(B- II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

REFERENCE No. 08/2008

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank

AND Theirworkmen

PRESENT : Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

: None

Onbehalf of the Management

: None

Onbehalf of the Workmen

State: West Bengal

Industry: Banking Dated: 31st January, 2011

AWARD

By Order No. 12011 / 110 / 2006 - IR ( B - II ) dated 28-5-2007 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) and ( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank by not regularizing Shri Bholanath Roy , Part-time sweeper who claimed to have been working for more than

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 21 years continuously in UCO Bank is justified ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? " 2. None is present from either of the parties on call today . Absence of the parties are evident from the record on consecutive dates . They have appeared for the last time on 16-7-2010 on which date an application was filed from the side of the workmen with a prayer for withdrawal of the present reference as the dispute was settled in between the parties out of Court and on that date the Tribunal directed the workmen side to file a fresh application to that effect since the application filed on that date was not proper . Non - appearance of the parties , specially the workmen side appears to have been done in view of the settlement of the issue amicably in between the employer and the employee concerned and for that reason it may be presumed that no industrial dispute is in existence at present for the settlement of the issue .

3. In view of the same , the present reference is disposed of finally for non - prosecution and an Award is passed accordingly.

Dated , Kolkata , 31st January, 2011

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 752. औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी /एन जी पी/14 / 2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/ 193/2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th February , 2011 S. O. 752. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP / 14 /2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 193 /2004 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 2405 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT / NGP / 14/ 2005

Date: 31-01-2011 .

Party No. 1 : The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Victoria Building, Kamptee Road ,

Nagpur.

Versus

PartyNo. 2 : Shri Sudarshan Laxman Chaware , R/ o Bhandar Mohala , Indorа , PO Bezanbag , Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 31st January, 2011 )

Dharampeth branch , Abhyankar Nagar : branch , Zonal Office and lastly in Gumthala branch and his entire service record was unblemished and his working hours were from 10 AM to 5 PM and the last salary drawn by him was Rs . 2750 basic and his service was continuous without any break since the date of his joining i.e. 5-10-1989 and in the year 1998 , the Party No.1 started issuing appointment orders of 30 days / 58 days but before the end of every order , the Party No. 1 had been giving the new appointment order without any break and thus he worked with the Party No.1 till 1-8-2002 on the basic pay of Rs . 2750 continuously and the Party No.1 also conducted sub - staff examination on 15-11-1998 for the employees working with it (Party No.1 ) including the workers , who were working on daily wages for years together , with a view to give them permanency and he was also allowed to appear in the said examination and he cleard the examination securing the number one position but in spite of the same , the Party No.I did not grant him the status of permanent employee and he was permitted by the Party No. 1 in the examination only with the object of making him permanent as the policy matter and at that time , he was not at all informed about obtaining of NOC from the Employment Exchange for issuing order of permanency but passing of the sub - staff examination successfully was the only criteria , but before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner , the Party No.1 for the first time disclosed that as he failed to obtain " No Objection Certificate" from the Employment Exchange , he was not given the permanency order .

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 Bank of India and their workman , Shri Sudarshan Laxman Chaware ( " the workman " in short ) for adjudication , as per letter No. L - 12012 / 193 / 2004 - IR ( B- II ) dated 19-01-2005 , with the following schedule :-

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India through its Regional Manager , Central Bank of India , Regional Office , Victoria Building , Kamptee Road , Nagpur in terminating the services of the disputant workman , Shri Sudarshan Laxman Chaware , R / o Bhandar Mohalla , Indora , PO Bezanbag , Dist . Nagpur is fair , proper and justified & whether the disputant workman is entitled for reinstatement in service along with back wages ? If not , to what relief the disputant workman is entitled to ?"

2. Onreceipt of the reference , parties were notice to filed their respective statement of claim and written statement , in response to which , the workman , Sudarshan Laxman Chaware ( " the workman " in short ) filed his statement of claim and management of Central Bank of India ( Party No. 1 in short ) filed their written statement .

The further case of the workman is that the last appointment order was on 26-6-2002 for a period of 35 days ending on 1-8-2002 and on 1-8-2002 , the Branch Manager , Gumthala told him of giving the next appointment within to three days but in spite of his repeated oral request , no appointment order was given . It is necessary to mention that the workman subsequently amended the claim petition after obtaining the necessary permission of the Tribunal and pleaded that the Party No.1 issued a temporary appointment order on 31-8-2002 asking him to work from 2-9-2002 to 29-10-2002 on basic pay of Rs . 2750 at Gumthala Branch and accordingly he worked in Gumthala Branch from 2-9-2002 to 29-10-2002 and he had completed continuous service of 240 days preceding the 12 months from the date of termination of his service i.e. 29-10-2002 and after 29-10-2002 , no appointment order was issued by the Party No.1 and his service was terminated orally on 29-10-2002 and neither one month's notice nor any pay in lieu of notice nor any retrenchment compensation was given to him at the time of termination of his service by the Party No.1 , as per the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act and the Party No.1 also violated the provision of Section 25 - Hby retaining the junior employees in the establishment like Shri Vinod Kanojia at main branch .

3. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded inter - alia that he has studied upto 9th standard and he registered his name in the Employment Exchange and applied for his appointment on daily wages and was appointed by the Party No.1 on 5-10-1989 as a Peon on daily wage basis and accordingly he worked in different branches of the Bank such as , Nagpur branch .

2406

[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

Nagpur, while terminating his service and Party No.1 also did not publish the seniority list as required under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules and as such , his termination order w.e.f. 29-10-2002 was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and he is entitled for reinstatement in service alongwith full back wages by setting aside the oral termination order dated 29-10-2002 and as he worked continuously for 240 days , by virtue of modal standing orders , he had acquired the status of permanent employee and as such , the Party No.1 should not have orally terminated his services in an arbitrary manner and in contravention of the service conditions applicable to the bank employees , reached under various bilateral agreements between the recognized unions and managements and on the said ground also , his termination from service is required to be declared illegal . The workman has prayed to declare that the Party No.1 adopted unfair labour practice by illegally terminating his service w.e.f. 29-10-2002 , to set aside the order of oral termination dated 29-10-2002 and for reinstatement alongwith full back wages and other service benefits with continuity in service.

4. In reply, it is pleadedby the Party No.1 in its weitten statement that it has no knowledge about registration of the name of the workman in the Employment Exchange and the workman has not furnished any particulars about it and the workman was not appointed by it on 5-10-1989 as a Peon on daily wages and the workman also did not work in various branches of the Bank and he worked on daily wages , only for a limited period , as and when required and his name , was not borne on the muster rolls and as such , there was no question of maintaining any service record of the workman and the workman was paid his remuneration on daily wages basis on vouchers and he was not being paid salary at the rate of Rs . 2750 per month as alleged by him and as regards the working hours , the workman worked as a casual daily rated worker as and when required by the Bank . The Party No1 has denied that the workman was appointed on 5-10-1989 by it and his services were continued without any break and from 1998 , it started issuing appointment orders for 30 days and 58 days and it used to issue fresh appointment order before the expiry of the earlier order and he was paid basic salary of Rs . 2750 till 1-8-2002 and as per the particulars available with it, the workman worked from 15-10-2001 to 11-12-2001 , 7-1-2002 to 5-3-2002 , 13-3-2002 to 11-4-2002 , 22-4-2002 to 18-6-2002 , 28-6-2002 to 1-8-2002 in total for 239 days and during the said period, the workman was engaged on daily wages on a purely temporary basis , particularly, when the shifting work of Gunnthala Branch of the Bank to its new premises was going on and on completion of the shifting work , since his services were not required by the Bank any more , he was

discontinued . The Party No.1 has further pleaded that the Bank conducted written recruitment test for sub - staff category on 15-11-1998 and the daily wagers , who were engagedby it in the past for specific period and who were eligible to appear in the written recruitment test had appeared in the written test on 15-11-1998 and as the workman also qualified to appear in the written recruitment test, he was allowed to appear in the test , but it has denied that those employees who had worked on daily wages for years together appeared for the said test , as the bank wanted to give them status of permanency . It has pleaded that the sub - staff written recruitment test was conducted by the Regional Office of the Bank at Nagpur , as per the guidelines received from the Central Office of the Bank at Mumbai and the workman and other candidates were allowed to appear in the test on the terms and conditions that "No Objection Certificate " will be obtained by the candidates from Nagpur Employment Exchange , for not complying with their norms , while engaging them temporarily and the result of the written recruitment test will be announced only after obtaining " no objection certification " from the Office of the Employment Exchange , Nagpur and in all 17 candidates were found successful in the said written test including the workman having his Roll No.7 , as informed by the Central Office of the Bank and thereafter , the management of the Bank made correspondence with the Office of the District Employment Exchange and Self Employment Guidance Centre , Nagpur for issuance of " No Objection Certificate " in favour of those candidates , who had cleared the written test and declared successful , but , the Authority of the Employment Exchange had informed it that since the names of the candidates declared successful were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange for taking them on daily wages in sub - staff cadre , it was not possible to issue "No Objection Certificate " to any of the seventeen successful candidates and under those circumstances , it could not further process the list of candidates who had cleared the written test and further decision could not be taken by it in the matter, but in spite of the same , as and when work was available , the workman was engaged on daily wages on a purely temporary basis for stipulated period and as regards the work performed by the workman as a daily wager prior to 15-11-1998 , the particulars regarding the period and the number of days of work performed by him are not available with it and no assurance was given on 1-8-2002 by the Branch Manager , Gumthala Branch of giving him next appointment order within 2 to 3 days and neither the Branch Manager nor the Regional Manager of the Bank had any power or authority to issue appointment order to the workman and the discontinuation of the workman cannot be termed as oral termination , as he being a daily rated casual worker engaged on a purely temporary basis , depending upon the availability of work.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

there was no question of continuing him as such, for an indefinite period and as soon as it was realized that no work was available at Gurnthala Branch for him , he was discontinued and no candidate can be employed in the Bank as a matter of right , surpassing the set and definite recruitment procedure , which is to be strictly followed by the Bank and before the ALC (C) , the Bank management appeared and clarified its position on the above said lines and the conciliation proceedings failed and as the workman was a daily rated casual worker, there was no question of application of any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore , there was no necessity of compliance of the Provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act and it is also false to say that the service of the workman was terminated, while retaining others in employmentwho were allegedly juniors to him . The Party No.1 has denied all other allegations made in the statement of claim and pleaded that the workman is not entitled for any relief.

5. Parties were allowed to adduce evidence . The workman examined himself as a witness besides relying ondocumentary evidence . On behalf of the management, one Shri Vilas Narayanrao Mirkute was examined as a witness.

6. The workman in his evidence on affidavit has reiterated the stands taken by him in the statement of claim. He has also proved the documents as Ext . W- 1 to W-10 . In his cross -examination, the workman has admitted thatbank has never issued a written order appointing him permanently on the vacant post and he worked as a daily wager , whenever he was asked for the same and he was paid on vouchers and though he had appeared in the test held on 15-11-98 and there was publication of a list, he was not given any appointment order consequent upon the same and nobody from the said list was given appointment and on his enquiry, he was informed by the bank that he would be engaged whenever there would be any vacancy.

The witness examined on behalfof the management has stated that the workman was engaged on daily wages basis as a casual worker as and when required and hewas not a permanent employee of the bank and he worked for 239 days from 15-10-2001 to 1-8-2002 and the bank does not have the documents regarding the engagement of the workman prior to 15-11-1998. This witness has also stated that the workman did not work continuously from 1989 and though written recruitment test was conducted for appointment of sub-staff category on 15-11-1998 and the workman cleared the test, due to non -submission ofNOC by the Employment Exchange , further action could not be taken in the matter and as the workman was a daily wager, be was not engaged by the Bank when no such work was available and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief. In his cross - examination , the witness for the management has admitted that he has no personal 76861/11-25

2407

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

knowledge about the work of the petitioner and his evidence is on the basis of records and he has not filed any document in support of his claim that the workman worked for 239 days from 15-10-2001 to 1-8-2002. He has also admitted that no document or circular has been filed to show that for the appointment of sub - staff, NOC ofthe Employment Exchange is necessary but he has made the statement on the basis of guidelines of the Head Office but such guidelines also has not been filed. He has also admitted that there may be more than 100 vacancies ofthe sub-staff and the petitioner was not informed that the process of recruitment of such sub -staff did not continue due to letter issued by the Employment Exchange.

7. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that it is clear from the evidence on record including the documents filed by the workman that the workman was working with the Bank since the year 1989 and he also worked for 297 days preceding 12months of the oral termination ofhis service on 29-10-2002 , which amounts to retrenchment of the workman and provisions of Section 25- F of the Act were not complied with and due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions the retrenchment of the workman is illegal and as such , he is entitled for reinstatement and the workman also appeared in the recruitment test conducted by the Bank and he was engaged against clear vacancy of Peon on payment monthly salary and as there are number of vacancies of sub - staff in the Bank, the workman is entitled for reinstatement and to be absorbed permanently. In support of such contention , the learned advocate for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1986 ILLJ - 127 ( SC) (H. D. Singh Vs Reserved Bank of India and others) , 1981 LLJ - 386 (SC) ( Surendra Kumar Verma Vs CGIT) , 1992, I CLR - 571 ( Laxmi Pandit Vs Industrial Tribunal ) , 1997 II CLR 1099 (Tata Consultancy Engineers Vs V. K. Nair ), 1995 ICLR- 62 ( Chairman -cum- Managing Director, Orissa Road Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs Ramesh Chandra Gouda) , 2003 I CLR 952 (Municipal Board V's Labour Court ) and 2008 III LLI 273 ( T. I. Bagga Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation) .

8.In reply, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that the specific case of the Bank is that the workman was never employed as a regular or permanent employee and by way of due process of recruitment and the workman was engaged on daily wages basis and that too for a limited period intermittently and he was being paid his remuneration by the Bank on daily wages basis on vouchers for the period ofhis engagement and there was no question of fixing any basic monthly salary of the workman and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief. In support of such contention, 2408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12, 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the bank on the decisions reported in 2006 II LLJ - 722 (SC ) (Secretary, State ofKarnatakaVs Umadevi ) , 1997 LIC 2075 (SC) (Himansukumar Vidyarthi Vs State ofBihar) , 1996 ILLN 299 (SC) (State ofHimachal Pradesh Vs Sureshkumar Verma) , 2008 II LLJ - 977 (Sanjaykumar Tiwari Vs State of Bihar) and 2008 1 CLR- 908 ( State ofMaharashtra Vs Anil E.Kharat) .

Keeping in viewthe principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Courts in the decisions, on which reliance has been placed by the parties , now the present case at hand is to be considered .

9. Perused the materials on record including the documents filed by the workman . Though it is the case of theBank that the workman is not working in the Bank from 1989, the documents filed by the workman show that he worked for 15days in 1989, 59 days in 1990 , 50 days in 1991. From the documents , it is also found that the workman was engaged for 35 days from 28-6-2002 to 1-8-2002 on the basic pay of Rs.2750 alongwith Dearness Allowances and House Rent. It is also found from the documents that he was also engaged by the Bank for the period from 2-9-2002 to 29-10-2002 on the basic pay of Rs.2750 alongwith the Dearness Allowances and House Rent . It is also found from the record that he worked for 297 days , preceding 12 months from the date of his termination from service . As the workman worked for more than 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of his termination, his termination amounts to retrenchment from service and as such , it was necessary for the Bank to comply with the mandatory provisions ofsection 25- F of the Act and for such non - compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25 - F of the Act, the termination of the service ofthe workman is illegal .

10. In this case, admittedly, on 15-11-1998, the written test was conducted by the Bank for appointment of sub- staff and candidates , who were working in the Bank as dailywagers including the present workman were allowed toappear in the said examination. It is also not disputed that the workman was successful in the said test and his name was at Sl.No.l in . the list of 17 successful candidates. The only stand taken by the Bank is that there was a condition for obtaining NOC from the Employment Exchange for appointment of the successful candidate and the Employment Exchange did not provide such certificate and as such, it was not possible to take further action for appointment of the workman and the 16 others . On perusal of the call letter issued to the workman, it is found that no such condition was mentioned in the same . However, in the letter dated 13-8-1998 issued by the Bank, which has been filed by the workman, it is found that the

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)) Zonal Manager was directed by the Chief Manager not to publish the result before obtaining of the NOC from the Employment Exchange Office , for not complying to their norms while engaging the workman temporarily. In spite of such direction , the result of the written test was published by the Bank and as such it can be presumed that either such NOC was obtained by the Bank or Bank waived the condition of obtaining the NOC . Moreover, theBank has not filed any document to show that NOC of the Employment Exchange was required for taking further action in appointing the workman and 16 others successful candidates in the test . It is also found from the documents filed by the workman that the workman had submitted an application to the Employment Exchange Officer on 28-9-2007 for issuance of a NOC . It is also found from the documents that the Assistant Director सहायक संचालक District Employment Exchange , Nagpur gave a reply to the said letter stating that issuance of NOC by the Employment Exchange is not necessary for giving appointment to the workman and others on the basis of the test conducted by the Bank . So the said document can be treated as a NOC issued by the Employment Exchange for making appointment of the workman by the Bank . As the case of the present workman as mentioned above is quite different from the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions , on which reliance has been placedby the learned advocate for the Bank, with respect, I am of the view that those decisions have no direct implication in the present case at hand ,

In view of the discussion made above and the materials on record , it is held that the termination of the service ofthe workman, Shri Sudarshan Laxman Chaware isnot proper andjustified and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service and to be appointed as a sub- staff as per recruitment test conducted on 15-11-1998. However, the workman has neither pleaded nor adduced any evidence that he was not gainfully employed after the termination of his service , so, he is not entitled for any back wages .Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in favour of the workman inpart andhis termination from service by Bank is held to be not proper andjustified. It is directed that the workman be reinstated in service within one month from the date of notification of the award . The workman is not entitled for any back wages . The workman is also entitled for appointment as sub- staff as per the recruitment test conducted on 15-11-1998 and as such , steps be taken by the Bank for his appointment as a sub - staff as per the result of the recruitment test conducted on 15-11-1998 .

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 753.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 293/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/98/2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 753. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 293/04 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011.

[No. L- 12012/98 /2004 - IR (B - II )] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHREE GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 293/2004 ,

Raju son of Shri Sat Pal , C/ o Shri Sukman Sharma, House No. 571 , Sector - 11B , Chandigarh

2409

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

Ex- Part time sweeper from service w.e.f. 18-9-2003 is just and legal ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

On receipt of the reference , parties were informed. Partiesappeared and filed their pleadings . The case of the parties in nutshell is that on 24-10-2002, Col. S. S. Mangat husband of Smt. Gurdip Kaur submitted a complaint to the Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank , Sector- 36 D, Chandigarh to the effect that on 23-10-2002 , his wife withdraw Rs. 50000 from her account No. 100. During the transaction , she forget to take back the pass book and cheque book containing a blank cheque signed by his wife pertaining to her saving bank account No. 19219 in SBI , Sector - 17 , Chandigarh . This cheque was mis- appropriated and a sum of Rs . 19000 was withdrawn from her SB account in the name of one Vijay Kumar on 23-10- 2002. An enquiry was conducted and it was found that workman Raju has withdrawn this amount and deposited the same in his personal account . He admitted the charges before the enquiry officer. Thereafter before this Tribunal , he challenged the voluntary nature of his admission but before this as well ; he admitted withdrawal of amount in question.

Bothof the parties vide order dated 21-7-2010 were given opportunity of being heard on limited issue . As the workman had admitted the charges before the enquiry officer, vide order dated 21-7-2010 , opportunity was given to the workman to explain circumstances under which he deposited the cheque in his SB account . He was also afforded the opportunity to explain on quantum of punishment .

Evidence of the parties was recorded . Workman in

.Applicant

Versus

1. Zonal Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank , Zonal Office , Sector 17 - B , Chandigarh

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workmen

: Shri Amit Sharma.

Shri J. S. Sathi

For the management :

AWARD

Passed On 31-1-11

Central Govt . Ministry of Labour vide letter No. L-12012/98 /2004 IR ( B - II ) ) dated 3rd of September, 2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank, Chandigarh in dismissing Shri Raju , 768 G1 /11-26

his evidence before this Tribunal further admitted that he has withdrawn the amount and deposited the same in his SB account . The workman disclosed that he was intended to return the amount to the lawful owner and this was the reason that he had used the cheque . This contention of the workman is not trustworthy because ifhe was intended to return the amount ; there was no occasion for him to get the cheque encashed . The workman has failed to explain as to why the cheque signedby the wife of the complainant was not returned to the manager concerned preventing himself and any other person to misuse the cheque . The act of the workman was gross misconduct and there is no doubt in proving the charge . So far as the punishment is concerned, considering the nature of misconduct which the workman has admitted , before this Tribunal as well, for me , the punishment awarded is adequate . Bank is the financial institution which requires the integrity, honesty and discipline of highest standard . There should be no compromise on the integrity, honesty and discipline. The act of the workman has rightly compelled the management to see him off the department . Accordingly, there is no. merit in the present reference and the same is answered 2410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

against the workman . Central Goverment be informed. File be consigned .

Chandigarh.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 754.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ओवरसीज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/125/2004- आई आर ( बी- [ ] ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 754. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 24/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-2-2011 .

[No. L - 12012/ 125/2004 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD,

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 11th day of January, 2011 Industrial Dispute No. 24/2005

Between:

$ri R. D. V. P.V. Sitaramanjaneyulu , 26-11 /3363 (New 1685), $ imhapuri Centre , Vedayapalem , Nellore-524004.

.Petitioner AND

The General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office , 763 , Anna Salai , Chennai -600.002.

[ PART II SH300

AWARD

This reference has been received from Government ofIndia, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. 1.- 1201 125/2004- IR ( B - II ) dated 15-9-2004 under section 10 ( d of the I.D. Act . 1947 to resolve the dispute betwe Sri R.D.V.P.V. Sitaramanjaneyulu , ex , employee of Ind Overseas Bank and management of Indian Overseas Bai The term of reference is as under :

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the management of Indre Overseas Bank, Chennai in discharging the serv... ofSri R.D.V.P.V. Sitaramanjaneyulu , Ex - emplo Cuddapah Branch w.e.f. 11-7-2003 is legal : . justified?" If not , what relief the workman is enr . to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as No. 24/2005 and notices were issued to the parties .

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

Sri . T.A. Kumar, Advocate Hor the Petitioner :

For the Respondent : Sri . M. V. K. Viswanadham . Advocate

2. The Petitioner workman has filed claim statement stating therein that he joined Indian Overseas Bank or 18-12-1978 at its Gudur Branch Nellore District, from tis ... he was transferred to Cuddapah Branch . He was pic under suspension , through bank's letter dated 27-12-200 pending enquiry on the allegation that Petitioner abused used intemperate language before superiors , failed to shus courtesy to his superiors and has been taking up irrelevar unwarranted matters with executives at Central Office eith directly or to outside agencies in clear violation o instructions . He was issued with the charge sheet No F AD/ IRD/ 184 / 21/2001-2002 with the allegation that he ha been writing letters directly to the higher authorit. abetted / instigated his wife to send letter / representations telegrams to outside agencies regarding Petitioner " . grievances in the service matters in the tone and tenor which are abusive sarcastic vilifying with intemperate insinuating/ foul language and bereft of decency and decorum, covering the allegations under 17.5 ( b ) , ( d ) , ( e ). (j ). ( 1 ) and 17.7 (j ) of Bipartite settlement calling for the explanation of the Petitioner within 10 days. Petitioner submitted his explanation requesting the bank to withdrawn the charge sheet and the suspension order. Again on 16. - 8-2001 bank issued additional charge sheet No. PAD /RD/ 184 /64 / 2001-2002 with allegations of wili full insubordination or disobedience to the lawful orders of the management which are being prejudicial to the interests of the bank under article 17.5 ( e ) and 17.7 (j ) of the Bipartite settlement . One more charge sheet No. PAD IRD 184/4/ 2002-2003 dated6-5-2002 with similar imputation under same article was issued to the Petitioner. Petitioner filed his explanation dated 13-5-2002. Enquis was ordered . Petitioner through his letters requested the bank to permit him to avail the service of legal counsel to defend his case which was not accepted by the bank . One Sri N. Sai Prasad , was appointed as Enquiry Officer , the Petitioner moved application to avail the services 2411 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 / फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

Advocate which was declined. Petitioner moved petition before A.P.Cooperative Tribunal which was dismissed . The Petitioner was not permitted to utilize the services of Lawyer which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. During course of enquiry Petitioner requested for adjournment of the proceeding but the same was not allowed . He has challenged the enquiry proceeding on several grounds . It was stated that basing on the prejudicial finding of the Enquiry Officer, the punishment has been imposed which is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. He has prayed that the order of discharge from service be set aside and he be reinstated in service .

to her the contents / meaning of the complaint . He was chargesheeted regarding receiving of the complaint from said Smt . Narayanamma on 24-2-1997 and he was awarded with punishment of reduction in basic pay by three stages . There was clear instruction from the central office of bank by different circular letters with a staff number of all the levels not to make representation directly to the General Manager / Executive Director / Chairman and Managing Director to route all such correspondence through proper channel . But Petitioner continued to send letter directly to top executives and outside agencies . He was suspended on 27-12-2000 and chargesheeted on 21-5-2001 .

him: 4. The following charges were levelled against

i. You are in the habit of willfully writing letters directly to bank's higher authorities at Regional Office , Vijayawada and top management at Central Office , Chennai casting aspersions on and criticizing the officials of the Branch , Regional Office and Central Office and the bank as a whole . Forexample your letter dated 3-6-2000 addressed and sent directly to our General Manager , Personnel Administration Department , Central Office , Chennai . You continued to address letter dated 2-1-2001 and 8-3-2011 addressed and sent directly to our Bank's Chairman and Managing Director and letter dated 6-1-2001 addressed and sent directly to our Assistant General Manager , Industrial Relations Department Central Office .

ii. The correspondence initiated by you as above quite frequently are uncalled for and unwarranted and incompatible with your position in the bank. Your correspondence was found to be irrelevant / frivolous and vexatious . The tone and tenor of your letters were abusive , sarcastic , insinuating, with intemperate / foul language and bereft of respect , regard and politeness .

iii. You were in the habit of willfully sending the letters / representations frequently and directly to our Bank's Chairman & Managing Director /General Manager/ Executives at Central office regarding your grievances in service matters without routing the same through proper channel despite clear instructions of bank to desist from such acts .

iv. You have also willfully abetted/ instigated your wife Smt . R. Bharathi Devi to send letters / representations / telegrams directly to outside agencies regarding your grievances in service matters like transfer , punishment awarded to you and other internal matters of the bank and thereby attempted to bring outside influence to bear upon the superiors in the bank to further your interest .

3. Respondent bank has filed counter statement . It has been stated by the management that Petitioner was discharged from service with superannuation benefits i.e .. Pension , PF and Gratuity. The Petitioner was in habit of willfully writing letter directly to the bank's higher authorities at Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam and top management authority of the Central office , Chennai casting as persions on and criticizing the officials of the branch , Regional office , and Central office and the bank ds a whole .The correspondence initiated by him was mostly uncalled for and unwarranted and incompatible with his position in the bank. The correspondence was found to be irrelevant , frivolous and vexatious . The tone and tenor of his letters were abusive , sarcastic with intemperate , insinuating foul language and bereft of respect, regard and politeness . The Petitioner has willfully abetted/ instigated his wife Smt . R.Bharathi Devi to send letters and representations , telegrams to outside agencies regarding the grievances of the Petitioner in service matters like, transfer , punishment awarded to him and other internal functioning of the bank and thereby attempted to bring outside influence to bear upon the superiors in the bank to further Petitioner's'interest . His wife Smt . R. Bharathi Devi has sent letters to President of India , Chief Justice of AP High Court , Finance Minister , Chief Vigilance Commissioner and various internal agencies regarding trivial grievances of the services of the Petitioner though she is not an employee of the bank and had no locus standi in the matter . The Petitioner made direct complaint to Regional Manager, Andhra Bank on 25-9-90 for which explanation was called for and he was advised by the Respondent to desist from repeating such actions . Inspite of such caution and advises Petitioner continued to send frivolous / vexatious complaints to outside agencies and thereby committed same type of misconduct again and again . At the instance and instigation of the Petitioner one Smt . Narayanamma , sweeperess , Palamkurru branch sent complaint to the Finance Minister , Government of India , thus , the Petitioner has exploited the ignorance / innocence of illiterate sweeperess and he mislead , misguided and obtaining her signature on her complaint drafted by him and typed at his instance without revealing 2412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

v. You have also willfully abetted/ instigated your wife Smt . R. Bharathi Devi to send letters/ representation / telegrams to the President of India. Chief Justice of AP High Court , Finance Minister , Government of India, Chief Vigilance Commissioner and lodge complaints to various internal agencies regarding your trivial grievances in service matters and the internal functioning of the bank , when she , as a non employee of the bank had no locus standi in the matter .

vi . The tone tenor of the correspondence emanated from your wife Smt . R. Bharathi Devi are abusive , sarcastic , vilifying with intemperate/ insinuating/ foul language and bereft of decency and decorum. Further these correspondence tend to mar and tarnish the image of the bank , our executives and our employees .

vii . You had willfully abetted / instigated your wife Smt . R. Bharathi Devi to send fax dated 10-12-2000 directly to the Chairman and Managing Director , which is abusive , sarcastic with intemperate/ insinuating language , bereft of respect and regard. Despite the Bank having advised your wife specifically not to write such communications , you had continued to adopt instigate her to do so .

viii . Inspite of your declaration of fidelity and secrecy to the Bank at the time of your joining that you will not communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled there to any information relating to the affairs of any person having any dealing with our bank , you had divulged disclosed information to persons not entitled to the same, your wife has enclosed documents in her correspondence which are privy to the bank.

ix, you are in the habit of directly corresponding with Executives at Central Office . You have failed to comply with the instructions contained in the circulars EST 117/86 dated 3-11-86 , 7( f) 123 dated 18-8-89 and 7 ( f) dated 23-7-90 .

x. Despite Industrial Relations Department , Central Office, caution letter dated 16-7-91 to you , Regional Office , Vijayawada letters dated 4-1-00 and 13-1-00 and caution letter dated 9-8-00 to you and the earlier charge sheet dated 24-2-97 and punishment order dated 25-5-99 to you thereon for similar misconduct , you have not shown any improvement but continued to repeat the misconduct .

5. The Petitioner has contended in his explanation that in opinion of the general public , superiors , executives are expected to discharge their duties and responsibilities without nepotism and favouritism . By virtue of one's own decisions /actions only, the superiority and respectability is estimated and as far as the bank is concerned the activities and decisions are being observed by the staff

[ PART II S Mil and create an impression about the superiors and executives . He has referred the Thomsons Court Affidias it and violation of Bipartite Settlement , systems and procedures in awarding punishments transfer to Cuddapah , cancellation transfer order to Nellore and present suspension order violating the guidelines issued by Central Administrative Tribunals Courts . The Petitioner has been charge sheeted several times , he submitted his explanation dated 13-5-2002 in the same way. The Enquny Officer has followed the principles of natural justice and has given full and fair opportunity to the Petitioner . Enquiry Officer has submitted his report with cogem reasons basing on the evidence placed before him . No prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner workman . He has not been able to prove any prejudice . The claim petition: is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

6. Parties were directed to file their respective evidence . Petitioner workman has filed as many as 18 documents as per list which consists of Order PAD IRD 184 / 191 / 2000-2001 of the Respondent suspending Petitioner , chargesheet issued , explanation to charge sheet , additional charge sheet dated 16-8-2001.explanation to charge sheet . 3rd charge sheet dated 6-5-2002 . explanation to 3rd charge sheet , representation of Petitioner to engage lawyer dated 4-12-2001 , reply to representation rejecting the request by Respondent , orders ofHon'ble High Court of A. P.. in WP No. 26075 2018 . dated 23-4-2002 . enquiry proceedings 27-11-2002 , written brief submitted by Petitioner to Enquiry Officer . show cause notice dated 3-5-2003 by Respondent to Petitioner . Reply of the Petitioner dated 4-6-2003 , removal order dated 12-7-2003 , appeal of Petitioner against removal order dated 31-8-2003 , representation of Petitioner to Chairman of the Bank dated 14-11-2003 , order of Appellate Authority confirming the punishment dated 17-12-2003 . 11e has also filed his affidavit in support of his claim statement Management has filed enquiry proceeding book containing enquiry proceeding in 19 pages , enquity report in 22 pages . enquiry notice to the Petitioner etc. and the Petitioner's D. O. letters , Petitioner's letters to Chairman etc. 7. In this matter since domestic enquiry w conducted by the management before imposition of the punishinent on the Petitioner workman hence , the question: of legality and validity of domestic enquiry was considered before hearing the parties under Sec . 11A of Industrigil Disputes Act , 1947 , My Learned Predecessor vide his order dated 21-11-2006 held that domestic enquiry conducteci by the management was valid and legal and posted the case for argument under Sec . 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

8. I have heard both the counsels . They have filed their written arguments as well . I have gone through the written arguments . This tribunal has to consider following points in the present case :

2413 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12, 2011/फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(1) Whether the action of management of Indian Overseas Bank, in discharging the services of Sri R.D.V.P.V. Seetharamanjaneyulu is legal and justified

(II) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

unsatisfactory behaviour while on duty" is also termed as misconduct . A charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner workman calling for his explanation , though he submitted his explanation it was not found to be satisfactory hence, enquirywas ordered and conducted in which the Petitioner has taken part and after completion of the enquiry, Enquiry Officer has held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved hence , the Petitioner was discharged from service with superannuation, benefits. Thus , no prejudice was caused to the Petitioner workman . The Petitioner workman has been in the habit of making false and frivolous complaints to the extent of casting aspersions on of his superiors , his wife Smt . R. Bharathi Devi sent telegram regarding the character of female superiors which was a concocted story, the wife of Petitioner has no concern with the bank, internal matters orthe working of the bank. There are several letters which were produced before the Enquiry Officer to show that Petitioner himself has made several direct communications in violation of the standing orders and circular letters of the bank that no bank employee will make direct communication with the superior authorities . All these charges were proved during the enquiry proceeding , as such, the Petitioner workman can not alleged that prejudice has been caused to him during the course of enquiry.

10. Against this , Learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman has argued that in the present case the enquiry itselfwas illegally conducted because , the Enquiry Officer has acted as Presenting Officer himself. Meaning thereby, the Enquiry Officer has acted as a Prosecutor and as well as a Judge , thus , the entire enquiry proceeding is vitiated and the finding given by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of such an illegal enquiry is illegal , baseless and can not be looked into for imposing the punishment on the Petitioner workman .

11 ..Against this argument , the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that at present the matter is pending consideration under Sec . 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question of legality and validity of the enquiry proceeding has already been considered by Learned Previous Presiding Officer ofthis tribunal and he has already held the enquiry proceeding to be legal and valid , as such , this tribunal can not look into the legality or otherwise of the domestic enquiry proceeding because this tribunal is not an Appellate Authority to the order passed by its Predecessor .

12. I have considered this argument of the Learned Counsels for the parties and I am also of the considered view that once my Learned Predecessor has decided the question of legality and validity of the domestic enquiry, this tribunal at this stage has no right and authority to look into the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry because this tribunal is not an Appellate Authority to the order passed by its own Predecessor, as such , the order passed by my Learned Predecessor on 21-11-2006 can not 9. Point No. ( I ) : It is undisputed fact between the parties that Petitioner was appointed in the management bank as back as on 18-12-1978 as typist and was transferred to Nellore branch in 1991. Thereafter he was transferred to Cuddapah branch . He was placed under suspension through letter dated 27-12-2000 on the allegation that Petitioner abused/ used intemperate language against superiors , he has been taking up irrelevant and unwarranted matters with executives of central office directly and to outside agencies inspite of clear instructions of the bank that no direct communications has to be made to the superiors but through the proper channel . It has been alleged that Petitioner has made several complaints to his superiors and central office directly. He instigated and abetted his wife to make complaints to outside agencies in the matter of transfer, posting and punishment awarded to the Petitioner workman using derogatory and abusive language to the superiors , his wife made complaints to the superior officers and also to Government of India, Finance Minister, Chief Justice of A.P. High Court in clear violation of para 17.5 (B) , (D), (E) , (J ) and 17.7 (j ) of Bipartite Settlement . The Petitioner contended that an employee subjected to unfair treatment and harassment can represent/ appeal to higher authorities about the grievances or objectionable actions on part of his immediate superiors and the Petitioner workman has done all in conformity with the provisions of the award. The Petitioner alleged that he has not acted illegally and his action can not be brought under the provisions of the bipartite settlement and no disciplinary proceedings should have been initiated against him nor he could have been punished by the management . He has cited the provisions of para 17.5(b), 17.5( d), 17.5 (c), 17.5 ( e) and 17.5 (j ) . The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman has argued before this tribunal that even if it is assumed that Petitioner has made complaint to the superiors or outside agencies, that the wife ofthe Petitioner has made complaint to the superiors of the Petitioner and outside agencies the action of his wife can not be termed as misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. As against thisargument of the Learned Counsel of the Petitioner the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that under article 17.5( c) of the bipartite settlement, " a willfull insubordination or disobedience of any lawful reasonable order of the management or of a superior " or is a misconduct . Again " abetment or instigation of the any of the above acts or omissions as mentioned above " is a misconduct. Under clause 17.7(j ) " failing to show proper consideration, courtesy or attention towards officers customers or their employees of bank unseemly or

768 GI /11-27 2414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

be re - appreciated or reviewed by this tribunal and it will be considered as part of this Award .

13. This tribunal has to consider as to whether the action of the management is legal or not . The Petitioner workman himself has stated in the claim statement that he has made representations to the superior authorities as per the provisions of Para 5 and 7 of Sastri Award , but , he has not been able to prove that when there is ban not to make direct communication to the superior authority under which provision he has made direct communication to his superior authority without following the procedure to make representation through proper channel and what made his wife to make complaints against officials of the bank who is not concerned with the matter of the bank. This . amply prove that the Petitioner workman has violated the provisions of para 17.5(b ) 17.5 ( d ) , 17.5 ( c) 17.5 ( e) 17.5 ( i ) and 17.7 (j ) and the bank management has simpi discharged the workman with superannuation benefit as such , no prejudice has been caused . The action of the management is neither illegal no unjustified . Point No. ( 1) Is decided accordingly.

14. Point No. ( II ) : As the action of the management is neither illegal nor unjustified , the Petitioner has been awarded superannuation benefits , as such , he is not entitled for any relief and petition deserves to be dismissed . The reference is answered accordingly, hence this Award.

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 11th day of January, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 17 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 755.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डालिमा मैग्नीसाइड कॉरपोरेशन सलेम 5 के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट

[ PART II- SEC. inj ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/1971 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. 12 ( 36) /70 - एल आर IV | रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th February, 2011

S.O. 755. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 10/1971 ) of the Central Governinent Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Dalmia Magnesite Corporation Salem - 5 and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-2-2011.

[ No. 12 ( 36) 70-1RIV RAMESIT SINGH , Desk O

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL TAMILNADU , CHENNAI - 600 104 Friday, 10th Day of October, 2008 Present:

Thiru A. Arumugasamy, BA . M. L. , Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal Industrial Dispute No. 10 of 1971

(In the matter of dispute for adjudication Under Sec . 103 . of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 between the Workmen and the Management of Dalmia Magnesite Corporation . Salem- 5) .

The Workmen represented by

The General Secretary, Salem Distt . Magnesite Labour Union ,

Suramangalam, Salem - 5.

Petitioner linion

AND

M/ sDalmia Magnesite Corporation , Salem-5,

Respondent / Management Reference : Order No. 12 ( 36 ) /70-1.RIV Dated 22-1-1971 . Ministry of Labour , Govt . of India, New Delhi .

This dispute coming on for final hearing on Monday . the 29th day of September, 2008 , upon hearing the arguments of M / s . Row & Reddy, Advocates appearing for Petitioner Union No. I and Petitioner Nos . 2 & 3 are already dismissed and Mis . T. Poornam and P. Vivek Advocates appearing for the Respondent/ management and upon perusing the Reference , Claim statement , Counter statement and other connected papers on record in this industrial dispute , and this dispute having stood over till 2415 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

this day for consideration , this Tribunal made the following:

AWARD

The Government of India have referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the employees of Dalmia Magnesite Corporation , Salem , are entitled to payment for rest day and if so what should be their Sunday wages ?.

2. The main averments found in the Claim statement of the Petitioner/ union are as follows :

employer , the contract is for the effect that the worker should work as directed by the employer and the employer in turn is bound to pay the workers for all the 30 days in a month , without any discrimination between different categories ofworkers employed and the same treatment in the matter of payment of wages , for all the 30 days in a month . The Factories Act came into force and that being the Labour Welfare Legislation , stipulated a statutory obligation on every employer to pay one day rest to his workers in a week , i.e. The rest day and after coming into force of the Factories Act, the worker is required to work only for six days in a week , but at the same time , he should also be given his salary for all the 7 days in a week, inclusive of the rest day. This being the clear position , the Management is not justified in denying the payment of the workers wages for the rest day also , i.e. Sunday. As stated earlier , it is not the case here that the wages paid to these workers are fixed with reference to a month of 26 working day. It is needed to state that the workers have got to maintain themselves even on the rest days , as it is crystal clear, and the wages paid to them for six days are hardly sufficient for meeting their maintainance on rest days also . The Union point out that the Management is a well- established concern with substantial profit earnings every year. The Management commands the financial capacity to meet this just demand . The additional monthly commitment in this regard will not be more than Rs . 10000 and the management can easily bear this without any financial strain . The workmen have been demanding the wages for the rest day also (Sunday ) from the year 1966 onwards and the demand of the workers is fully justified and the workers who are mostly unskilled are getting only very low wages of Rs . 3.75 per day, which will not enable them to meet their sustenance expenses for the rest days of Sundays . Therefore it is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award granting wages for each rest day from the begining of 1970 at their usual daily wages inclusive of dearness allowance and other allowances and thus render justice .

3. The main averments found in the Counter statement of the Respondent/ management are as follows :

The Dalmia Magnesite Corporation Employees Union is a registered Trade Union under the Indian Trade Unions Act 1926 and it commands a substantial membership ofworkers employed in the Respondent/ management . The Workmen of the Respondent/ management who are members of this union have raised an Industrial dispute in which they have demanded that all the workers must be paid wages for the rest day viz . Sundays also , at the usual rates . The above said Management of Dalmia Magnesite Corporation which is engaged in elaborate mining operations and producing Dead Burnt Magnesite in this District of Salem . The Management is owning a big factory atSalem and there are nearly 800 workers who are employed directly by the Management and all these 800 workers are directly involved and covered in this presence reference. The Management factory at Salem is working for six days in a week and Sunday is the day of weekly rest for these workers . The workers are daily rated and their wages under daily rates are not fixed with reference to a month of 26 working days . Ever since the inception of the factory the workers are only daily rated and they are paid only for six days in a week and their monthly income is not determined on the basis of a month consisting of 26 working days . The wage dispute raised by the workers of this factory was referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal , Madras and an award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 26-9-1968 . Even in that award the rates of wages were not fixed with reference to a month of 26 working days . On the other hand , the Industrial Tribunal Madras , on the other words , fixed the wages only for 26 working days leaving out the days of rest viz . , Sundays . it is pertinent to state that the Management in the case of deducting the worker's salary for loss of pay for a day , calculates one day's wages by dividing the total monthly wages by 26 days . This would clearly show that the wages fixed by this Tribunal are not on the basis of a month consisting of 26 working days , but only for 26 working days in a month. The Management has been paying the employees in the staff category for all the 30 days in a month , including the rest day viz . Sundays . There is no justification for the management to refuse or deny the workers their legitimate wages for the rest day also i.e. Sunday. This union reiterates that whenever a

The Respondent Management is carrying on the business mining of magnesite and manufacture of Dead Burnt Magnesite employing about 800 workers directly , who are covered by the present reference besides some independent contractors and other staff. The allegations in the claim statement filed by the three unions that the workmen are paid wages only for 6 days they work in the week and not for the weekly day of rest is not correct . The rates of wages for daily rated workmen have been fixed after making due provision for the fact that no wages . as such , are payable for the weekly day of rest . The presem rates of wages for the workers have been fixed by the Industrial Tribunal , Madras in the Award in I.D. 39 of 1966 worker enters into a contract of service for wages with any 2416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

The statement contained para 8 of the claim statement of the Salem District Magnesite Labour union that the management originally agreed to grant wages for the rest day,but for reasons best known to them , they resiled from it and preferred to have the matter decided on ajoint reference , isnot correct . On the other hand, the Management pointed out to the three unions that besides the fact that the daily rates of wages duly take care of the wages for the weekly day of rest ; as the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act have been extended to the Magnesite Industry , in case the existing rates of wages , the same will be raised and that therefore, there was no justification to press the demand for payment ofwages for the weekly day ofrest . The Respondent company denies the allegation in the claim statement that the financial burden on the management , as a result of the demand under reference being conceded , is only small and the management is capable of meeting the same . In the event ofpayment ofwages for the rest day separately being ordered which according to the respondent is taken into account while fixing the daily wages , the liability of the Respondent company will increase not only in the payment of their total wage will increase not only in the payment of their total wage bill but also in other respects as well as P.F. Bonus , Leave pay etc. The Respondent denies the allegation that there has been discrimination between the ' staff and workmen' . Without prejudice to the above contentions the Respondent company submits that in any event , the workmen are not entitled to payment of wages on a rest day, as no statutory obligation in cast on the employer to pay wages for the weekly day of rest . In any event there are no circumstances to give effect to the award from 1970 or any such earlier date as claimed . In the above circumstances , the Respondent prays that this tribunal may be pleased to answer the reference in favour of the Respondent with costs .

4. Point : The Point for consideration is whether the employees of Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem are entitled to payment for the rest days and if so , what should be their Sunday wages .

5. On behalf of Petitioner/ union WW1 Thiru A. Periathambi has been examined and MW1 Thiru A. R. Ganesar has been examined and Exs . MI to M4 and Ex . Cl were marked before the order of the remand. After remand , MW2 Thiru S. Veeraraghavan has been examined and Exs . M5 to M18 were marked .

after taking into account all the relevant factors . The rates of wages , prevailing before the Award was passed, were fixed by dividing the monthly wages by the number of working days 26 or 25 , as the case may be and hence tribunal correctly calculated the monthly wages by multiplying the daily rate of wages by the number of working days only. The rates of wages prevailing prior to the passing of the Award were also by negotiations and settlement with the Unions . The union's contention that the fact that for calculating one days ' wages for loss of pay, the total monthly wages are dividedby 26 days shows that the wages fixed are not on the basis of a month consisting, of 26 working days but only for 26 working days in a month , is not correct . The daily wages having been calculated on the basis of dividing the monthly wages by the number of working days 26 or 25 , it necessarily follows that , in calculating the loss of pay for any one working day on which the worker is absent , the same basis has to be adopted . As stated above wages payable for 30 days , were divided by 26 days to arrive at the daily rates of wages . Moreover , the claim for payment for the seventh day will amount to payment twice for the rest day as the daily wages includes the payment for the seventh day also . As stated above, the daily rates of wages fixed by the management and then by the Tribunal includes the wages for the , weekly day of rest also and the unions ' demand for a seperate wage for the weekly day or rest amounts only to a claim for increase in the wages , for which they have already raised a separate demand and the same is pending before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Madras and cannot be considered under the present reference . The statement contained in para 4 of the claim statement of the Salem District Magnesite Labour Union , viz . That M/ s . Burn and Co. , Limited and M/ s . Salem Magnesite Private Limited pay a day's wages as good attendance bonus to their workmen who attend work for 6 days in the week and that the wages paid by these two companies are better then the wages paid by the Respondent/ Mananagement is not correct . The rates of wages fixed by the Industrial Tribunal in the Award in I.D. 39 of 1966 referred to above are applicable to all the three companies . The said Tribunal has in the same Award directed that the attendance bonus already in force in M/ s . Burn and Company Limited , and M/ s . Salem Magnesite ( Private ) Limited , should continue and observed that it is not necessary to extend such a benefit to the workers in M / s . Dalmia Magnesite Corporation . M/ s . Burn and Company Ltd. , and M /s . Salem Magnesite ( Private ) Limited are extending a sort of incentive to their workers for regular attendance for reasons of their own . The tribunal in the earlier award had considered the question and held that such allowance need not be paid in the Respondent's establishment . From the order of reference it can be seen that a claim for incentive by way of good attendance bonus which is a separate issue altogether , is not the subject matter of the reference in this dispute .

6. It is not in dispute that on 30-10-1971 an award was passed at first instance . Thereafter , the management filed a Writ Petition No. 476/1972 against that award was filed and it was dismissed . Thereafter, Writ Appeal No. 90/1976 filed by the Management was allowed on 6-7-1978 . Thereafter , once again another award was passed on 2-11-79 and thereafter , one day wages was given from 1-1-1971 onwards . Thereafter , the Management filed a Writ Petition No. 235/1980 , in that Writ petition on the undertaking the workers were getting their amounts .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Against the Orders of W. P. No. 235/1980 , again the Respondent/management filed Writ Appeal No. 183/80 and the same was remanded back directing to answer the following issues :

( 1 ) Whether the wages paid to the workmen by the Management before and after the award in I.D. No. 39 of 1966 include the rest day wages as well as alleged by the Management ?

(2) If the wages already paid do not indirectly include the rest day wages , whether the workmen are entitled to be paid separately rest day wages and if so , what is the rate for the period prior to 24-2-1979?

(3) For the period subsequent to 24-2-1979 whether the petitioner - Management is paying wages higher than the wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act and if so , whether the workmen are entitled to separate payment of rest day wages in addition to their usual wages ?

7. After remand , no witness was examined on the side ofthe Workers , MW2 Thiru S. Veeraraghavan claiming as General Manager has been examined and Exs . M5 to M18 were marked . In his evidence he would say that the rest day wages has already been included in the wages . According to the Petitioner during the cross examination ofMW2 , he has admitted that the leave wages has not been included . Therefore the issues have to be answered accordingly.

8. During the Cross examination of MW 2 , he has deposed as follows:

-1971 லிருந்து தொழிலாளர்களுக்கு தினகூலி கொடுத்து கொண்டு வந்தோம் . தாங்கள் வாரத்திற்கு 6 நாட்கள் வேலை செய்தால் 6 நால் கூலி கொடுப்போம் . 7 வதுதாள். விடுமுறை கொடுப்போம் : நாட்கள் தொழிலாளர்கள் வேலை செய்தால் 20 நாள் சம்பளம் கொடுப்பேன் என்றால் சரி . .15 நாட்கள் சம்பளம் கொடுப்பேசி என்றால் 30 நாட்கள் சம்பளத்தினை கணக்கிட்டு 26 நாட்களுக்கு கொடுப்போம் . ஆளால் நாள். இப்படி சொல்வதற்கு ஆதரவு த இல்லை .. ما

Therefore fromthis it is very clear that they have paid daily wages only for the days they worked . Their emoluments have not included the rest day wages .

9. According to the contention of the Respondeni / Management , even in the Ex . Cl Award it discloses that 30 days salary has been divided and paid to the worker for 26 working days . Therefore , Rest day wages already included in the wages for which he relied on the Award dated 27-9-1968 in para 63 , it runs as follows:

"Dearness allowance has to be increased when the cost of living index moves up so as to protect the real

2417

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

earnings of the employees from being eroded . It may be useful and necessary first to fix the dearness allowance upto 460 points and then to determine the dearness allowance . At present, the dearness allowance varies from 0-50 paise per day to 1.99 per day of Rs . 13 to Rs . 52.75 . This is due to splitting up of the wage structure as per agreement of 1960 (Ex. M51 ) as well as giving increment as per agreement of 1962 (Ex . M 57) . Fixing the dearness allowance upto 460 points at Rs . 30 per month and calculation is made having regard to the increase in the cost of living index , there will be an increase of roughly Rs . 1.1.6 per day in the dearness allowance as per the method of calculation indicated below."

10. The Petitioner/ union relied on the same award in para 62 it runs as follows:

"To arrive at monthly wages , the above daily wages shall be multiplied by 26 , the number representing the number ofworking days in a month . Similarly, the increment per month should be calculated and the two sums totalled to arrive at total monthly wages of the different categories of workmen . "

11. While reading the para 62 of the above said award, daily wages have been given to the workers and it has been calculated by 26 days notby 30 days . While reading para 63 of the same award as pointed out by the management , the Dearness Allowance has been fixed for a month in that paragraph . While reading the para 63, it is clear that Rs . 30 as Dearness allowance has been fixed for a month and it has been divided by 26 days and one day Dearness allowance has been arrived at Rs . 1.16 p . On showing of para 62 the contention of the petitioner is that the rest day wages has not been included . On showing the para 63 , the contention of the Respondent/ management is that Rest day wages must have been included in that paragraph that is the reason in the award . Dearness allowance of Rs . 30 has been divided by 26 working days .

12. I am of the view, that at the time of calculating the wages , the daily wages for 26 days alone has been calculated and not for 30 days . Since it is not in the award, one cannot imagine and substitute that at the time of calculating the wages 30 days salary has been taken and it has been divided by 26 days and daily wages has been fixed only by applying the formula . On reading the award , I am of the view that daily wages alone has been fixed in that award which does not include the Rest day wages . Of course , Dearness Allowance has been calculated for 30 days and then divided by 26 days . Further there is no specific evidence on both sides to show that what was the method of calculation of wages prevailing in the area or nearby factories at that time also not available . With these observations , I hold that the Issue Nos . 1 & 2 in favour of the petitioner holding that the wages paid to the workmen by the management did not include the ' Rest day wages ' . Therefore , the workers are entitled for Rest day wages prior THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 12 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 21 , 1932

2418

to 24-2-79 as noted in Para 62 ofEX. C 1 Award dated 27-9- 68. I hold that the Issue Nos . 1 & 2 in favour of the petitioners and against the Respondent .

13. Issue No.3 : The Counsel appearing for the Management contended that after 24-2-79 , the management is paying higher than the statutory amount , hence the workers are not entitled for any amount thereafter .

14. The Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Minimum wages is a basic wages and itwill not debar the Court to fix the amount . Hence the wagesmay be fixed accordingly.

15. In an earlier two issues I have decided that the workers are entitled for Rest day wages ' upto 24-2-1979. Thereafter, Minimum Wages Act was passed and it has been complied by the Respondent . Admittedly, the Petitioner were receiving their higher emoluments than the amount fixed in the Minimum Wages Act . Therefore , subsequent to 1979 the question of leave wages does not arise . I am answering the issue against the Petitioners and in favour of the Respondent/Management .

In the result , award is passed holding that the employees ofDalmia Magnesite Corporation , Salem , are entitled to payment of rest days wages upto 24-2-1979 . No costs.

Dated at Chennai , this 10th day ofOctober , 2008 . THIRU A. ARUMUGASAMY, Presiding Officer

IDNo. 10/1971 List of Witnesses Exhibits

Witnesses Examined on the Side of Petitioner/ Workmen:

W. W. I : Thiru . A. Periathambi

Witnesses Examined on the Side of Respondent/ Management

M.W. 1

: Thiru . A. R. Ganesan M. W. 2

: Thiru . S. Veeraraghavan Exhibits Marked on the Side ofTribunal :

S. Date Description ofDocument No

Ex. C01

1 01/07/70

Notification of Government ofIndia

Respondent/Management

S. Date

Description ofDocument No

1 27-9-68 Ex. M01 Award in I.D. No. 39/66 & 71/66

[ PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii )

2. 12-5-71 ExM02 Gazette publishing Labour Employment in Magnesite mines ordered to part I of schedule to minimum wages 3. 08-07-71 Ex . M03 Statement showing wages paid to workmen by the management and other 3 magnesite companies 4. 27-03-78 Ex. M01 Notification of the Central Govt . regarding fixation of minimum rates of wages to the employees in magnesite mines.

5. 04-12-76

DIR Notification

Ex. M05

6. 13-01-77 Ex . M06 Settlement

7. 04-06-77

Settlement

Ex . M07

8. 09-02-79 Ex.M08 Copy of the Notification No S. O. 740

Ex. M09 Statement showing wages paid by respondent Feh 1979 toApril2008 10. 09-09-80 Ex . M 10 Statement for the period from 01-04-80 to 31-03-83 11. 05-07-83 Ex. M11 Settlement for the per from 01-04-83 to 31-03-80 12. 19-08-85 Ex. M 12 Settlement for the petod from 1-04-86 to 30-11-86 13. 17-08-87 Ex .M 13 Settlement for the period from 1-12-86 to 30-11-89 14. 19-10-90 Ex. M 14 Settlement for the period from 1-12-89 to 30-11-93 15. 14-05-89 Ex.M 15 Settlement for the period from 01-12-93 to 30-11-97 16. 31-03-98 Ex. M 16 Settlement for the period from 1-12-97 to 30-11-2001 17. 28-01-04 Ex . M17 Settlement for the period 00:01 01-04 to 31-12-06 18. 14-02-07 Ex. M18 Settlement for the period from 01-01-07 to 31-12-09 नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 756. केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट है कि लोकहित में ऐसा अपेक्षित है कि करेंसी नोट प्रेस , नासिक रोड में सेवाओं को जिये औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 25 के अन्तर्गत निर्दिष्ट किया गया है , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवाएं घोषित किया जाना चाहिए । 2419 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 12 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 21 , 1932

in the Currency Note Press, Nashik Road which is covered by item 25 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , should be declared to be a Public Utility Service for the purposes ofthe saidAct .

अतः अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (ढ) के उप- खण्ड (6 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए तत्काल प्रभाव से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[सं. एस-11017/2/2006- आईआर ( पीएल ) ]

रवि माथुर , अपर सचिव

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- clause (vi) ofclause ( n) of section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a Public Utility Service for the purpose of the said Act for a period of six months .

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2011

S.O. 756.-Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest required that the services

[No. S- 11017/2/2006- IR ( PL) ] RAVI MATHUR, AddI . Secy.

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press . Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.